S-3635-119
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
Sponsored by Steve Daines (R-MT)
What it does
This bill would extend the authorization of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000 by two years, moving the expiration date from 2026 to 2028. It does this by amending two subsections of Section 9 of the original 2000 law. The bill makes no changes to the program's structure, funding levels, or eligibility rules — it only extends the timeline for the existing program to continue operating.
Who benefits
Members of the Fort Peck Tribes (the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes) and residents of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in northeastern Montana who rely on the rural water system for drinking water and agricultural water access. Federal contractors and construction firms currently working on the water infrastructure project. Local Montana communities near the reservation that may share or connect to the water system infrastructure.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who fund the program would bear the cost of two additional years of federal spending, though the bill does not specify a new dollar amount. Competing water infrastructure projects in other regions that might otherwise receive federal funding if this program were allowed to expire could be indirectly disadvantaged. No group faces a direct, immediate harm from this extension.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Fort Peck Reservation has faced longstanding water infrastructure deficits and that allowing the authorization to lapse in 2026 would halt construction mid-project, wasting prior federal investment and leaving tribal members without reliable clean water access. They contend that rural water systems on tribal lands have historically been underfunded relative to non-tribal rural communities, and that a two-year extension is a minimal, targeted measure to ensure project continuity.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that reauthorizing the program without updating funding levels, accountability measures, or a completion timeline allows an open-ended federal commitment to continue without meaningful congressional oversight. They contend that after more than two decades since the original 2000 authorization — with multiple prior extensions already granted — Congress should conduct a full review of project progress, cost overruns, and remaining scope before simply extending the deadline again.