PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 10, 1996
Oroville-Tonasket Claim Settlement and Conveyance Act - Approves the Settlement Agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District. Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct all necessary and appropriate investigations, studies, and required Federal actions to implement the Agreement. Provides for consideration by the District to the United States and U.S. responsibilities under such Agreement. Releases the United States from further obligation for removing irrigation facilities under the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation Project. Authorizes the Secretary to convey to the District all U.S. rights and interest in Project irrigation works. Directs the Secretary to retain title to the Wildlife Mitigation Facilities. Terminates certain prior contracts upon such conveyance. Continues the District's obligation to deliver water to Indian trust lands upon request. Provides liabilities of the District upon conveyance of the irrigation works. Terminates upon the completion of the transfer specified mandates imposed upon the irrigation works under prior reclamation laws.
People & committees
Rep. Hastings, Doc [R-WA-4] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources.
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.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 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.3777 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.3777 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.3777 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.3777 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.