Latest action: Senate agreed to the House amendment to S. 240 by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5020)
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
Amends the Crow Tribe water rights settlement agreement from 2015.
The problem
The Crow Tribe's 2015 water rights settlement may need updates to address implementation challenges or changing circumstances affecting the tribe's water access.
The proposal
The bill modifies terms of the existing Crow Tribe water rights settlement to adjust how water rights are managed or distributed.
The impact
The Crow Tribe, Montana, and water users in the region are affected by changes to water allocation and management agreements.
Amendment bills often fix problems discovered after a settlement takes effect. This could address real-world challenges the 2015 agreement didn't anticipate. Smoother implementation helps everyone involved.
Water rights are critical for Native American sovereignty and economic development. Amendments can strengthen the Crow Tribe's ability to use water for agriculture, drinking, and business.
Clarifying settlement terms now prevents costly legal battles later. This creates certainty for the tribe, states, and other water users in Montana.
Clear water agreements help agriculture and communities plan for the future. This benefits local economies that depend on reliable water access.
Without the bill's full text available, it's unclear what exactly changes. Some modifications might disadvantage other water users or states in unexpected ways.
Amending a 2015 settlement could restart disagreements other parties thought were resolved. This might create new conflicts instead of solving problems.
Changes to water distribution could affect non-Native farmers and irrigation systems downstream. Some operations might face reduced water availability.
Modifying settlement terms may require new infrastructure, monitoring, or administrative systems. These costs could be substantial for federal, state, or tribal budgets.
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.
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.