Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 611.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Sep 27, 2010
Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009 - 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: (1) recycled water distribution systems in California in cooperation with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and the Ironhouse Sanitary District; and (2) recycled water system facilities in California in cooperation with the Dublin San Ramon Services District, the city of Petaluma, Redwood City, and the city of Palo Alto. Limits the federal share of each project to 25%. Prohibits the Secretary from providing funds for project operation and maintenance. Authorizes appropriations.
Directs the Secretary to enter into individual agreements with the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Recycling implementing agencies to fund specified projects under such Act through the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies. Authorizes the Secretary to include in such agreements a provision for the reimbursement of construction costs, subject to appropriations made available for the federal share of the projects.
Increases the authorization of appropriations for the design, planning, and construction of: (1) recycled water system facilities in cooperation with the city of Antioch, California; and (2) recycled water treatment facilities in cooperation with the city of San Jose, California, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Mr. Miller, George moved to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair
Mr. Nunes appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was then put on sustaining the ruling of the chair.
Point of order sustained against the motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. Miller, George raised a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. George Miller (CA) stated that the provisions of the Nunes motion to recommit is not germane to the bill. Sustained by the Chair.
Mr. Nunes moved to recommit with instructions to Natural Resources. (consideration: CR H11428; text: CR H11428)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H11428)
DEBATE - The House continued with debate on H.R. 2442.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 2442.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2442 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 830. (consideration: CR H11419-11430)
Rule H. Res. 830 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 830 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2442 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. The amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 240 - 170 (Roll no. 743).
Failed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 240 - 170 (Roll no. 743).
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10121-10122)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2442.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10004-10006; text of measure as reported in House: CR H10004-10005)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 149.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-268.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-268.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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
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.2442 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.2442 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.2442 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.2442 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.