The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a feasibility study of a proposed project to deliver municipal, rural, and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System. The Department must coordinate with the non‑Federal project entity and other authorities while producing a feasibility report with a recommendation on whether the project should be authorized for construction.
The study framework embeds financial parameters and procedural guardrails: the non‑Federal share of construction costs is anchored to a capability‑to‑pay analysis, the Federal share of study costs is capped, and the report must be publicly released and provided to relevant congressional committees. The measure sets an appropriation ceiling for the study and includes a 10‑year sunset for the authority to act.
At a Glance
What It Does
Tasks Interior with a coordinated feasibility study and asks for a feasibility report that recommends whether to authorize construction and sets the appropriate non‑Federal construction share. The Secretary must enter a cost‑sharing or financial assistance agreement with the Western Dakota Regional Water System and follow reclamation feasibility standards for the study.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Western Dakota Regional Water System (a nonprofit non‑Federal project entity), municipal and industrial water users in western South Dakota, state and local authorities, and the Department of the Interior (including the Bureau of Reclamation). Tribes and regional stakeholders are named as consultation partners during the study.
Why It Matters
This bill moves the Missouri‑River‑to‑Western‑Dakota concept from local planning toward a federally supported technical and financial appraisal, shaping whether and how a large new water delivery project could advance and how costs would be allocated between federal and non‑federal parties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act defines the Western Dakota Regional Water System as the non‑Federal project entity and identifies the proposed rural water supply project as the effort to move Missouri River water to that system. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a full feasibility study in coordination with that entity and to produce a feasibility report.
The report must include the Secretary’s recommendation on whether the project should move forward and propose how to split construction costs between federal and non‑federal participants.
The bill instructs the Secretary to consult with appropriate federal, state, Tribal, regional, and local authorities as the study proceeds. It also requires the Secretary to formalize a cost‑sharing or financial assistance agreement with the non‑Federal project entity for the study itself and to ensure the study conforms to reclamation feasibility standards.
The Secretary must submit the final report to the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and make the study materials publicly available.On the financial side, the law requires that the non‑Federal share for construction be set at not less than 25 percent of total construction costs and determined via a capability‑to‑pay analysis that accounts for allocated construction and operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) costs. Separately, the Federal share for carrying out the feasibility study may not exceed 50 percent.
The Act authorizes a specific appropriation to carry out the study and sets a statutory expiration date for the Secretary’s authority to act under the measure.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must include in the feasibility report a recommendation on whether the proposed project should be authorized for construction.
The bill requires the non‑Federal construction share to be at least 25 percent of total construction costs and tied to a capability‑to‑pay analysis that includes allocated construction and OMR&R costs.
The Federal share of the feasibility study’s total costs is capped at 50 percent.
The Secretary must enter a cost‑sharing or appropriate financial assistance agreement with the Western Dakota Regional Water System and ensure the study complies with reclamation feasibility standards.
The Secretary must submit the feasibility report to the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and make the report and related study materials publicly available.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Requires that the Act be cited as the 'Western South Dakota Water Supply Project Feasibility Study Act.' This is a nominal provision but signals the bill's focus on authorizing a Federal feasibility appraisal rather than immediate construction or authorization of a construction project.
Definitions of key parties and project
Defines the non‑Federal project entity as the Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc., and labels the subject infrastructure as the 'proposed rural water supply project' to move Missouri River water to that system. By codifying the project sponsor and scope, the bill narrows who the Secretary must partner with and frames the study around a specific, sponsor‑led proposal rather than an open-ended regional assessment.
Feasibility study and report requirements
Directs the Secretary, coordinating with the non‑Federal project entity, to carry out the feasibility study and to prepare a feasibility report that recommends whether to authorize construction and sets an appropriate non‑Federal construction share. It also requires consultation with federal, state, Tribal, regional, and local authorities and mandates public release of the report and supporting materials, increasing transparency while creating an expectation of multi‑stakeholder input.
Study cost‑sharing and Federal cap on study costs
Requires a formal cost‑sharing or financial assistance agreement between the Secretary and the non‑Federal project entity for the study that adheres to reclamation feasibility standards. It limits the Federal contribution toward study costs to no more than 50 percent, which both constrains Interior’s fiscal exposure and obligates the sponsor to provide substantive financial and technical participation during the study phase.
Appropriation authorization and sunset
Authorizes an appropriation to carry out the study (the bill specifies an amount) and sets a ten‑year expiration date on the Secretary’s authority under the Act. The appropriation authorization establishes a funding ceiling for the study while the sunset creates a hard deadline for initiating and completing study work under this statutory authority.
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
- Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc.: Gains a federally supported technical appraisal and formal platform to secure construction authorization and a share allocation that could unlock financing and federal participation.
- Municipal and industrial water users in western South Dakota: Stand to benefit from improved planning clarity and potentially new long‑term water supplies if the feasibility study finds the project viable and it moves forward.
- State and regional planners: Receive a detailed federal feasibility product and public documentation that can be used for integrated water resources planning, grant applications, and infrastructure financing decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Western Dakota Regional Water System and its ratepayers: Must cover at least the non‑Federal portion of study costs under the cost‑share arrangement and, if construction proceeds, bear a minimum 25 percent of construction costs and allocated OMR&R burdens determined by capability‑to‑pay.
- Department of the Interior/Bureau of Reclamation: Must allocate staff time, technical resources, and any appropriated funds to conduct the study and manage consultations and compliance with reclamation standards.
- Local governments and Tribal governments: Will incur staff, planning, and coordination costs during consultation and may face upstream obligations if the project design requires local infrastructure, easements, or co‑funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between enabling a large, regionally transformative water project by leveraging federal technical support and imposing cost‑sharing and affordability constraints on local sponsors: the bill tries to balance federal fiscal restraint and local buy‑in against the practical realities that small communities may lack the revenue base to shoulder construction and long‑term OMR&R costs, while inadequate federal study funding or insufficiently specified allocation rules could leave the project stalled or contested.
The Act sets procedural and financial guardrails but leaves open important implementation details. The minimum 25 percent non‑Federal construction share is a blunt floor: it pushes project sponsors to bear meaningful capital costs, but the statute ties the final non‑Federal share to a 'capability‑to‑pay' analysis without specifying the methodology, income thresholds, or how disparate obligations across multiple service areas will be apportioned.
That creates room for dispute when allocating construction costs and future OMR&R obligations among municipalities, rural users, and industrial customers.
Operationally, capping the Federal share of the study at 50 percent and authorizing a fixed appropriation (specified in the bill) may be insufficient for a comprehensive feasibility assessment that addresses hydrology, engineering, environmental compliance (NEPA), water rights and compact issues, and robust Tribal consultation. The requirement that the study meet reclamation feasibility standards will add technical rigor but also administrative complexity and potential cost.
The bill does not address subsequent steps—how a positive feasibility recommendation would translate into project authorization, design, permitting, or long‑term Federal involvement—nor does it resolve who would obtain or manage any necessary Missouri River water rights or how interstate or inter‑basin legal constraints would be handled.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.