PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 18, 2016
Gold King Accountability and Compensation for Taxpayers or the Gold King ACT
This bill allows a person to bring a compensation claim for allowable damages (i.e., property, business, or financial losses) under the Federal Tort Claims Act if the claim is related to an injury resulting from the spill in Cement Creek from the Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colorado. The spill occurred on August 5, 2015. The bill prohibits certain exemptions and limitations on tort claims against the United States under the Act from applying to claims for injuries resulting from the spill.
The EPA must receive, process, and pay under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 claims related to the Gold King Mine spill, including claims that otherwise would be ineligible under that Act or the national oil and hazardous substances pollution contingency plan if the response action carried out by the claimant is not inconsistent with the plan. The EPA must pay claims from unobligated balances in its accounts.
The EPA must develop and implement a program for long-term water quality monitoring of the Animas River.
People & committees
Sen. Gardner, Cory [R-CO] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.2950 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.2950 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.2950 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.2950 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.