The Every Drop Counts Act revises section 40903(b)(1)(B) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to define which surface- and groundwater-storage projects qualify for grants. It creates two capacity categories: a "general acre-feet" bucket (projects sized between 200 and 30,000 acre-feet) and an "average annual project life" recharge bucket (projects that recharge 200–150,000 acre-feet per year on average over their life).
The bill explicitly makes conveyance, recharge, recovery and groundwater stabilization eligible activities. It separately amends section 40903(e) by replacing the numeral "5" with "10."
For project sponsors and grant administrators the changes narrow and clarify project size and activity eligibility while expanding the program’s numerical limit. The new language clearly accommodates managed aquifer recharge and conveyance projects that move water to or from storage, which shifts funding opportunities toward groundwater-focused resilience measures.
The statutory-construction clause preserves state water law, treaties, and existing water rights and bars federal acquisition of water, but does not resolve how federal funding will interact with state permitting and rights adjudications.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill rewrites the IIJA definition of eligible storage projects into two capacity-based categories and adds conveyance, recharge, recovery, and groundwater stabilization as qualifying activities. It also amends section 40903(e) by swapping the number "5" for "10," raising the numeric limit set in that subsection.
Who It Affects
State and local water agencies, irrigation districts, municipal water suppliers, project developers focused on managed aquifer recharge (MAR) and conveyance infrastructure, and the federal agencies that administer IIJA grants. It will be particularly relevant to water managers in arid and drought-prone regions.
Why It Matters
The bill funnels existing IIJA grant authority toward mid-size storage and large-life-average recharge projects, legitimizing MAR and conveyance as core grant-eligible activities. That changes the pool of fundable projects and creates new opportunities — and compliance questions — for applicants, permitting authorities, and downstream water users.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Every Drop Counts Act changes how a specific IIJA grant program defines eligible water-storage projects. It splits eligible projects into two distinct categories.
The first category focuses on projects with a single-event or static storage capacity between 200 and 30,000 acre-feet; those projects qualify if they increase surface or groundwater storage or if they convey water to or from such storage. The second category is measured as an average annual life-capacity: projects that, averaged over their operational life, recharge between 200 and 150,000 acre-feet per year.
Those projects must increase or work with groundwater aquifer storage, convey/ recover water from groundwater, or stabilize groundwater levels.
By name, the bill brings conveyance infrastructure and managed aquifer recharge (MAR) squarely into the grant program. That means canals, pipelines, pumpback systems, recharge basins, and engineered recovery works that move or store water can qualify so long as they meet the stated size thresholds and functional tests.
The inclusion of "stabilizes groundwater levels" signals an interest in projects designed to arrest or reverse aquifer decline rather than only provide one-time storage gains.The bill also makes a single numeric change in subsection (e) of the IIJA provision—striking the numeral "5" and inserting "10." The text of this bill does not restate what that subsection controls, so implementers must read the existing IIJA subsection to identify which cap or limit is being raised. Finally, the Act includes a statutory-construction section that says these amendments do not supplant state water law, interstate compacts, treaties, authorize federal acquisition of water, or interfere with water rights.
That keeps the role of federal grant funding separate from legal water entitlements but leaves open how federal grants will interact with state permitting and rights enforcement in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill sets a minimum project size threshold of 200 acre-feet and a maximum of 30,000 acre-feet for the "general acre-feet capacity" category.
It creates an "average annual project life" capacity test for recharge: projects must recharge on average between 200 and 150,000 acre-feet per year over the project's life to qualify.
Eligible activities now explicitly include increasing surface or groundwater storage, conveying water to or from storage, recovering water from groundwater storage, and stabilizing groundwater levels.
Section 40903(e) of the IIJA is amended by replacing the number "5" with "10," increasing the numeric limit referenced in that subsection.
A statutory-construction clause prohibits the Act from superseding state water law, interstate compacts, treaties, authorizing federal acquisition of water, or infringing existing water rights.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the "Every Drop Counts Act." This is a naming provision only and carries no substantive implementation details.
