PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 28, 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, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to study the feasibility of constructing a project on Alder Creek in El Dorado County, California, to store water and provide water supplies during dry and critically dry years for consumptive use, recreation, in-stream flows, irrigation, and power production. Requires the Secretary to: (1) transmit a report on study results to specified congressional committees, including appropriate cost-sharing options for project implementation based upon the use and possible allocation of any stored water; and (2) use information supplied by the El Dorado Irrigation District in developing such report.
Limits the Federal share of the costs of the study to 50 percent. Allows the Secretary to accept in-kind services by the District as part of the non-Federal cost share. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Doolittle, John T. [R-CA-4] · 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.
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 H7679-7680)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7679-7680)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3597.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7679-7680)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 390.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-646.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-646.
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.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2429)
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: Apr 7, 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.3597 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.3597 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.3597 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.3597 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.