PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 112-492.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 17, 2011
Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement Act of 2011 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior, in providing to the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana the St. Mary River water right, to allocate to the Tribe 50,000 acre-feet per year of stored water in Lake Sherburne Reservoir as part of the tribal water right. Exempts the Tribe from any requirement to pay any costs associated with the allocation. Prohibits the allocation from being increased by any year-to-year carryover storage.
Requires the Tribe and the Secretary to enter into an agreement to lease the water allocated to the Tribe for use by the Secretary for the Milk River Project.
Requires, as part of the tribal water right, the Secretary to allocate permanently to the Tribe all remaining unallocated water in Lake Elwell. Exempts the Tribe from any requirement to pay any costs associated with the allocation. Prohibits the allocation from being increased by any year-to-year carryover storage.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to carry out activities necessary to: (1) planning, design, and construction for rehabilitation and improvement of the Blackfeet Irrigation Project; (2) the completion to authorized acreage of the Blackfeet Irrigation Project; and (3) planning, design, and construction for rehabilitation and improvement of the Four Horns Dam and Reservoir and associated delivery systems of the Blackfeet Irrigation Project.
Authorizes, ratifies, and confirms a specified compact and the Birch Creek Agreement.
Holds the tribal water right in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe.
Establishes: (1) the Blackfeet Land and Water Development Fund, and (2) the Birch Creek Mitigation Fund.
Sets forth requirements concerning: (1) water rights in the Lewis and Clark National Forest, and (2) Milk River water rights.
People & committees
Sen. Baucus, Max [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. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 112-492.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S904)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 10, 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.399 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.399 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.399 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.399 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.