Oroville-Tonasket Claim Settlement and Conveyance Act
Referred to Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 5, 1997
Oroville-Tonasket Claim Settlement and Conveyance Act - Approves the Settlement Agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District. Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct all necessary and appropriate investigations, studies, and required Federal actions to implement the Agreement. Provides for consideration by the District to the United States and U.S. responsibilities under such Agreement. Authorizes the Secretary to convey to the District all U.S. rights and interest in District project irrigation works. Provides that the transfer of title shall not affect the timing or obligation amount of the Bonneville Power Administration for the repayment of Federal construction costs that the Secretary has determined to be beyond the ability of irrigators to pay. Directs the Secretary to retain title to the Wildlife Mitigation Facilities. Terminates certain prior contracts upon such conveyance. Continues the District's obligation to deliver water to Indian trust lands upon request. Provides liabilities of the District upon conveyance of the irrigation works. Terminates upon the completion of the transfer specified mandates imposed upon the irrigation works under prior reclamation laws. Deauthorizes upon completion of the transfer the Chief Joseph Dam Project of the Oroville-Tonasket Unit Extension, Washington.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.402 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.402 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.402 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.402 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.