Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
Western Water Infrastructure Fairness Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 called the "Western Water Infrastructure Fairness Act." It seeks to change the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The purpose is to modify the Federal share of costs for certain Western rural water infrastructure projects. Specifically, it creates an exception for projects that benefit economically disadvantaged communities.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +9
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Specifically targets and provides funding for rural water infrastructure in the West.
- Scored +8
Does this invest in rural communities?
Significantly increases federal funding for water infrastructure in rural Western communities.
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly benefits economically disadvantaged communities by lowering the local cost of water projects.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill increases the Federal share of project costs to 90 percent for certain projects.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Increasing the Federal cost share of projects increases government spending.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increases federal expenditure on specific infrastructure projects.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Increased Federal Funding: For projects benefiting economically disadvantaged communities, the Federal share of the cost will be 90 percent. This reduces the local financial burden for water infrastructure in these areas (Section 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for people are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
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? — Specifically targets and provides funding for rural water infrastructure in the West. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly benefits economically disadvantaged communities by lowering the local cost of water projects. Would farmers be better off under this? — Crucial for agricultural operations in the Western US that rely on water infrastructure. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Rural Western water projects often directly impact tribal lands and disadvantaged indigenous communities. Would business owners be better off under this? — Improved water infrastructure is critical for business operations and expansion. Would union members be better off under this? — Increases the likelihood and scale of infrastructure construction projects. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Benefits disadvantaged communities which may include marginalized racial groups. Would children be better off under this? — Improved water infrastructure ensures safer and more reliable water for future generations. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Benefits disadvantaged communities which may include marginalized racial groups. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Potentially reduces the local tax burden for infrastructure projects. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General infrastructure improvement benefits all property owners. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Reduces financial burden on local homeowners and taxpayers. Would retired people be better off under this? — Reduces potential for local tax hikes to fund infrastructure. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Ensures reliable water services for aging populations in rural areas. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General benefit to residents of the Western US. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Better infrastructure supports rural economic viability for young adults.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Significantly increases federal funding for water infrastructure in rural Western communities. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Updating water infrastructure typically improves water quality and resource management.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Reduces the financial burden on economically disadvantaged communities for essential water projects. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Targeting disadvantaged communities for funding helps reduce infrastructure disparities. Does this make housing cost less? — Reliable water infrastructure is a prerequisite for affordable housing development.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Improved water infrastructure supports economic viability in rural areas. Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased infrastructure spending typically stimulates local construction employment. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Infrastructure improvements in disadvantaged areas can support local business growth. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill increases the Federal share of project costs to 90 percent for certain projects. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases federal expenditure on specific infrastructure projects. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Increasing the Federal cost share of projects increases government spending.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the federal government's financial role and responsibility in local infrastructure. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Shifts more cost burden to the federal government, potentially altering local control dynamics.
- 7/14/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Ruben GallegoDemocrat · Arizona