PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 22, 2016
(Sec. 1) This bill amends the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act to approve and ratify the settlement agreement dated January 30, 2015, and approved by the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians (California), the San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, the City of Escondido, California, the Vista Irrigation District, and the United States.
The Departments of the Interior and Justice may execute the agreement and any amendments approved by the parties to make it consistent with such Act. Such execution shall not constitute a major federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Interior is authorized to take steps necessary to implement the agreement and such Act.
The tribes will continue to possess federally reserved rights and other water rights held in trust by the United States. In any proceeding involving the assertion, enforcement, or defense of such rights, the United States shall not be a required party and and any decision by the United States regarding participation in any such proceeding shall not be subject to judicial review or give rise to any claim for relief against the United States.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Congress confirms that the benefits to allottees in the agreement are equitable and fully satisfy their water rights.
(Sec. 2) A limit is set on the amount that may be allocated annually from the San Luis Rey Tribal Development Fund.
People & committees
Rep. Hunter, Duncan D. [R-CA-50] · 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.
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 H5841)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5841)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1296.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5841-5842)
Mr. Denham moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 580.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-747.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-747.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Discharged.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.1296 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.1296 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.1296 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.1296 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.