PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-380.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 10, 1995
Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System Act of 1995 - Requires the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Fort Peck Rural County Water District, Inc., in Montana for the planning, design, and construction by the District of the Fort Peck Rural County Water Supply System. Requires the System to provide for safe and adequate rural water supplies, economic enhancement, mitigation of wetland areas, and water conservation in the area under the District's jurisdiction in Valley County, northeastern Montana. Requires the Secretary, under such agreement, to pay: (1) 80 percent, without reimbursement, of the amount allocated in the total budget for the planning, design, and construction of the System (as described in the Final Engineering Report and Alternative Evaluation for the Fort Peck Rural County Water District, dated September 1994, (feasibility study)); and (2) such sums as are necessary to defray increases in the budget. Prohibits the amount of the Federal funds made available under the agreement from exceeding the authorized appropriations under this Act. Allows not more than five percent of such funds to be used for activities associated with: (1) compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and (2) oversight of the planning, design, and construction by the District of the System. Provides that the requirements of such Act must be met before the Secretary obligates funds for the construction of the System. Requires the District to design a water conservation program to ensure that users of water from the System will use the best practicable technology and management techniques to conserve water use. Requires, in accordance with the feasibility study, that mitigation for fish and wildlife losses incurred as a result of the construction and operation of the System be on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological equivalency and concurrent with project construction. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Burns, Conrad R. [R-MT] · R–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-380.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S12243)
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.1154 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 S.1154 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 S.1154 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 S.1154 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.