PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Oct 13, 2000
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Truckee watershed reclamation project, consisting of the North Valley Reuse Project and the Spanish Springs Valley Septic Conversion Project, for the reclamation and reuse of wastewater in and outside of the service area of Washoe County, Nevada.Limits the Federal share of project costs to 25 percent. Prohibits funds provided by the Secretary from being used for project operation or maintenance.Permits funds appropriated pursuant to the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to be used for the project. Requires the design, planning, and construction of the project to be in accordance with, and subject to the limitations contained in, such Act.
People & committees
Sen. Reid, Harry [D-NV] · D–NV
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 House Committee on Resources.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10528; text as passed Senate: CR S10528)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10528; text as passed Senate: CR S10528)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 883.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski under authority of the order of the Senate of 09/28/2000 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 106-438.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski under authority of the order of the Senate of 09/28/2000 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 106-438.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Committee consideration held.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-783.
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.2195 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.2195 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.2195 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.2195 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.