A complete substitute amendment, v2 significantly restructures the feasibility study process for the Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project, making the study mandatory, requiring a detailed feasibility report with specific recommendations, and introducing new consultation requirements. It also shortens the authority's termination period from 10 to 5 years and clarifies funding mechanisms. v2 is effectively a different bill from v1.
Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project Feasibility Study Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill initiates a federal feasibility study, with a 50% federal cost share and a $10 million cap, to assess a major regional water supply project across four states.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study for the Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project, which aims to provide municipal, rural, and industrial water to parts of South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. The study must comply with existing reclamation laws and standards, and a report with recommendations for construction authorization and cost-sharing will be submitted to Congress and made publicly available. The federal share of the study costs is capped at 50% or $10 million, whichever is less.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that a comprehensive federal feasibility study is a crucial first step to address critical water supply needs in the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System service area. They emphasize that ensuring reliable municipal, rural, and industrial water access is vital for public health, economic development, and agricultural stability in the region, and that federal involvement is necessary for such a large-scale, multi-state undertaking.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue against initiating new federal studies for large infrastructure projects without clearer evidence of need or local commitment, citing potential for cost overruns in future construction phases. They could also question the federal government's role in what might be perceived as primarily local or state water management issues, especially given the existing financial limitations.
The bill is concise and easily digestible, allowing for a quick understanding of its purpose and scope.
Section 3(a)(1)
Requirement for Feasibility Study
This section requires the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a study to determine if it's feasible to build the Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project. This project is designed to provide water for cities, rural areas, and industries in parts of South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. The study must follow established reclamation laws and feasibility standards.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend that a federal feasibility study is essential to thoroughly evaluate the technical, environmental, and economic viability of a large-scale water project, ensuring that any future construction is well-planned and cost-effective. They argue it's a necessary step to address long-term water needs in a critical agricultural and industrial region.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that such studies can be precursors to expensive federal projects, potentially committing federal funds to projects that could be managed more efficiently at state or local levels. They may also question the immediate necessity of a federal study if local alternatives have not been fully exhausted.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the immediate cost of a federal study and the long-term benefits of ensuring water security through a well-vetted project. It also balances federal involvement in regional infrastructure versus local control.
Section 3(a)(2)
Feasibility Report and Recommendations
After completing the feasibility study, the Secretary must develop a report. This report will include recommendations on whether the project is technically and financially feasible under reclamation laws, whether it should be authorized for construction, and what the non-Federal share of construction costs should be (at least 25%). The report must be submitted to relevant Congressional committees and made publicly available.
Section 3(b), 3(c), 3(d)
Federal Share and Funding Cap for Study
The Secretary must enter into a cost-sharing agreement with the non-Federal project entity (Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System, Inc.) for the feasibility study. The federal share of these study costs cannot exceed 50% and will be paid using appropriated funds. The bill caps total federal expenditures for the study at $10,000,000. The Secretary must identify sources of funds within 90 days of enactment.
Section 3(e)
Sunset Clause for Study Authority
The authority for the Secretary to conduct this feasibility study will expire 5 years after the date the Act is enacted. This sets a clear deadline for the completion of the study and associated reporting.
The feasibility study and subsequent report must be carried out 'in accordance with the reclamation laws and reclamation feasibility standards.'
Section 3(a)(1) and 3(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting extensive existing legal frameworks. It ensures consistency with established federal policy and technical requirements for water projects.
Case for: Supporters argue that referencing existing reclamation laws and standards ensures that the study is conducted rigorously, consistently, and in line with decades of federal experience in water resource development. It prevents the need to reinvent the wheel for each new project.
Case against: Critics might argue that without explicitly outlining the key components of these standards within the bill or a clear summary, it makes it harder for the public and non-expert policymakers to fully understand the scope and constraints of the study. This could lead to a lack of transparency for those unfamiliar with federal water law.
Estimated impact: Ensures the study follows a well-defined, comprehensive framework for technical, economic, and environmental analysis, potentially influencing the project's design, cost, and ultimate viability.