2 versions

SubstantiveWhat changed in REPORTED TO SENATEcompared with INTRODUCED IN SENATE (Jan 27, 2026)

A substantive expansion of the reauthorization. While v1 solely extended the large-scale water recycling and reuse grant program authorization from 5 to 10 years, v2 retains this extension and additionally broadens the program's scope to include feasibility studies and increases the maximum Federal share for certain costs. It also adds an exception for projects under construction from the program's termination date.

S. 3693119th CongressIntroduced Jan 27, 2026

Large-Scale Water Recycling Reauthorization Act

Reported To SenateWater Resources DevelopmentSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Committees: Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 17, 2026

Bottom line

The bill doubles the authorization period, expands eligible activities, and increases federal funding for large-scale water recycling and reuse projects, aiming to boost water conservation efforts nationwide.

What it actually does

This bill amends Section 40905 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to significantly expand and extend a competitive grant program for large-scale water recycling and reuse. It extends the program's authorization from 5 to 10 years, allows grant funds to be used for feasibility studies, and increases the maximum federal share for eligible projects from 30% to 60%. Additionally, it ensures that projects already under construction at the program's termination date can continue to receive support.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that extending and expanding this program is crucial for addressing growing water scarcity challenges, particularly in arid regions, by investing in sustainable and resilient water infrastructure. They contend that increasing the federal share and including feasibility studies will make these vital projects more accessible and viable for communities, leading to better planning and more successful outcomes.

Opponents contend

Opponents might raise concerns about the increased federal spending and potential for federal overreach into what they view as primarily local water management responsibilities. They could argue that increasing the federal share to 60% might reduce local accountability or that the program's expansion might not be the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars compared to other water infrastructure priorities.

The bill is exceptionally concise and can be read and understood in a matter of minutes, making it highly accessible for public review and evaluation.

Section 2(3)(A)

Extension of Grant Program Authorization

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision amends the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to change the authorization period for the large-scale water recycling and reuse grant program from 5 years to 10 years. This effectively doubles the timeframe during which new grants can be awarded under the program, providing longer-term certainty for planning and funding.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupState and local governments, water utilities, communities in water-stressed regionsImpactPositive, provides longer-term certainty for planning and funding water recycling projects.MechanismExtends the legal authority for federal funding.ScaleNational, particularly impactful for regions facing severe water scarcity.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that a longer authorization period provides greater stability and predictability for long-term infrastructure planning, encouraging more ambitious and impactful projects that require extended development timelines.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that extending the authorization without regular review could lead to less accountability or that a shorter period allows for more frequent reassessment of program effectiveness and adaptation to changing needs.

Tradeoffs

This provision balances the need for long-term planning stability against the desire for periodic program review and flexibility in federal spending.

Section 2(1) and Section 2(2)(A)

Inclusion of Feasibility Studies

mentioned in summarystraightforward

The bill amends the existing law to allow grant funds to be used not only for the planning, design, and construction of eligible projects but also for conducting feasibility studies. This means federal grants can now cover the initial research and assessment phase of potential water recycling projects, reducing upfront costs for applicants.

Section 2(2)(B)

Increased Federal Cost Share

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision increases the maximum federal share of the total cost of an eligible water recycling project from 30% to 60%. This means the federal government can now cover a significantly larger portion of a project's expenses, substantially reducing the financial burden on state and local entities and making more projects financially feasible.

Section 2(3)(B)

Continuation for Projects Under Construction

buried in fine printstraightforward

This provision adds language to ensure that any project already under construction as of the program's termination date will not be affected by that termination. This means such projects can continue to receive funding or support as planned, providing certainty and protecting investments for ongoing infrastructure development.

FOUND

Ensures that projects under construction as of the program's termination date are exempt from that termination and can continue to receive support.

Section 2(3)(B)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide clarity and prevent disruption for ongoing projects, rather than an attempt to hide a controversial provision. It's a technical detail ensuring smooth program operation.

Case for: Ensures stability and protects significant investments in water infrastructure that are already underway, preventing waste of resources and ensuring the completion of critical projects.

Case against: No significant case against, as it's a common and generally accepted legislative safeguard to prevent disruption and financial loss for ongoing projects.

Estimated impact: Prevents potential disruption and financial loss for an unknown number of projects that might be under construction when the program's authorization expires, ensuring continuity of federal support.

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.

SubstantiveWhat changed in REPORTED TO SENATEcompared with INTRODUCED IN SENATE (Jan 27, 2026)

See full diff

S. 3693119th CongressIntroduced Jan 27, 2026

Large-Scale Water Recycling Reauthorization Act

Reported To SenateWater Resources DevelopmentSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Committees: Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 17, 2026

Bottom line

What it actually does

Proponents argue

Opponents contend

The bill is exceptionally concise and can be read and understood in a matter of minutes, making it highly accessible for public review and evaluation.

Section 2(3)(A)

Extension of Grant Program Authorization

prominently featuredstraightforward

GroupImpactMechanismScale

Supporters argue

Critics contend

Tradeoffs

This provision balances the need for long-term planning stability against the desire for periodic program review and flexibility in federal spending.

Section 2(1) and Section 2(2)(A)

Inclusion of Feasibility Studies

mentioned in summarystraightforward

Section 2(2)(B)

Increased Federal Cost Share

prominently featuredstraightforward

Section 2(3)(B)

Continuation for Projects Under Construction

buried in fine printstraightforward

FOUND

Ensures that projects under construction as of the program's termination date are exempt from that termination and can continue to receive support.

Section 2(3)(B)

Case for: Ensures stability and protects significant investments in water infrastructure that are already underway, preventing waste of resources and ensuring the completion of critical projects.

Case against: No significant case against, as it's a common and generally accepted legislative safeguard to prevent disruption and financial loss for ongoing projects.