PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 792.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Jun 16, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Sierra Vista Subwatershed Feasibility Study Act - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to complete a feasibility study of alternatives to augment water supplies in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona, that are identified as appropriate for further study in a Bureau of Reclamation appraisal report dated June 2007.
Directs the Secretary, in evaluating the feasibility of alternatives, to: (1) include any required environmental reviews, the construction, operations, maintenance, and replacement costs for each alternative, and the economic feasibility of each alternative; (2) take into consideration the ability of government and private sources to fund such costs; (3) establish the basis for any cost-sharing allocations and any anticipated repayment of federal contributions; and (4) perform a cost-benefit analysis.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits the federal share of total costs of the study to 45%. Permits the nonfederal share to be in the form of in-kind services that the Secretary determines would contribute substantially toward the conduct and completion of the study. Expresses the intent of Congress that the Secretary complete the study within 30 months of enactment. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Kyl, Jon [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 792.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-360.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 110-360.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 110-376.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10621)
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.1929 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.1929 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.1929 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.1929 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.