PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-376.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 3, 2000
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey the North Poudre Supply Canal and Diversion Works, the Charles Hansen (Supply) Canal and Windsor Extension, and the Dixon Feeder Canal, all of which are facilities of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project located in Larimer County, Colorado, to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.Requires the Secretary to accept specified payments from the District and from the power customers as consideration. Provides that specified receipts from the sale of power from the Loveland Area Projects collected by the Western Area Power Administration and deposited into the Reclamation fund of the Treasury in FY 2001 shall be treated as full and complete payment by such customers of such consideration and as repayment by them of all aid to irrigation associated with such facilities. Provides for the amount paid by the District to be credited toward repayment of capital costs of the Project in an amount equal to the associated undiscounted obligation for repayment of such capital costs.
People & committees
Rep. Schaffer, Bob [R-CO-4] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-376.
Became Public Law No: 106-376.
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 S10542)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10542)
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 H8721)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8721)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4389.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8721)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 473.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-812.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-812.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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: 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.4389 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.4389 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.4389 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.4389 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.