PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5530)
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 23, 2007
Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization Act of 2007 - Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of recycled water projects in cooperation with: (1) Palo Alto and Mountain View, California; (2) Pittsburg, California, and the Delta Diablo Sanitation District; (3) Antioch, California, and the Delta Diablo Sanitation District; (4) the North Coast County Water District; (5) Redwood City, California; (6) the South County Regional Wastewater Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and (7) San Jose, California, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Limits the federal share of each project's cost to 25%. Prohibits the Secretary from providing funds for operation and maintenance. Authorizes appropriations.
Expresses the intent of Congress that a comprehensive water recycling program for the San Francisco Bay Area include the San Jose Area water reclamation and reuse program authorized by the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, George [D-CA-7] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5530)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 674.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-322.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-322.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 110-170.
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 H8196-8197)
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 H8196-8197)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1526.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8196-8197)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 161.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-252.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-252.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E539)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.1526 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.1526 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.1526 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.1526 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.