PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2001
California Reclaimed Water Act for the 21st Century - Amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) coordinate projects for the reclamation and reuse of water under such Act with projects and programs under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program; and (2) take into account Federal expenditures for projects under such Act in making determinations under the CALFED Program relating to the equitable implementation of ecosystem restoration and water management. Requires project compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Castaic Lake Water Agency reclaimed water project, the Clear Lake Basin water reuse project, the Inland Empire regional water recycling project, the San Pablo Baylands water reuse projects, the Lower Chino Area desalination demonstration and reclamation project, the West Basin Comprehensive Desalination Demonstration Program in Los Angeles County, and the City of Los Angeles Water Recycling Program (replaces existing provisions authorizing the Secretary's participation in the Los Angeles area water reclamation and reuse project); (2) provide design and construction assistance for the East Bay Municipal Utility District/Dublin San Ramon Services District advanced wastewater reuse treatment project; (3) provide assistance to California in carrying out projects under the California water recycling program; and (4) carry out programs to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine lines in the San Francisco Bay and Santa Clara Valley areas and to export the salinity imported from the Colorado River to the Pacific Ocean.Directs the Secretary to carry out a program in cooperation with the Water Reuse Foundation to conduct research concerning water reuse in relation to public health, water quality, new technology, salt management, economics, and ecosystem restoration.Adds a separate Federal cost share limitation with respect to the San Gabriel Basin demonstration project.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, George [D-CA-7] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E195-196)
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: Aug 19, 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.685 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.685 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.685 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.685 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.