The MORE WATER Act (S.3738) amends the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to reauthorize existing large‑scale water recycling and reuse programs, create a new Water Conveyance Improvement Program within the Bureau of Reclamation, and fund targeted environmental and species‑benefit activities. It sets eligibility rules, cost‑share formulas, and “multi‑benefit” requirements intended to channel federal grants toward projects that deliver both water supply and public‑interest outcomes.
Beyond new grant authority, the bill requires the Department of the Interior to publish lists of long‑inactive Reclamation projects and establishes a statutory pathway to deauthorize projects that received no funding over a multi‑year window. For water managers, utilities, tribes, and environmental groups, the measure rewrites which conveyance and recycling proposals qualify for federal money, how much the federal government will pay, and how projects must demonstrate benefits to disadvantaged communities and endangered species.
At a Glance
What It Does
Authorizes competitive Reclamation grants for feasibility, planning, design, and construction of large conveyance and recycling projects; creates a Water Conveyance Improvement Program with specific cost‑share and multi‑benefit criteria; and establishes a formal deauthorization process for inactive Reclamation projects.
Who It Affects
Reclamation States, irrigation and water districts, municipal and regional water authorities, Indian Tribes, state drinking water agencies, environmental NGOs with documented regional expertise, and the Bureau of Reclamation as the grant administrator.
Why It Matters
It redirects federal infrastructure dollars toward conveyance modernization while conditioning additional federal support on measurable safe‑drinking‑water and environmental outcomes—potentially changing project design, financing, and stakeholder negotiations across the Western water system.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill does three things at once: it reauthorizes and adjusts an existing large‑scale water recycling and reuse grant authority; it creates an entirely new Water Conveyance Improvement Program to fund conveyance facility construction and capacity restoration; and it retools funding for environmental restoration and species‑benefit activities tied to Reclamation operations.
The new conveyance program is administered by the Secretary of the Interior (through Reclamation). Eligible applicants include States, tribes, municipalities, irrigation and water districts, multi‑agency regional bodies, and combinations of those entities.
Grants are available on a competitive basis for feasibility studies, planning, design, and construction. The statute defines ‘‘multi‑benefit’’ projects (explicitly linking safe drinking water for low‑income communities and environmental benefits to the eligibility and funding calculus) and requires streamlined feasibility review procedures where the Secretary concurs that studies meet Reclamation policy.Cost sharing is central.
The federal share generally cannot exceed 50 percent of project costs. For multi‑benefit projects the statute carves the federal participation into tiers: up to ~30 percent may be used for standard water‑supply benefits and an additional up to ~20 percent may be directed to quantified, significant safe‑drinking‑water benefits for low‑income communities or environmental benefits—subject to agreements with local stakeholders.
The law permits phased federal construction funding, requires notice to Congress after agency concurrence, and specifies that federal grants under the Program are nonreimbursable.On program mechanics the bill: forbids federal funds for any new conveyance facility costing more than $5 billion; removes a per‑project dollar cap while otherwise leaving selection criteria (Federal benefit, cost‑effectiveness, geographic diversity) to the Secretary; and provides explicit routes to use SRF monies, WIFIA loans, in‑kind contributions, or other non‑Federal funding as the non‑Federal share. Separately, the bill reauthorizes multiple recycling and restoration accounts with multi‑year appropriation authorizations and indexes certain ceilings to inflation.Finally, the measure requires the Secretary to publish an interim deauthorization list within 1 year, a final list a year after that, and then deauthorizes listed projects one year after final submission unless Congress passes a joint resolution, Congress appropriates funds, or a non‑Federal sponsor provides sufficient completion funds.
That creates a predictable—but potentially consequential—path to clear long‑inactive project authorizations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes $500 million for the new Water Conveyance Improvement Program for FY2028–2032, and separately authorizes $450 million to reauthorize the large‑scale water recycling and reuse program for the same period; it also reauthorizes new water recycling projects at $550 million and environmental/species restoration funding at $250 million for FY2028–2032.
