Latest action: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637.
Committee has approved the bill (usually with amendments) and sent it back to the full chamber.
The committee voted to send the bill to the floor of the full chamber. The Senate Majority Leader schedules a floor vote.
Next: Passed One Chamber
The other chamber (Senate or House) repeats the committee + floor-vote process
Amends Dakota water resources laws to address regional water management and development needs.
The problem
Dakota water resource management faces challenges requiring legislative updates to existing water development frameworks and allocation processes.
The proposal
Updates and amends existing Dakota water resources development laws to modify water management procedures and resource allocation frameworks.
The impact
Affects Dakota water users, agricultural operations, municipalities, and regional water authorities managing water distribution and development projects.
Modernizes water resource management frameworks to better reflect current needs. Allows for more flexible approaches to water development and allocation. Can improve coordination between water users and agencies.
Updated water policies may support agricultural and industrial development. Can facilitate new business activities dependent on reliable water access. May reduce delays in water-related project approvals.
Amendments clarify existing water law requirements and procedures. Reduces confusion about water rights and allocation rules. Makes compliance easier for water users and municipalities.
Without detailed environmental provisions, amendments might reduce protections for ecosystems. Could prioritize development over conservation of water resources. May affect wildlife habitats dependent on water systems.
Water allocation changes may benefit some users while disadvantaging others. Could create conflicts between agricultural, municipal, and environmental interests. May lead to legal disputes over water rights.
Updates to water management systems require agency resources and funding. State and local governments may face increased compliance costs. Could require expensive infrastructure modifications.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 7250
To reauthorize the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000.
HR 10602
Ottawa County Environmental Infrastructure Act
HR 10533
Newton County Water Infrastructure Improvement Act
S 2753
Urban Canal Modernization Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.