hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Study a water supply project for four Midwest states.
Rep. Johnson (R-SD), Natural Resources Committee.
Introduced in House, referred to committee.
Representative Johnson from South Dakota introduced a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the possibility of building a new water system for municipal, rural, and industrial use in parts of South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, indicating it is in the very early stages of the legislative process.
Introduced Feb 3, 2026
This bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. Before it can move forward, the committee must review it and potentially vote to send it to the full House for consideration. If the House passes it, the bill would then go to the Senate for their review and vote, and finally to the President for signature to become law. The authority for this study, if enacted, would expire 10 years after becoming law.
If this bill becomes law, the federal government would conduct a study, costing up to $10 million (with the federal share capped at 50%), to see if a large water supply project is possible for communities, farms, and industries in parts of South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota. This study could lead to future infrastructure improvements that affect water quality and availability in those areas. The Dakota Mainstem Regional Water System, Inc., a local non-profit, would work with the federal government on this study.
Supporters Say
Supporters would argue this study is crucial for ensuring future water security and economic growth in the affected region.
Critics Say
Critics might raise concerns about the cost to taxpayers or question the need for federal involvement in a regional water project.
Those in favor would likely highlight the long-term benefits of a reliable water supply for municipal, rural, and industrial users, emphasizing that a feasibility study is a necessary step to address future water needs in the four states. Opponents might focus on the expenditure of federal funds for a study that may or may not lead to an actual project, suggesting that local or state entities should primarily bear such costs.