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 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 8, 2006
San Diego Water Storage and Efficiency Act of 2005 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the City of San Diego and the Sweetwater Authority, to undertake a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a four reservoir intertie system to improve water storage opportunities, water supply reliability, and water yield of the existing non-federal water storage system.
Directs that the feasibility study: (1) document the Secretary's engineering, environmental, and economic investigation of the proposed reservoir and intertie project, taking into consideration the needs of and potential benefits to the area; and (2) indicate whether the proposed project is recommended. Limits the federal cost share and total federal costs.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) consult and cooperate with appropriate state, regional, and local authorities; and (2) submit to Congress a feasibility report and seek specific authority to develop and construct any recommended project. Requires such report to include: (1) good faith letters of intent by the City, the Authority, and its nonfederal partners to indicate that they have committed to share allocated costs; and (2) a schedule identifying the annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs that should be allocated to the City and the Authority, as well as the current and expected financial capability to pay operation, maintenance, and replacement costs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this Act 10 years after its enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Hunter, Duncan [R-CA-52] · 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 H652)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H652)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1190.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H651-652)
Mr. Gohmert moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 175.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-321.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-321.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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.1190 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.1190 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.1190 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.1190 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.