PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 24, 2004
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a study to determine the most feasible method of meeting water supply and related storage requirements within the area served by the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado (the Project), including the potential enlargement of Fryingpan-Arkansas facilities. Directs the Secretary to take into consideration the Preferred Storage Options Plan Report published September 21, 2000, by the Southeastern Colorado Water and Storage Needs Assessment Enterprise and Final PSOP Implementation Committee Report dated April 19, 2001 (PSOP Reports), the intergovernmental agreement dated May 27, 2004 among the Cities of Pueblo, Aurora, Fountain, and Colorado Springs, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and the Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Colorado, and the need to ensure compliance with the Arkansas River Compact as executed by the States of Colorado and Kansas on December 14, 1948.
Authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with any entity, including those operating or participating in a water bank established pursuant to Colorado law, for the use of excess capacity in the Project for the purpose of diverting, storing, impounding, pumping, exchanging, or conveying non-project water for irrigation or domestic, municipal, or industrial purposes. Requires the Secretary to take into consideration the PSOP Reports and the need to ensure compliance with the Arkansas River Compact.
Directs the Secretary to establish charges for the use of excess capacity.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth provisions regarding the diversion, storage, impoundment, pumping, exchange, or conveyance of non-project water.
People & committees
Rep. Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5] · R–CO
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.
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: Jan 2, 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.4691 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.4691 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.4691 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.4691 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.