PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 18, 2005
Santa Ana River Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2005 - Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) participate, in cooperation with the Orange County Water District, in the design, planning, and construction of natural treatment systems and wetlands for the flows of the Santa Ana River, California, and its tributaries into the Prado Basin; (2) carry out, in cooperation with local governments, a program to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine lines to export the salinity imported from the Colorado River to the Pacific Ocean; and (3) participate, in cooperation with the Chino Basin Watermaster, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, in the design, planning, and construction of the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and reclamation project. Authorizes appropriations. Specifies limits on the federal share of project costs and prohibits the use of funds provided by the Secretary for operation and maintenance.
Specifies limits on the federal share of the costs of phase 1 of the Orange County Regional for FY2007-FY2016.
Directs the Secretary to establish at the District a center to provide: (1) assistance in the development and advancement of membrane technologies; and (2) educational support in the advancement of public understanding and acceptance of membrane produced water supplies. Requires the Secretary: (1) to enter into contracts with the District to manage the center; and (2) in consultation with the District, to jointly prepare a plan identifying the center's goals and objectives and to report to Congress within one year on the center's status and accomplishments. Authorizes appropriations. .
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Terminates provisions of this Act after 10 years.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, Gary G. [R-CA-42] · R–CA
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 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: CR H8868)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8868)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 177.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8868-8869)
Mrs. Musgrave moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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: 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.177 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.177 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.177 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.177 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.