HR-7287-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study on expanding the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water across Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota. The federal government would cover no more than 50% of the study's costs, with the non-federal project entity (Lewis and Clark Regional Water System, Inc.) covering the remainder under a cost-sharing agreement. Up to $10 million is authorized for appropriation, and the authority expires 10 years after enactment. The Secretary would submit a feasibility report to Congress with a recommendation on whether to authorize construction and what the non-federal share of construction costs should be (at least 25%).
Who benefits
Residents of rural communities in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota who currently lack reliable access to municipal water. Municipal governments and industrial users in the three-state region who would gain expanded water supply capacity. Lewis and Clark Regional Water System, Inc. and its member communities, which would receive federal cost-sharing for the study. Tribal nations and local authorities consulted under the bill who may gain a voice in regional water planning. Engineering and consulting firms that would be contracted to conduct the feasibility study.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who would fund up to $5 million of the $10 million study cost. Competing water infrastructure projects in other regions that may be deprioritized if this project is ultimately authorized and funded for construction. State and local governments in the three-state region that would be responsible for at least 25% of any future construction costs. Entities that currently supply water in the region and could face increased competition if the system expands.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System already serves hundreds of thousands of people across a tri-state region and that expanding its capacity addresses documented water supply shortfalls in rural communities that lack access to safe, reliable water. They contend that a federally cost-shared feasibility study — where non-federal partners bear at least half the study cost and at least 25% of any future construction cost — is a fiscally responsible, preliminary step that commits no funds to construction and ensures Congress retains full authority over any future project authorization.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that authorizing $10 million for a feasibility study is a predictable first step toward a much larger federal construction commitment, and that water infrastructure serving a limited tri-state region should be financed primarily by state and local governments rather than federal taxpayers. They contend that the bill's 50% federal cost-share for the study sets a precedent for substantial federal subsidization of a regional project whose direct benefits are geographically narrow, and that Congress should require a higher non-federal cost share before committing any federal dollars to planning.