PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 24, 2016
This bill amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in projects to benefit eligible communities through projects to:
capture and treat wastewater and to distribute recycled water from a new mixed-use development that cannot otherwise be economically provided recycled water from one or more existing water reclamation plants and recycled water distribution systems;
adjust or forego a portion of facility capacity or connection fees otherwise paid by the property owner to a regional water agency that imports out-of-basin water supplies; and/or
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
extend local recycled water distribution systems to properties adjacent to new mixed-use development.
The bill defines "eligible communities" as communities:
in a state under a drought emergency declared by the governor,
where water retailers have been directed by a state water resources control board to reduce consumption or use of potable water usage by 24% to 32%, and
whose sanitation district has been directed by a regional water quality control board to reduce the discharge of chloride to comply with basin water quality standards.
The Department of the Interior shall give priority to projects that:
will serve a region that has received federal authorization for projects associated with perchlorate remediation programs under the Bureau of Reclamation or the Army Corps of Engineers,
will serve or are located in a region that has completed feasibility studies for perchlorate remediation efforts, and/or
will serve a region where the regional water agency that imports out-of-basin water supplies has a wholesale area that includes a population of between 200,000 and 350,000.
The federal share of the cost of such a project shall not exceed 25% of the total cost.
People & committees
Rep. Knight, Stephen [R-CA-25] · 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, Power and Oceans.
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.4610 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.4610 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.4610 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.4610 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.