PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 119-122.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 24, 2025
Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act of 2025
This bill revises the water rights settlement agreement entered into by the Crow Tribe of Montana and Montana.
The Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 ratified, authorized, and confirmed the water rights compact between the tribe and Montana. Among other provisions, this settlement act authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to plan, design and construct the following two major projects on the Crow Reservation: (1) the rehabilitation and improvement of the Crow Irrigation Project (CIP); and (2) the planning, design, and construction of the MR&I System (the municipal, rural, and industrial water system of the Crow Reservation).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Among other provisions, the bill revises the settlement act to
replace references to the MR&I System with MR&I Projects;
establish a nontrust, interest-bearing account (to be known as the Crow CIP Implementation Account) to allow Reclamation to continue to work on the rehabilitation of the CIP;
create a new MR&I Projects Account, through which the tribe must use funds for activities related to water production, treatment, or delivery infrastructure; and
extend by five years (to 2030) the period during which the tribe has the exclusive right to construct hydropower facilities on the Yellowtail Afterbay Dam in Montana.
People & committees
Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT] · R–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 119-122.
Became Public Law No: 119-122.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate agreed to the House amendment to S. 240 by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5020)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to the House amendment to S. 240 by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5020)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
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 H5570)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5570)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 240.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5570-5571)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8691-8692; text: CR S8691-8692)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 260.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 119-93.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 119-93.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Oct 22, 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.240 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.240 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.240 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.240 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.