S-3732-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 650.
Sponsored by Ruben Gallego (D-AZ)
What it does
The bill would amend the 2016 WIIN Act to let the Interior Secretary provide storage-program assistance for projects in any Reclamation State. It would allow feasibility studies of federally owned and State-led storage projects, and would require funding to be spread across multiple states. It would widen eligibility for the small storage grant program (including groundwater recharge projects) and extend that program's authority from 5 to 10 years. It would also create a new grant program for natural water retention and release projects, with a federal cost share capped at 50 percent and an independent Secretary determination for projects over $20 million. The bill states that it does not override state water law, interstate compacts, treaties, or water rights.
Who benefits
Western state, tribal, and local water agencies, irrigation districts, and municipalities that could receive storage or retention grants. Farmers and ranchers who rely on irrigation districts and could see more stable supplies. Nonprofit partners that work with water agencies on natural infrastructure. Communities dependent on groundwater, where recharge projects may help stabilize aquifer levels. Engineering and construction firms that would perform project work.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, who would bear the cost of grants and studies; the bill carries no stated dollar cap in this version. Applicants in less-favored states, since the multi-state distribution requirement may limit awards in any one state. Local governments and districts that would need to supply at least half the cost of natural retention projects. Other Bureau of Reclamation programs that may compete for limited appropriations. Environmental groups concerned about new storage construction may object to impacts on rivers and ecosystems.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that recurring drought and shrinking snowpack in the West make added storage, groundwater recharge, and natural retention projects a practical way to stretch limited supplies. They contend the bill protects state water law and water rights, caps the federal share of natural retention projects at 50 percent, and requires the Secretary to independently verify the benefits of large projects. They also point to the multi-state distribution requirement as a way to spread benefits across the region.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill expands federal spending commitments without a stated dollar cap or offsets, and that feasibility studies of federally owned storage could lead to costly construction with uncertain water yields. They contend that new storage does not create water in over-allocated basins and may divert attention from conservation and demand management. They also argue that broad eligibility and the multi-state distribution rule may steer funds by geography rather than by the strongest projects.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2) in funding Reclamation projects. California v. United States (1978) confirmed that federal reclamation projects generally operate within state water law, which this bill's savings clause reinforces. The bill raises no other clear constitutional question.
Checks and balances
The Interior Secretary and Bureau of Reclamation gain grant and study discretion, checked by Congress through appropriations, the bill's independent-determination requirement for large projects, and its savings clause preserving state water law and water rights.
Historical precedent
The bill builds on the 2016 WIIN Act storage program and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act small storage program, which it extends and modifies.