PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 614.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Sep 27, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here, with an updated short title.)
Inland Empire Perchlorate Ground Water Plume Assessment Act of 2010 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), to complete a study of water resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin, California, including: (1) a survey of ground water resources in the Basin (including the identification of a recent surge in perchlorate concentrations in ground water); and (2) a characterization of surface and bedrock geology of the Basin, including the effect of the geology on ground water yield and quality.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) carry out the study in coordination with California and any other appropriate entities, including other federal agencies and institutions of higher education; and (2) report to specified congressional committees on results of the study.
People & committees
Rep. Baca, Joe [D-CA-43] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 614.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-328.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-328.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1613-1614)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1613-1614)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4252.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1613-1616)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 249.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-433.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-433.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
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 Natural 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: 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.4252 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.4252 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.4252 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.4252 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.