PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.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.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
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
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 1, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10420 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10420 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10420 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10420 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would support projects intended to increase reliable water supplies for Colorado River Basin states, with financial assistance and new federal infrastructure. It would exempt qualifying projects from the National Environmental Policy Act’s environmental review requirements and accelerate federal permitting. It also would require restoration and operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant and pursue seawater desalination in Mexico to help meet treaty obligations. These are proposed changes, not evidence of enacted law or guaranteed additional water.
The Secretary shall establish a program, to be known as the Colorado River Basin Water Augmentation Program, to provide financial assistance for eligible water augmentation projects.
The Secretary shall establish a program to investigate, plan, design, and construct major Federal water infrastructure projects that increase the reliable water supply available to the Colorado River Basin States.
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to a covered project
Except as provided in subsection (c), not later than 180 days after receiving a complete application for a permit or authorization described in subsection (a), each Federal agency shall issue a final decision on the permit or authorization.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall— (1) restore the Yuma Desalting Plant (referred to in this section as the plant) to operational status; and (2) operate the plant at the maximum technically feasible capacity consistent with applicable law and the physical operating limitations of the plant.
shall develop and implement a program to facilitate the development of one or more seawater desalination facilities in Mexico for the purpose of producing water that may be used to satisfy, offset, replace, or otherwise reduce the quantity of Colorado River water required to satisfy the obligations of the United States under the Mexican Water Treaty
The Interior Secretary would administer the bill’s programs. For expedited review, a covered project would qualify through either of two routes: it must be both in a Colorado River Basin state and outside the basin, while designed to provide a Colorado River Basin state with water, energy, or another direct benefit; or the Secretary must determine that it materially supports water availability for a basin state. The first route does not require the benefiting state to be the state where the project is located.
The term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.
the term covered project means a project— (1) located— (A) in a Colorado River Basin State; and (B) outside the Colorado River Basin but designed to provide a water supply, energy supply, or other direct benefit to a Colorado River Basin State; or (2) that the Secretary determines will materially increase, preserve, transport, store, treat, or otherwise support the availability of water for a Colorado River Basin State.
Covered projects would be exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act and its requirement for an environmental document. This section would not waive another federal law’s requirements unless expressly provided by the bill, or eliminate substantive requirements under another federal law.
(1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to a covered project; and (2) a covered project shall not be considered a proposed agency action requiring an environmental document under section 106 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4336).
Nothing in this section shall be construed to— (1) waive a requirement imposed by another Federal law unless expressly provided by this Act; or (2) eliminate a substantive requirement applicable to a covered project under another Federal law.
The President would designate a lead federal agency for each covered project needing federal approval. That agency would identify required federal actions, coordinate reviews, set a single schedule and agency deadlines, and prevent duplicate reviews where practicable. Agencies would conduct reviews at the same time where practicable.
The President shall designate a Federal agency as the lead Federal agency for each covered project requiring Federal approval.
(1) identify each Federal permit, authorization, approval, or other Federal action required; (2) establish a single schedule for Federal review; (3) coordinate the review by Federal agencies; (4) establish deadlines for each Federal agency participating in the review; and (5) to the maximum extent practicable, prevent duplicative Federal review.
To the maximum extent practicable, Federal agencies shall conduct reviews of a covered project concurrently rather than sequentially.
Agencies would have 30 days after receiving a permit or authorization application to determine whether it is complete or identify missing information, then 180 days after receiving a complete application to decide. An agency could extend the decision deadline by up to 90 days if its head made a written finding that a specific technical or legal issue required it. Missing the deadline would require an explanation to Interior and the specified congressional committees, including a decision date; the provision requires a decision, not approval.
not later than 30 days after receiving an application for such permit or authorization, the applicable Federal agency shall— (1) determine whether the application is complete; or (2) identify with specificity any additional information required to complete the application.
Except as provided in subsection (c), not later than 180 days after receiving a complete application for a permit or authorization described in subsection (a), each Federal agency shall issue a final decision on the permit or authorization.
A Federal agency may extend the deadline under subsection (b) by not more than 90 days if the head of the agency determines in writing that the extension is necessary to resolve a specific technical or legal issue.
If a Federal agency fails to issue a final decision by the deadline established under this section, the head of the agency shall submit to the Secretary and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a written explanation identifying— (1) the permit or authorization that remains pending; (2) the reason for the delay; and (3) the date by which the agency will issue a final decision.
