Large-Scale Water Recycling Reauthorization Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lee, Susie [D-NV-3]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 20, 2025
Bottom line
This bill doubles the duration of federal authorization for a key water infrastructure grant program, aiming to provide long-term stability for states and localities planning water resilience projects.
What it actually does
This bill extends the authorization period for a large-scale water recycling and reuse grant program, originally established under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It amends existing law by changing the authorization duration from 5 years to 10 years, effectively doubling the timeframe during which the program can be funded and operated.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that extending the authorization to 10 years provides crucial long-term certainty for states and localities planning complex, large-scale water recycling projects. This stability is essential for multi-year infrastructure development, encouraging greater investment and more effective, sustainable water management in regions facing increasing water scarcity.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that extending authorizations without regular re-evaluation of program effectiveness or fiscal implications could lead to less accountability and potentially unchecked spending. They may prefer shorter authorization periods to ensure more frequent congressional oversight and the flexibility to adapt programs to changing national priorities or performance outcomes.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for immediate comprehension of its single policy change, making it highly accessible for any reader to evaluate.
Section 2
Extension of Water Recycling Grant Program Authorization
This provision amends Section 40905(k) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act by striking '5 years' and inserting '10 years'. This change doubles the period for which the large-scale water recycling and reuse grant program is authorized, allowing it to continue receiving federal appropriations and supporting projects for an additional five years beyond its original term.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that extending the authorization to 10 years provides essential long-term planning certainty for complex, capital-intensive water infrastructure projects, which often require multi-year development and funding cycles. This stability encourages greater investment and more ambitious projects, crucial for addressing long-term water scarcity.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that a 10-year authorization limits future congressional oversight and flexibility to adapt the program based on performance reviews or changing national priorities. They might prefer shorter reauthorization periods to ensure regular accountability and evaluation of federal spending and program effectiveness.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between providing long-term certainty and predictability for critical infrastructure planning, which benefits large-scale projects, and maintaining congressional oversight and flexibility to adjust programs based on evolving needs, performance, and fiscal realities.