PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 15, 2005
Wichita Project Equus Beds Division Authorization Act of 2005 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the funding and implementation of the Equus Beds Aquifer Recharge and Recovery Component of the Integrated Local Water Supply Plan, Wichita, Kansas (referred to as the Equus Beds Division). Requires that construction of the Division be in substantial accordance with the plans and designs. Makes operation, maintenance, and replacement of the Division, including funding for those purposes, the sole responsibility of the City of Wichita.
Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) enter into or agree to amendments of cooperative or other appropriate agreements; and (2) charge an appropriate share related to administrative costs.
Directs the Secretary: (1) before obligating funds for design or construction, to work cooperatively with the City to use plans, designs, and engineering and environmental analyses that have already been prepared by the City for the Division; and (2) to assure that such information is used in a manner consistent with applicable Federal laws and regulations, including principles and guidelines used in preparing feasibility level project studies.
People & committees
Rep. Tiahrt, Todd [R-KS-4] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.1327 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.1327 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.1327 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.1327 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.