A new water augmentation program would provide financial assistance to increase available water supplies. Eligible projects would include augmenting the river or its tributaries, increasing reliable supplies for beneficial uses in basin states, water storage and transport, desalination, recycling, treatment, groundwater replenishment, and infrastructure to deliver added water. Removal, control, or replacement of invasive or non-native vegetation could qualify when expected to reduce water loss through evaporation and plants, increase water salvage, improve delivery, or increase reliable supplies for beneficial use. Necessary electricity generation and transmission and related incidental works could also be included.
The purpose of the Program shall be to increase the supply of water available to the Colorado River Basin States through projects that augment, store, treat, transport, or otherwise increase the reliable supply of water available for beneficial use.
A project shall be eligible for financial assistance under this title if the project— (1) augments the water supply of the Colorado River or its tributaries; (2) increases the reliable supply of water available for municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other beneficial use in a Colorado River Basin State; (3) develops, expands, or rehabilitates water storage or conveyance infrastructure; (4) develops or expands desalination, water recycling, advanced water treatment, aquifer recharge, or other water supply infrastructure; (5) removes, controls, or replaces invasive or non-native vegetation, including saltcedar (Tamarix spp.), in a manner that is expected to reduce evapotranspiration, increase water salvage, improve water delivery, or increase the reliable supply of water available for beneficial use; (6) develops infrastructure necessary to deliver augmented water to users; or (7) is otherwise determined by the Secretary to provide a measurable increase in the reliable water supply available to a Colorado River Basin State.
(7) electrical generation or transmission infrastructure necessary to operate an eligible water supply project; and (8) related and incidental works.
The Secretary could provide assistance to states, their political subdivisions, interstate water districts or authorities, public utilities, Indian Tribes, private entities, or groups of at least two such entities.
The Secretary may provide financial assistance under this title to— (1) a State; (2) a political subdivision of a State; (3) an interstate water district or authority; (4) a public utility; (5) an Indian Tribe; (6) a private entity; or (7) a consortium of 2 or more entities described in paragraphs (1) through (6).
Subject to available appropriations, federal assistance would provide $2 for every $1 committed from nonfederal sources, capped at 66⅔ percent of total project cost. The nonfederal contribution could include state, local, or private money and noncash contributions accepted by the Secretary.
Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall provide $2 in Federal financial assistance for each $1 of non-Federal funds committed to an eligible project.
The non-Federal share of a project may consist of— (1) State funds; (2) local funds; (3) private funds; (4) in-kind contributions, as determined appropriate by the Secretary; or (5) a combination of amounts described in paragraphs (1) through (4).
The Federal share of an eligible project may not exceed 66⅔ percent of the total project cost.
Before awarding assistance, the Secretary would have to consult states where a project is located or that would substantially benefit. State approval would not be a condition of assistance under this title, except when independently required by applicable state water-rights law.
Before providing financial assistance for a project under this title, the Secretary shall consult with the State or States— (1) in which the project is located; or (2) that would receive a substantial benefit from the project.
Except to the extent approval is independently required under applicable State law governing water rights, nothing in this title shall be construed to require the approval of a State as a condition of Federal financial assistance.
Project-selection priorities would include multistate benefits, measurable added water, substantial nonfederal funding, municipal supplies, food security, defense supply chains, and reduced reliance on existing Colorado River supplies. Projects in states with laws or regulations facilitating additional water supplies for new housing would also receive priority.
the Secretary shall give priority to projects that— (1) provide benefits to more than one Colorado River Basin State; (2) produce measurable additional water supplies; (3) involve substantial non-Federal financial participation; (4) increase municipal water supplies; (5) increase food security; (6) ensure national defense supply chains: (7) are located in a State that has enacted laws or regulations designed to facilitate the development of additional water supplies for new residential construction; or (8) reduce reliance on existing Colorado River water supplies.
For Title II eligibility or construction decisions, the Secretary could accept federal or nonfederal studies completed before or after enactment. The Secretary would have to assess whether they are reliable, complete, and current, could not require substantial duplication of sufficient studies, and could request only necessary additional information when studies are insufficient. Treatment of nonfederal feasibility studies would have to be consistent with the cited existing statute, whose text is not supplied.
