This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a feasibility study to evaluate constructing a regional water supply project to serve municipal, rural, and industrial customers across the Dakota Mainstem service area in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. The study is intended to be done in partnership with the regional nonprofit sponsor and to use the federal Reclamation study framework.
Why it matters: the study is the formal first step that can qualify a regional sponsor for Reclamation-style project development. The results would shape whether the region pursues a federally partnered project, how costs would be split and what design and environmental work will be required before any construction funding is sought.
At a Glance
What It Does
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, working through a cooperative agreement with the regional non‑profit sponsor, to carry out a federal feasibility study for a Dakota Mainstem water supply project under the Bureau of Reclamation study framework. The statute frames the study as an option the Secretary may take, subject to existing federal eligibility criteria.
Who It Affects
Directly involves the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System (the designated non‑Federal project sponsor), Interior/Bureau of Reclamation staff who would run the study, and municipal, rural and industrial water stakeholders in the four‑state service area. State water agencies, local utilities and potential project contractors will be pulled into planning and data collection.
Why It Matters
It places the regional effort squarely within the Reclamation feasibility process, which is the path other large western water projects use to secure federal partnership. For regional planners and utilities, the study is the gateway to federal technical assistance and possible future cost‑shared construction.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a focused, federal feasibility effort for a multi‑state Dakota Mainstem water supply project. It names the regional nonprofit (the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System) as the partner the Secretary will consult and work with under a cooperative agreement; that nonprofit is envisioned to act as the non‑Federal project entity that would carry much of the non‑federal responsibility in any future partnership.
The study authorized by the statute is a planning and vetting exercise: it must follow the Bureau of Reclamation’s feasibility approach (the standard federal framework for evaluating reclamation‑type water projects), and it will examine whether and how a project could deliver municipal, rural and industrial water to the designated service area across South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota. The bill does not itself greenlight construction or provide construction dollars—its purpose is to determine feasibility, costs, benefits, and compliance needs that would inform later decisions.Operationally, the statute anticipates a cooperative structure where the federal team and the non‑Federal sponsor share responsibility for carrying out the study.
That structure typically assigns the sponsor tasks such as providing project data, local coordination and a share of funding while the federal agency provides technical, environmental and economic expertise. The cooperative approach is meant to test both technical viability and the sponsor’s capacity to carry forward a large regional project.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to undertake, in consultation with the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System via a cooperative agreement, a feasibility study for supplying municipal, rural, and industrial water to the Dakota Mainstem service area in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota.
The feasibility study must comply with the Reclamation feasibility standards as described in part 404 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (the Bureau of Reclamation’s eligibility and study requirements).
The Federal share of the total cost of carrying out the feasibility study shall not exceed 50 percent, making a non‑Federal match mandatory for full funding.
The bill authorizes $10,000,000 in appropriations to the Secretary to carry out the feasibility study.
The authority to perform the study under this Act expires 10 years after enactment, after which the Secretary no longer has authority under this statute to initiate the study.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the statute’s short name: the 'Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project Feasibility Study Act.' This is purely caption language and carries no operational effect, but it frames the bill’s focus for implementing agencies and appropriators.
Definitions
Defines key terms used in the Act. It designates 'Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System' as the nonprofit sponsor structured to meet Reclamation feasibility standards, spells out that 'reclamation feasibility standards' refers to part 404 of 43 CFR (or successor rules), and defines 'Secretary' as the Secretary of the Interior. These definitions lock the study into the Bureau of Reclamation eligibility and study regime and identify the intended non‑Federal sponsor type.
Study scope and cooperative agreement
Authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with the named nonprofit and generally through a cooperative agreement, to undertake a feasibility study to evaluate constructing a project to supply municipal, rural and industrial water to the multi‑state service area. The use of 'may' means the Secretary has discretion to initiate the study; the cooperative‑agreement route signals that the non‑Federal sponsor will be a formal partner responsible for coordinating local inputs and certain tasks under the agreement.
Cost sharing, funding authorization, and sunset
Limits the Federal share of study costs to at most 50 percent, requires non‑Federal matching, authorizes $10 million to carry out the study, and establishes a ten‑year terminal date for the authority. Practically, that creates a finite window for the study and an explicit appropriations request, while shifting at least half of study funding responsibility to the regional sponsor or other non‑Federal sources.
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
- Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System (nonprofit sponsor) — The bill elevates the nonprofit to the formal non‑Federal project entity role and gives it access to federal technical assistance and a clear pathway to qualification under Reclamation processes.
- Municipal and rural water suppliers in SD, IA, NE and MN — The study could identify options for more reliable or expanded supplies, long‑term planning data, and potential federal participation in project development.
- State and regional planners — Receives a federal technical and economic analysis that supports interstate coordination, allocation decisions, and infrastructure grant applications.
- Agricultural and industrial water users in the service area — Stand to gain visibility in regional supply planning and a vetted assessment of whether a new source could stabilize long‑term water availability.
Who Bears the Cost
- Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System (sponsor) — The non‑Federal sponsor must provide matching funds and staff time under the cooperative agreement, and will carry much of the organizational burden in preparing data and coordinating stakeholders.
- Department of the Interior/Bureau of Reclamation — Agency staff will need to allocate technical, environmental review and project‑evaluation resources to run the study within existing budgets or new appropriations.
- State and local utilities and agencies — Will need to contribute data, participate in stakeholder processes, and potentially provide direct financial or in‑kind match to support the study.
- Federal appropriations (Congress/taxpayer) — The bill authorizes $10 million that, if appropriated, will compete with other priorities in Interior and Reclamation program budgets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between advancing rigorous, federally guided feasibility analysis (which requires cost‑sharing, regulatory standards and sponsor capacity) and the need to make the study accessible and timely for a multi‑state region whose local sponsors may lack the money or institutional bandwidth to meet Reclamation‑style conditions; the bill favors federal diligence and cost‑sharing but risks leaving the region without a study if local match or appropriations are not forthcoming.
Several implementation and policy questions could affect the study’s usefulness. First, the statute gives the Secretary discretion ('may undertake') rather than a mandate, so the study’s initiation depends on Interior priorities, sponsor readiness and available appropriations.
That discretionary language creates uncertainty for regional planners who may need to time other investments around federal involvement.
Second, the required 50 percent federal cost cap and expectation of a cooperative agreement place a heavy burden on the non‑Federal sponsor to marshal matching funds, technical capacity and stakeholder coordination. For a multi‑state project, lining up matching commitments across jurisdictions and utilities can be costly and time‑consuming.
Third, the bill authorizes $10 million but does not guarantee that amount will be appropriated; for a four‑state feasibility effort that must likely include environmental review, engineering, and economic analysis, costs could exceed the authorization, leaving gaps or requiring staged studies.
Fourth, the statute ties the study to Reclamation’s part 404 standards, which can advantage sponsors structured to meet traditional reclamation criteria but may limit flexibility for nontraditional governance models or projects facing complex interstate or tribal water right issues. The Act also does not mention specific requirements for NEPA, tribal consultation, interstate compacts or water‑rights adjudications—matters that commonly drive timelines and costs for multi‑state water projects and could substantially affect feasibility findings.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.