PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 16, 1999
Dickinson Dam Bascule Gates Settlement Act of 1999 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept from the city of Dickinson, North Dakota, a one-time payment of $300,000 in lieu of any existing repayment obligations for construction and modification costs of the Bureau of Reclamation in placing bascule gates on the Dickinson Dam to provide additional water capacity in Lake Patterson, North Dakota, toward which amount any payments made by the city to the Secretary on or after June 2, 1998, shall be credited.Directs the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the city allocating responsibilities for operation and maintenance costs of the gates. Makes the city responsible for up to a maximum annual amount of $15,000 of such costs. Authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with the city or other person to use water from the Lake.
People & committees
Rep. Pomeroy, Earl [D-ND-At Large] · D–ND
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2431-2432)
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: Aug 20, 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.3401 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.3401 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.3401 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.3401 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.