5 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in ENROLLED BILLcompared with REFERRED IN SENATE (Jul 22, 2025)

Technical corrections only. The differences between v4 and v5 are limited to changes in the bill's header, attestation, and minor formatting, reflecting its progression from a Senate-referred version to an enrolled bill. There are no substantive policy changes in the text.

H.R. 131119th CongressIntroduced Jan 3, 2025

Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act

Became Public LawWater Resources DevelopmentSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4]
Committees: Natural Resources Committee (primary)
Last action: Jan 8, 2026

Bottom line

The bill significantly eases the financial burden on communities for the Arkansas Valley Conduit by extending repayment terms and reducing interest rates, aiming to ensure reliable domestic water supplies.

What it actually does

This bill modifies the repayment terms for the Arkansas Valley Conduit (AVC) project in Colorado, a component of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project. It removes the previous requirement for a 35% repayment of the conduit's cost through specific revenue streams and replaces it with a new structure. The new terms allow for the 35% cost share to be covered by non-federal funding during construction and, for any remaining balance, a repayment period of up to 75 years with simple interest at 50% of the Treasury rate, contingent on a demonstration of financial hardship as determined by the Secretary.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for completing the Arkansas Valley Conduit, which will provide reliable domestic water supplies to communities and households in Colorado that currently lack them. They contend that the previous repayment terms were overly burdensome and posed a significant financial hardship, making the project's completion difficult. By adjusting the repayment schedule and interest rates, the bill ensures that essential infrastructure can be built, protecting public health and fostering regional development.

Opponents contend

Critics might raise concerns that by extending repayment periods to 75 years and significantly reducing interest rates, the bill shifts a greater financial burden onto federal taxpayers. They may argue that such modifications could set a precedent for other federal water projects to seek similar favorable terms, potentially increasing federal expenditures and financial risk without sufficient justification for each individual project. Concerns could also be raised about the discretion granted to the Secretary in determining 'financial hardship'.

The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a few minutes.

Section 2(1)(A) and (B)

Modification of Arkansas Valley Conduit Repayment Terms

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This provision repeals the existing language in Public Law 87-590 that required the Arkansas Valley Conduit (AVC) to repay 35% of its cost through specific revenue streams. It replaces this with new terms stating that the 35% cost share will be met first by non-federal funding provided during construction. Any remaining balance can be repaid over a period of up to 75 years, with simple interest calculated at 50% of the Treasury rate, but only if the contracting parties demonstrate financial hardship to the Secretary. This significantly alters the financial obligations for the AVC project.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupCommunities and households in the Arkansas Valley, ColoradoImpactPositive, by ensuring access to reliable domestic water supplies.MechanismReduced financial burden for the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, making the project more feasible.ScaleRegional

GroupFederal taxpayersImpactPotential negative, through increased federal subsidy and financial risk.MechanismExtended repayment period and reduced interest rate mean the federal government will recover less of its investment over a longer time.ScaleNational

GroupSecretary of the InteriorImpactIncreased responsibility and discretion.MechanismThe Secretary is tasked with determining 'financial hardship' for repayment terms, granting significant authority.ScaleAdministrative

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that these modified repayment terms are essential to overcome financial barriers that have stalled the completion of the Arkansas Valley Conduit. They contend that the previous terms were unrealistic for the affected communities, and the new structure, particularly the extended repayment period and reduced interest, makes the project financially viable, ensuring critical water infrastructure is delivered to those in need.

Critics contend

Opponents or critics might argue that these changes represent a significant federal subsidy, shifting costs from local beneficiaries to national taxpayers. They may contend that a 75-year repayment period with a reduced interest rate is overly generous and could encourage other projects to seek similar concessions, potentially straining federal budgets and setting an undesirable precedent for infrastructure financing.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances the immediate need for reliable domestic water supplies in the Arkansas Valley with the long-term financial responsibility of the federal government. It trades off a higher federal financial commitment (through extended terms and reduced interest) against the goal of completing a vital public health and infrastructure project for communities facing financial hardship.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.