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