What changed between these versions
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.
Overview
Extensive changes throughout the bill, affecting definitions, the core study mandate, funding, and timelines. · v2 fundamentally restructures and expands the requirements for the feasibility study, making it mandatory and more detailed, while also narrowing the timeframe for its completion.
v2 is a complete substitute amendment that significantly revises the framework for the Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project feasibility study. It transforms the study from an optional undertaking to a mandatory one, introduces a comprehensive feasibility report requirement with specific recommendations, and mandates broader consultation. Additionally, v2 clarifies funding mechanisms, redefines key terms, and shortens the termination of authority from 10 years to 5 years.
Major additions
This new definition introduces 'Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project' as the proposed project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water to the specified service area in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota.
This addition provides a clear, concise term for the project itself, which is then used consistently throughout v2, improving clarity and specificity in the bill's language.
This new subsection mandates that after the feasibility study, the Secretary shall develop a feasibility report. This report must include recommendations on whether the project is technically and financially feasible, whether it should be authorized for construction, and the appropriate non-Federal share of construction costs (at least 25 percent). The report must be submitted to relevant Congressional committees and made publicly available.
This addition significantly enhances the accountability and transparency of the study process. It ensures that a formal assessment and recommendations are produced and shared with Congress and the public, providing a structured pathway for potential future project authorization and funding decisions. The requirement for a specific non-Federal share of construction costs sets an expectation for local contribution.
This new subsection requires the Secretary to consult and cooperate with appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local authorities during the conduct of the feasibility study and the development of the feasibility report.
This addition broadens stakeholder engagement in the feasibility study process, ensuring that diverse perspectives and interests from various governmental and regional bodies are considered. This can lead to a more comprehensive and widely supported project plan, potentially mitigating future conflicts.
This new clause explicitly states that the Federal share of the total costs of carrying out the feasibility study shall be paid for by the Secretary using appropriated funds.
This clarifies the funding mechanism for the Federal share of the feasibility study, ensuring that the costs are covered through direct appropriations rather than other potential sources, providing certainty for financial planning.
This new subsection requires the Secretary, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to identify sources of available funds to pay the Federal share of the feasibility study costs.
This addition imposes a strict deadline on the Secretary to secure funding for the Federal share of the study, accelerating the initial steps of the project and demonstrating a commitment to its timely commencement. This ensures that the study can proceed without undue delay due to funding identification issues.
Deletions
This section defined the term 'Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System' as a nonprofit corporation established and operated substantially in accordance with reclamation feasibility standards to serve as a non-Federal project entity for purposes of the cooperative agreement entered into under section 3(a)(1).
While the entity itself is retained and redefined in v2's Section 2(2) as the 'non-Federal project entity,' the specific phrasing and the direct link to 'cooperative agreement entered into under section 3(a)(1)' are removed. This deletion reflects a restructuring of how the non-Federal entity's role is described and formalized, with v2 introducing a more explicit cost-sharing agreement in a separate subsection 3(b).
Modifications
This modification clarifies that the defined term refers to the *role* of the entity rather than just its proper name, which streamlines references throughout the bill. The underlying entity and its function remain consistent, but the terminology is more precise.
Before
Defined 'Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System' as a nonprofit corporation serving as a non-Federal project entity for a cooperative agreement under section 3(a)(1).
After
Defines 'Non-federal project entity' as the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System, Inc., a nonprofit corporation established and operated substantially in accordance with reclamation feasibility standards to serve as a non-Federal project entity for purposes of the cooperative agreement entered into under section 3(a)(1).
This change specifies the particular office within the Department of the Interior responsible for carrying out the Act, centralizing the authority and responsibility for the study under the Bureau of Reclamation. This provides greater clarity on the implementing agency.
Before
Defined 'Secretary' as the Secretary of the Interior.
After
Defined 'Secretary' as the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation).
This makes the study a required action for the Secretary, ensuring its initiation. The addition of 'reclamation laws' broadens the legal framework governing the study, potentially introducing additional compliance requirements. The shift from 'consultation' to 'coordination' implies a more integrated and collaborative working relationship with the non-Federal entity.
Before
Stated the Secretary, in consultation with the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System, through a cooperative agreement, may undertake a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water.
After
States the Secretary, in coordination with the non-Federal project entity, shall carry out a study to determine the feasibility of constructing the Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project in accordance with the reclamation laws and reclamation feasibility standards.
The core cost-sharing ratio for the feasibility study remains unchanged, maintaining the established financial responsibility split between Federal and non-Federal entities. The renumbering is structural, not substantive for this specific clause.
Before
Stated the Federal share of the total costs of carrying out the feasibility study under this section shall not exceed 50 percent.
After
Stated the Federal share of the total costs of carrying out the feasibility study under this section shall not exceed 50 percent.
This shifts the language from authorizing the appropriation of funds to setting an explicit cap on Federal expenditures for the study. This provides a clearer financial ceiling for the project's initial phase, ensuring that Federal spending for the feasibility study does not exceed this amount.
Before
Authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section $10,000,000.
After
Stated not more than $10,000,000 of Federal funds may be expended to carry out the feasibility study under this section.
This significantly shortens the timeframe within which the feasibility study must be completed and the report submitted, imposing a tighter deadline on the Secretary and the non-Federal project entity. This accelerates the timeline for project evaluation and decision-making.
Before
Stated the authority provided by this section expires on the date that is 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
After
Stated the authority provided by this section expires on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Scope
Complete substitute — Changes are scattered throughout all three sections of the bill, affecting definitions, the core study mandate, funding, and timelines, indicating a comprehensive revision. — Yes, v2 represents a meaningful change in policy direction by transforming the feasibility study from an optional undertaking to a mandatory one, adding a formal reporting requirement with specific recommendations for construction authorization and cost-sharing, and broadening consultation requirements. This indicates a more structured and committed approach to the project's evaluation. — The changes to the study mandate and reporting requirements significantly alter the process for evaluating the project, impacting how future authorization for construction would be considered. The shortened termination period also creates a more urgent timeline for all related activities.
Impact analysis
Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation)
Procedural change and increased responsibility, with a tighter timeline for action.
The Secretary is now *mandated* to conduct the feasibility study, rather than having the option to do so. The Secretary is also explicitly required to act through the Commissioner of Reclamation and has a new 90-day deadline to identify sources of available funds for the Federal share.
Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System, Inc. (non-Federal project entity)
Procedural change and increased certainty for the project's initial phase.
The feasibility study for their proposed project is now mandatory, ensuring it will proceed. They are explicitly required to enter into a cost-sharing agreement for the study and will be coordinated with, rather than just consulted.
Congressional Committees (Senate Energy and Natural Resources, House Natural Resources)
Procedural change, gaining more detailed information and recommendations.
These committees will now receive a formal feasibility report with specific recommendations regarding the project's technical/financial feasibility, construction authorization, and non-Federal cost share.
Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local authorities
Procedural change, gaining increased engagement and influence in the study.
These authorities will now be formally consulted and cooperated with by the Secretary during the conduct of the feasibility study and the development of the feasibility report.
Proponents of the Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project
Procedural change, gaining certainty of study but facing a compressed timeline.
Benefit from the mandatory nature of the study and the structured reporting, which provides a clearer path towards potential project authorization. However, they face a significantly shorter window for the authority to terminate (5 years instead of 10 years).