What changed between these versions
A complete substitute amendment. v2 fundamentally restructures the bill, consolidating sections, adding explicit compliance requirements with reclamation laws and standards, and significantly altering the funding mechanism for the feasibility study from an authorization of appropriations to a limitation on expenditures from identified existing funds. The authority's termination date is also shortened.
Overview
Extensive changes throughout the bill, constituting a complete strike-and-replace of the original text. · v2 clarifies and tightens the requirements for the feasibility study, narrows the funding approach, and shortens the timeline for the authority, representing a more constrained and specific framework for the project.
The primary change in v2 is a complete restructuring of the bill, consolidating v1's separate definitions and study sections into a single, more detailed section. Key modifications include explicitly mandating compliance with reclamation laws and standards for the study and report, shifting the funding approach from an authorization of appropriations to a requirement for the Secretary to identify existing funds with a spending cap, and reducing the authority's duration from ten years to five. The overall purpose of requiring a feasibility study for the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System expansion remains consistent.
Major additions
v2 adds explicit requirements that the feasibility study must be carried out in accordance with 'the reclamation laws' and 'the reclamation feasibility standards'.
This addition introduces specific legal and technical frameworks that the study must adhere to, potentially increasing the rigor and scope of the study and ensuring alignment with established federal water resource management practices. It provides a clearer mandate for the methodology and criteria to be used.
v2 adds a new recommendation requirement for the feasibility report: whether the Lewis and Clark Regional Water Supply Project is 'technically and financially feasible in accordance with the reclamation laws and reclamation feasibility standards'.
This addition ensures that the Secretary's recommendation on construction authorization is directly tied to a formal assessment of technical and financial feasibility under specific federal standards, providing a more robust basis for future decisions. It elevates the importance of these standards in the project's evaluation.
v2 adds a new requirement for the Secretary to 'identify sources of available funds to pay the Federal share' within 90 days after the date of enactment.
This provision places a direct and time-bound obligation on the Secretary to locate existing appropriated funds for the federal share of the feasibility study costs. This shifts the funding mechanism from a general authorization for future appropriations to a mandate to utilize current resources, potentially impacting agency budget allocation and the speed of study initiation.
v2 adds a new section titled 'Limitation on Expenditures', stating that 'Not more than $10,000,000 of Federal funds may be expended to carry out the feasibility study under this section'.
While the dollar amount is consistent with v1's authorization, this provision explicitly caps the federal spending for the study, reinforcing the shift from an authorization for new appropriations to a strict limit on expenditures from identified funds. This provides a clear financial boundary for the federal involvement in the study.
Deletions
v1 structured the bill with a dedicated Section 2 for definitions and a dedicated Section 3 for the feasibility study details. These distinct sections, along with their internal numbering, have been removed.
The deletion of these top-level sections signifies a complete structural overhaul of the bill. While the content is largely retained, it is reorganized and consolidated, which impacts how the bill's provisions are referenced and internally structured. This is a fundamental change to the bill's architecture rather than a removal of operative policy content itself, as the content is moved and modified, not simply eliminated.
v1 included a subsection titled 'Authorization of Appropriations' which stated: 'There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $10,000,000.'
The deletion of this authorization means that the bill no longer provides the legal authority for Congress to appropriate new funds specifically for this feasibility study. Instead, v2 requires the Secretary to find and use existing appropriated funds, which represents a significant shift in the funding mechanism and potentially impacts the availability and timeline of funds for the study. This removes the direct legislative pathway for new funding for the study itself, relying instead on existing agency budgets and a spending cap.
Modifications
This is a stylistic change with no operative impact on the bill's substance or application. It standardizes the naming convention.
Before
The short title was 'Lewis & Clark Regional Water System Expansion Feasibility Study Act'.
After
The short title is 'Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Expansion Feasibility Study Act'.
This change provides a more specific and formal name for the project, aligning it directly with the 'Lewis and Clark Regional Water System'. There is no change to the project's description or scope, only its nomenclature within the bill.
Before
The term was 'Proposed rural water supply project'.
After
The term is 'Lewis and Clark Regional Water Supply Project'.
