2 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REPORTED TO SENATEcompared with INTRODUCED IN SENATE (Apr 2, 2025)

Technical corrections only. v2 updates the bill's status to reflect that it was reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on September 17, 2026, and includes a calendar number. No substantive policy changes were made to the legislative text between v1 and v2.

S. 1257119th CongressIntroduced Apr 2, 2025

A bill to amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to authorize the use of funds for certain additional Carey Act projects, and for other purposes.

Reported To SenateWater Resources DevelopmentSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
Committees: Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 17, 2026

This analysis was written for v1 (INTRODUCED IN SENATE, Apr 2, 2025). REPORTED TO SENATE changed too little to need its own, so it reuses that one rather than a rewrite. The differences between the two are summarized above. View v1

Bottom line

The bill prioritizes the repair of older Carey Act dams using existing federal infrastructure funds, but only after other critical dam projects have been addressed.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to expand the eligibility criteria for certain dam safety funds. Specifically, it authorizes the Secretary to use remaining funds from a designated IIJA appropriation to rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace dams originally developed under the Carey Act of 1894. This funding is contingent on all other eligible dams under the original IIJA criteria having received necessary funding first, and only if funds remain available.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this bill addresses a critical need to maintain and upgrade aging infrastructure, specifically dams constructed under the Carey Act, which are vital for irrigation and community safety in many Western states. They contend that by making these dams eligible for existing IIJA funds, the bill ensures that federal resources are efficiently allocated to high-priority infrastructure projects that might otherwise be overlooked, preventing potential failures and ensuring water security.

Opponents contend

Critics might argue that expanding eligibility for existing funds could dilute the impact of the original IIJA dam safety program by diverting resources from dams that were initially prioritized. They may contend that while Carey Act dams are important, this amendment could delay funding for other critical dam projects if the remaining funds are insufficient to cover all needs, potentially creating new funding shortfalls or administrative complexities.

The bill is very short and clear, making it easy for any reader to quickly understand its provisions and implications.

Section 1, amending Section 40904(b) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

Expansion of Eligibility for Dam Rehabilitation Funds to Carey Act Projects

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision modifies the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to allow federal funds, specifically those allocated under section 40901(2)(B) for dam safety, to be used for dams built under the Carey Act of 1894. These funds can be used for rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement of such dams. However, this funding is conditional: it can only be accessed if other dams already meeting the original IIJA criteria have received their necessary funding, and if there are still funds remaining from the specified IIJA appropriation.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupOwners and operators of Carey Act dams (e.g., state agencies, irrigation districts, private entities)ImpactPositive, as it provides a potential source of federal funding for critical infrastructure repair and upgrades.MechanismDirect authorization for federal funds to be used for these specific dam projects.ScalePotentially significant for individual projects, but overall impact depends on the availability of residual funds.

GroupCommunities reliant on Carey Act dams for irrigation and flood controlImpactPositive, as improved dam safety reduces risks and ensures continued water supply.MechanismEnhanced structural integrity and operational reliability of critical water infrastructure.ScaleLocal to regional, depending on the dam's service area.

GroupFederal agencies responsible for dam safety (e.g., Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers)ImpactIncreased administrative burden to assess and manage additional eligible projects, but also a broader mandate to address national infrastructure needs.MechanismExpanded scope of work for existing dam safety programs.ScaleModerate increase in workload, potentially requiring reallocation of resources.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that many Carey Act dams are over a century old and represent significant safety and operational risks if not properly maintained. This provision ensures that these vital pieces of infrastructure, which support agriculture and communities in arid regions, can access necessary federal funding for modernization and repair, thereby enhancing public safety and economic stability.

Critics contend

Opponents might express concern that by expanding the pool of eligible projects, the bill could create competition for limited funds, potentially delaying or reducing funding for other dam projects that were initially prioritized under the IIJA. They may also question the administrative feasibility of assessing and funding these additional projects without clear new appropriations.

Tradeoffs

The bill balances the need to address aging Carey Act infrastructure with the existing priorities of the IIJA dam safety program. The tension lies in ensuring that the expansion of eligibility does not inadvertently detract from or delay funding for other critical dam projects, while also recognizing the long-term importance of maintaining all vital water infrastructure.

FOUND

The bill authorizes the use of funds from "section 40901(2)(B)" of the IIJA for Carey Act dams, but only after dams meeting criteria in "paragraph (1)" have been funded and if funds "remain available."

Section 1, paragraph (2)(A) and (B)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing law, using precise statutory references. The conditional nature of the funding (after paragraph (1) dams are funded, and if funds remain) is a substantive limitation, not necessarily buried evasively, but it requires careful reading.

Case for: This precise referencing ensures legal clarity and avoids redundant text, making the amendment efficient. The conditional funding ensures that the original intent of the IIJA's dam safety program is met first.

Case against: For a general public audience, the reliance on external statutory references makes the bill less accessible, requiring additional research to understand the full scope of the funding and its limitations.

Estimated impact: The impact is contingent on the amount of funds remaining from the IIJA's section 40901(2)(B) after the primary eligible projects (under paragraph (1)) have been funded. The exact dollar amount is not specified in this bill.

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.