SB 3723 requires the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a feasibility study for a proposed project that would deliver municipal, rural, and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System. The bill specifies coordination with the non‑Federal project sponsor, sets cost‑sharing rules for the study, and requires a public feasibility report with a recommendation on whether the project should be authorized for construction.
The measure matters because it frames how federal and local partners will assess and share the financial burden of a major regional water project: it caps the federal share of the study at 50 percent, requires a minimum 25 percent non‑federal construction share determined by a capability‑to‑pay analysis, authorizes $10 million for the study, and expires after ten years. Those provisions affect funding, project affordability, and the political and technical pathway to any future construction authorization.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the Interior Department to perform a Reclamation‑standard feasibility study, produce a recommendation on whether to authorize construction, and identify the appropriate non‑federal construction share. It requires a cost‑sharing or financial assistance agreement for the study and limits the federal portion of study costs to no more than 50 percent.
Who It Affects
The Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc. (the designated non‑Federal project entity), municipal and rural water providers and industrial users in western South Dakota, the Department of the Interior (including the Bureau of Reclamation), state and Tribal authorities, and federal appropriations committees.
Why It Matters
The bill establishes the financial and procedural baseline for converting a regional water concept into an authorized project: it fixes minimum non‑federal contribution parameters, mandates a capability‑to‑pay analysis that will influence cost allocation, and provides a discrete federal funding authorization that may or may not be adequate to complete a comprehensive study.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 3723 instructs the Secretary of the Interior to lead a feasibility study looking at whether water can be moved from the Missouri River into the Western Dakota Regional Water System. The Secretary must carry out the study in coordination with the Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc., and follow reclamation feasibility standards.
The product of the study is a feasibility report that recommends whether the project should be authorized for construction and specifies the non‑Federal share of construction costs.
The bill requires the Secretary to determine the non‑Federal construction share through an analysis of the non‑Federal partners’ financial capability to pay both allocated construction costs and the ongoing operations, maintenance, and replacement costs of the recommended plan. The statute sets a floor for that non‑Federal share—at least 25 percent—but leaves the exact allocation to the Secretary’s capability‑to‑pay finding.
For the feasibility study itself, the Secretary must enter a cost‑sharing or financial assistance agreement with the non‑Federal project entity and may cover no more than 50 percent of the study costs.On process, the bill requires the Secretary to consult with appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local authorities while conducting the study and to make the feasibility report and associated study documents publicly available. The report must be provided to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congress authorizes $10,000,000 to carry out the study, and the authority to act under the statute expires ten years after enactment.Importantly, SB 3723 does not itself authorize construction; it creates the study and reporting framework that would inform any later authorization. It also ties the study to Reclamation standards, so expect Bureau of Reclamation procedures, financial models, and technical criteria to shape the analysis, even if the final decision on construction would require separate congressional action or additional approvals.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must recommend in the feasibility report whether the proposed Missouri River–to–Western Dakota project should be authorized for construction and must propose an appropriate non‑Federal construction share.
The bill requires the Secretary’s determination of the non‑Federal construction share to be at least 25 percent and to be based on an analysis of the non‑Federal partners’ capability to pay construction and operations, maintenance, and replacement costs.
The Federal share of the costs of carrying out the feasibility study itself is capped at 50 percent, and the Secretary must enter a cost‑sharing or financial assistance agreement with the non‑Federal project entity that complies with reclamation feasibility standards.
The Secretary must submit the feasibility report and supporting study documents to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Natural Resources and make those documents publicly available.
Congress authorizes $10,000,000 to the Secretary to conduct the study, and the statute’s authority to act terminates ten years after enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short name, the 'Western South Dakota Water Supply Project Feasibility Study Act.' This is a formal naming clause and has no programmatic effect beyond identifying the statute.
Definitions
Defines key terms used in the bill: 'non‑Federal project entity' as the Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc.; 'proposed rural water supply project' as the project to move Missouri River water into that system; and 'Secretary' as the Secretary of the Interior. These definitions fix who is treated as the sponsor and who holds responsibility for coordination and cost‑share agreements under the Act.
