PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-263.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 10, 1999
Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act - Requires the St. George (Utah) Water Reuse Project to consist of water treatment facilities, a pipeline, and associated pumping and delivery facilities to divert water from the Water Reclamation Facility in St. George and transport such water for delivery and use by St. George and the Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. Makes 2,000 acre-feet of water available annually to the Band.Sets forth funding provisions and describes project construction, permitting, operation, and maintenance responsibilities of St. George.(Sec. 6) Requires the Santa Clara Project to: (1) consist of a pressurized pipeline from the existing Gunlock Reservoir across the Shivwits Reservation, along with main lateral pipelines; (2) pool and deliver the water rights of the parties as set forth in the Santa Clara Agreement; and (3) deliver to the Band 1,900 acre-feet annually.Sets forth funding provisions and describes project construction, permitting, operation, and maintenance responsibilities of the Washington County Water Conservancy District.(Sec. 7) Settles, ratifies, and confirms the Band's water rights.Grants the Band the right in perpetuity to: (1) the water quantities described in this Act as set forth in the Santa Clara Project and St. George Water Reuse Project Agreements (Project Agreements) (with first priority to the water generated by the St. George Project); and (2) 100 acre-feet annually from groundwater on the Shivwits Reservation.Provides that the Shivwits Water Right shall not be subject to loss by abandonment or forfeiture for nonuse. Authorize the Band to use the Water Right for: (1) any purpose anywhere on the Reservation; and (2) any beneficial use off the Reservation.(Sec. 8) Approves, ratifies, and confirms the Project Agreements and the Settlement Agreement among the United States, Utah, the Band, and other specified parties, except to the extent they conflict with this Act. Requires the benefits realized by the Band under the Agreements and this Act to constitute full and complete satisfaction of all Band water rights claims under Federal and State laws from time immemorial to the effective date of this Act. Provides for a waiver and release of all such claims.(Sec. 10) Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a water rights and habitat acquisition program in the Virgin River Basin for the benefit of species and plants in the Santa Clara and Virgin River Basins which have been listed or are likely to be listed, or are the subject of an approved conservation agreement under the Endangered Species Act. Authorizes the Secretary to acquire water rights and habitat property to assist the conservation and recovery of such plants or species. Authorizes appropriations.(Sec. 11) Establishes the Shivwits Band Water Development Trust Fund in the Treasury. Authorizes appropriations.(Sec. 14) Releases the Band's water rights claims as of the date the Secretary publishes a finding that certain actions, including those under this Act, have been taken.
People & committees
Rep. Hansen, James V. [R-UT-1] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-263.
Became Public Law No: 106-263.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7803-7804)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7803-7804)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
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 H6954-6957)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6954-6957)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3291.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6954-6958)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 424.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-743.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-743.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.3291 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.3291 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.3291 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.3291 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.