For purposes of determining whether a project is eligible for financial assistance or authorized for construction under this title, the Secretary may accept and rely upon a feasibility study, financial analysis, engineering analysis, technical study, environmental analysis, or other relevant study or analysis that was completed before or after the date of enactment of this Act by a Federal or non-Federal entity.
The Secretary shall determine whether a study or analysis described in subsection (a) is sufficiently reliable, complete, and current to satisfy, in whole or in part, an applicable requirement under this title.
The Secretary shall not require a project sponsor to reproduce or substantially duplicate a study or analysis that the Secretary determines is sufficient to satisfy an applicable requirement under this title.
the Secretary may require the project sponsor to provide only such additional information or analysis as the Secretary determines is necessary to satisfy that requirement.
The Secretary shall administer this section consistent with the treatment of feasibility studies prepared by non-Federal interests under section 203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2231).
The bill would establish a Treasury fund for the augmentation program. Money in the fund would be available to the Secretary without another appropriation, and appropriated money would remain available until spent. This section does not specify an initial deposit.
There is established in the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the Colorado River Basin Water Augmentation Fund. (b) Use of fund Amounts in the fund established under subsection (a) shall be available to the Secretary, without further appropriation, to carry out this title. (c) Availability Amounts appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available until expended.
Within 180 days after enactment, the Secretary would have to restore the Yuma Desalting Plant to operation and operate it at its maximum technically feasible capacity, subject to applicable law and physical limits. Operations would aim to maximize water usable for Mexican treaty requirements while preserving an equivalent amount in the Colorado River system where practicable. Reports on operations, production, preserved river water, and needed investments would be due within 180 days and annually thereafter.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall— (1) restore the Yuma Desalting Plant (referred to in this section as the plant) to operational status; and (2) operate the plant at the maximum technically feasible capacity consistent with applicable law and the physical operating limitations of the plant.
The Secretary shall operate the plant in a manner that maximizes the quantity of water that may be used to satisfy the requirements of the Mexican Water Treaty while preserving an equivalent quantity of water in the Colorado River system to the maximum extent practicable.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing— (1) the operational status of the plant; (2) the quantity of water produced; (3) the quantity of Colorado River water preserved as a result of plant operations; and (4) any additional investments necessary to increase the capacity or reliability of the plant.
Interior would have to develop and implement a program for seawater desalination facilities in Mexico, consulting the State Department and the U.S. Commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission. Its stated purpose would be to substitute desalinated water for Colorado River water used to meet U.S. treaty obligations. Interior could support facilities through grants, loans, loan guarantees, or direct federal construction.
The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the United States Commissioner of the International Boundary and Water Commission, shall develop and implement a program to facilitate the development of one or more seawater desalination facilities in Mexico for the purpose of producing water that may be used to satisfy, offset, replace, or otherwise reduce the quantity of Colorado River water required to satisfy the obligations of the United States under the Mexican Water Treaty (Treaty Series 994).
The Secretary may provide financial assistance for a facility described in subsection (a), including through grants, loans, loan guarantees, or direct Federal construction.
The Secretary of State would have to seek an agreement with Mexico covering desalination facilities, delivery of desalinated water, and a corresponding reduction in Colorado River deliveries. Recognition of substituted water would depend on applicable law and the parties’ agreement. Construction or operation outside the United States would require the host country’s consent.
The Secretary of State shall seek to enter into an agreement with the Government of Mexico providing for— (1) the construction, financing, ownership, operation, or maintenance of one or more seawater desalination facilities; (2) the delivery of desalinated water to Mexico; (3) recognition of the desalinated water, to the maximum extent authorized by applicable law and agreed to by the parties, as satisfying, offsetting, replacing, or otherwise reducing the obligation of the United States to deliver Colorado River water to Mexico; and (4) a corresponding reduction in the amount of Colorado River water required to be delivered from the Colorado River system.
No facility located outside the United States may be constructed or operated under this section without the consent of the country in which the facility is located.
Before counting water from Title III projects toward U.S. treaty obligations, Interior, consulting State, would have to determine that Mexico meets its applicable treaty obligations, including water deliveries or returns to the United States. A noncompliance finding would require notice to State and congressional committees and suspension of additional federal benefits under this title that depend on compliance, until the issue is remedied or resolved under the treaty.