This is a minor clarification to the formal name of the non-Federal project entity, removing a parenthetical description. It does not change the identity or role of the entity involved in the project.
Before
The non-Federal project entity was described as 'the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Inc. (doing business as "Lewis & Clark Regional Water System")'.
After
The non-Federal project entity is described as 'the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System, Inc.'.
This modification clarifies the specific office within the Department of the Interior responsible for carrying out the Act. It ensures that the feasibility study and related actions are conducted under the purview of the Commissioner of Reclamation, which has direct expertise in water resource projects, potentially streamlining implementation and accountability for the non-Federal project entity and other stakeholders.
Before
The term 'Secretary' meant the 'Secretary of the Interior'.
After
The term 'Secretary' means the 'Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation'.
This modification removes the explicit requirement for the Secretary to determine the non-Federal share based on an analysis of the non-Federal project entity's 'financial capability-to-pay'. While the minimum 25% share remains, the specific criteria for negotiating or recommending a higher share are no longer mandated by the bill, potentially altering the negotiation dynamics for the non-Federal project entity regarding their financial contribution.
Before
The feasibility report's recommendation for the non-Federal share of construction costs was '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
The feasibility report's recommendation for the non-Federal share of construction costs is 'not less than 25 percent of the total construction costs'.
This change fundamentally alters how the federal share of the study costs is funded. Instead of providing legislative authority for new appropriations, v2 mandates that the Secretary must locate and utilize existing funds. This could impact the speed at which the study commences, as it depends on the availability of existing agency funds rather than a new legislative appropriation process. It places a greater burden on the Secretary to manage existing budgets to accommodate the study.
Before
v1 authorized $10,000,000 to be appropriated for the federal share of feasibility study costs.
After
v2 states that the federal share 'shall be paid by the Secretary using appropriated funds identified under paragraph (2)'.
This modification significantly shortens the timeframe within which the feasibility study must be completed and the report submitted, from 10 years to 5 years. This imposes a tighter deadline on the Secretary and the non-Federal project entity to conduct the study, potentially accelerating the process but also increasing pressure to secure funding and complete work efficiently.
Before
The authority provided by the section expired on the date that was 10 years after the date of enactment.
After
The authority provided by the section expires on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Scope
Fundamental restructuring — Changes are scattered throughout the bill, affecting definitions, study requirements, funding mechanisms, and the termination clause, although they are all contained within the single operative section of v2. — v2 represents a refinement and tightening of the policy direction. While the core objective of conducting a feasibility study remains, the explicit inclusion of reclamation laws/standards, the shift in funding strategy, and the shortened timeline indicate a more constrained and procedurally specific approach to achieving that objective. — The changes to definitions (e.g., 'Secretary') and the explicit inclusion of 'reclamation laws' and 'reclamation feasibility standards' interact with and provide a more specific framework for all other provisions related to the study's conduct and reporting. The funding mechanism change also fundamentally alters the financial underpinnings of the entire study.
Impact analysis
The Secretary of the Interior (specifically, the Commissioner of Reclamation)
Procedural change and increased responsibility with a shortened timeline.
The Secretary is now explicitly mandated to act through the Commissioner of Reclamation, must ensure the study and report comply with specific reclamation laws and standards, and has a new 90-day deadline to identify existing appropriated funds for the federal share. The overall authority to conduct the study is also shortened from 10 to 5 years.
Lewis and Clark Regional Water System, Inc. (the non-Federal project entity)
Procedural change, potentially altered financial negotiation terms, and accelerated project timeline.
The non-Federal project entity will participate in a feasibility study that must explicitly adhere to reclamation laws and standards. The method for determining their non-Federal share above 25% no longer explicitly includes an analysis of their 'financial capability-to-pay'. The overall timeline for the study's completion is shortened to 5 years, and federal funding will come from identified existing appropriations rather than a new authorization.
Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local authorities involved in consultation
Procedural change and accelerated engagement timeline.
These authorities will be consulted within a more tightly defined framework, with the feasibility study and report explicitly adhering to reclamation laws and standards, and a shorter overall timeline for the study's completion.