PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 29, 2009
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of a specified contract between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District providing for repayment of municipal and industrial water delivery facilities under terms and conditions similar to those used in implementing provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act. Provides that the prepayment: (1) shall result in the United States recovering the net present value of all repayment streams that would have been payable to the United States if this Act was not in effect; (2) may be provided in several installments to reflect substantial completion of the delivery facilities being prepaid and any increase in the repayment obligation resulting from delivery of water in addition to the water being delivered under this contract as of this Act's enactment date; (3) shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost allocation including costs incurred by the Bureau of Reclamation, but unallocated as of the date of enactment, that are allocable to the water delivered under this contract; (4) may not be adjusted on the basis of the type of prepayment financing utilized by the District; and (5) shall be made such that total repayment is made not later than September 30, 2019.
People & committees
Rep. Matheson, Jim [D-UT-2] · D–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H10006)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10006)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2950.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10006-10007)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 150.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-269.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-269.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2950 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2950 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2950 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2950 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.