To reauthorize the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000.
Latest action (Sep 25, 2026) — Signed by President.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Jan 27, 2026This bill reauthorizes through FY2028 the planning, design, and construction of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System and the Dry Prairie Rural Water System, both located in Montana.
Face Value
as enrolled100Narrow
How much of this bill its name accounts for.
- Every bill starts at100
- Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.
Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out
Discussion
11 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
9
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
9
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
7
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
6
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
1
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
4
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
3
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
1
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
1
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. The committee report would settle it either way.
1
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
5
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
Your position on H.R. 7250No positions yet