PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 117-342.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 5, 2023
This act revises the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010, including by extending certain deadlines and establishing reporting requirements. (The quantification act approved the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Agreement, settling the tribe's water rights in Arizona. It authorized the design and construction of a rural water system to address the water infrastructure needs on the tribe's reservation.)
Specifically, the act extends the enforceability deadline, from 2023 to 2027, for the Department of the Interior to publish a statement of findings required by the quantification act. In particular, the act repeals the settlement agreement on December 31, 2027, if Interior does not publish by December 30, 2027, a statement of findings that specified conditions have been fulfilled (including that funds necessary to construct the rural water system have been deposited into a specified subaccount).
The act makes changes to cost indexing for the funds and subaccounts established under the quantification act, including by allowing adjustments for construction costs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The act also requires annual reports to Congress describing all expenditures and including additional information, such as progress and cost accounting on the planning, design, and construction of the Miner Flat Dam and any additional water supply facilities resulting from expenditures.
Finally, the act establishes requirements for determining whether the rural water system is substantially complete. In particular, the rural water system shall be determined to be substantially complete if (1) the infrastructure is capable of storing, diverting, treating, transmitting, and distributing a supply of water as set forth in the final project design; or (2) Interior has expended all available funding and cannot complete construction due solely to the lack of additional authorized funding.
People & committees
Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ] · D–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 117-342.
Became Public Law No: 117-342.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 33 (Roll no. 537). (text: CR H9937-9938)
House roll call 537 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 33 (Roll no. 537).
House roll call 537 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9979-9980)
By Senator Schatz from Committee on Indian Affairs filed written report. Report No. 117-285.
By Senator Schatz from Committee on Indian Affairs filed written report. Report No. 117-285.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 3168.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9937-9939)
Mrs. Peltola moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S7314-7315)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute withdrawn by Unanimous Consent. (CR S7292)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S7291-7292)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 683.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Schatz with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Schatz with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 117-360.
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: Dec 5, 2025. 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.3168 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.3168 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.3168 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.3168 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.