Latest action: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
Bill is filed in its originating chamber and assigned a number.
Sponsor
Steve Daines (R-MT)
Filed in the Senate.
Next: In Committee
Members of the committee(s) the bill was referred to
Reauthorizes federal funding and oversight for the Fort Peck Water System project.
The problem
The Fort Peck Water System authorization may have expired or requires renewal to continue federal support for water infrastructure serving the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
The proposal
The bill extends federal authorization and funding mechanisms for the Fort Peck Water System to maintain or expand water delivery services.
The impact
Fort Peck Tribal members and communities depending on the water system gain continued access to federally supported water infrastructure and services.
Reauthorization ensures continued federal commitment to water delivery for the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. This maintains essential water services for drinking, agriculture, and community needs. Residents avoid service disruptions.
Supporting tribal water systems reinforces tribal sovereignty and government-to-government relationships. The Fort Peck Tribes can manage resources serving their communities. This honors federal treaty and trust obligations.
Stable water infrastructure supports agricultural operations, ranching, and business development on and near the reservation. Predictable federal support allows communities to plan economic activities long-term.
Modern water system authorization can include conservation measures and environmental protections. Sustainable water management protects regional ecosystems and water quality.
Reauthorization commits federal funds to ongoing water system operations and maintenance. This represents government expenditure that some argue should be reduced or redirected elsewhere.
This bill focuses only on Fort Peck Water System. Other tribes and rural communities with water infrastructure needs may not receive similar support, creating unequal treatment.
Long-term water system maintenance costs are difficult to predict. The actual expense to federal taxpayers may exceed initial estimates as infrastructure ages.
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.