MORE WATER Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to enhance water infrastructure resilience and supply in Reclamation States by reauthorizing existing programs, creating a new conveyance improvement program with a focus on multi-benefit projects, and streamlining the federal project portfolio.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes and expands federal water recycling and reuse programs, establishes a new Water Conveyance Improvement Program with specific cost-sharing incentives for projects that provide safe drinking water benefits for low-income communities and environmental benefits, and creates a process for deauthorizing inactive Reclamation projects to streamline federal resources. It authorizes a total of $1.75 billion for these programs over fiscal years 2028 through 2032.
Proponents argue
Supporters would argue that the bill addresses critical water supply challenges in the Western U.S., promotes sustainable water management through recycling and reuse, and ensures equitable access to safe drinking water for low-income communities while also providing environmental benefits. The deauthorization process is presented as a way to free up resources for active projects, making federal investments more efficient.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might raise concerns about the significant federal spending authorized, the complexity of the multi-benefit project cost-sharing and implementation, or the criteria for deauthorizing inactive projects, potentially arguing it could impact future water development options or lead to federal overreach in local water management decisions.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading to understand the detailed cost-sharing and program requirements, but it is manageable for an informed reader.
Section 1
Short Title: MORE WATER Act
This section establishes the short title of the Act as the "Making Our communities Resilient through Enhancing Water for Agriculture, Technology, the Environment, and Residences Act" or the "MORE WATER Act." This provides a concise and descriptive name for the legislation, aiding in public communication and legislative tracking.
Supporters argue
Supporters would argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps in public communication and legislative tracking of the bill's purpose, making it easier for stakeholders and the public to refer to the legislation.
Critics contend
No specific opposition to a short title is typically raised, as it is a standard legislative practice.
Section 2, amending Section 40905 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (43 U.S.C. 3205)
Reauthorization and Expansion of Large-Scale Water Recycling and Reuse Program
This section reauthorizes the large-scale water recycling and reuse program, expanding its scope to explicitly include construction activities. It increases the federal share cap for projects from 30% to 60%, extends the program's authority, and authorizes $450,000,000 for fiscal years 2028 through 2032 for grants. This aims to boost federal support for developing and building water recycling and reuse infrastructure.
Section 3
Establishment of Water Conveyance Improvement Program
This section establishes a new Water Conveyance Improvement Program within the Bureau of Reclamation to provide grants and authority for federal participation in water conveyance projects. It broadly defines "conveyance project" to include new facilities, improvements, or the restoration of existing capacity. The program supports both Reclamation-led projects and grants for non-Federal projects, aiming to improve water delivery and reliability across Reclamation States.
Section 3(e)
Federal Cost-Share for Conveyance Projects, with Multi-Benefit Incentives
This provision sets the general federal share for water conveyance projects at a maximum of 50% of total costs. Crucially, for "multi-benefit projects"—those providing safe drinking water benefits for low-income communities and/or environmental benefits—an additional 20% federal share is available, potentially bringing the total federal share to 70% for these specific components. It also specifies that the non-Federal share can be met through various means, including cash, in-kind contributions, other federal loans, or state revolving funds.
Section 3(f)
Requirements and Definitions for Multi-Benefit Conveyance Projects
This section mandates that conveyance projects costing $800 million or more must be multi-benefit projects, and for projects under $800 million, at least 50% must be multi-benefit. It provides detailed definitions for what constitutes "safe drinking water benefits for low-income communities" (including direct delivery, ratepayer assistance, or water exchanges) and "environmental benefits" (such as species protection, habitat restoration, or increased flows to water bodies). It also outlines a phased funding approach, allowing initial construction funding before full commitment to specific multi-benefit elements, with a subsequent 60/40 funding ratio for general vs. multi-benefits.
Section 3(j)
Non-Reimbursable Federal Funds for Conveyance Projects
This section explicitly states that all federal funds provided by the Secretary under the Water Conveyance Improvement Program, whether for Reclamation-led conveyance projects or grants to eligible entities for non-Federal projects, shall be nonreimbursable to the United States. This means that recipients of these federal funds are not required to repay them.
