What changed between these versions
A substantive amendment. The bill's definitions were refined, and the feasibility study requirements were made more explicit by referencing reclamation laws and standards. Key changes include a new criterion for the feasibility report, removal of the financial capability-to-pay analysis for the non-Federal construction share, and a reduction in the termination of authority from 10 to 5 years.
Overview
A handful of substantive changes across several sections. · v2 refines and clarifies the requirements for the feasibility study and its report, while also narrowing the timeframe for the authority.
The reported version of the bill, v2, introduces several key modifications to the feasibility study requirements and definitions. Notably, it adds a new criterion for the feasibility report, requiring a determination of technical and financial feasibility in accordance with reclamation laws, and removes the detailed financial capability-to-pay analysis for the non-Federal construction share. Additionally, the authority for the study is significantly shortened from 10 years to 5 years, and the Secretary's role is specified to act through the Commissioner of Reclamation.
Major additions
This new sub-clause requires the Secretary's feasibility report to include a recommendation on whether the Western South Dakota Water Supply Project is found to be technically and financially feasible in accordance with the reclamation laws.
This adds a specific, legally defined standard ('reclamation laws') that the project must meet to be deemed feasible, potentially making the approval process more rigorous and aligning it with existing federal water project guidelines.
This new provision explicitly states that the Federal share of the total costs for the feasibility study 'shall be paid for by the Secretary using appropriated funds.'
This clarifies the funding mechanism for the Federal share of the study costs, ensuring that dedicated appropriations are used, which could streamline the funding process.
This new paragraph requires the Secretary to identify sources of available funds to pay the Federal share of the feasibility study costs not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Act.
This introduces a new timeline and accountability measure for the Secretary to secure funding for the Federal share of the study, potentially accelerating the initiation of the feasibility study.
Deletions
This sub-clause in v1 specified that the non-Federal share of construction costs would be 'determined based on an analysis of the financial capability-to-pay the allocated construction and operations, maintenance, and replacement costs of the recommended plan.'
The deletion removes the requirement for a detailed financial capability-to-pay analysis when determining the non-Federal share of construction costs. This could simplify the cost-sharing determination process, potentially making it less burdensome for the non-Federal entity, but also removes a specific safeguard for ensuring the non-Federal entity's financial capacity.
This section in v1 authorized the appropriation of $10,000,000 to the Secretary to carry out the feasibility study.
While the $10,000,000 figure is retained in v2 as a 'Limitation on Expenditures,' the specific 'Authorization of Appropriations' language is removed. This shifts the nature of the provision from explicitly authorizing funds to setting a cap on federal spending for the study, implying that the funds would come from existing appropriations rather than a new, dedicated authorization.
Modifications
This is a cosmetic change to the project's official name within the bill, with no direct operative impact on the project's scope or function.
Before
Defined 'proposed rural water supply project' as the project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System.
After
Renames the defined term to 'Western South Dakota Water Supply Project' while retaining the same description of the project.
This clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation, under the Commissioner, will be the specific agency within the Department of the Interior responsible for carrying out the Act's provisions, potentially streamlining internal departmental processes for the study.
Before
Defined 'Secretary' as the Secretary of the Interior.
After
Defines 'Secretary' as the Secretary of the Interior '(acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation).'
This modification mandates that the feasibility study adhere to established 'reclamation laws and reclamation feasibility standards,' which are specific guidelines for water resource projects under the Bureau of Reclamation. This ensures a consistent and rigorous framework for the study, potentially affecting the methodology and criteria used.
Before
Required the Secretary to carry out a study to determine the feasibility of the proposed rural water supply project.
After
Requires the Secretary to carry out a study to determine the feasibility of the Western South Dakota Water Supply Project 'in accordance with the reclamation laws and reclamation feasibility standards.'
This change removes a specific analytical requirement for determining the non-Federal share of construction costs. While the minimum 25% share remains, the detailed assessment of the non-Federal entity's financial capacity to pay for construction and O&M is no longer mandated, which could simplify the cost-sharing negotiation but also potentially reduce scrutiny on the non-Federal entity's long-term financial commitment.
Before
Stated the non-Federal share of construction costs 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.'
After
States the non-Federal share of construction costs 'shall be at least 25 percent of the total construction costs.'
This rephrasing changes the nature of the funding provision. In v1, it was an explicit authorization for new funds. In v2, it becomes a cap on how much federal money can be spent, implying that these funds would come from existing or future appropriations rather than a specific new authorization for this bill. The total amount remains the same, but the mechanism for funding is altered.
Before
Section 3(d) authorized the appropriation of $10,000,000 to the Secretary for the study.
After
Section 3(d) states, 'Not more than $10,000,000 of Federal funds may be expended to carry out the feasibility study under subsection (a).'
This significantly shortens the timeframe for the Secretary to complete the feasibility study and report from 10 years to 5 years. This places a tighter deadline on the project, requiring more rapid progress and potentially impacting the scope or depth of the study if not managed efficiently.
Before
The authority provided by this section expires on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment.
After
The authority provided by this section expires on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment.
Scope
Meaningful expansion or narrowing — Changes are concentrated within the definitions section (Section 2) and the feasibility study provisions (Section 3). — v2 represents a refinement of the policy direction, making the requirements for the feasibility study more explicit and aligning them with existing reclamation laws and standards. It also introduces new procedural requirements for funding and significantly shortens the project timeline. — The changes to definitions and the explicit reference to 'reclamation laws and reclamation feasibility standards' in Section 3(a)(1) and 3(a)(2)(A)(i) will interact with and require adherence to a broader body of existing federal law and standards governing water projects.
Impact analysis
Secretary of the Interior (specifically, the Commissioner of Reclamation)
Increased procedural requirements and a tighter deadline for the study.
The Secretary's role is now explicitly defined as acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, and new requirements for identifying funding sources within 90 days and adhering to reclamation laws and standards are added. The timeline for completing the study is also halved.
Non-Federal project entity (Western Dakota Regional Water System, Inc.)
Reduced administrative burden in cost-sharing determination.
The requirement for a detailed financial capability-to-pay analysis for their share of construction costs is removed, potentially simplifying the cost-sharing determination.
Future project stakeholders and beneficiaries (those receiving municipal, rural, and industrial water)
Potential for a more rigorously vetted project, but with a faster development pace.
The project's feasibility will be evaluated under more explicit 'reclamation laws and reclamation feasibility standards,' potentially leading to a more robust and federally compliant project design, but also under a significantly shorter study timeline.