A complete substitute amendment. v2 significantly alters funding mechanisms and cost-sharing for water infrastructure projects, notably removing direct appropriations for the Small Storage Program and Natural Water Retention and Release Project Grants, while also reducing the federal cost-share for the latter.
Water Security and Drought Resilience Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to enhance water security and drought resilience in Reclamation States by expanding program eligibility and extending authorities for water storage and natural water management projects, though direct funding authorizations have been removed in the amended text.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Water Security and Drought Resilience Act," amends existing water infrastructure legislation to expand and reauthorize federal assistance for water storage projects and establish a new grant program for natural water retention and release projects. It modifies eligibility criteria for small storage projects, extends the authority for the small storage program, and introduces a new provision for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies for federally owned or State-led storage projects. Notably, the amended version removes specific authorizations of appropriations and reduces the federal cost-share for natural water retention projects.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is crucial for addressing increasing water scarcity and drought conditions in Western states by investing in both traditional and innovative water storage solutions. They contend that expanding eligibility and reauthorizing programs will provide much-needed resources to communities facing water challenges, promoting long-term water availability and sustainable management, while also ensuring federal actions respect state water laws.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while water security is important, the removal of specific appropriations authorizations makes the bill less impactful by creating funding uncertainty. Concerns could also be raised that the reduced federal cost-share for natural water retention projects might burden local entities, potentially limiting the program's reach despite its stated goals.
The bill is concise enough for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe, especially with a focus on the amended text.
Section 2, amending Section 4007(d) of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act
Expansion of Storage Program Assistance and Feasibility Studies
This section broadens the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for water storage projects within any Reclamation State. It explicitly makes projects with authorized feasibility studies under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act eligible for funding. Crucially, it adds a new provision allowing the Secretary to conduct or participate in feasibility studies for federally owned or State-led storage projects, which was not present in the original bill text.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this expansion ensures more projects can access critical funding, and the new authority for feasibility studies allows for proactive planning and development of larger, strategic water storage solutions, addressing long-term water security needs.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern about the scope of federal involvement in state-led projects or the potential for federal funds to support projects that might not be the most cost-effective or environmentally sound, though the bill's 'Effect' section aims to mitigate concerns about state water law.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for increased water storage capacity with concerns about federal overreach or the financial implications of new large-scale projects.
Section 3, amending Section 40903(b) and (e) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
Extended Eligibility and Duration for Small Storage Grants
This section redefines eligible projects for the small storage program, clarifying that projects can increase surface or groundwater storage, or convey water to/from such storage, within specific acre-feet capacities (200-30,000 acre-feet for direct storage, or 200-150,000 acre-feet for recharges). It also extends the termination of authority for this program from 5 years to 10 years. The amended bill text removes the authorization of appropriations that was present in the original version.
Section 4
Establishment of Natural Water Retention and Release Project Grants
This section establishes a new grant program for "natural water retention and release projects." These projects are defined as those increasing water availability through aquifer recharge, floodplain retention, or altering runoff timing, using natural materials and mimicking natural processes. Grants are available to eligible entities (states, tribes, water districts, nonprofits with support) for projects up to $20 million, with stricter Secretarial determination requirements for projects over $20 million. The federal cost-share is capped at 50% (reduced from 90% in the original text), and funds are nonreimbursable. The authorization of appropriations was removed from the amended text.
The original bill authorized $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2033 for the Small Storage Program. The amended text removes this subsection entirely, only adding the "Effect" subsection.
Section 3(c) of the original bill text vs. Section 3(c) of the amended bill text
Why it matters:This change significantly alters the funding certainty for the program. It could be a strategic move to allow appropriations to be determined later or through a different legislative vehicle, or it could reflect a reduction in the bill's immediate fiscal impact.
Case for: Proponents might argue that removing specific appropriations allows for greater flexibility in the annual appropriations process, enabling Congress to adjust funding based on current needs and fiscal conditions without being bound by a fixed authorization.
Case against: Critics would contend that removing the authorization of appropriations makes the reauthorization of the program less impactful, as it provides no guaranteed funding, potentially hindering long-term planning and project development for eligible entities.
Estimated impact: This change removes a direct authorization of $140,000,000 over seven fiscal years, making the program's future funding uncertain.
The original bill authorized $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 for the Natural Water Retention and Release Project Grants. The amended text removes this subsection entirely.
Section 4(f) of the original bill text vs. the amended bill text (which ends at subsection (e))
Why it matters:Similar reasons as above: flexibility in appropriations or a reduction in immediate fiscal impact.
Case for: Allows for annual appropriations to be determined based on current budget priorities and project demand, rather than a fixed multi-year authorization.
Case against: Undermines the establishment of a new program by not providing a clear funding commitment, potentially making it difficult for eligible entities to plan and apply for grants.
Estimated impact: This change removes a direct authorization of $75,000,000 over five fiscal years, making the program's future funding uncertain.
The original bill set the Federal share for natural water retention and release projects at "not exceed 90 percent." The amended text changes this to "not exceed 50 percent."
Section 4(d)
Why it matters:This change significantly increases the local matching funds required, potentially making the program less accessible or attractive for some eligible entities. It could be a move to reduce federal expenditure or ensure greater local investment.
Case for: Proponents of the change might argue that a 50% federal cost-share encourages greater local ownership and financial commitment to projects, ensuring that only the most critical and locally supported initiatives move forward. It also reduces the federal burden.
Case against: Critics would argue that reducing the federal cost-share from 90% to 50% could be a barrier for many eligible entities, especially smaller communities or Indian Tribes, who may struggle to secure the higher local matching funds, thereby limiting the program's reach and impact.
Estimated impact: This change effectively doubles the required local contribution for projects, potentially reducing the number of projects that can proceed or shifting a significant financial burden to local entities.