Clearer eligibility buckets and qualifying activities
Replaces the existing subparagraph (B) with two explicit eligibility tests. The first is a static capacity test (200–30,000 acre-feet) that covers projects which add storage or move water to/from storage. The second is a dynamic, life‑average recharge test (200–150,000 acre-feet per year) aimed at recharge and recovery projects and groundwater stabilization. Practically, this forces applicants to quantify either instantaneous storage or average annual recharge over the project's expected life when applying. It also makes conveyance and recovery infrastructure part of the grantable project scope, broadening the types of engineering work an applicant can fund.
Numeric increase in subsection (e)
Strikes the numeral "5" and inserts "10" in subsection (e) of section 40903. The amendment changes a numeric limit within that subsection but does not alter surrounding statutory language. Agencies and applicants will need to consult the original IIJA text for subsection (e) to determine whether this raises a cap on grants, projects per entity, scoring points, or another quantitative limit that the subsection controls.
Statutory construction and protection of existing law and rights
Affirms that the bill does not supersede state or federal water law, interstate compacts, or treaty obligations; does not authorize federal acquisition of water; and does not infringe water rights. This provision preserves the primacy of existing legal frameworks governing allocation and ownership of water even while directing federal grant dollars to storage and recharge projects.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and local water agencies — The bill expands clearly fundable project types (especially MAR and conveyance), opening new IIJA grant opportunities for agencies seeking to increase storage or stabilize aquifers.
- Irrigation districts and agricultural water users — Mid-size surface reservoirs and recharge projects that support irrigation reliability are explicitly eligible, creating new revenue sources for agricultural water infrastructure.
- Engineering, construction, and water‑project developers — Firms that design and build recharge basins, conveyance systems, pumps, and recovery wells stand to see increased contracting opportunities.
- Groundwater‑dependent communities and utilities — Projects that stabilize groundwater levels and increase recoverable supply can improve long-term supply reliability for municipalities and rural communities.
- Project consortia and regional collaboratives — The life‑average recharge category favors regional programs that operate over long time horizons and aggregate recharge across multiple sites.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal grant program administrators — Increasing the numeric limit and broadening eligibility will raise application reviews, monitoring, and oversight burdens for the administering agency (likely Interior or Reclamation).
- Project applicants — Applicants must quantify lifetime average recharge or static storage, prepare more complex technical and legal documentation, and likely meet matching-fund or compliance conditions.
- State permitting authorities and water courts — Greater federal funding for storage and recharge projects will increase demand for state permits and potential adjudication of injury claims, imposing administrative and adjudicatory costs.
- Downstream water users and junior rights holders — Although the bill preserves legal rights, implementation could shift water use patterns (e.g., capture or recharge timing) that impose costs on users who rely on existing flows.
- Environmental review and resource agencies — MAR and conveyance projects may trigger more NEPA/ESA/CEQA review and mitigation obligations, increasing workload and compliance costs for resource agencies and sponsors.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether federal grant support should aggressively expand engineered storage and managed recharge to bolster drought resilience while avoiding interference with state water rights and preventing downstream or ecological harm; the bill funds the former but leaves the latter largely to existing state processes and project-level review, creating a trade-off between rapid capacity-building and protecting preexisting legal and environmental entitlements.
The bill is precise about size and function, but it leaves several practical implementation questions unanswered. It does not define key terms such as how to measure "average annual project life" (projected modeled recharge versus measured post-implementation recharge), what counts as "convey[ing] water, directly or indirectly," or how to apportion aggregate recharge across multiple project sites.
Those definitional gaps will shape which projects actually qualify and how applicants structure proposals.
There is also a tension between the statutory-construction language and on‑the‑ground effects. Saying the Act does not supersede state water law preserves legal boundaries, but federal grant funding inevitably changes incentives.
A grant that subsidizes recharge in one basin could affect senior water users, lead to calls for curtailed pumping, or provoke litigation over injury — all outcomes the bill does not address. The change from "5" to "10" increases a numeric limit but the bill omits context about what that figure controls or whether Congress will appropriated matching funds or additional program dollars; without funding direction, the numerical increase may not meaningfully expand program capacity.
Finally, environmental and equity trade‑offs are not resolved. Projects that move large volumes of water for recharge can have energy and habitat costs (pumping, altered flow timing, or changes to ecologically important surface flows).
The bill does not add targeted requirements for monitoring, adaptive management, or distributional safeguards to ensure smaller or disadvantaged communities can compete for funds, nor does it specify safeguards against third‑party injury.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.