Dusty Johnson (R-SD)
South Dakota Water Feasibility Studies Act
A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 760.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies for water supply projects in the Missouri River basin. It covers three specific initiatives: the Western Dakota Regional Water System, the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System expansion, and the Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project. For these studies, the federal government will pay up to half of the costs, with a maximum contribution of $10,000,000 per study. The legislation also sets rules for cost-sharing and reporting the findings back to congressional committees. Finally, the authority for these studies will expire seven years after the bill is enacted.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The water supply projects are specifically designed to support rural water needs.
- Scored +4
Does this invest in rural communities?
The bill facilitates water infrastructure essential for the growth and sustainability of rural areas in the Missouri River basin.
- Scored +2
Would farmers be better off under this?
Reliable water supply is often critical for agricultural productivity and stability.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
How the text last changed
Reported in House (10/29/2026), compared with Introduced in House. Each change is on the Text tab.
The newer version of the bill changes several names, financing rules, and deadlines for water supply project studies. It updates the title of Title I and related sections to the "Western Regional Water System Feasibility Study Act" and removes ", Inc." from the definition of the non-federal project entity. The text now sets the non-federal share of construction costs to at least 25 percent directly, removing a separate financial capability-to-pay analysis requirement in Titles I and II. For feasibility study costs across all three titles, the bill now specifies that the federal share both cannot exceed $10,000,000 and cannot exceed 50 percent of the study's cost. Finally, the expiration date for the authority provided in all three titles is shortened from 10 years to 7 years after the date of enactment.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Western Dakota Water Access Study: Under Section 103, the Secretary of the Interior is required to study the feasibility of building a project to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water from the Missouri River to the Western Dakota Regional Water System. This could benefit local communities by paving the way for improved water access, and the final report must be made publicly available.
-
Lewis and Clark System Expansion: Under Section 203, the Secretary will study expanding the capacity and reach of the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System across Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota. This provision could help deliver essential water resources to more people and businesses in the region.
-
Dakota Mainstem Water Supply Project: Under Section 303, a study may be undertaken to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water to the Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System service area across South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. This helps evaluate how to meet growing water infrastructure needs for the public.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Federal Financial Costs: Under Section 103, Section 203, and Section 303, the federal share for each of the three feasibility studies can reach up to $10,000,000. Taxpayers nationwide will shoulder these costs while the benefits are localized.
-
Non-Federal Construction Burdens: Under Section 103 and Section 203, any future construction of the water projects will require a non-federal share of at least 25 percent of the total construction costs. This creates a financial obligation for local entities and the people living in those service areas.
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 people in rural areas be better off under this? — The water supply projects are specifically designed to support rural water needs. Would farmers be better off under this? — Reliable water supply is often critical for agricultural productivity and stability. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Municipal water supply projects benefit urban residents in the target regions. Would business owners be better off under this? — New water infrastructure can benefit industrial and local businesses in the study areas. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires consultation with Tribal authorities during the study process.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill facilitates water infrastructure essential for the growth and sustainability of rural areas in the Missouri River basin.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Improved water infrastructure can facilitate industrial and municipal economic development in the Missouri River basin. Is this likely to create jobs? — The water projects may indirectly support job creation through expanded industrial and municipal capacity.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires feasibility reports and associated documents to be made publicly available.
A committee approved it and sent it to the floor
What changed from Introduced in House
The newer version of the bill changes several names, financing rules, and deadlines for water supply project studies. It updates the title of Title I and related sections to the "Western Regional Water System Feasibility Study Act" and removes ", Inc." from the definition of the non-federal project entity. The text now sets the non-federal share of construction costs to at least 25 percent directly, removing a separate financial capability-to-pay analysis requirement in Titles I and II. For feasibility study costs across all three titles, the bill now specifies that the federal share both cannot exceed $10,000,000 and cannot exceed 50 percent of the study's cost. Finally, the expiration date for the authority provided in all three titles is shortened from 10 years to 7 years after the date of enactment.
Each change
- Section 1, Title I, Title II, and Title III: Changed names and headings, including changing "Western South Dakota Water Supply Project Feasibility Study Act" to "Western Regional Water System Feasibility Study Act" and adjusting various feasibility study titles and capitalization.
- Section 102: Removed ", Inc." from the definition of the non-Federal project entity, describing it only as a nonprofit corporation.
- Sections 103 and 203: Removed the requirement that the non-Federal share of construction costs be determined based on an analysis of the financial capability-to-pay, leaving the requirement that it be at least 25 percent of the total construction costs.
- Sections 103, 203, and 303: Restructured the provisions for the Federal share of feasibility study costs and authorized appropriations, replacing previous wording with explicit limits that the Federal share shall not exceed $10,000,000 and shall not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the feasibility study.
- Sections 103, 203, and 303: Changed the expiration date of the authority provided by each section from 10 years to 7 years after the date of enactment.
Written by an AI model from a comparison of this version’s text with the one before it, not by a person. .
- 10/29/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-863.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 760.
- 9/15/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by Unanimous Consent.
- 7/20/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House