S-3738-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 652.
Sponsored by Alex Padilla (D-CA)
What it does
The bill would amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act's large-scale water recycling program to allow feasibility-study funding, raise a cost-related threshold from 30 to 60 (as written in the amendment), and extend the program's sunset from 5 to 10 years, with an exception for projects under construction. It would raise the federal cost ceiling for Reclamation water recycling projects from $20 million (1996 prices) to $50 million (December 2025 prices, adjusted annually for inflation). It would also rewrite the authority for Great Salt Lake and Sacramento River/Central Valley Project species and habitat work, extend certain 2016 water law provisions for 15 years, and create a process to list and, after about two years, deauthorize Bureau of Reclamation projects that received no appropriations for 8 years, unless Congress acts, funding is provided, or the non-federal sponsor pays for completion.
Who benefits
Western water agencies and municipalities in Reclamation states that would build recycling projects with a higher federal cost ceiling and longer program window. Fish species such as Chinook salmon and steelhead, and the groups who depend on them, such as fishing communities, through Sacramento River habitat and hatchery work. Great Salt Lake area residents and ecosystems, with Utah holding a consent role over work in its state. Federal budget managers and active Reclamation projects, since long-dormant authorizations would be cleared from the backlog.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, who may bear higher costs from the larger cost ceiling and extended authorities, and the bill's offsets may not fully cover this. Sponsors of dormant Reclamation projects that have waited years for funding and could lose authorization unless they self-fund or win congressional action. Water users and agricultural districts in regions whose projects are deauthorized or not prioritized. Utah officials and stakeholders who might want federal Great Salt Lake action without state request, since the bill conditions work in Utah on the state's request and agreement.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Western drought and aging water systems require more water reuse, and that the original $20 million 1996 cost ceiling no longer reflects construction costs, so inflation indexing and a 10-year window make the program usable. They contend that the deauthorization process offsets costs by clearing projects with no funding for 8 years, while exemptions, congressional disapproval, and sponsor self-funding protect projects that still matter. They also point to the bill's species and habitat provisions as helping meet both ecological and water delivery goals.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that raising the federal cost ceiling from $20 million to an inflation-indexed $50 million and extending authorities for 10 to 15 years increases long-term federal obligations, and that offsets from deauthorizing idle projects may be small compared to new commitments. They contend that deauthorization could eliminate projects that communities still rely on, especially where funding gaps reflect budget priorities rather than lack of need. They also argue that conditioning Great Salt Lake work on state request, and narrowing Sacramento River provisions, may limit federal flexibility in restoring ecosystems.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Spending Clause and Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2), which gives it broad power over federal lands and projects; Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) confirmed that power as extensive. Conditioning Utah work on state agreement is a cooperative arrangement, not a commandeering problem, since participation is voluntary.
Checks and balances
The Interior Secretary and Bureau of Reclamation gain list-making and exclusion discretion, while Congress retains checks through appropriations, a joint resolution of disapproval (subject to presidential veto), and committee reporting requirements.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used deauthorization of inactive projects as offsets, notably the Water Resources Development Act process for Army Corps projects and Reclamation deauthorization provisions in earlier water infrastructure laws.