The Capitol LedgerEvery move in Congress, on the record
HomeBillsRecordsLedger AI

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

AboutFAQFeedbackTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

The Capitol Ledger

Built from the Congressional Record and Congress.gov. Every summary links to its source.

The projectAboutFAQFeedback
LegalTerms of ServicePrivacy Policy
Follow us onlineInstagram

Summaries are AI-generated from primary sources. Verify anything important against the original record.

All bills
H.R. 338·119th Congress·Introduced Jan 13, 2025

Every Drop Counts Act

IntroducedWater Resources DevelopmentSubstantive
View bill text
Sponsor
Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21]
Committees
Natural Resources Committee (primary)
Last action
Nov 19, 2025

Bottom line

This bill expands federal grant eligibility under the IIJA for a wider range of water storage and conveyance projects, with a particular focus on groundwater management, and extends the program's duration.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to broaden the eligibility criteria for federal grants supporting water storage projects. It expands the types of projects that can receive funding to include those that convey water to or from storage, and introduces new categories specifically for groundwater aquifer storage, recovery, and stabilization projects. Additionally, it extends the authority for this grant program from 5 years to 10 years.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that expanding eligibility for water storage projects, especially those focused on groundwater recharge, recovery, and stabilization, is crucial for enhancing water resilience in regions facing drought and water scarcity. They emphasize that the 'Every Drop Counts Act' reflects the urgent need to maximize water conservation and storage capabilities to support agricultural, municipal, and environmental needs, and that extending the grant authority provides necessary long-term planning stability for critical infrastructure.

Opponents contend

Potential opponents might express concerns about the fiscal implications of expanding eligibility without corresponding increases in funding, potentially diluting the impact of existing funds across a broader array of projects. They might also argue that broadening the scope could lead to less focused investment or projects that are less impactful than those originally prioritized, or raise questions about the federal role in what has traditionally been state or local water management responsibilities.

The bill is very short and uses clear language, making it highly accessible for a quick and thorough review by any interested reader.

Section 2(a), amending IIJA section 40903(b)(1)(B)(i)

Modification of General Water Storage Project Eligibility

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision modifies the criteria for general water storage projects eligible for federal grants under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It maintains the water storage capacity requirement (200 to 30,000 acre-feet) but expands eligibility to include projects that not only increase surface or groundwater storage but also those that convey water, directly or indirectly, to or from such storage. This broadens the scope to include infrastructure for moving water to and from storage facilities.

GroupImpactMechanismScale
GroupWater districts and agenciesImpactIncreased access to federal funding for a wider range of water management projects, including conveyance infrastructure.MechanismFederal grants under the IIJA.ScalePotentially significant for regions needing to move water efficiently to and from storage sites.
GroupAgricultural communities and municipalitiesImpactImproved water supply reliability through enhanced conveyance capabilities.MechanismFederal grants supporting local infrastructure projects.ScaleDirect benefit to water users in areas with existing or planned storage.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that including water conveyance projects is essential because simply having storage capacity is insufficient if water cannot be efficiently moved to and from these sites, especially during periods of high precipitation or drought. This amendment ensures a more integrated approach to water management by funding the necessary infrastructure for water distribution and collection.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that expanding eligibility to conveyance projects could potentially divert funds from direct storage capacity increases, which they might view as a more critical need, or that it could lead to projects that primarily benefit specific users rather than the broad public good.

Tradeoffs

This provision balances the need for direct water storage capacity with the practical requirement for infrastructure that can effectively move water to and from these storage locations, acknowledging that both are crucial for comprehensive water management.

Section 2(a), amending IIJA section 40903(b)(1)(B)(ii)

New Eligibility for Groundwater Aquifer Storage and Stabilization Projects

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision introduces a new category of eligible projects specifically targeting groundwater management. It allows projects that recharge between 200 and 150,000 acre-feet annually over their life, increase groundwater aquifer storage, convey water to or recover water from groundwater storage, or stabilize groundwater levels to receive federal grants. This significantly expands federal support for comprehensive groundwater management strategies.

Section 2(b), amending IIJA section 40903(e)

Extension of Grant Program Authority

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This provision extends the authority for the water storage grant program under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act from its original 5-year duration to 10 years. This change provides a significantly longer timeframe for states, local entities, and other applicants to plan, develop, and implement large-scale water storage and management projects, which often require extensive lead times.

FOUND

This section clarifies that the amendments made by the bill do not supersede or affect State water law, Federal water law, interstate compacts, or treaty obligations. It also explicitly states that the bill does not authorize any acquisition of water by the Federal Government or infringe on any water rights.

Section 3

Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include such clauses to explicitly define the limits of federal action, prevent unintended conflicts with existing legal frameworks, and protect established rights, particularly in sensitive areas like water law.

Case for: Proponents would argue this section is crucial for ensuring the bill's changes are implemented smoothly without disrupting established legal frameworks or existing water rights, thus preventing legal challenges and maintaining state and local control over water allocation. It provides legal certainty and respects the complex tapestry of water governance.

Case against: No direct opposition is typically raised against such a clause, as its purpose is to prevent unintended negative consequences. However, some might argue that by explicitly limiting federal authority, it could hinder comprehensive federal solutions to widespread water issues that cross state lines or require broader coordination.

Estimated impact: Ensures that the federal grant program operates within existing legal and rights frameworks, preventing conflicts and maintaining the primacy of state and local water law and established water rights.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

On this page

  • Executive summary
  • Key provisions
  • Buried treasure
  • Follow the money
  • Critical analysis
  • Questions to ask
Ask Ledger AI about this