Before crediting any water produced through a project authorized under this title toward satisfaction, reduction, replacement, or offset of any obligation of the United States under the Mexican Water Treaty, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall determine that Mexico is in compliance with its applicable obligations under the Mexican Water Treaty, including any obligation to deliver or return water to the United States under the Mexican Water Treaty.
If the Secretary determines that Mexico is not in compliance with an applicable obligation under the Mexican Water Treaty, the Secretary shall— (1) notify the Secretary of State and the appropriate committees of Congress of the noncompliance; and (2) suspend any additional Federal benefit under this title that is contingent upon Mexican compliance until the Secretary determines that the noncompliance has been remedied or otherwise resolved pursuant to the Mexican Water Treaty.
Interior would have to use the bill’s authorities and the cited existing authority to maximize how much augmentation reduces Colorado River water required from Upper and Lower Division states for Mexican treaty requirements. Once operating augmentation supplies were sufficient for treaty requirements and associated losses, and Mexico was compliant, Interior would have to make the determination and proclamation required by the cited existing law. The source does not reproduce that law or establish the proclamation’s full legal effects. Title III expressly preserves both countries’ treaty obligations.
The Secretary shall use the authorities provided under this Act and section 202 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1512) to maximize the extent to which augmentation of the Colorado River system reduces the quantity of Colorado River water required from the States of the Upper Division and States of the Lower Division to satisfy the requirements of the Mexican Water Treaty.
Upon determining that means are available and in operation that augment the water supply of the Colorado River system in a quantity sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Mexican Water Treaty and associated losses, and that Mexico is in compliance with its applicable obligations under the Mexican Water Treaty, the Secretary shall make the determination and proclamation required under section 202 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1512).
Nothing in this title shall be construed to reduce any obligation of the United States to Mexico under the Mexican Water Treaty. (f) No waiver of Mexican obligations Nothing in this title shall be construed to waive, reduce, modify, or otherwise impair any obligation of Mexico under the Mexican Water Treaty.
A separate federal infrastructure program would investigate, plan, design, and construct major water projects. Its categories would cover California, Arizona and Nevada, and the Upper Basin. The bill defines the Lower Division as Arizona, California, and Nevada, and the Upper Division as Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
The Secretary shall establish a program to investigate, plan, design, and construct major Federal water infrastructure projects that increase the reliable water supply available to the Colorado River Basin States. (b) Project categories The program shall include— (1) California water-supply augmentation projects; (2) Arizona and Nevada water-supply augmentation projects; and (3) Upper Basin water development projects.
The term States of the Lower Division means Arizona, California, and Nevada. (6) States of the Upper Division The term States of the Upper Division means Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
Interior would have to study California projects that capture water otherwise discharged to the Pacific Ocean, add California supplies, and reduce reliance on Colorado River water, including projects outside the river’s natural drainage area. Priority would go to projects meeting the listed capture, alternative-source, and measurable permanent reduction criteria. This section would not establish or modify state-law water rights.
The Secretary shall conduct a feasibility study for Federal projects located in California, including a project located outside the natural drainage area of the Colorado River system, that— (1) captures, stores, or otherwise makes available water that would otherwise be discharged to the Pacific Ocean; (2) provides additional water supplies to California; and (3) reduces California’s reliance on Colorado River water.
the Secretary shall give priority to projects that— (1) prevent water that would otherwise be available for beneficial use in California from being discharged to the Pacific Ocean; (2) develop, capture, store, recycle, desalinate, or otherwise make available water from sources other than the Colorado River; and (3) produce a measurable and permanent reduction in California’s reliance on Colorado River water.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to establish or modify a water right under State law.
Although section 403’s heading names Arizona and Nevada, its study requirement concerns a project in or serving Arizona that increases dependable supplies for the Central Arizona Project. Options include dams, reservoirs, off-stream storage, pipelines, desalination, advanced treatment, and groundwater replenishment. Interior would have to consider and update the investigations and authorities identified in the cited existing law; their underlying text is not supplied.
403. Arizona and Nevada water-supply augmentation projects (a) Feasibility study The Secretary shall conduct a feasibility study for a Federal water storage, conveyance, or augmentation project located in Arizona or serving Arizona that increases the dependable water supply available to the Central Arizona Project.
the Secretary shall consider and update the reconnaissance investigations authorized under section 201 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1511) and the authorities governing the Central Arizona Project under section 301 of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1521).