Section 4
Reauthorization of Water Recycling and Environmental Restoration Programs
This section reauthorizes the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, allocating $550,000,000 for new water recycling and reuse projects for FY2028-2032, and increases the federal share ceiling for these projects from $20 million (1996 prices) to $50 million (2025 prices, indexed). It also reauthorizes the environmental restoration program under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, providing $250,000,000 for FY2028-2032, specifically for habitat restoration at the Great Salt Lake and other saline inland lakes, and for various improvements to the Sacramento River and its tributaries to benefit endangered species like Chinook salmon and steelhead trout.
Section 6
Deauthorization Process for Inactive Reclamation Projects
This section establishes a process for deauthorizing Reclamation projects that have not received federal funding obligations for 7 consecutive fiscal years. The Secretary of the Interior is required to submit an interim deauthorization list, followed by a final list. Projects on the final list are automatically deauthorized unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval, the non-Federal sponsor provides sufficient funds to complete the project, or the Secretary determines the project is vitally important for national or state interests.
An exception to the 10-year termination date for the large-scale water recycling and reuse program, stating that the termination date shall not apply to eligible projects that are already under construction.
Section 2(k)(2)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice to ensure continuity and prevent disruption for ongoing projects, rather than an attempt to obscure a controversial provision.
Case for: Ensures that projects that have already secured funding and begun construction are not suddenly cut off from federal support due to a program's reauthorization timeline, providing stability and preventing wasted investment and project abandonment.
Case against: No strong case against this provision is typically raised, as it serves a practical purpose of protecting ongoing investments and maintaining project continuity.
Estimated impact: Prevents potential financial and operational disruption for an unspecified number of water recycling and reuse projects already in progress, ensuring their completion.
Defines "stakeholder" for multi-benefit projects, specifying criteria for nonprofit organizations (501(c)(3) status, demonstrated track record, no financial conflict of interest) and including Indian Tribes if the project is within their current or former reservation or aboriginal territory.
Section 3(a)(13)
Why it matters:While defining terms upfront is standard legislative practice, the specific and detailed criteria for nonprofit engagement are quite consequential and could be easily missed as a mere technicality.
Case for: Ensures that only legitimate and experienced organizations with no direct financial conflicts can formally represent environmental or low-income community interests in multi-benefit project agreements, promoting accountability and preventing tokenism or undue influence.
Case against: Some might argue that the definition is too restrictive, potentially excluding smaller or emerging community groups that could still offer valuable input, or that the "no financial conflict of interest" clause could be interpreted broadly to exclude legitimate partnerships on similar projects.
Estimated impact: Shapes which non-governmental entities can formally engage in the planning and agreement process for multi-benefit water conveyance projects, influencing the representation of diverse interests.
Establishes a phased funding approach for multi-benefit projects, allowing initial construction funding for the first two years based on general benefits. After two years, a proposal for additional funding for specific low-income community or environmental benefits is required, and subsequent funding for a 5-year period must adhere to a 60% general benefit / 40% specific multi-benefit ratio, which can be modified by mutual agreement with stakeholders.
Section 3(f)(5)
Why it matters:The complexity is inherent to balancing the desire for early project commencement with the later integration and funding of specific multi-benefits and robust stakeholder engagement, making it a nuanced policy choice.
Case for: Allows projects to begin construction sooner, preventing delays while still ensuring that multi-benefit elements are integrated and funded within a reasonable timeframe. The flexible ratio allows for adaptation based on project specifics and stakeholder input, promoting practical implementation.
Case against: Critics might argue that this phased approach could lead to projects starting without firm commitments to multi-benefits, potentially allowing the specific low-income or environmental benefits to be deprioritized or scaled back later. The complexity could also lead to administrative challenges and disputes over funding allocations.
Estimated impact: Significantly influences the financial and operational planning for multi-benefit conveyance projects, particularly regarding the timing, integration, and ultimate realization of specific social and environmental components.