PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 115-426. Minority and Supplemental views filed.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 10, 2017
Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act
This bill directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to commission a survey to identify the South Bank boundary line with respect to land along a specified 116-mile stretch of the Red River in Oklahoma and Texas (the affected area).
The survey shall:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
adhere to the gradient boundary survey method;
span the length of the affected area;
be conducted by surveyors who are licensed and qualified to conduct official gradient boundary surveys, and selected by and operating under the direction of the Texas General Land Office and the Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land Office (the offices); and
be completed within two years of enactment of this bill.
The BLM shall submit the survey to the offices for approval and, within 60 days of receiving it, they shall determine whether to approve it.
Surveys of individual parcels in the affected area shall be conducted according to the requirements for the survey of the South Bank boundary line. A survey of such a parcel shall be approved or disapproved by the offices within 60 days of receipt.
The survey for identifying the South Bank boundary line and any survey of an individual parcel shall not be submitted to the BLM for approval.
After a survey for an individual parcel has been approved, the offices shall submit to the BLM:
a notice of the approval of such survey, and
a copy of such survey and any field notes related to the parcel.
People & committees
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 115-426. Minority and Supplemental views filed.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 115-426. Minority and Supplemental views filed.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 687.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 115-482.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.90 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.90 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.90 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.90 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.