PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 104-266.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jul 24, 1996
Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of 1996 - Amends the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (the Act) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the following water reclamation and reuse projects: the North San Diego County Area Water Recycling Project, the Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project, the Central Valley Water Recycling Project, the St. George Area Water Recycling Project, the Watsonville Area Water Recycling Project, the Southern Nevada Water Recycling Project, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, the El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, the Pasadena, California, reclaimed water project, phase I of the Orange County Regional Water Reclamation Project, the City of West Jordan Water Reuse Project, the Hi-Desert Water District wastewater collection and reuse facility in Yucca Valley, California, the Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demonstration Project in Oceanside, California, an effluent treatment project from the sanitation districts of Los Angeles County through the city of Long Beach, the San Joaquin Area Water Recycling and Reuse Project, and the Tooele Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Project. Limits the Federal share to 25 percent of total project costs. Prohibits the Secretary from providing funds for project operation and maintenance. (Sec. 3) Authorizes either the Secretary or the non-Federal project sponsor to undertake water reclamation and reuse appraisal investigations. (Sec. 4) Adds elements to be considered under water reclamation and reuse feasibility studies. (Sec. 5) Authorizes the Secretary to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Long Beach Desalination Research and Development Project in Los Angeles County, California, and the Las Vegas Area Shallow Aquifer Desalination Research and Development Project. Limits the Federal share to 50 percent of total project costs. Prohibits the Secretary from providing funds for project operation and maintenance. (Sec. 6) Extends by one year the due date of a report from the Secretary to specified congressional committees with regard to the San Francisco Area Water Reclamation Study. (Sec. 7) Conditions the appropriation of funds for the construction of any project authorized under the Act on: (1) the completion of an appraisal investigation and a feasibility study; (2) a determination by the Secretary that the non-Federal project sponsor is financially capable of funding its share of project costs; and (3) approval by the Secretary of a cost-sharing agreement with such non- Federal sponsor. Excludes from such conditions those projects for which funds were appropriated prior to January 1, 1996. Directs the Secretary to notify specified congressional committees within 30 days after the signing of a cost-sharing agreement under this section. Limits to $20 million the total Federal share of the cost of each individual project authorized under the Act. Provides a limit for the Federal share of costs for projects authorized before January 1, 1996.
People & committees
Rep. Hansen, James V. [R-UT-1] · 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: 104-266.
Became Public Law No: 104-266.
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 S11666)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11666)
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 579.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9954-9957)
Mr. Doolittle moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 372.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-703.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-703.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
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.3660 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.3660 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.3660 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.3660 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.