S-4971-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
What it does
This bill would amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to increase the federal government's share of project costs from the existing rate to 90 percent for western rural water infrastructure projects that benefit economically disadvantaged communities. The definition of "economically disadvantaged community" would be drawn from Section 160 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020. The change would apply only to qualifying projects in the western United States, leaving the existing federal cost-share structure in place for all other projects under the same section.
Who benefits
Residents of economically disadvantaged rural communities in the western United States who rely on aging or inadequate water infrastructure. Tribal communities, which are disproportionately represented among economically disadvantaged rural western communities. Local and municipal governments in qualifying areas, which would need to raise less matching funding. Water utilities and contractors hired to build or upgrade qualifying projects. State water agencies that administer federal water programs.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers broadly, who would bear a larger share of project costs. Non-qualifying rural communities — those that do not meet the "economically disadvantaged" definition — that would remain at the lower federal cost-share rate and may perceive unequal treatment. Communities in non-western states facing similar water infrastructure challenges, who are excluded from the higher cost-share by the bill's geographic scope. Local contractors in non-qualifying areas who may lose competitive bids to projects redirected toward higher-subsidy zones.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that economically disadvantaged rural communities in the West face a structural funding gap: they lack the local tax base to meet standard federal cost-share requirements, leaving critical water infrastructure unbuilt or in disrepair. They contend that raising the federal share to 90 percent aligns with how Congress has treated similarly disadvantaged communities in other infrastructure programs, and that safe, reliable water access is a foundational public health need that market forces alone cannot deliver in low-income rural areas.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that increasing the federal cost-share to 90 percent reduces local financial accountability and may encourage communities to pursue projects they would not otherwise prioritize if they bore a greater share of the cost. They contend that the bill's geographic restriction to the western United States is arbitrary and inequitable, excluding economically disadvantaged rural communities in other regions — such as Appalachia or the rural South — that face comparable water infrastructure deficits without a policy rationale for the distinction.