this technical corrections bill contains language which clarifies the original intent of Congress when we enacted Public Law 102-374, the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1991. This act was passed to finally quantify the water rights of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and to provide for the repair and enlargement of the Tongue River Dam to hold those water rights. The repair of the dam is high priority because the spillway is too small creating unsafe conditions during high flow periods. Due to a drafting error in the original bill however, the funds for the environmental compliance and fish and wildlife mitigation for the dam reconstruction were frozen by the Department of Interior because questions were raised concerning whether environmental compliance and fish and wildlife mitigation costs were covered under the authorization for the Tongue River Dam project. Mr. Speaker, the entire Montana congressional delegation along with Chairman Miller of the Natural Resources Committee and Chairman Richardson and Senator Inouye of the House and Senate Indian Affairs Committees support this legislation.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing a technical corrections bill related to the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act.
Share
More from John Williams
Mr. Chairman, we are about to complete what has been a truly historical legislative experience. This is the 9th time the Congress has written and rewritten this Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We have spent more time on this bill…
I want to say specifically with regard to amendment No. 4 in this series that the chairman and I have worked together to ensure that my intention with regard to the purposes of an area called the McIntire natural area are clear. The…
As I said when I sponsored this amendment, we had an administration that believed a cutoff rate was the appropriate thing to do. I thought it would reduce the deficit, potentially at least I thought it would save us some dollars. But I was…
I want to make clear I am not for an $8 million study. What we have in mind here would not cost $8 million or even any significant portion of $8 million.





