PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Sep 6, 2000
Colusa Basin Watershed Integrated Resources Management Act - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for use by the Colusa Basin Drainage District, California, or by local agencies for planning, design, environmental compliance, and construction required to carry out eligible projects in the Colusa Basin Watershed to: (1) reduce the risk of damage to urban and agricultural areas from flooding or the discharge of drainage water or tailwater; (2) assist in groundwater recharge efforts to alleviate overdraft and land subsidence; or (3) construct, restore or preserve wetland and riparian habitat; and (4) capture surface or stormwater for conservation, conjunctive use, and increased water supplies. Requires the Secretary to ensure that funded projects are not inconsistent with watershed protection and environmental restoration efforts being carried out under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act or the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Directs the Secretary to require that the District and cooperating non-Federal agencies or organizations pay: (1) 25 percent of project construction costs; and (2) 100 percent of project operation, maintenance, and replacement and rehabilitation costs.Permits funds appropriated pursuant to this Act to be made available: (1) to fund all costs incurred for planning, design, and environmental compliance activities by the District or by local agencies in accordance with agreements with the Secretary; and (2) under which the District or local agency is required to pay the non-Federal share of construction costs and which governs the funding of planning, design, and compliance activities costs.Authorizes specified expenditures within existing budget authority to carry out this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Ose, Doug [R-CA-3] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7661-7662)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7661-7662)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1113.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7661-7662)
Mr. Gilchrest moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 472.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-811.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 106-811.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E463)
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1113 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1113 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1113 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1113 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.