SB 240, the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act of 2025, updates the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010. The bill revises definitions and restructures several settlement provisions to replace references to the former MR&I “System” with MR&I “Projects,” reflecting a shift from a single system concept to multiple project-based uses. It repeals the prior MR&I System section and creates a new MR&I Projects Account within the Crow Settlement Fund framework.
The bill also establishes a new Crow CIP Implementation Account, redirects certain funds into that account, and authorizes the Secretary to manage, invest, and distribute settlement funds and related investment earnings. It expands the permitted uses of MR&I project funds to include planning, permitting, design, engineering, construction, reconstruction, replacement, rehabilitation, operation, and repair of water production, treatment, delivery, and wastewater infrastructure, as well as environmental compliance for those activities. After those on-reservation projects are complete, remaining funds may be used to purchase on-reservation land with water rights. The bill further clarifies that title to infrastructure built with these funds remains with the Tribe and that the federal government has no obligation for operation, maintenance, or replacement costs.
In addition, the bill extends the Yellowtail Dam provision from 15 years to 20 years, makes funding and account-transfer changes, and adds an inflation-style indexing adjustment for MR&I project funding based on the Bureau of Reclamation Construction Cost Index. It also includes technical and conforming amendments, including updates to cross-references and the table of contents for the underlying Claims Resolution Act of 2010.
The bill’s impact on state and federal law is primarily to amend federal settlement law governing the Crow Tribe’s water rights and related funding mechanisms. It does not create a new state program, but it changes how federal settlement funds are administered, what they may be used for, and how long certain provisions remain in effect. The affected parties are the Crow Tribe, the Secretary of the Interior, and federal water settlement administrators, with practical effects on tribal water infrastructure, land acquisition, and settlement fund management.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided context, so the available evidence suggests a largely technical and implementation-focused measure rather than a controversial policy bill. The text indicates an intent to improve and modernize the existing settlement structure, and the absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the supplied materials points to a generally neutral or supportive posture, though the bill was ultimately held at the desk after Senate passage.
SB 240 amends the federal Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2010 by restructuring settlement accounts, expanding authorized uses of settlement funds, and updating related deadlines, cross-references, and administrative provisions. It creates a new Crow CIP Implementation Account and a new MR&I Projects Account, shifts funding and transfer rules into those accounts, and authorizes the Tribe to use project funds for water and wastewater infrastructure, environmental compliance, and later land purchases with water rights. The bill also confirms tribal ownership and control over funded infrastructure and relieves the federal government of operation, maintenance, and replacement obligations.
No committee transcripts or vote breakdowns were provided, so there is no direct record of debate, amendments, or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be a targeted settlement-implementation bill intended to refine and modernize an existing tribal water rights agreement, which typically suggests a practical and generally favorable posture rather than a partisan or highly contentious one. The Senate passed the bill, but the provided status indicates it was later held at the desk.
The main policy questions embedded in the bill concern how settlement funds are allocated and who bears long-term responsibility for infrastructure. The bill shifts from a single MR&I system concept to project-based accounts, expands the Tribe’s discretion over fund use, and explicitly states that the federal government will not pay for operation, maintenance, or replacement of MR&I projects. Another possible point of concern is the extension of the Yellowtail Dam provision and the indexing adjustment for project funding, which affect the timing and amount of federal obligations. No specific opposing arguments or named critics are included in the provided record.