PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-774.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 15, 1995
Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 1995 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for the planning and construction of a water supply system to provide service to specified counties in South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. Requires the Secretary to make grants and other funds available to the System and other private, State, and Federal entities for the initial development of the environmental enhancement component. Directs that the water conservation program: (1) be designed to ensure that users of water from the water supply system use the best practicable technology and management techniques to conserve water use; and (2) include provisions for periodic review and revision. Specifies that mitigation for fish and wildlife losses incurred as a result of the construction and operation of the water supply system be on an acre-for-acre basis, based on ecological equivalency, concurrent with project construction. Requires the Western Area Power Administration to make available the capacity and energy required to meet the pumping and incidental operational requirements of the water supply system during the period beginning May 1, and ending October 31, of each year from power designated for future irrigation and drainage pumping for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program. Provides that this Act shall not: (1) limit the authorization for water projects in South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota; or (2) preempt State water rights. Specifies the Federal and non-Federal share of the cost. Authorizes the Secretary to allow the Bureau of Reclamation to provide project construction oversight to the water supply system and environmental enhancement component. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Pressler, Larry [R-SD] · R–SD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-774.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8501)
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.931 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.931 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.931 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.931 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.