S-2019-113
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 517.
Sponsored by Brian Schatz (D-HI)
What it does
This bill would expand an existing federal water management program in two ways. First, it would add drought planning and response as an eligible activity for federal grants and cooperative agreements under the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act. Second, it would add Hawaii as a state whose organizations can apply for those grants. It would also authorize specific funding for these grants and for a national water availability and use assessment program through fiscal year 2018.
Who benefits
State and local water management agencies, particularly in Hawaii, which was previously excluded from eligibility. Water utilities, irrigation districts, and tribal water authorities in drought-prone regions that could now receive federal grants for drought planning. Rural communities and agricultural operations that depend on water systems supported by these grants. Researchers and federal agencies conducting national water availability assessments.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who would fund the newly authorized appropriations. Water management organizations in currently eligible states that may face increased competition for the same pool of grant funding now that Hawaii is added. States or localities that prefer to manage water planning without federal involvement may find federal grant conditions constraining.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that drought is one of the most costly and disruptive natural challenges facing water systems across the country, and that the existing law's failure to explicitly include drought planning as a fundable activity left a critical gap. Adding drought preparedness to eligible grant activities would allow water managers to act before a crisis hits rather than only responding after the fact. Supporters also contend that excluding Hawaii from the program was an oversight that left a state with unique island water challenges without access to federal resources available to every other state. Authorizing dedicated funding through FY2018 would give water agencies the budget certainty needed to plan and execute multi-year drought resilience projects.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that water management is fundamentally a state and local responsibility, and that expanding federal grant programs — even modestly — draws more water policy decisions toward Washington and away from the communities that understand local conditions best. They contend that drought planning is already within the scope of general water management activities that existing law covers, making the explicit addition unnecessary and potentially duplicative of other federal drought programs. Critics may also argue that authorizing new appropriations through FY2018 adds to federal spending without a clear accounting of outcomes from prior grant funding, and that the program's effectiveness should be evaluated before its scope and funding are extended.
Constitutional context
The bill rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, Sec. 8), which courts have upheld as the basis for federal water and environmental regulation, and the Spending Clause, which authorizes Congress to attach conditions to federal grants to states. The Tenth Amendment is relevant because water rights and management are traditionally state functions; however, because participation in the grant program is voluntary, anti-commandeering concerns under New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997) are not directly triggered. The bill does not expand agency rulemaking authority, so the major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) and post-Chevron independent judicial review (Loper Bright, 2024) are not directly implicated by this narrow, grant-focused measure.
Checks and balances
The bill modestly expands Executive Branch (Department of the Interior) discretionary authority by broadening the list of eligible grant activities and the pool of eligible applicants. Congress retains control through the authorization of specific appropriation amounts and the FY2018 end date, which requires future congressional action to continue the program. No new rulemaking authority is created.
Historical precedent
The original SECURE Water Act (Title IX of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009) established the framework this bill amends. Prior federal water grant programs, such as those under the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, similarly used federal spending authority to support state and local drought response.