The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study to determine whether to construct a project that would expand the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water across parts of Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota. The study must follow reclamation feasibility standards and be carried out in coordination with the Lewis & Clark Rural Water System, Inc. and other relevant authorities.
The Secretary must produce a feasibility report with a recommendation on whether to authorize construction and propose an appropriate non‑Federal share of construction costs (which must be at least 25 percent and based on a financial capability‑to‑pay analysis). The bill caps the Federal share of study costs at 50 percent, authorizes $10 million for the study, requires public release of the report, and sunsets the authority after 10 years.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a reclamation‑standard feasibility study — in coordination with the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System — assessing an expansion to serve municipal, rural, and industrial users in IA, MN, and SD, and to issue a report recommending whether to authorize construction and an allocation of construction costs.
Who It Affects
The Lewis & Clark Rural Water System, participating local governments and rural utilities, state water planners in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota, regional industries and farms that rely on water deliveries, and the Bureau of Reclamation and Interior for execution and oversight.
Why It Matters
The study is the formal federal step that can unlock a future federally authorized construction project and shape cost allocation; it sets a minimum 25% non‑Federal construction share and limits the Federal share of study costs to 50%, creating concrete fiscal parameters for regional planners and ratepayers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under the bill, Interior must lead a technical and financial feasibility study — using reclamation feasibility standards — to evaluate a proposed expansion of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System across three states. The non‑Federal project entity (the Lewis & Clark Rural Water System, Inc., or a nonprofit successor) will work with the Secretary; Interior is required to consult other federal, state, tribal, regional, and local authorities during the study.
The study package must include the Secretary’s recommendation on whether to authorize construction and a proposed allocation of construction costs.
The bill structures cost responsibilities up front: the Federal government may pay no more than half the study costs (so the non‑Federal partner must provide the remainder), and the Secretary must recommend a non‑Federal construction share that is at least 25 percent. That construction share must be set after an analysis of financial capability to pay both allocated construction costs and the ongoing operations, maintenance, and replacement (OMR) obligations that will follow the project.
The Secretary must submit the completed feasibility report to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Natural Resources and make the report and study documents publicly available.Practically, the measure requires a cost‑sharing agreement (or other financial assistance instrument) between Interior and the non‑Federal project entity and authorizes $10 million to carry out the study. The authority to conduct the study and produce the report expires 10 years after enactment, so the Secretary and the non‑Federal partner must complete the work within that statutory window unless Congress acts to extend it.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to produce a feasibility report that recommends whether the proposed expansion should be authorized for construction.
The Secretary must recommend a non‑Federal construction cost share of at least 25% and determine that share based on an analysis of financial capability to pay both construction and future OMR costs.
The Federal share of the feasibility study costs is capped at 50%, and the Secretary must enter a cost‑sharing or assistance agreement with the Lewis & Clark entity to conduct the study.
Section 3(d) authorizes $10,000,000 to carry out the feasibility study and related activities.
The statute requires the Secretary to submit the feasibility report to Senate Energy and Natural Resources and House Natural Resources and to make the report and study documents publicly available; the authority to act expires 10 years after enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the Act's short title: 'Lewis & Clark Regional Water System Expansion Feasibility Study Act.' This is a purely formal provision but signals the bill's narrow scope — it creates authority only to study feasibility, not to authorize construction or appropriate construction funds.
Definitions
Defines key terms used throughout the bill: 'non‑Federal project entity' (the Lewis & Clark Rural Water System, Inc. and any nonprofit successor), 'proposed rural water supply project' (the targeted expansion in IA, MN, and SD), and 'Secretary' (Secretary of the Interior). Those definitions limit who the Secretary is expected to coordinate with and the geographic and programmatic scope of the study.
Feasibility study and report
Directs the Secretary, in coordination with the non‑Federal project entity, to carry out a feasibility study that complies with reclamation feasibility standards and, upon completion, to develop a feasibility report. The report must include the Secretary’s recommendation on whether to authorize the proposed project and an analysis proposing the appropriate non‑Federal share of construction costs, based on financial capability‑to‑pay for both construction and OMR obligations. The Secretary must consult federal, state, tribal, regional, and local authorities during the study and publish the report and supporting documents.
