Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 24, 1998

Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998 - Directs the Secretary of the Army to alleviate bank erosion and related problems associated with reservoir releases along the Missouri River between Fort Peck Dam, Montana, and a point 77 (currently, 58) miles downstream of Gavins Point Dam, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Increases from $3 million to $6 million per fiscal year the authorized costs for such measures. Authorizes the Secretary to acquire land along River segments administered as recreational rivers. Authorizes the Secretary to undertake River erosion control measures on behalf of a non-Federal entity if such entity agrees to contribute 35 percent of the costs.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Sen. Daschle, Thomas A. [D-SD] · D–SD

Committees

Environment and Public Works Committee

1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Sen. Johnson, Tim [D-SD]

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Feb 24, 1998
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Feb 24, 1998
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S931)
Feb 24, 1998
Introduced in Senate

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in Senate · Feb 24, 1998 Formatted Text PDF

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

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

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.1672 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.1672, 105th Congress: Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-bill/1672

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1998-02-24.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/s1672/BILLS-105s1672is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-09-08T18:14:30Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze S.1672 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.1672 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.1672, 105th Congress: Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-bill/1672

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1998-02-24.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/s1672/BILLS-105s1672is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-09-08T18:14:30Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.1672 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.1672 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.1672, 105th Congress: Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-bill/1672

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1998-02-24.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/s1672/BILLS-105s1672is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-09-08T18:14:30Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.1672 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.1672 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.1672, 105th Congress: Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-bill/1672

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1998-02-24.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/s1672/BILLS-105s1672is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-09-08T18:14:30Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.1672 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.