A complete substitute amendment. v2 entirely removes the proposed Water Conveyance Improvement Program and significantly alters the funding and scope of the Environmental Restoration Program, including removing specific appropriations. The Large-Scale Water Recycling and Reuse Program also sees its direct appropriation removed and its definition of "construction" deleted, though other reauthorization elements remain.
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 reauthorizes key water infrastructure and environmental programs, adjusts federal cost-share limits for recycling projects, and creates a mechanism to deauthorize inactive projects, but does not provide new direct funding for these programs.
What it actually does
The reported bill reauthorizes the large-scale water recycling and reuse program, extends and modifies other water recycling and environmental restoration programs, and establishes a process for deauthorizing inactive Bureau of Reclamation projects. Notably, it removes the proposed Water Conveyance Improvement Program and explicit authorizations of appropriations for the reauthorized programs that were present in the introduced version.
Proponents argue
Supporters of the reported bill emphasize its role in continuing vital water infrastructure and environmental programs, increasing the federal share for water recycling to incentivize projects, and improving fiscal accountability by clearing a backlog of inactive projects. They might argue that removing explicit appropriations allows for greater flexibility in the annual appropriations process.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the removal of the Water Conveyance Improvement Program and explicit appropriations significantly weakens the bill's impact on critical water infrastructure needs. They could argue that shifting environmental restoration funding to discretionary cooperative agreements reduces the certainty and commitment to these important efforts, and that the deauthorization process could prematurely end valuable future projects.
The bill is relatively short and manageable for an informed reader to understand its provisions and changes.
Section 1
Short Title
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 common, easily referencable name for the legislation.
Supporters argue
A short title makes the bill easier to reference and communicate to the public and within legislative processes, improving clarity and accessibility.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the establishment of a short title for legislation.
Tradeoffs
None, as this is a standard procedural element of legislation.
Section 2
Reauthorization of Large-Scale Water Recycling and Reuse Program
This section amends the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to reauthorize the large-scale water recycling and reuse program. It clarifies that grants can now be provided for feasibility studies, in addition to planning, design, and construction. The authority for the program is extended from 5 to 10 years, with an exception for projects already under construction. Notably, the explicit authorization of appropriations for this program, which was present in the introduced bill, has been removed in this reported version.
Section 3
Reauthorization of Recycling Program and Environmental Restoration Program and Offset
This section makes several key changes. It extends the expiration date for certain water recycling and environmental restoration provisions in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act to 15 years. It increases the federal share ceiling for water recycling projects from $20 million (1996 prices) to $50 million (2025 prices, inflation-adjusted). For environmental restoration activities benefiting endangered species and water bodies, it removes the explicit authorization of appropriations and instead states that the Secretary *may undertake or enter into cooperative agreements* for these activities during fiscal years 2028-2032. It also adds a requirement for the State of Utah's request and agreement for activities related to the Great Salt Lake and other saline inland lakes, and narrows the scope of some activities, such as specifying Shasta Dam for real-time monitoring.
Section 4
Deauthorization of Inactive Reclamation Projects
This section establishes a new process for deauthorizing inactive Bureau of Reclamation projects. The Secretary of the Interior is required to submit an interim list of authorized projects that have not received federal funding in the current or preceding seven fiscal years. After one year, a final deauthorization list is submitted, excluding projects that have since received funding or are deemed vitally important by the Secretary. Projects on the final list are automatically deauthorized two years after the final list's submission, unless Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval, new funding is provided, or a non-Federal sponsor commits to funding the project's completion.
The reported version of S. 3738 entirely removes the proposed 'Water Conveyance Improvement Program' (which was Section 3 in the introduced bill) and eliminates explicit authorizations of appropriations for the Large-Scale Water Recycling and Reuse Program (original Section 2(l)) and the Environmental Restoration Program (original Section 4(c)).
Comparison of Introduced vs. Reported Bill
Why it matters:This is a result of the legislative process, where bills are amended and reported out of committee. The removal of these sections likely reflects negotiations, compromises, or a decision to pursue these initiatives through separate legislation or different funding mechanisms.
Case for: Proponents of these changes might argue that removing the Water Conveyance Improvement Program streamlines the bill to focus on reauthorizations, while eliminating direct appropriations allows for greater flexibility in the annual appropriations process and potentially broader support for the bill by reducing its immediate fiscal impact.
Case against: Critics would argue that the removal of a dedicated Water Conveyance Improvement Program and explicit funding authorizations significantly weakens the bill's ability to address critical water infrastructure needs and environmental restoration, making these efforts less certain and dependent on future discretionary actions.
Estimated impact: The removal of these provisions significantly reduces the direct federal spending authorized by this bill, shifting potential future spending to other legislative vehicles or discretionary processes. The introduced bill authorized $1.2 billion for FY2028-2032; this reported version authorizes $0 in new direct appropriations.
The language for environmental restoration activities shifts from 'There is authorized to be appropriated... $250,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2028 through 2032' (in the introduced bill) to 'The Secretary of the Interior... may undertake or enter into cooperative agreements to support activities carried out during the period of fiscal years 2028 through 2032' (in the reported bill).
Section 3(c) (amending Section 4010(b) of Public Law 114-322)
Why it matters:This change likely reflects a legislative compromise to maintain the program's authority while deferring the funding decision to the annual appropriations process, or to reduce the bill's overall scoreable cost. It's a common legislative technique to manage fiscal impacts.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provides the Secretary with flexibility to support environmental restoration efforts through various mechanisms, including partnerships, without being constrained by a fixed appropriation in this bill. It allows for adaptive management based on evolving needs and available funds.
Case against: Critics contend that this shift significantly weakens the federal commitment to environmental restoration by removing a direct funding authorization. It makes these critical activities dependent on discretionary funding decisions, potentially leading to less consistent or lower levels of support over time.
Estimated impact: This change removes a $250 million authorization for environmental restoration activities for FY2028-2032 from this bill, meaning these activities would need to be funded through separate appropriations acts.
For activities related to the restoration of habitat or improvement of conditions at the Great Salt Lake and other saline inland lakes, the reported bill adds a specific requirement that 'in the case of an activity to be carried out under this subparagraph in the State of Utah, the activity may only be carried out on the request of, and in agreement with, the State of Utah'.
Section 3(c)(A) (amending Section 4010(b)(2)(A) of Public Law 114-322)
Why it matters:This is likely a result of specific advocacy from the State of Utah or its representatives, ensuring state control and partnership in federal environmental projects within its borders. It's a common practice for states to seek such agreements for federal projects affecting their resources.
Case for: Proponents argue that this ensures state sovereignty and local control over environmental restoration efforts within Utah, fostering better collaboration and ensuring projects align with state priorities and needs for the Great Salt Lake and other saline lakes.
Case against: Critics might argue that such specific state-level veto power could potentially hinder federal efforts to address broader environmental concerns if state and federal priorities diverge, or create a precedent for other states to demand similar control, complicating federal program implementation.
Estimated impact: This provision grants the State of Utah significant influence over federal environmental restoration activities concerning the Great Salt Lake and other saline inland lakes within its borders, potentially affecting the scope and timing of such projects.