What This Bill Does
This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study whether a project could be built to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water to the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System service area in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. The study would be done through a cooperative agreement with the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System and must follow federal reclamation feasibility standards. The bill caps the federal share of study costs at 50 percent and authorizes up to $10 million for the work. The authority to carry out the study would expire 10 years after enactment.
- Directs the Secretary of the Interior to study a water project for the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System service area.
- Covers municipal, rural, and industrial water needs in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota.
- Requires the study to meet reclamation feasibility standards in 43 CFR part 404.
- Limits the federal share of study costs to 50 percent.
- Authorizes up to $10,000,000 and sunsets the authority 10 years after enactment.
Who This Bill Affects
For people in the Dakota Mainstem service area, this bill could help move a major water-supply project from concept toward a formal federal feasibility review. If you live, farm, or run a business in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, or Minnesota within that service area, the bill could eventually support more reliable municipal, rural, and industrial water planning, but only at the study stage and only if local and federal partners share the costs. For everyone else, the direct effect is limited because the bill does not build the project or change national water policy.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Residents and water users in the four-state service area They may support the bill because a federal feasibility study is often the necessary first step toward improving long-term water reliability for homes, farms, and local businesses. A study can identify whether the project is technically and financially workable before larger sums are committed.
- Local governments and rural water providers They may favor the bill because it could help plan for municipal and rural water needs across a broad service area. The cooperative agreement structure lets local stakeholders work directly with the Secretary of the Interior on the study.
- Industrial users and regional employers They may back the bill because dependable water supply is a key input for operations and future investment. A feasibility study can clarify whether the region can support growth without water shortages or infrastructure bottlenecks.
- Federal budget watchdogs They may object to authorizing up to $10 million for a study before any construction decision has been made. Even with a 50 percent federal cap, they may argue the money should be reserved for projects with clearer national priority or broader benefits.
- Taxpayers outside the region They may question why federal funds should help pay for a study tied to a specific regional water system in four states. Their concern is that the benefits are geographically concentrated while the costs are shared nationally.
- Environmental or water-policy skeptics They may worry that a feasibility study can be a step toward a larger water diversion or infrastructure project with uncertain environmental or long-term cost consequences. They may prefer more scrutiny before federal involvement advances further.
Key Implications
-
““may undertake a study to determine the feasibility””
This means the bill authorizes analysis, not construction. The immediate result would be technical and financial evaluation of whether the project makes sense.
-
““supply municipal, rural, and industrial water””
The project is aimed at multiple user types, not just households. That broadens the potential value to towns, farms, and businesses in the service area.
-
““shall not exceed 50 percent””
Federal taxpayers would cover at most half of the study’s cost. The rest would need to come from the non-Federal project entity or other non-federal sources.
-
““authorized to be appropriated… $10,000,000””
Congress is setting a ceiling on how much can be provided for the feasibility study. The actual amount appropriated could be lower, but it cannot exceed this authorization under the bill.
-
““expires on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment””
The authority is temporary. If the study is not completed or advanced within that window, the authorization would lapse.
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.