Federal cost sharing is capped at 50 percent of project costs; for multi‑benefit projects the statute allows up to 30 percent of costs to cover water‑supply benefits and an additional up to 20 percent to cover quantified, significant safe‑drinking‑water benefits for low‑income communities or environmental benefits.
Any conveyance project with a total cost of $800 million or more funded under the Program must be a multi‑benefit project; for projects under $800 million, the Secretary must ensure at least 50 percent of funded projects are multi‑benefit.
The bill prohibits federal funds for constructing any single new conveyance facility that would cost more than $5 billion, but otherwise prohibits a total dollar cap on federal participation in individual conveyance projects and requires Program grants to be nonreimbursable.
The Secretary must publish an interim deauthorization list within 1 year and a final list within a second year; projects on the final list will be deauthorized one year later unless Congress disapproves, appropriates funds, or the non‑Federal sponsor secures funding to finish the project. Inclusion criteria start with projects that received no obligations in the fiscal year of enactment or the prior seven fiscal years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Reauthorizes large‑scale recycling and tightens program rules
This amendment revises definitions (notably the bill adopts an IIJA‑consistent ‘‘construction’’ definition cross‑referencing WIIN Act language) and converts earlier program language into an explicit competitive grant program for feasibility, planning, design, and construction. The bill lengthens an existing administrative timing element (striking “30” and inserting “60” in subsection (d)(4)) and increases a previously time‑limited authority from 5 to 10 in subsection (k) while exempting projects already under construction from that extended termination. It ends by adding an explicit FY2028–2032 authorization of $450 million to permit multi‑year grant awards.
Creates the Water Conveyance Improvement Program and sets eligibility
This large section creates the Program inside the Bureau of Reclamation, defines eligible entities (states, tribes, irrigation and water districts, multi‑agency bodies, and partnerships) and applicants (project proponents and sponsors), and prescribes the grant mechanics. The Program covers both Reclamation‑led projects (where Reclamation can design and build on request) and non‑Federal conveyance projects; in either case the Secretary must concur on a feasibility determination before construction begins, and must provide Congress written notice within 60 days of concurring on feasibility for a project.
Detailed cost‑share rules and multi‑benefit funding carve‑outs
The statute caps the federal share at 50 percent overall and defines how that participation may be allocated for multi‑benefit projects: up to 30 percent can be used for water supply elements and up to an additional 20 percent can be used for quantified safe‑drinking‑water benefits for low‑income communities and/or environmental benefits. The bill prescribes stakeholder agreements for multi‑benefit elements, allows in‑kind and loan instruments to count toward the non‑Federal share, and requires phased funding and minimum ratios for subsequent five‑year funding periods unless modified by mutual agreement of sponsors and stakeholders.
Reauthorizes recycling grants and expands restoration funding
This section increases and extends authorizations for new recycling and reuse projects ($550 million FY2028–2032) and changes a statutory ceiling for federal shares (raising a per‑project ceiling to $50 million adjusted for CPI). It also inserts a $250 million FY2028–2032 authorization targeted at restoration and scientific/monitoring actions aimed at listed fish species, saline inland lakes (including the Great Salt Lake), habitat restoration, temperature control improvements, and hatchery modernization—actions explicitly tied to Reclamation operations.
Makes narrow expiry adjustments to earlier WIIN/IIJA provisions
This short provision adjusts the list of certain WIIN/IIJA authorities and extends selected subsections so they expire 15 years after enactment, clarifying which program elements are being prolonged to align with the new funding windows. Practically, it creates continuity for the new and reauthorized accounts while signaling which program authorities will sunset.
Creates a public deauthorization process for inactive Reclamation projects
The Secretary must publish an interim list within 1 year and a final list within another year of authorized Reclamation projects that received no obligations in the fiscal year of enactment or the previous seven fiscal years. For each project the Dept. must disclose the authorization date, description, estimated completion cost, and remaining authorized but unobligated amounts. Projects on the final list are deauthorized one year after final submission unless Congress acts to disapprove the deauthorization, provides funding, or the non‑Federal sponsor supplies completion funding—establishing a transparent, time‑bound mechanism to clear the backlog.
