S-3725-119
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
Sponsored by John Thune (R-SD)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study on expanding the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System, which currently supplies municipal, rural, and industrial water in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota. The Secretary would then produce a report — submitted to Congress and made publicly available — recommending whether the expansion project should be authorized for construction and what the non-federal cost share should be (at least 25%). The federal government would cover no more than 50% of the study's costs, with up to $10 million authorized for appropriation. The study authority would expire 10 years after enactment.
Who benefits
Rural residents, municipalities, and industrial users in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota who currently lack access to or have limited capacity from the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System. Tribal nations and local governments in the region who would be consulted and could gain improved water access. The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc. (the non-federal project entity), which would co-conduct the study and potentially receive federal support for a future construction project. Engineering and consulting firms that would likely be contracted to conduct the study. Future residents of the region who could benefit from expanded water infrastructure.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would fund up to $5 million of the $10 million study cost (the federal 50% share). Competing water infrastructure projects in other regions that may not receive federal study funding. Landowners in the potential expansion corridor who could face future easement or access negotiations if construction is ultimately authorized. State and local governments that may be required to cover at least 25% of any future construction costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System has already demonstrated its value by delivering safe, reliable drinking water to hundreds of thousands of rural residents across three states, and that a feasibility study is a prudent, low-cost first step before committing to any construction. They contend that rural water infrastructure in the Great Plains faces growing demand pressures and aging systems, and that the bill's cost-sharing structure — requiring at least 25% non-federal contribution to construction and capping the federal study share at 50% — ensures fiscal discipline and local accountability.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that authorizing $10 million for a feasibility study is a precursor to a much larger federal construction commitment, and that water infrastructure decisions of this kind are better left to state and local governments or private entities without federal direction. They contend that the bill's 10-year authorization window and open-ended construction cost-share framework could obligate future Congresses to fund a project whose full price tag is not yet known, and that similar rural water projects have historically exceeded initial cost estimates significantly.