Feasibility study and report
Directs the Secretary, in coordination with the designated non‑Federal sponsor, to conduct a feasibility study and produce a feasibility report recommending whether the project should be authorized and proposing the non‑Federal share of construction costs. The provision requires consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local authorities and mandates public release of the report and associated documents, which sets expectations for transparency and stakeholder engagement.
Study cost sharing and federal cap
Requires the Secretary to enter a cost‑sharing agreement (or appropriate financial assistance agreement) with the non‑Federal project entity and ties the study to reclamation feasibility standards — meaning Bureau of Reclamation procedures and models are likely to govern the analysis. It also caps the Federal share of the study costs at 50 percent, which obliges the non‑Federal sponsor to secure matching funds or in‑kind contributions to move the study forward.
Appropriation and sunset
Authorizes $10,000,000 to carry out the feasibility study and provides that the authority under the section expires ten years after enactment. The discrete appropriation and statutory sunset frame a limited window and budget for the work, which will affect scope, sequencing, and whether additional funding or legislative action is needed to complete a thorough study.
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 formal federal feasibility process, technical analysis under Reclamation standards, and a public report that could advance funding and authorization discussions.
- Municipal and rural water customers in western South Dakota: Stand to get clearer answers about long‑term municipal and rural water supply options and potential project design and cost estimates that inform local planning.
- Industrial water users (mining, agriculture, other large users): Will receive project‑level cost and supply assessments that affect future permitting, investment decisions, and contract negotiations.
- Engineering, consulting, and construction firms: Benefit from near‑term contracting opportunities to perform technical, environmental, and economic analyses required by a Reclamation‑standard feasibility study.
Who Bears the Cost
- Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc. and its member entities: Must share study costs (matching up to 50 percent of the study) and, if construction is recommended, may be assigned at least 25 percent of construction costs plus allocated O&M&R burdens determined by capability‑to‑pay analyses.
- Federal government and taxpayers: Face the $10 million authorized appropriation and additional Interior/Bureau of Reclamation staff time that may not be fully covered by that amount if the study scope expands.
- Local ratepayers and water customers: Could shoulder higher rates or assessments if the capability‑to‑pay analysis allocates substantial construction and long‑term O&M costs to non‑Federal parties.
- Tribal and state agencies: May incur negotiation, legal, or administrative costs to engage on water rights, consultation, and regulatory compliance during the study and any subsequent project development.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The fundamental dilemma is between enabling a regionally important water infrastructure assessment and protecting against open‑ended fiscal, legal, and environmental commitments: the bill pushes the federal government to help determine project viability while simultaneously limiting federal exposure through a capped study share, a minimum local contribution, a modest appropriation, and no automatic pathway to construction—forcing a trade‑off between ambition and affordability.
The bill creates a narrow statutory hook—a Reclamation‑standard feasibility study with defined cost‑sharing—but leaves several consequential implementation choices unanswered. The $10 million authorization and the 50 percent federal cap on study costs may be insufficient for a technically complex analysis that must cover hydrology, conveyance, pumping energy, environmental compliance, water rights, and long‑term financial modeling; if the allocated funds are too small, the non‑Federal sponsor will need to supply matching funds or narrow the study scope.
The requirement that the non‑Federal construction share be 'at least 25 percent' establishes a floor but not a ceiling, so the Secretary’s capability‑to‑pay methodology will materially determine how much local communities ultimately bear.
The statute mandates consultation with Tribal governments but does not prescribe consultation standards, timelines, or outcomes, nor does it address how unresolved Tribal water rights or interstate compact issues would be treated in the feasibility analysis. The bill also does not waive or alter NEPA, permitting, or water rights processes—meaning that any favorable feasibility finding would still encounter separate, potentially lengthy environmental and legal pathways before construction.
Finally, the Act does not set deadlines for completing the study, which combined with the ten‑year sunset and limited appropriation could create pressure to cut corners or produce a partial analysis that leaves critical questions open.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.