Andy Biggs (R-AZ)
Colorado River Basin Water Security and Infrastructure Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is all about boosting the water supply in the Colorado River Basin and speeding up the building of related water and energy infrastructure. It sets up a new financial assistance program through the Department of the Interior to help pay for local and regional water augmentation projects. The legislation also fast-tracks the federal review and permitting processes by completely exempting certain covered projects from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Furthermore, it orders the restoration and operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant and promotes seawater desalination programs in Mexico to help meet treaty obligations. Finally, it authorizes massive amounts of federal funding for massive water projects in states like California, Arizona, Nevada, and the Upper Basin states.
Yes· 3 of 23
- Scored +8
Would farmers be better off under this?
Farmers and agricultural entities heavily reliant on Colorado River water stand to gain immense benefits from augmented water supplies and storage.
- Scored +7
Does this invest in rural communities?
The legislation provides substantial financial assistance and infrastructure investments to benefit rural agricultural communities and water districts.
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners, particularly in agriculture and development, gain increased water security and streamlined permitting.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Exempting covered water and energy projects from the National Environmental Policy Act removes critical environmental review safeguards.
- Scored -6
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes massive appropriations totaling $19 billion for water augmentation and infrastructure programs.
- Scored -4
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Authorizing billions in new federal spending without offsetting revenue increases contributes to fiscal strain.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Financial Support for Local Water Projects: Under Section 201 and Section 204, the Secretary of the Interior is required to establish the Colorado River Basin Water Augmentation Program, which provides $2 in federal money for every $1 of non-federal funds committed to eligible projects. This could make it much easier for states, public utilities, Indian Tribes, and local communities to build reservoirs, pipelines, and water recycling facilities without footing the whole bill themselves.
-
Faster Permitting for Essential Infrastructure: Under Section 104, federal agencies are placed on strict timelines—typically 180 days after receiving a complete application—to issue final decisions on permits for covered water and energy projects. This keeps the bureaucratic red tape moving so that critical water infrastructure can get built quicker to help everyday folks who rely on these resources.
-
Restoration of the Yuma Desalting Plant: Under Section 301, the Secretary must restore the Yuma Desalting Plant to operational status within 180 days and run it at maximum capacity. This will maximize the amount of water produced to satisfy the Mexican Water Treaty while keeping an equivalent amount of water preserved in the Colorado River system for people living in the Basin.
-
Boosting Regional Water Supplies: Under Title IV (specifically sections 401, 402, 403, and 404), the bill authorizes feasibility studies and construction for major federal water infrastructure projects in California, Arizona, Nevada, and the Upper Basin states. This gives communities new tools to capture water that would otherwise be lost, store more supplies, and reduce reliance on strained river systems.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Bypassing Environmental Protection Laws: Under Section 102, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 will not apply to any covered project. This means projects designed to increase water or energy supplies can completely bypass standard environmental reviews, which could remove a critical safeguard for local communities wanting to voice concerns about environmental or ecological harms.
-
Massive Government Spending: Under Section 505, the bill authorizes staggering amounts of taxpayer money to be appropriated, including $5,000,000,000 for the water augmentation program, $1,000,000,000 for the Yuma Desalting Plant, $1,000,000,000 for Mexican desalination, and $12,000,000,000 for federal water infrastructure. This puts a massive financial burden squarely on the shoulders of American taxpayers.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers and agricultural entities heavily reliant on Colorado River water stand to gain immense benefits from augmented water supplies and storage. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners, particularly in agriculture and development, gain increased water security and streamlined permitting. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Indian Tribes are specifically included as eligible recipients for financial assistance to support water augmentation and infrastructure. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural agricultural and tribal communities receive dedicated federal support for local water development and storage projects. Would union members be better off under this? — Large-scale federal infrastructure and construction projects generate substantial union-eligible employment opportunities. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban populations in California, Arizona, and Nevada rely on Colorado River water and will benefit from supply augmentation. Would children be better off under this? — Securing long-term water supplies ensures a stable environment and resources for future generations. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Homeowners and workers in the Southwest benefit from reliable municipal and industrial water supplies. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reliable water infrastructure prevents severe shortages and costly emergency measures for residential water users. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees in the desert Southwest benefit from sustained regional water security and dependable infrastructure. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Retirees living in arid basin states benefit from a secure, reliable long-term water supply for communities. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Regional economic stability and job creation from infrastructure projects benefit young adults entering the workforce.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this favour talking over confrontation abroad? — The bill promotes formal negotiations and cooperative agreements with Mexico regarding water resources and treaty compliance. Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — Collaborating with Mexico on seawater desalination programs helps fulfill international treaty obligations and strengthens bilateral cooperation. Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Ensuring stable water supplies and cooperative relations with Mexico supports cross-border economic stability.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation grants the federal government broad authority to fast-track permits, override environmental reviews, and fund major regional water projects. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates annual reporting to Congress on project expenditures, water yields, and the status of plant operations. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — States and local entities are heavily involved as project sponsors and recipients of substantial federal cost-share funding.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill funds extensive feasibility studies, engineering analyses, and technical evaluations for water augmentation projects.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The legislation provides substantial financial assistance and infrastructure investments to benefit rural agricultural communities and water districts. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Exempting covered water and energy projects from the National Environmental Policy Act removes critical environmental review safeguards. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Fast-tracking large-scale water infrastructure and storage projects across basin states may negatively impact local ecosystems and public lands.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill authorizes billions of dollars for major water infrastructure projects and construction, which will stimulate hiring in construction and engineering. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investing heavily in reliable water and energy infrastructure supports regional economies and long-term development in the Southwest. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Local businesses and contractors will benefit from increased contracting and economic activity associated with large-scale water projects. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes massive appropriations totaling $19 billion for water augmentation and infrastructure programs. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Authorizing billions in new federal spending without offsetting revenue increases contributes to fiscal strain.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Facilitating water supplies for new construction could indirectly affect housing costs, but massive federal debt outlays may have broader economic drawbacks.
- 9/16/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Introduced in House