PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 4, 1998
Amends the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior, as an alternative by which to provide a supplemental water supply for the benefit of certain Mission Indian Bands in San Diego County, California, and the City of Escondido, California, the Escondido Mutual Water Company, and the Vista Irrigation District (local entities) to construct that portion of the All-American Canal Lining that is necessary to conserve 16,000 acre-feet of water per year and arrange to deliver such water to the Bands and such local entities by exchange or through contract with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and other parties with conveyance facilities. Requires the right to such water to be held in perpetuity by the United States in trust for the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority subject to such Act and the settlement agreement governing the use and disposition of supplemental water. Authorizes appropriations for such construction, but prohibits Federal funding for operating, maintenance, or replacement costs. Directs the Secretary to determine the impact of such works constructed on the cost of operation and maintenance and the existing regulating and storage capacity of the All-American Canal and its Coachella Branch. Requires, if the works result in any added operation and maintenance costs which exceed the benefits derived from increasing the regulating and storage capacity of the canals to the Imperial Irrigation District or the Coachella Valley Water District, the Indian Water Authority and the local entities shall reimburse the agency which experiences such additional costs on an annual basis pursuant to the Secretary's determination. States that the right to 16,000 acre-feet of water per year obtained by such construction is subject to such works being maintained so as to continue to conserve 16,000 acre-feet of water per year as compared to the situation that existed prior to the construction. Provides for the Secretary to determine the amount of water so conserved on an ongoing basis and to allow only such water as has actually been conserved to be delivered to the Indian Water Authority and the local entities.
People & committees
Rep. Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [R-CA-51] · 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 House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1536-1537)
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 2, 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.4392 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.4392 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.4392 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.4392 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.