The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a feasibility study—in coordination with a non‑Federal project sponsor—to determine whether a project can be built to deliver municipal, rural, and industrial water to the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System service area spanning South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. The study must meet the Bureau of Reclamation’s feasibility standards and be carried out through a cooperative agreement with the specified nonprofit project entity.
This is a planning-stage, technical step: it does not authorize construction. It establishes the federal role in assessing technical, economic, and institutional feasibility for a multi‑state water supply project, sets a federal cost‑share limit, provides an appropriation ceiling for the study, and places a 10‑year window on the Secretary’s authority to perform the work.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to perform a Reclamation‑style feasibility study—conducted under a cooperative agreement with the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System nonprofit—to evaluate options for supplying municipal, rural, and industrial water across four states. The statute requires the study to follow the eligibility criteria and analytical requirements found in the Bureau of Reclamation’s feasibility standards (part 404 of 43 C.F.R.).
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System non‑profit (as the project sponsor), the Bureau of Reclamation and Interior staff who would run the study, state water agencies in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota, and local water suppliers and potential industrial users in the service area. Indirectly affects regional stakeholders with water rights, irrigators, and environmental review participants.
Why It Matters
Reclamation feasibility studies are the gateway to larger federal involvement; meeting part 404 standards is a prerequisite for future federal construction or program support. The bill signals federal recognition of a multi‑state water planning effort and creates a structured, time‑limited path to get the technical analyses decisionmakers need.
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 narrowly focused statutory authorization: the Secretary of the Interior may, by cooperative agreement with the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System nonprofit, carry out a feasibility study to evaluate constructing a regional project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water across parts of four states. The authorization is permissive—Interior is allowed but not required to undertake the study—and it ties the work to the Bureau of Reclamation’s established feasibility criteria to ensure the analysis follows familiar federal standards.
In practical terms, a Reclamation‑style feasibility study will encompass technical and economic analyses: preliminary project concepts and alternatives, rough capital and operating cost estimates, benefit‑cost or cost‑allocation analysis, and an initial assessment of environmental and institutional constraints (including water rights and intergovernmental arrangements). Because the study must meet part 404 standards, the sponsor will have to demonstrate eligibility and participate in developing study scopes and cost shares under a cooperative agreement with Interior.The bill also sets two clear limits on federal exposure: it caps the federal share of study costs at 50 percent and authorizes up to $10 million of appropriations to carry out the work.
Finally, the statute sunsets the Secretary’s authority to act ten years after enactment, which frames the study as a medium‑term planning initiative rather than an open‑ended commitment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary may (but is not required to) conduct the feasibility study through a cooperative agreement with the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System, Inc.
the non‑Federal project entity identified in the bill.
The study must comply with the Bureau of Reclamation’s feasibility standards (part 404 of title 43, C.F.R.), which govern eligibility and analytical requirements for Reclamation projects.
The federal share of the total study costs is limited to no more than 50 percent; non‑Federal sponsors must cover the remainder.
Congress authorizes up to $10,000,000 in appropriations to the Secretary to carry out the study.
The authority to undertake the study expires ten years after the date of enactment of the Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the act as the "Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project Feasibility Study Act." This is purely nominal but signals the statute’s narrow purpose—funding and authorizing a feasibility study rather than construction or operations authority.
Definitions (Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System; Reclamation standards; Secretary)
Defines three key terms used in the statute. Naming the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System as a nonprofit project entity establishes who the cooperative agreement will be with and aligns the sponsor role with Reclamation practice. Incorporating the ‘‘reclamation feasibility standards’’ by reference points the study to part 404 procedures rather than inventing a bespoke federal study process. Defining Secretary as the Secretary of the Interior assigns responsibility to Interior (and by extension the Bureau of Reclamation) to manage or approve the study.
Study authorization and required standard
Subsection (a)(1) authorizes Interior, in consultation with the nonprofit sponsor and via a cooperative agreement, to undertake the feasibility study to evaluate supplying municipal, rural, and industrial water across the four‑state service area. Subsection (a)(2) requires the study to comply with part 404 standards—which affects study scope, documentation, and eligibility for future Reclamation support. Practically, this means the sponsor will need to participate in scoping, provide data, and meet eligibility criteria before Reclamation will proceed with all technical tasks.
Cost‑share, funding ceiling, and sunset
Subsection (b) caps the federal contribution to the study at 50 percent of total costs, making non‑Federal cost‑sharing mandatory to the extent the Department chooses to proceed. Subsection (c) authorizes up to $10 million for the Secretary to carry out the study—this is an authorization ceiling, not an appropriation—while subsection (d) terminates the Secretary’s authority to undertake the study ten years after enactment, imposing a fixed planning horizon.
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
- Municipal water suppliers and small towns in the Dakota Mainstem service area — they gain a federal‑standard feasibility analysis that could identify reliable long‑term water sources and funding pathways for future projects.
- The Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System, Inc. (the nonprofit sponsor) — the organization receives formal federal engagement and technical assistance, which can strengthen its project development and eligibility for future federal programs.
- Industrial and commercial water users in the region — if the study shows feasible, cost‑effective supply options, industries could access more reliable water supplies supporting regional economic development.
- State water agencies in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota — they receive coordinated technical analysis that can inform interstate planning, negotiations, and regulatory decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Non‑Federal project sponsors and local governments — required to cover the non‑Federal share of the study (at least 50 percent) and to provide data, staff time, and possibly in‑kind contributions under a cooperative agreement.
- Federal budget/taxpayers — the bill authorizes federal appropriations (up to $10 million) and consumes Interior/Reclamation staff time and oversight resources if the study proceeds.
- Bureau of Reclamation and Interior staff — responsible for executing the study, overseeing the cooperative agreement, and ensuring compliance with part 404 requirements, which can add administrative workload.
- Stakeholders facing potential downstream mitigation or project costs (e.g., irrigators, environmental groups, Tribes) — while not directly paying for the study, they may bear consequences if the study leads to proposals that reallocate water or impose regulatory changes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between enabling federally supported, objective technical analysis that can unlock long‑term regional water solutions and the risks of committing federal resources (and political momentum) to contested infrastructure options: the bill promotes planning and Reclamation‑style rigor, but that same process can pave the way for construction decisions that reallocate scarce water, trigger significant environmental obligations, and obligate non‑Federal sponsors to substantial matching costs.
The bill ties the study to the Bureau of Reclamation’s part 404 feasibility standards, which provides a clear analytical framework but also creates eligibility gates. If the nonprofit sponsor cannot meet Reclamation’s criteria, or if the proposed project alternatives fall outside Reclamation priorities, Interior may decline to proceed—especially given the statute’s permissive language.
That ‘‘may’’ is consequential: it preserves departmental discretion but also leaves the sponsor reliant on Interior’s internal priorities and capacity.
The statute sets a $10 million authorization and a 50 percent federal cost‑share cap. For a multi‑state water project, $10 million may cover preliminary analyses but not exhaustive environmental studies or complex water‑rights negotiations; sponsors will need to identify matching funds and potentially other federal or state grant sources.
The ten‑year sunset gives a finite window for study completion, but it also raises practical questions about sequencing: environmental review, inter‑state compacts, and tribal consultations can outlast a typical feasibility study and may not be fundable within the authorization amount. Finally, a feasibility study can shift political and economic dynamics—producing technical findings that either enable construction funding or harden opposition—so stakeholders should expect the study to have political as well as technical consequences.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.