PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 14, 2005
Llagas Reclamation Groundwater Remediation Initiative - Establishes within the Treasury an interest bearing account to be known as the California Basins Groundwater Remediation Fund, which shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, in cooperation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Requires the Secretary to use the Fund to provide grants to reimburse the District for the Federal share of the costs associated with designing and constructing groundwater remediation projects. Prohibits the Secretary from obligating any funds appropriated to the Fund in a fiscal year until the Secretary has deposited a matching amount provided by non-Federal interests of at least 35 percent for a project.
Makes each local water authority responsible for providing the non-Federal amount required for projects under that authority. Allows the State of California, local government agencies, and private entities to provide all or any portion of the non-Federal amount. Directs the Secretary to credit the appropriate authority with the value of all prior expenditures by non-Federal interests made after January 1, 2000, that are compatible with the purposes of this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Terminates this Act ten years after its enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Pombo, Richard W. [R-CA-11] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 H1375-1376)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1375-1376)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 186.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1375-1376)
Mr. Jones (NC) 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.
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.186 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.186 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.186 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.186 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.