John Thune (R-SD)
Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Expansion Feasibility Study Act
A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 649.
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 requires the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of the Lewis and Clark Regional Water Supply Project. The project aims to supply municipal, rural, and industrial water to expand the capacity and reach of the water system in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota. The Secretary must develop a report with recommendations on the project's feasibility and construction authorization, and submit it to specific congressional committees while making it publicly available. The Federal share of the total costs for carrying out the feasibility study shall not exceed 50 percent, with Federal expenditures limited to $10,000,000. The non-Federal project entity and the Secretary will enter into a cost-sharing agreement to conduct the study. The authority provided by this section expires on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of the Act.
Yes· 3 of 23
- Scored +8
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The legislation directly targets the expansion of rural water systems to improve water availability for rural communities.
- Scored +8
Does this invest in rural communities?
The bill directly supports rural development by studying the expansion of municipal, rural, and industrial water systems in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota.
- Scored +7
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill includes provisions for supplying rural and agricultural water needs in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes $10,000,000 in federal appropriations, which slightly increases government spending.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The legislation authorizes new federal spending of up to $10 million for a feasibility study.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Public Transparency: Under Section 2(b)(2)(C), the Secretary is required to make the feasibility report and associated study documents publicly available. This allows the people to see how the study is progressing and what the findings are regarding the water supply project.
-
Collaborative Government: Section 2(b)(3) requires the Secretary to consult and cooperate with appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local authorities during the conduct of the feasibility study and report development. This ensures multiple levels of government and local groups are involved in the process.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Use of Federal Funds: Section 2(e) allows for up to $10,000,000 of Federal funds to be expended to carry out the feasibility study. This places a financial burden on taxpayers to fund the research phase of the water project.
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 legislation directly targets the expansion of rural water systems to improve water availability for rural communities. Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill includes provisions for supplying rural and agricultural water needs in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota. Would business owners be better off under this? — The project specifically evaluates expanding industrial water capacity, which aids local businesses and commercial growth. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires consultation and cooperation with Tribal authorities in the region during the feasibility study. Would children be better off under this? — Reliable access to clean water infrastructure benefits community health and children growing up in the region. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Access to secure, publicly managed water supplies helps ensure affordable utility services for lower-income households. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Stable municipal and industrial water supplies support local homeowners and workers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reliable water infrastructure supports growing residential areas and stable property values. Would retired people be better off under this? — Reliable community infrastructure supports retirees living in the covered states. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Reliable water infrastructure is essential for the health and stability of elderly residents in rural communities. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The project encompasses municipal water supplies, benefiting urban and town populations within the region. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Long-term regional water security helps sustain local communities where young adults live and work. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Improved regional infrastructure generally benefits all property owners in the service area. Would union members be better off under this? — Planning for future infrastructure projects can support construction and engineering union jobs. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — General regional development provides minor indirect benefits to high net worth individuals in the area.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill explicitly requires the Secretary to make the feasibility report and associated documents publicly available. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — The bill addresses interstate water resource planning across Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota, supporting regional cooperation. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The legislation mandates consultation and cooperation with state, local, and tribal authorities throughout the study process. Does this give the federal government more power? — It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to oversee a regional water feasibility study.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill directly supports rural development by studying the expansion of municipal, rural, and industrial water systems in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Requiring a feasibility study and cost-sharing agreements promotes responsible use of public funds before committing to major construction. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill provides funding for a feasibility study that may temporarily support professional and engineering jobs related to water infrastructure planning. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investing in water infrastructure planning lays the groundwork for future regional economic and industrial development. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The legislation authorizes new federal spending of up to $10 million for a feasibility study. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes $10,000,000 in federal appropriations, which slightly increases government spending.
- 9/17/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Lee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 649.
- 7/16/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 3/17/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
- 2/24/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/29/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text: CR S379-380)
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Joni ErnstRepublican · Iowa
Chuck GrassleyRepublican · Iowa
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Mike RoundsRepublican · South Dakota
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota