Latest action: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 643.
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
Completes a water pipeline project in Colorado bringing water from the Arkansas River Valley.
The problem
The Arkansas Valley Conduit project has been stalled for years, leaving rural Colorado communities without adequate water infrastructure for agriculture and development.
The proposal
Authorizes and provides federal funding to finish constructing the Arkansas Valley Conduit water pipeline project in southeastern Colorado.
The impact
Rural Colorado farmers and communities gain water access for irrigation and use. Federal taxpayers fund the project. Water availability changes in the Arkansas River region.
Provides reliable water supply to agricultural areas in Colorado. Allows farms to grow crops and support local economies. Improves water access in water-scarce regions.
Water availability encourages agricultural production and rural development. Creates construction jobs during project completion. Supports communities that depend on farming.
Finishes infrastructure planning that started many years ago. Provides certainty to farmers who have waited for water access. Allows communities to move forward with development.
Provides controlled water distribution for agricultural use. Allows better water resource planning in the region.
Requires significant federal taxpayer funding to complete construction. Adds to the national budget. Other projects may compete for these dollars.
May impact the Arkansas River ecosystem and wildlife habitat. Water diversion could affect downstream water levels. Environmental groups may oppose the project.
May create disputes over water allocation between states and users. Colorado water belongs to multiple stakeholders under existing laws. Other regions might compete for the same water.
Completing the project requires ongoing operational and maintenance expenses. Future funding may be needed for repairs and management. Operating costs fall on users or taxpayers.
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.