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
- Reclamation States’ water agencies and irrigation districts — gain a new federal grant route to upgrade conveyance, restore capacity, and finance large rehabilitation projects with clearer federal cost‑share rules.
- Low‑income and disadvantaged communities — receive a statutory path for quantified safe‑drinking‑water benefits to be explicitly funded as part of multi‑benefit conveyance projects, including options for direct delivery, ratepayer assistance, or treated exchanges.
- Environmental and species‑conservation groups — the statute creates a dedicated funding stream and explicit project scoring for measurable environmental benefits (habitat restoration, flows for the Great Salt Lake, salmonid actions), increasing the likelihood of grant‑funded restoration work tied to conveyance operations.
- Indian Tribes — eligible to apply as project proponents or sponsors and explicitly included in stakeholder definitions; tribes can both benefit from funded conveyance upgrades and compete for environmental and drinking‑water allocations.
- Regional authorities and multi‑agency coalitions — the broader ‘‘eligible entity’’ definition allows multi‑jurisdictional consortia to apply, which helps finance projects that cross political boundaries and deliver shared operational flexibility.
Who Bears the Cost
- Project proponents and sponsors (states, districts, municipalities) — must provide the non‑Federal share (cash, in‑kind, loans, SRF sources) and may face increased up‑front planning, stakeholder negotiation, and construction obligations to meet multi‑benefit criteria.
- Local ratepayers and taxpayers — where non‑Federal shares are raised through local rates, assessments, or general revenues, customers may indirectly finance larger project matches and treatment upgrades required to realize drinking‑water benefits.
- Bureau of Reclamation — assumes administrative burden for feasibility concurrence, project selection, stakeholder agreement oversight, and publication obligations, potentially without corresponding new operational funding.
- Federal budget holders (Congress) — appropriations of the authorized amounts will compete with other priorities; the deauthorization process also shifts some fiscal decisions (and political risk) onto Congress if it chooses to preserve projects on the final list.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is how to use limited federal dollars to expand water infrastructure while simultaneously forcing projects to deliver public interest outcomes—safe drinking water for disadvantaged communities and environmental restoration. Funding multi‑benefit projects increases public value but makes projects more complex, slows implementation, and shifts financial and operational risk to local sponsors; conversely, funding fast, single‑purpose conveyance projects would be simpler but would forego the bill’s equity and environmental goals.
The bill ties federal funding to qualitative standards—‘‘quantified, significant’’ drinking‑water and environmental benefits—without prescribing a single metric or standardized measurement protocol. That leaves important determinations (what counts as ‘‘quantified,’’ how to measure significance, and who validates the values) to Reclamation guidance and stakeholder agreements, creating room for uneven application across regions and potential legal challenge where parties disagree over benefit attribution.
Phased funding and the mandated ratios for multi‑benefit projects create practical tradeoffs. Early construction funding can proceed on water‑supply elements, but the statute requires a later addition of environmental or low‑income drinking‑water components and sets a 60/40‑style allocation for subsequent five‑year funding periods; that can lock in financing expectations that are hard to meet if partners cannot finalize stakeholder agreements or secure the additional non‑Federal or Federal funds.
The Secretary’s broad discretion over feasibility concurrence, selection criteria, and ‑ where mutually agreed ‑ ratio modifications concentrates leverage in the agency, which helps flexibility but raises predictability issues for sponsors.
The deauthorization procedure improves transparency but creates a blunt instrument: a long‑authorized project that has not attracted appropriations for several years can be deauthorized unless Congress intercedes or a sponsor finds money. That will pressure non‑Federal sponsors to either finance projects themselves or lobby Congress; it may also remove projects that are strategically important but have delayed starts due to complex permitting or multi‑party negotiations.
Finally, the nonreimbursable nature of these federal grants and the lack of a per‑project funding cap (coupled with a $5 billion ceiling on new single facilities) means some very large projects will still rely heavily on local financing choices, with federal policy nudging but not shouldering full cost or operational risk.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.