PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.2402 / 105th Congress

Water-Related Technical Corrections Act of 1997

By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 105-377.

Official summary

Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 25, 1998

Water-Related Technical Corrections Act of 1997 - Amends the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to reduce (from 60 to 30 days after the Secretary of the Interior has transmitted a report on an existing dam to the Congress) the required waiting period before the obligation of reclamation funds provided under such Act. Amends the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to direct the Secretary to participate in the planning, design, and construction of the: (1) Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Project; and (2) Phoenix Metropolitan Water Reclamation and Reuse Project. Adds as a purpose of the Albuquerque project to reclaim and use nonpotable surface water in the Albuquerque metropolitan area. (Sec. 5) Directs the Secretary to refund all amounts received by the United States as collections under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 for charges that were assessed for failure to file certain certification or reporting forms. Allows certain administrative fees to be retained. Authorizes appropriations. (Sec. 6) Amends the Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1996 to extend the period of contract repayment for: (1) the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, and the Nueces River Authority under the Nueces River reclamation project, Texas; and (2) the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority under the Canadian River reclamation project, Texas. (Sec. 7) Authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with the Solano County Water Agency, or any of its member unit contractors for water from the Solano Project, California, pursuant to the Act of February 21, 1911 (subject to a limitation on the portion of the Project that may be used) for: (1) the impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial purposes, using any facilities associated with the Project; and (2) the exchange of water among Project contractors for such purposes, using facilities associated with the Project. (Sec. 8) Amends the Act of December 29, 1950, authorizing construction, operation, and maintenance of the Canadian River reclamation project, Texas, to direct the Secretary to allow use of the project distribution system for transport of water from the Canadian River Conjunctive Use Groundwater Project to municipalities that are receiving water from the project, subject to specified environmental and engineering reviews. Requires the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority to bear the responsibility for all construction, operation, and maintenance costs of the Project and for costs of the environmental review. (Sec. 9) Authorizes the Secretary to use otherwise available amounts to provide up to $2 million in financial assistance to the Medford Irrigation District and the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District for the design and construction of fish passage and protective facilities at North Fork Little Butte Creek Diversion Dam and South Fork Little Butte Creek Diversion Dam in the Rogue River basin, Oregon, if the Secretary determines in writing that these facilities will enhance the fish recovery efforts currently underway at the Rogue River Basin Project, Oregon.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4] · R–CA

Committees

  • Energy and Natural Resources Committee
  • Natural Resources Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 105-377.

    2. By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 105-377.

    3. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 640.

    4. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. Without written report.

    5. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. Without written report.

    6. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.

    7. Referred to Subcommittee on Water and Power.

    8. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

    9. Received in the Senate.

    10. Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

    11. On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.

    12. Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.

    13. DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.

    14. Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10552-10553)

    15. Mr. Doolittle moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

    16. Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 205.

    17. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-353.

    18. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-353.

    19. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

    20. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

    21. Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.

    22. Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

    23. Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.

    24. Referred to the House Committee on Resources.

    25. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1659)

    26. Introduced in House

    27. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    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.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.R.2402 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.R.2402 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.R.2402 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.R.2402 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.

    View full prompt & sources