SB 4489, 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, based substantially on a Bureau of Reclamation feasibility study completed in October 2025. The bill is aimed at providing a safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water supply for residents in several counties in eastern Montana and a portion of McKenzie County, North Dakota. It defines the project area, identifies the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority as the local nonprofit public entity responsible for the system, and allows the project to proceed through a cooperative agreement with the federal government.
The bill would provide a federal framework for planning, design, and construction of the water system, with the federal share capped at 75 percent of total project costs or a lower amount set in a feasibility report. It specifies eligible uses of federal funds, including pumping, treatment, storage, pipelines, interconnections, power transmission and distribution facilities needed for operation, and acquisition of necessary property rights. The bill also states that federal funds could not be used for operation, maintenance, or replacement of the system, and that title to the system would remain with the Authority. It authorizes $602 million for fiscal years 2027 through 2037, with adjustments allowed for cost indexing and market volatility.
A separate section addresses power supply for the project by requiring the Western Area Power Administration to make available the power needed to operate the system, at the firm power rate, if the system is nonprofit and built under the cooperative agreement. The Authority would be responsible for power charges and for any non-federal transmission or distribution upgrades needed to deliver electricity to the system. The bill also includes a finding tying McCone and Garfield Counties to historical Pick-Sloan Program impact mitigation benefits, which is used to support the power provisions.
The bill expressly preserves state authority over water law and water resource management, stating that it does not preempt or affect state water law. In practical terms, it would create a federal authorization and funding pathway for a major rural water infrastructure project while leaving ownership and ongoing operating responsibilities with the local authority and preserving state water rights authority.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears generally supportive of rural water development and infrastructure investment, with the main policy emphasis on federal assistance, local control, and protection of state water law. Potential contention would likely center on the size of the federal authorization, the 75 percent federal cost share, the use of federal power resources, and whether the project’s service area and benefits are appropriately defined.
The bill would add a specific federal authorization for the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System and direct the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation framework, to support planning, design, and construction of the project. It would not change state water law or state authority over water resource management, and it would keep title to the system with the local Authority. It also creates a federal power-supply obligation tied to the Western Area Power Administration and the Pick-Sloan Program, while leaving operation, maintenance, and replacement costs to the local entity.
No committee discussion or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll call history. On its face, the bill reflects a pro-infrastructure, pro-rural-development posture and appears designed to help local communities secure a long-term water supply. The text also shows an effort to reassure stakeholders by preserving state water authority and limiting federal responsibility to capital assistance and power access.
The most likely points of contention are the scale of federal spending, the proposed 75 percent federal cost share, and the authorization of $602 million over a multi-year period. Another possible issue is the bill’s requirement that the Western Area Power Administration provide power for the system at the firm power rate, along with any needed transmission or distribution upgrades, which could raise concerns among power administrators or other users. Stakeholders could also dispute the scope of the service area, the inclusion of North Dakota territory, and the bill’s treatment of livestock watering and historical Pick-Sloan mitigation claims.