PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 112-63.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 28, 2011
Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System Act of 2011 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the project entitled the "Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System" in accordance with the plans described in the "Dry-Redwater Regional Water System Feasibility Study" if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
Directs the Secretary to enter into a cooperative agreement to provide federal assistance for the planning, design, and construction of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority for specified counties in Montana and North Dakota.
Limits the federal share of planning, design, and construction of the System to 75% of the total cost. Delineates the components of System facilities for which federal funds may be expended. Prohibits federal funds from being used for the System's operation, maintenance, or replacement.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration to make available to the System a quantity of power required, up to one and a half megawatt capacity, to meet the System's pumping and incidental operation requirements between May 1 and October 31 of each year from the water intake facilities and through all pumping stations, water treatment facilities, reservoirs, storage tanks, and pipelines up to the point of delivery of water by the water supply system to all storage reservoirs and tanks and each entity that distributes water at retail to individual users. Makes the System eligible to receive such power only if it operates on a nonprofit basis and is constructed pursuant to the cooperative agreement. Sets forth provisions regarding the purchase of additional power, the Authority's responsibility for power charges and non-federal delivery costs, and the System's responsibility for non-federal transmission and distribution system delivery and service arrangements and for funding any transmission upgrades required to the integrated system necessary to deliver power to the System.
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 Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 112-63.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.419 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.419 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.419 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.419 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.