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 · Sep 21, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on September 7, 2004. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Western Municipal Water District, to participate in a project to plan, design, and construct the Riverside-Corona Feeder, which includes 20 groundwater wells and 28 miles of pipeline in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Limits the Federal share of the cost to: (1) plan, design, and construct the project to the lesser of 35 percent of the project's total cost or $50 million; and (2) complete the necessary planning study associated with the project to 50 percent of the total study cost. Directs that in-kind services performed by the District be considered a part of the local cost share to complete the project.
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary to participate in the design, planning, and construction of: (1) projects to treat impaired surface water, reclaim and reuse impaired groundwater, and provide brine disposal within the Santa Ana Watershed, in cooperation with the Yucaipa Valley Water District; and (2) a project to reclaim and reuse wastewater, including degraded groundwaters, within and outside of the service area of the City of Corona Water Utility, in cooperation with the City of Corona Water Utility. Limits the Federal share of each of the project costs to 25 percent.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits the Secretary from using or providing funds under this Act for project operation or maintenance.
People & committees
Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-44] · 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 H7261)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7261)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3334.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7261)
Mr. Pearce moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 387.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-643.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-643.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
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.3334 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.3334 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.3334 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.3334 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.