Cost‑sharing for the study
Requires the Secretary to enter a cost‑sharing or other appropriate financial assistance agreement with the non‑Federal project entity to fund the feasibility study, and caps the Federal share of study costs at 50 percent. This creates a concrete match obligation for the Lewis & Clark entity and its partners before Interior will fund half of the study work.
Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $10,000,000 to the Secretary to carry out the feasibility study. This is an authorization, not an appropriation; Congress would still need to appropriate funds. The amount sets an expectation about the scale of the study but does not specify how funds must be allocated among tasks or timeframes.
Sunset of authority
Terminates the Secretary’s authority under the section 10 years after enactment. The provision forces a statutory deadline for study completion and reporting, which could affect scheduling, contracting, and the scope of analyses Interior chooses to pursue within the limited window.
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
- Lewis & Clark Rural Water System, Inc. — Gains federal technical resources, access to a reclamation‑standard feasibility process, and an official federal recommendation that could strengthen later funding or authorization requests.
- Communities and rural utilities in the proposed service area — Stand to gain new or expanded access to municipal and industrial water supplies if the project is ultimately authorized and built; the study provides data to support planning and potential rate modeling.
- Regional agriculture and industry — Could benefit from more reliable or increased water deliveries; the study will quantify supply options and costs relevant to business continuity and investment decisions.
- State and regional planners in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota — Receive a publicly available feasibility report and supporting studies to inform state water planning, permitting, and intergovernmental negotiations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Non‑Federal project entity (Lewis & Clark) and its local partners — Must provide at least 50% of study funding (because the Federal share is capped at 50%) and face potential construction obligations of at least 25% of construction costs if the project moves forward.
- Local ratepayers and participating governments — Could ultimately fund the non‑Federal share of construction and ongoing OMR costs through rates, assessments, or bonds depending on the financial capability analysis and cost allocation the Secretary recommends.
- Department of the Interior / Bureau of Reclamation — Must allocate staff time and technical resources to manage the study, coordinate multi‑jurisdictional consultations, and prepare the required report (within the authorized funding and statutory window).
- Federal appropriators and taxpayers — May bear future construction costs if Congress later authorizes and appropriates funds beyond the minimums implied in this study; the bill does not lock in a follow‑on funding path but creates expectations of a federally vetted project.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances enabling a large regional water project through federal technical assistance against protecting federal fiscal exposure: it advances a federal feasibility process while requiring meaningful non‑Federal financial participation, creating a tension between making the project affordable enough to proceed for rural communities and ensuring those communities and local governments can realistically shoulder a non‑Federal share and long‑term OMR responsibilities.
The bill confines federal action to a feasibility study and advisory report; it does not authorize construction or appropriate construction funds. That separation creates a procedural pathway — federal vetting comes before any construction authorization — but also leaves open substantial political and fiscal uncertainty for local partners planning capital commitments.
The minimum 25% non‑Federal construction share floor gives communities a clear baseline, but the statute leaves the upper bound and detailed allocation method undecided and ties the final share to a 'financial capability‑to‑pay' analysis whose methodology the bill does not define. Determining that methodology across multiple states, numerous local utilities, and possible tribal interests will be technically and politically complex.
Operationally, the Federal cap of 50% on study costs and the $10 million authorization set real constraints. If the study requires specialized modeling, extended environmental analyses, or broad stakeholder engagement (including tribal water‑rights assessments), $10 million may be insufficient, forcing tradeoffs in scope or requiring additional appropriations.
The statute also does not explicitly require environmental review sequencing (e.g., NEPA) within the study or tie the feasibility study to any specific timeline for NEPA or permitting; those procedural steps could add time and cost beyond the statutory ten‑year sunset if not anticipated and resourced.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.