HB8745, the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authorization Act, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System in Montana, consistent with a 2025 Bureau of Reclamation feasibility study. The bill is aimed at providing a safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water supply for communities in several Montana counties—Garfield, McCone, Dawson, Prairie, and Richland—as well as part of McKenzie County, North Dakota. It establishes the project’s service area, defines the participating authority and related terms, and directs the Secretary to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority for planning, design, and construction.
The bill sets a federal cost-share cap of 75 percent for planning, design, and construction, with the remaining costs borne by the authority and other nonfederal sources. It specifies that federal funds may be used for major project components such as pumping, treatment, storage, pipelines, interconnections, access roads, and related property rights, but not for operation, maintenance, or replacement of the system. Title to the system would remain with the Authority. The bill also authorizes up to $602 million for fiscal years 2027 through 2037, with adjustments allowed for cost inflation and market volatility.
HB8745 would also require the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration to supply the water system with the power needed for operations at the firm power rate, provided the system operates on a not-for-profit basis and is built under the cooperative agreement. The Authority would be responsible for power charges and any necessary transmission or distribution upgrades, including upgrades to the integrated power system or nonfederal delivery systems. In addition, the bill includes a finding tying McCone and Garfield Counties to historical Pick-Sloan Program impact mitigation benefits associated with Fort Peck Dam.
The bill expressly states that it does not preempt or affect state water law or state authority to manage water resources, which limits its legal effect on Montana water rights and administration. Its main impact would therefore be on federal authorization and funding for a regional rural water infrastructure project, rather than on broader water-law governance. The affected parties are the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority, local residents and water users in the service area, the Department of the Interior, and the Western Area Power Administration.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears generally supportive of rural infrastructure development and water access, with the main policy questions likely centered on federal spending, the size of the authorization, and the allocation of construction and power-related costs between federal and local entities.
The bill would create a federal authorization for the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System and direct the Department of the Interior to support planning, design, and construction through a cooperative agreement. It would authorize up to $602 million in appropriations over fiscal years 2027 through 2037, establish a federal share limit of 75 percent, and permit federal funds to be used for specified water-system infrastructure but not for ongoing operations or maintenance. It would also require Western Area Power Administration to provide firm power for system operations under defined conditions, while leaving title with the local authority and preserving state water-law authority.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll calls. On its face, the bill is framed as a rural water-supply and infrastructure measure, suggesting a generally favorable policy posture toward improving municipal, rural, and industrial water access in the affected counties. Any opposition would likely focus on federal spending levels, long-term cost-sharing, and the scope of federal involvement rather than the project’s stated purpose.
The main potential points of contention are the size of the federal authorization, the 75 percent federal cost-share, and the requirement that the Western Area Power Administration supply firm power at a set rate. Local and federal stakeholders may also differ over responsibility for transmission upgrades, delivery arrangements, and nonfederal costs. Another possible issue is the bill’s reliance on a specific feasibility study and its inclusion of a condition that livestock watering not be limited to incidental noncommercial use, which may matter to agricultural users. No explicit objections were recorded in the provided materials.