PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 23, 2007
Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project - Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with Pima County, Arizona, to participate in the planning, design, and construction of water recycling facilities and to enhance and restore riparian habitat in the Black Wash Sonoran Desert ecosystem in Avra Valley west of the metropolitan Pima County area. Limits the federal share of the project's cost to 25%. Authorizes appropriations. Permits federal funds provided by this Act to be used only for the design, planning, and construction of water-related infrastructure.
People & committees
Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7] · D–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
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 as passed in House: CR S8195-8196)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text as passed in House: CR S8195-8196)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1503.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8195-8196)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 160.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-251.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-251.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Unanimous Consent .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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.
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.1503 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.1503 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.1503 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.1503 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.