PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 10, 2006
Madera Water Supply Enhancement Act - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, to study and report to Congress on the feasibility of constructing the Madera Water Supply and Enhancement Project. Limits the federal share of the cost of the study to 50%.
Requires all planning, design, and construction of the Project to be undertaken in accordance with a cooperative agreement between the Secretary and the Madera Irrigation District, California.
Authorizes the Secretary, upon determining that the Project is feasible, to enter into a cooperative agreement through the Bureau with the District for the support of the design and construction of the Project. Limits the federal share of the capital costs of the Project to 25%. Directs the Secretary, before obligating funds, to work cooperatively to use plans, designs, and engineering and environmental analyses that have already been prepared by the District for the Project.
Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this Act 10 years after its enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Radanovich, George [R-CA-19] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 H4922)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4922)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3897.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4922-4923)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 197.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-368.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-368.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
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.3897 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.3897 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.3897 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.3897 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.