The projects studied under this section may include— (1) a dam and reservoir; (2) an off-stream storage facility; (3) a pipeline or other conveyance facility; (4) a desalination or advanced water treatment facility; (5) an aquifer recharge facility; or (6) another project that increases the dependable water supply available to the Central Arizona Project.
After the Arizona study, Interior would have to submit its recommended project to Congress. Section 403 would allow construction after findings of technical and economic feasibility, a measurable increase in Arizona’s dependable water supply, and consistency with applicable federal law. Title IV’s additional construction conditions would also apply.
Upon completion of a feasibility study, the Secretary shall submit the recommended project to Congress and may commence construction of the project upon a determination that— (1) the project is technically feasible; (2) the project is economically feasible; (3) the project will provide a measurable increase in the dependable water supply available to Arizona; and (4) the project can be constructed and operated consistent with applicable Federal law.
The Secretary is authorized to construct a project described in sections 402, 403, or 404 after— (1) completion or acceptance of a feasibility study; (2) submission of the feasibility study to the appropriate congressional committees; (3) a determination by the Secretary that the project is technically and economically feasible; (4) certification that construction of the project is consistent with applicable interstate compacts, treaties, decrees, and Federal law; and (5) availability of amounts authorized to be appropriated for construction of the project.
Interior would have to study a federal project helping Upper Division states develop their allocated water supplies without undermining compliance with interstate agreements, treaties, court decrees, or federal law. Options include reservoirs, off-stream storage, pipelines from existing reservoirs, and treatment or supply-expansion facilities. Projects would have to avoid increasing Upper Basin states’ legal obligation to deliver water at Lees Ferry.
The Secretary shall conduct a feasibility study for a Federal project that increases the ability of the States of the Upper Division to develop their apportioned water supplies without impairing compliance with applicable interstate compacts, treaties, decrees, and Federal law.
Any projects studied under this section may include— (1) a new reservoir; (2) an off-stream storage facility; (3) a pipeline or other conveyance facility from an existing reservoir; (4) a water treatment or augmentation facility; or (5) another project that increases the reliable water supply available for use in the Upper Basin.
A project authorized under this section shall be planned and operated in a manner that does not increase the obligation of the States of the Upper Basin to deliver water at Lees Ferry under applicable law.
Within two years after enactment, Interior would have to report to Congress on Upper Basin projects studied, assessing estimated costs and added water, expected beneficiaries, effects on river-system storage and hydropower, needed statutory authority, and other material feasibility factors.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that identifies, and evaluates the feasibility of each project studied under this section based on— (1) the estimated cost of the project; (2) the estimated additional water supply the project would provide; (3) the expected beneficiaries of the project; (4) the expected effect of the project on Colorado River system storage; (5) the expected effect of the project on hydropower generation; (6) the statutory authority necessary to construct and operate the project; and (7) any other factor the Secretary determines to be material to the feasibility, cost, or operation of the project.
For the California, Arizona, and Upper Basin projects, construction authority would depend on a completed or accepted feasibility study, submission to congressional committees, technical and economic feasibility findings, certification of legal consistency, and available construction funding. Once those conditions were met, Interior could begin construction without another act of Congress authorizing the project. Federal reclamation laws would generally apply to construction, operation, and maintenance, subject to exceptions in the bill and the cited consistency requirement.
The Secretary is authorized to construct a project described in sections 402, 403, or 404 after— (1) completion or acceptance of a feasibility study; (2) submission of the feasibility study to the appropriate congressional committees; (3) a determination by the Secretary that the project is technically and economically feasible; (4) certification that construction of the project is consistent with applicable interstate compacts, treaties, decrees, and Federal law; and (5) availability of amounts authorized to be appropriated for construction of the project.
A project that satisfies the requirements of subsection (a) shall be considered authorized for construction, and the Secretary may commence construction without further authorization by an Act of Congress.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a project authorized under this title shall be constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws, consistent with section 604 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1554).
Across the bill, Interior would have to consult basin states, Tribes with affected water rights or other interests, affected water districts and local governments, and affected water users. This consultation section would not give states or their political subdivisions a veto over projects otherwise authorized by federal law.
