PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 497.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Jul 16, 1996
Amends the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the following water reclamation and reuse projects: the North San Diego County Area Water Recycling Project, the Calleguas Municipal Water District Water Recycling Project, the Central Valley Water Recycling Project, the St. George Area Water Recycling Project, the Watsonsville Area Water Recycling Project, the Southern Nevada Water Recycling Project, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Area Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, the El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse Project, the City of West Jordan Water Reuse Project, the Toole Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Project, and the Central-East and West-South Water Recycling Projects in San Antonio, Texas. Limits the Federal share to 25 percent of the total cost of a project (with an exception of up to 50 percent of the cost of any feasibility study). Authorizes the Secretary to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Long Beach Desalination and Research Development Project in Los Angeles County, California, and the Las Vegas Area Shallow Aquifer Desalination Research and Development Project in Clark County, Nevada. Limits the Federal share of project costs to 50 percent. Prohibits the Secretary from providing operation and maintenance funds for any of such projects. Prohibits funds from being appropriated for the construction of any project authorized under this Act until a feasibility study has been completed and the Secretary has determined that the non-Federal project sponsor is financially capable of funding its share of project costs.
People & committees
Sen. Bennett, Robert F. [R-UT] · R–UT
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. 497.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 104-322.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 104-322.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-380.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8041)
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.901 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.901 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.901 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.901 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.