PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee Indian and Alaska Native Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 14, 2014
Amends the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General to take all necessary or appropriate steps to: (1) execute and implement on behalf of the United States the settlement agreement approved in principle by the city of Escondido, California, the Vista Irrigation District, the San Luis Rey River Indian Water Authority, and the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual, Pauma, and Pala Bands of Mission Indians (California), dated April 23, 2012; and (2) secure the entry of stipulated judgments or other final dispositions in the proceedings among these parties presently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
People & committees
Rep. Hunter, Duncan D. [R-CA-50] · 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 Indian and Alaska Native Affairs.
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: Jan 3, 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.4265 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.4265 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.4265 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.4265 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.