S. 2754

S. 2754: Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act

Reported by Committee Michael Bennet (D) SENATE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

The Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act likely involves the transfer of ownership or management of the Crystal Reservoir, which may include provisions for water rights, infrastructure, or related resources. The bill may aim to facilitate better water management or enhance local water supply systems.

Positive Media Summary

Media coverage has highlighted the potential benefits of the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act, emphasizing improved water resource management and the positive impact on local communities that rely on the reservoir for their water supply. Supporters argue that the bill could lead to more efficient use of water resources and better environmental stewardship.

Negative Media Summary

Critics have raised concerns about the Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act, suggesting that the bill could lead to mismanagement of water resources or prioritize certain stakeholders over others. Some media outlets have questioned the transparency of the conveyance process and the potential implications for local ecosystems and water access for marginalized communities.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
2/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$2,147,483,647
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Public Lands and Natural Resources

The Crystal Reservoir Conveyance Act, sponsored by Michael Bennet, does not show any direct industry overlaps with the sponsor's top donor industries, which primarily consist of Health Professionals and Retired individuals. The total contributions from these sectors amount to approximately $3.1 billion, with no evident connection to the bill's subject matter, which focuses on water conveyance rather than health or retirement issues. Additionally, while there is lobbying activity present in the policy area, it does not appear to directly relate to the interests of the top donor industries, further mitigating potential conflicts of interest. Voters should be aware that while lobbying exists, the lack of direct financial ties to the bill's subject suggests a low risk of conflict.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
BEARS-LLC C2 STRATEGIES $50,000
REACH POWER C2 STRATEGIES $40,000
MAGNERA C2 STRATEGIES $40,000
TACTICAL LIGHTING SYSTEMS C2 STRATEGIES $40,000
DARKHIVE C2 STRATEGIES $40,000
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE CROSSROADS STRATEGIES, LLC $40,000
NATIONAL RURAL LENDERS ROUNDTABLE LTD. BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES $30,000
ADVANCED BIOFUELS ASSOCIATION HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP $30,000
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES $20,000
SAVING COLLEGE SPORTS JUDD LLC $20,000
PLANATOMES (FORMERLY ENTREPIX MEDICAL, LLC) BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
NORTHSTAR RADIOISOTOPES, LLC BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
NORTHSTAR RADIOISOTOPES, LLC BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed
TEKNIAM C2 STRATEGIES undisclosed
MILWAUKEE COUNTY BROYDRICK & ASSOCIATES undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Michael Bennet, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $2,147,483,647
Individuals: $2,147,483,647 PACs: $0
Retired $737,500,000
Individuals: $737,500,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us