What This Bill Does
S. 3723 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study whether it is feasible to build a project that would deliver municipal, rural, and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System. The bill does not authorize construction itself; it requires a feasibility study, a formal report to Congress, and public release of the study materials. It also sets cost-sharing rules for the study, with the federal share capped at 50 percent and an authorized appropriation of $10 million. If the project is later recommended for construction, the Secretary must also recommend a non-federal construction share of at least 25 percent.
- Directs the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of the proposed rural water supply project.
- Covers a project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System.
- Requires a feasibility report to Congress and public release of the study documents.
- Sets the federal share of feasibility-study costs at no more than 50 percent.
- Authorizes up to $10,000,000 and ends the authority 10 years after enactment.
Who This Bill Affects
For people in western South Dakota, this bill could help move a major regional water-supply project forward by paying for a federal feasibility study and setting the terms for evaluating construction. If you live in or depend on the Western Dakota Regional Water System, the bill could eventually affect whether municipal, rural, and industrial water service expands, but this measure itself does not build the project or guarantee water delivery. For most other Americans, the direct effect is limited to federal spending on the study and the possibility of a future project recommendation.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Residents and water users in western South Dakota They would likely argue that a federal feasibility study is a necessary first step toward solving long-term water supply constraints. A reliable regional water source could support households, farms, and local growth in communities served by the Western Dakota Regional Water System.
- Local governments and regional planners They may support the bill because it creates a formal federal review process and requires consultation with state, tribal, regional, and local authorities. That can help align infrastructure planning with actual demand, costs, and engineering constraints before anyone commits to construction.
- Industrial and rural development interests They could see the study as a way to evaluate whether water supply limits are holding back economic development. The bill’s report on construction authorization and cost-sharing could clarify whether a future project is financially workable.
- Fiscal conservatives They may object to spending up to $10 million on a study before Congress has decided whether the project should ever be built. They could also worry that a favorable feasibility report would create pressure for a much larger federal commitment later.
- Taxpayers outside the region They might question why federal funds should support planning for a project that primarily benefits one region of South Dakota. Even with a 50 percent cap on study costs, the bill still uses federal dollars for a geographically targeted infrastructure proposal.
- Environmental and water-policy skeptics They may argue that the bill advances a large water-transfer concept before Congress has weighed environmental, river-management, or long-term cost consequences. The requirement to study a Missouri River diversion could raise concerns about downstream impacts or future construction pressure.
Key Implications
-
““The Secretary... shall carry out a study to determine the feasibility””
This means the bill is a planning measure, not a construction authorization. The immediate result would be federal analysis of whether the water project can work technically and financially.
-
““The Federal share... shall not exceed 50 percent””
The federal government would pay at most half of the feasibility-study costs, so the non-federal project entity must share the expense. That limits federal exposure but still requires public spending on the study.
-
““appropriate non-Federal share of construction costs... at least 25 percent””
If the project is recommended for construction, the Secretary must recommend a substantial local or non-federal contribution. This provision is meant to ensure the project has a meaningful local financial stake before construction is authorized.
-
““make the report... publicly available””
The feasibility findings would not stay inside the agency; they must be released to the public. That can increase transparency for residents, lawmakers, and stakeholders evaluating the project’s merits.
-
““authority... expires... 10 years after the date of enactment””
The study authority is time-limited, so the federal role does not remain open-ended. If the project is not advanced within that window, the authority lapses.
Latest Status
June 10, 2026
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.