PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5530)
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Jun 28, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Authorizes the Redwood Valley County Water District, California, to enter into additional non-federal obligations necessary to finance procurement of dedicated water rights and improvements needed, if the Secretary of the Interior and the District, as of January 1, 2006, have not renegotiated the schedule of payments for loans made by the United States to the District.
Requires: (1) the renegotiated schedule of payments to commence when such additional obligations have been financially satisfied by the District; and (2) the date of the initial payment by the District to the United States to be regarded as the start of the repayment period and the time upon which any interest shall first be computed and assessed under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956.
People & committees
Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-1] · 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. 250.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-117.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-117.
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. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 110-86.
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 H1225)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1225)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 235.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1225)
Mrs. Napolitano moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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.
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.235 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.235 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.235 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.235 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.