PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 1016.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Sep 16, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on May 7, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination 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 Phase I permanent facilities for the GREAT project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired water near Oxnard, California. Limits the federal share of the cost of the project to 25%. Prohibits the Secretary from providing funds for the operation and maintenance of the project or for the construction, operations, and maintenance of the project's visitor's center. Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this Act 10 years after its enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Capps, Lois [D-CA-23] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 1016.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4505)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4505)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1737.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4505-4506)
Mrs. Napolitano moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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.1737 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.1737 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.1737 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.1737 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.