PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 14, 2018
Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation Project Modification Act
This bill amends the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to modify provisions regarding the Jackson Gulch rehabilitation project, Colorado, to require the Bureau of Reclamation to cap the payment of the federal share of the total cost of carrying out the project at 65% of the total cost.
The Mancos Water Conservancy District shall be liable for the lesser of 35% of the project's cost or $2.9 million, subject to a specified credit. Reclamation shall: (1) review and approve all final costs associated with the project's completion, and (2) credit the district for all amounts paid by the district for engineering work and improvements directly associated with the project.
The district shall pay the project costs for which it is liable over a period of not more than 40 years.
There are authorized to be appropriated to Reclamation to pay the federal share of the total cost of carrying out the project the lesser of not more than 65% of the total cost of carrying out the project and $5.35 million.
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 Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.3069 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.3069 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.3069 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.3069 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.