Western South Dakota Water Supply Project Feasibility Study Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 7288 mandates a federal feasibility study, with cost-sharing, for a new water supply project in Western South Dakota, setting the stage for potential future federal investment in water infrastructure.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study for a proposed project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System. The study will determine if the project should be authorized for construction and recommend the appropriate non-Federal share of construction costs, which must be at least 25 percent. The bill authorizes $10,000,000 for the study, with the Federal share not exceeding 50 percent of the total study costs.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial first step to address the pressing municipal, rural, and industrial water supply needs in Western South Dakota. They contend that a comprehensive feasibility study is essential to ensure a reliable and sustainable water source for the region, leveraging the Missouri River. The cost-sharing mechanism demonstrates local commitment and ensures responsible use of federal resources for a vital infrastructure assessment.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential long-term financial commitment for federal taxpayers, as a feasibility study often precedes significant construction costs. They may argue for prioritizing existing infrastructure or alternative, less costly solutions. Some could also express reservations about further diversions from the Missouri River, citing potential environmental impacts or impacts on other downstream users, even if this bill only authorizes a study.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and understanding of its core purpose within minutes.
Section 3(a)
Feasibility Study Requirement
This provision mandates that the Secretary of the Interior, working with the Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc., conduct a study to determine if it's feasible to build a project that would bring water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System for municipal, rural, and industrial use. The study is a critical prerequisite for any future construction.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this study is a necessary and logical step to address critical water needs in Western South Dakota. They believe it will provide the data required to make informed decisions about a vital infrastructure project, ensuring water security for communities and industries.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that committing federal resources to a study for a potentially very expensive project, without a clear understanding of all alternatives or broader regional water strategies, could be premature. They may also question the ultimate cost-effectiveness.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the immediate need for data on water infrastructure with the potential for future large-scale federal investment. It initiates a process that could lead to significant benefits but also substantial costs.
Section 3(a)(2)
Feasibility Report and Cost-Share Recommendation
After the study is complete, the Secretary must produce a report recommending whether the water supply project should be built. This report must also suggest what percentage of the construction costs should be paid by non-Federal entities, specifying that this share must be at least 25 percent and based on the local entity's ability to pay. The report will be submitted to Congress and made publicly available.
Section 3(d) and (c)
Authorization of Appropriations and Federal Cost Share for Study
This section authorizes $10,000,000 to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior specifically for carrying out the feasibility study. It also specifies that the Federal government's share of the total costs for this feasibility study cannot exceed 50 percent, meaning the non-Federal entity must cover at least half of the study's expenses.
The feasibility report must include a recommendation on the appropriate non-Federal share of construction costs, which shall be 'at least 25 percent of the total construction costs' and 'determined based on an analysis of the financial capability-to-pay the allocated construction and operations, maintenance, and replacement costs of the recommended plan'.
Section 3(a)(2)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for specifying parameters for future financial arrangements, ensuring flexibility while setting a minimum threshold.
Case for: Supporters would argue this ensures a meaningful local contribution to any future construction, demonstrating commitment, while also allowing for consideration of the local entity's financial capacity, preventing undue burden.
Case against: Critics might argue that the 'at least 25 percent' minimum is still too low for a project primarily benefiting a specific region, potentially leaving a large portion of future costs to federal taxpayers. The 'capability-to-pay' clause could also be seen as a mechanism to justify a lower local share.
Estimated impact: This provision sets the minimum financial obligation for the non-Federal entity for potential future construction and ongoing costs, which could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the project's scale.
The authority provided by this section (to conduct the study) expires on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 3(e)
Why it matters:Sunset clauses are common legislative tools to ensure that authorizations do not remain open indefinitely, encouraging timely action. It's standard practice rather than evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this termination clause provides a clear deadline, encouraging the Secretary and the non-Federal entity to complete the study and report within a reasonable timeframe, preventing indefinite delays.
Case against: Critics might suggest that a 10-year deadline, while seemingly long, could still create undue pressure to rush the study, potentially compromising its thoroughness or the quality of the recommendations, especially for a complex water project.
Estimated impact: This clause limits the window for the federal government to fund and conduct the feasibility study, effectively setting a hard deadline for the initial phase of the project's development.