HR-9785-119
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
Sponsored by Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
What it does
The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study whether two rural water projects are feasible: one for Western Dakota Regional Water System (Title I) and one to expand the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota (Title II). It would also allow, but not require, a third study for the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota (Title III). It would authorize $10 million for each study, cap the federal share of study costs at 50 percent, and end each study authority 10 years after enactment. The bill would not authorize construction; Titles I and II would require a report recommending whether to build and a non-federal construction share of at least 25 percent.
Who benefits
Nonprofit regional water systems (Western Dakota, Lewis and Clark, Dakota Mainstem) that would get federal cost-sharing and technical study. Residents, farms, ranches, and businesses in rural parts of South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska that may gain a path to a more reliable water supply if projects are later authorized. Local governments and tribal and state authorities who would be consulted in the studies.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers would bear up to half of study costs, with up to $30 million authorized in total. The nonprofit systems and their local sponsors would owe at least the other half of study costs, and later at least 25 percent of any construction. Other Reclamation water projects elsewhere may compete for limited Interior staff and funds. Water users downstream or on the Missouri River, including tribes and other states, may face added demands on the river if projects are later built, though this bill only authorizes studies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that rural areas in the Dakotas and neighboring states have aging or limited water supplies, and that federal feasibility studies are the required first step under Reclamation rules before any project can be authorized. They contend the 50 percent cost-share, the 25 percent minimum non-federal construction share, public reports, and 10-year sunsets keep federal exposure limited while giving Congress facts before any construction decision.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that authorizing $30 million for three studies commits federal money to regional projects whose construction costs could later reach far higher, and that studies tend to build momentum toward funding. They contend Interior's Reclamation budget is already stretched across many projects and that local water systems, states, or private sources should pay more of the study costs, and that Missouri River allocation questions deserve review first.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Spending Clause and Property Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1; Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), and federal water projects have long been upheld under these powers, as in Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken (1958). The bill raises no distinct constitutional question beyond ordinary appropriations authority.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Interior) gains study authority, while Congress keeps control by requiring reports to its committees, setting funding limits and sunsets, and reserving any construction authorization and appropriations for later legislation.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously authorized rural water projects after feasibility studies, including the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System under the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 2000.