HR-7288-119
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Sponsored by Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study on building a project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System. The federal government would cover no more than 50% of the study's costs, with the non-federal partner (Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc.) covering the remainder under a cost-sharing agreement. The bill authorizes up to $10 million for the study and requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress with a recommendation on whether to authorize construction and what the non-federal share of construction costs should be (at least 25%). The authority expires 10 years after enactment.
Who benefits
Residents of western South Dakota — including rural households, small municipalities, and industrial users — who currently face water supply constraints. Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc., which would receive federal cost-sharing for the study. Construction and engineering firms that may eventually bid on the project if authorized. Tribal nations and local governments in the region that are consulted and may gain improved water access. South Dakota's agricultural and ranching sectors that depend on reliable water supply.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, who would fund up to $5 million of the study costs. Downstream Missouri River water users — including other states, municipalities, and agricultural interests — who could face reduced flow or allocation if a large diversion project is eventually built. Environmental groups and interests concerned about Missouri River ecosystem impacts from potential future diversion. Competing water infrastructure projects that may be deprioritized for federal funding and attention.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that western South Dakota faces genuine long-term water supply challenges, and that a rigorous federal feasibility study is a prudent, low-cost first step before any major construction commitment is made. They contend the bill's 50/50 cost-sharing structure ensures local accountability, and that the Bureau of Reclamation has successfully managed similar rural water supply projects across the West — such as the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project in South Dakota — demonstrating a proven federal role in addressing water access gaps in underserved rural communities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that authorizing a federal feasibility study is rarely a neutral act — it creates institutional momentum and sunk-cost pressure toward eventual construction, potentially committing future Congresses to a large, expensive water diversion project without full public debate. They contend that Missouri River water allocation is already contested among multiple states and tribes under complex interstate compacts, and that a new large-scale diversion could harm downstream users and river ecosystems in ways the study alone may not fully capture or prevent.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to fund water infrastructure studies and projects rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which covers interstate waterways like the Missouri River, and the Property Clause for federal lands. No significant constitutional tension is present here — this is a study authorization, not a regulatory mandate, and it does not raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) or post-Loper Bright scrutiny, as it involves a direct congressional directive rather than agency rulemaking.
Checks and balances
Congress directs and funds the study; the Secretary of the Interior conducts it and reports back to the relevant congressional committees, preserving legislative oversight before any construction authorization could proceed.
Historical precedent
The Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project, authorized by Congress in 1988 and expanded in subsequent years, followed a similar federal feasibility-study-to-construction pathway to deliver Missouri River water to tribal and rural communities in western South Dakota.