PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 113-129.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jul 25, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends the Provo River Project Transfer Act to modify the definition of: (1) "Pleasant Grove Property" to mean a specified parcel of land in Utah acquired by the United States for the Provo River Project, Deer Creek Division, as in existence on the date on which the parcel is conveyed under such Act; and (2) "Provo Reservoir Canal" to mean the water conveyance facility historically known as the Provo Reservoir Canal and associated bridges, fixtures, structures, facilities, lands, interests in land, and rights-of-way held, acquired, constructed, or improved by the United States as part of such Project, extending from, and including, the Murdock Diversion Dam and forebay at the mouth of Provo Canyon, including the Provo Reservoir Canal Siphon and Penstock near the Jordan Narrows to the point where water is discharged to the Welby-Jacob Canal and the Utah Lake Distributing Canal, as in existence on the date on which the Provo Reservoir Canal is conveyed under such Act.
People & committees
Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 113-129.
Became Public Law No: 113-129.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4355-4364; text as passed Senate: CR S4355)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S4355-4364; text as passed Senate: CR S4355)
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 256.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 406 - 0 (Roll no. 615). (text: CR H7419)
House roll call 615 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 406 - 0 (Roll no. 615).(text: CR H7419)
House roll call 615 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7426-7427)
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. 255.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7419-7420)
Mr. McClintock moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 147.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-200.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-200.
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
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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.255 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.255 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.255 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.255 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.