PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 2009
Riverside-Corona Feeder Water Supply Act - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Western Municipal Water District, Riverside County, California, to participate in the planning, design, and construction of the Riverside-Corona Feeder water supply project, which includes 20 groundwater wells, groundwater treatment facilities, water storage and pumping facilities, 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 25% of the total cost of the project, not to exceed $50 million; and (2) complete the necessary planning studies associated with the project to 50% of the total cost of the study, which shall be included as part of the limitation on funds for planning, design, and construction.
Provides that: (1) in-kind services performed by the District shall be part of the local share of the cost to complete the project; and (2) funds provided by the Secretary under this Act shall not be used 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.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.38 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.38 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.38 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.38 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.