PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 2009
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to construct, operate, and maintain the Santa Margarita River Project in accordance with the final feasibility report and this Act.
Authorizes Project construction only after the Secretary determines that: (1) the Fallbrook Public Utility District, San Diego County, and the Navy have entered into contracts to repay to the United States appropriate construction, operating, and maintenance costs (permits the Secretary to allow satisfaction of the repayment obligation of construction costs through payment of the Navy Secretary's share prior to initiation of construction); (2) the authorized California officer or agency has granted water use permits to the Bureau of Reclamation; (3) the District has agreed that it will not assert against the United States any prior right to water in excess of the quantity deliverable under this Act and will share water based on equal priority and a specified ratio; and (4) the Secretary has determined that the Project has completed applicable economic, environmental, and engineering feasibility studies.
Makes the Navy Secretary responsible to pay only that portion of costs that reflects the extent to which the Navy Department benefits from the Project.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits operation of the Project by the Secretary, the District, or a third party, subject to a memorandum of agreement and under regulations satisfactory to the Navy Secretary regarding the Navy Department's share of the Project.
Requires the Secretary and the District to participate in the Project yield on the basis of equal priority, with 60% of the Project's yield allotted to the Navy Secretary and 40% allotted to the District. Sets forth provisions governing contracts for the sale and delivery of excess water.
Requires the District's general repayment obligation to be determined by the Secretary consistent with the Reclamation Project Act of 1939.
Authorizes the Secretary to transfer operation of the Project to the District or a mutually agreed upon third party.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49] · 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 and Power.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Readiness.
Referred to House Armed Services
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House 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: Jun 6, 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.75 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.75 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.75 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.75 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.