S-3736-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 651.
Sponsored by Mike Rounds (R-SD)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study for a proposed water supply project (the Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project) serving parts of South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. It would require a cost-sharing agreement with a nonprofit non-federal project entity, cap federal spending on the study at $10 million (with the federal share not exceeding 50 percent of study costs), and require a public feasibility report to Congress with a recommendation on construction and non-federal cost share of at least 25 percent. The authority to conduct the study would expire 5 years after enactment.
Who benefits
Residents, farmers, and municipalities in the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System service area across South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota who could gain future access to a new municipal, rural, and industrial water supply; the nonprofit Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System, Inc., which would partner with the federal government; engineering and construction firms that could later bid on any resulting project; and Bureau of Reclamation staff and contractors conducting the study.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who would fund up to $10 million in study costs; and potentially competing water infrastructure priorities elsewhere that might receive less Bureau of Reclamation attention or funding while this study is underway. Landowners in the eventual project footprint could face future impacts if a project is later authorized and built, though this bill funds only the feasibility study, not construction.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that reliable municipal and industrial water supply is a persistent need in parts of South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota, and that a rigorous, cost-shared feasibility study is a responsible first step before committing to any construction. They contend the 50 percent federal cost cap and $10 million spending limit ensure fiscal discipline while allowing communities and Congress to make an informed decision based on real engineering and financial data.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that federal water infrastructure studies frequently become a precursor to costly construction authorizations, and that committing federal funds now, even for a study, sets an implicit expectation of future federal investment in a project whose full costs and environmental effects are not yet known. They contend that with many competing regional water needs nationwide, Congress should evaluate whether this specific service area merits priority funding over other unstudied but potentially higher-need water systems.
Constitutional context
This bill rests on Congress's Article I, Section 8 spending power and its authority under the Commerce Clause to fund interstate water infrastructure studies; because it authorizes only a study and report rather than binding regulation of private conduct or land, it raises no significant takings or major-questions issue at this stage.
Checks and balances
Congress authorizes and caps the spending, and the executive branch (Interior/Bureau of Reclamation) carries out the study and reports findings back to congressional committees, preserving legislative oversight before any construction is separately authorized.
Historical precedent
Congress has frequently authorized Bureau of Reclamation feasibility studies as precursors to western water infrastructure projects, such as the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System and other reclamation-law-based regional water systems.