PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-576.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Dec 4, 2000
Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) undertake a program to investigate and identify opportunities to improve the supply of water for the counties in the State of Texas in the Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Area known as Region M and of the counties of Hudspeth and El Paso (the program area), including the review of the studies or planning reports (or both) prepared by any competent engineering entity for projects designed to conserve and transport raw water in the program area; and (2) evaluate alternatives in such area that could be used to improve water supplies, including lining irrigation canals and increasing the use of pipelines, flow control structures, meters, and associated appurtenances of water supply facilities.Requires the Secretary to develop and publish criteria to determine which projects would qualify and have the highest priority for financing. Requires such criteria to address at a minimum: (1) how the project relates to the near-and long-term water demands and supplies in the study area, including how the project would affect the need for development of new or expanded water supplies; (2) the relative amount of water (acre feet) to be conserved; (3) whether the project would provide operational efficiency improvements or achieve water, energy, or economic savings (or any such combination) at a rate of acre feet of water or kilowatt energy saved per dollar expended on construction of the project; and (4) if the project proponents have met the following project requirements.Requires a project sponsor seeking Federal funding under this program to: (1) provide a report that includes an analysis showing how the project would reduce, postpone, or eliminate development of new or expanded water supplies, and a description of conservation measures to be taken; (2) provide a project plan; and (3) sign a cost-sharing agreement with the Secretary that commits the non-Federal project sponsor to annual funding of its proportionate share of the project's construction costs. Requires the Secretary to determine: (1) that the project sponsor is financially capable of funding the project's non-Federal share of the project's costs; and (2) within one year after the date the project is submitted for approval, whether a project meets the criteria.Permits project sponsors to contract with the Secretary to prepare such reports.Authorizes the Secretary, through specified projects that meet the review criteria and project requirements, to conduct or participate in funding engineering work, infrastructure construction and improvements for conserving and transporting raw water.Limits: (1) the non-Federal share of the costs of any such activity to 50 percent; and (2) payments by the State to 40 percent of such costs. Permits the remainder of the non-Federal share to include in-kind contributions of goods and services, and funds previously spent on feasibility and engineering studies.Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-576.
Became Public Law No: 106-576.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate agreed to House amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11939-11940; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR S11939)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to House amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11939-11940; text as Senate agreed to House amendment: CR S11939)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
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): 348 - 6 (Roll no. 599). (text: CR H11934)
House roll call 599 · 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): 348 - 6 (Roll no. 599).(text: CR H11934)
House roll call 599 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H11939)
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 S. 1761.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11934-11936)
Mr. Gibbons moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11276)
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11276)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-764.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1761 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 S.1761 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 S.1761 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 S.1761 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.