PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 115-320.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 27, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on June 2, 2017. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act
(Sec. 3) This bill directs the Department of the Interior: (1) to convey to the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District in California approximately 327 acres of identified federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and any portion of an identified federal parcel necessary to equalize the values of the lands exchanged; and (2) to accept in exchange approximately 310 acres of district land and any portion of an identified nonfederal parcel necessary to equalize the values of the lands exchanged.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
To the extent an equalization payment is necessary pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the amount of such payment shall first be made by way of an in-kind transfer as may be necessary to equalize the fair market values of the properties exchanged. If after such in-kind transfer: (1) the value of the federal lands exceeds the value of the nonfederal lands, the district may make a payment equal to the remaining amount to the United States (if the district opts not to make such payment, the exchange shall not proceed); or (2) the value of the nonfederal lands exceeds the value of the federal lands, Interior shall order the exchange to proceed without requiring any additional payment by the United States to the district.
The values of the lands to be exchanged shall be determined by independent and qualified appraisers according to nationally recognized appraisal standards.
The district shall pay any costs related to such conveyance.
(Sec. 4) The land exchange shall be subject to continuing rights of the district to use, maintain, operate, construct, or relocate or expand groundwater recharge facilities on the nonfederal land exchanged to accommodate groundwater recharge of the Bunker Hill Basin to the extent that those activities are not in conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan or Habitat Management Plan under which such nonfederal land may be held or managed.
(Sec. 5) The bill terminates Secretarial Order 241, dated November 11, 1929 (relating to the withdrawal of a portion of the federal land for an unconstructed transmission line) and revokes the withdrawal effected by such order.
People & committees
Rep. Cook, Paul [R-CA-8] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 115-320.
By Senator Murkowski from Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed written report. Report No. 115-320.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 539.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424 - 0 (Roll no. 329). (text: CR H5202-5203)
House roll call 329 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 424 - 0 (Roll no. 329).(text: CR H5202-5203)
House roll call 329 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5217-5218)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 497.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5202-5204)
Mr. Cook moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 102.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-155.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-155.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
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.497 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.497 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.497 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.497 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.