PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 29, 2008
Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2008 - Ratifies the water rights compact between the Crow Tribe and the state of Montana. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to promptly execute the compact and comply with applicable environmental statutes.
Requires the Secretary, through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to carry out activities necessary to: (1) rehabilitate and improve the water diversion and delivery features of the Crow Irrigation Project in accordance with an agreement to be negotiated with the Tribe; and (2) design and construct such features of the reservation's municipal, rural, and industrial water system.
Ratifies tribal water rights, which shall be held in trust for the use and benefit of the Tribe. Grants the Tribe sole authority to allocate, distribute, and lease such rights, subject to specified limitations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to allocate to the Tribe 300,000 acre-feet per year of water stored in Bighorn Lake, under a water right held by the United States, as measured at the Yellowtail Dam outlet works.
Requires the Tribe, as a condition of receiving an allocation, to enter into an agreement with the Secretary to establish the terms and conditions. Declares that the benefits provided shall be considered to satisfy all claims of the Tribe and allottees.
Establishes in the Treasury the Crow Settlement Fund. Grants the Tribe the exclusive right to develop and market power generation as a water development project on the Yellowtail Afterbay Dam.
Repeals this Act on January 1, 2015, if the Secretary does not publish by December 31, 2014, a statement of findings that specified conditions have been fulfilled (including court approval and ratification of the compact).
People & committees
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT] · D–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 110-678.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.3355 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.3355 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.3355 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.3355 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.