In carrying out this Act, the Secretary shall consult with— (1) the Colorado River Basin States; (2) Indian Tribes with water rights or other interests affected by a project; (3) affected water districts and local governments; and (4) affected water users.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide a State or political subdivision with authority to veto a project otherwise authorized by Federal law.
The bill would preserve state-law water rights and their priority, the specified Supreme Court decree and later Colorado River decrees or orders, and interstate compacts except where Congress expressly authorizes a change. It would not itself establish, quantify, decide, or modify state-law water rights.
Nothing in this Act shall— (1) establish, quantify, adjudicate, or modify a water right under State law; (2) alter the priority of a water right established under State law; (3) modify the decree entered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona v. California, 547 U.S. 150 (2006), or any subsequent decree or order relating to the Colorado River; or (4) modify an interstate compact except to the extent expressly authorized by Congress.
Existing lawful water uses would be protected from reduction or impairment under the bill, except where federal law or a final judgment by a court with authority over the matter expressly provides otherwise.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to reduce or impair an existing lawful use of water, except to the extent expressly provided by Federal law or a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Within one year after enactment and annually afterward, Interior would have to report on assisted projects, federal and nonfederal investment, estimated and actual added water, and water dedicated to municipal and residential use. Reports would also cover Yuma operations, Mexico desalination negotiations, federal infrastructure projects, and any additional legislative authority needed.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report describing— (1) each project receiving financial assistance under title II; (2) the amount of Federal financial assistance provided; (3) the amount of non-Federal funds invested; (4) the estimated and actual quantity of additional water produced; (5) the quantity of additional water dedicated to municipal and residential uses; (6) the status of the Yuma Desalting Plant; (7) the status of negotiations concerning seawater desalination for Mexico; (8) the status of projects authorized under title IV; and (9) any additional legislative authority necessary to increase water supplies in the Colorado River Basin.
The bill would authorize Congress to appropriate $19 billion: $5 billion for the augmentation program, $1 billion for Yuma restoration, operation, modernization and expansion, $1 billion for Mexico desalination, and $12 billion for federal infrastructure. These are funding authorizations, not appropriations providing those amounts. Money subsequently appropriated under this section would remain available until spent.
(a) Water augmentation program There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000,000 to carry out title II. (b) Yuma desalting plant There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000,000 to restore, operate, modernize, and expand the Yuma Desalting Plant. (c) Mexico desalination There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000,000 to carry out section 302. (d) Federal water infrastructure There is authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000,000 to carry out title IV. (e) Availability Amounts appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available until expended.
The supplied official-actions snapshot updated October 1, 2026, records introduction in the House on September 16, 2026, and referral that day to the Natural Resources and Foreign Affairs committees. This dated snapshot does not establish later legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-01T21:18:46Z.
2026-09-16: 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.
2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish attachment history or the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No spending provision meeting the stated earmark definition was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. Funding authorizations alone do not establish earmarks. This conclusion is limited to this version; formal earmark status cannot be resolved without relevant accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The findings identify special treatment warranting scrutiny under the targeted-benefits definition. Classification is not a judgment about its merits or motives.
Sponsors of covered projects would receive a special exemption from National Environmental Policy Act review. Eligibility is tied to specified geographic and benefit criteria or an Interior determination about supporting a basin state’s water availability. This exemption advances the bill’s expedited-review policy. Section 102 preserves requirements of other federal laws unless expressly waived by the bill and does not eliminate their substantive requirements.
the term covered project means a project— (1) located— (A) in a Colorado River Basin State; and (B) outside the Colorado River Basin but designed to provide a water supply, energy supply, or other direct benefit to a Colorado River Basin State; or (2) that the Secretary determines will materially increase, preserve, transport, store, treat, or otherwise support the availability of water for a Colorado River Basin State.
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to a covered project
Nothing in this section shall be construed to— (1) waive a requirement imposed by another Federal law unless expressly provided by this Act; or (2) eliminate a substantive requirement applicable to a covered project under another Federal law.
Projects located in states that have adopted laws or regulations facilitating additional water supplies for new residential construction would receive a selection preference for financial assistance. This favors a subset of otherwise eligible projects based on their state’s housing-related water policy and connects that preference to the bill’s water-supply program.
In selecting projects for financial assistance under this title, the Secretary shall give priority to projects that—
(7) are located in a State that has enacted laws or regulations designed to facilitate the development of additional water supplies for new residential construction
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 1, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI