Congress doubles water storage funding—but leaves equity and sustainability to chance.

What it does

This bill amends the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to expand eligibility for federal water storage grants. It increases the maximum capacity threshold for groundwater storage projects from 30,000 to 150,000 acre-feet annually, broadens the types of projects that qualify (including those that convey or recover water from storage), and doubles the federal funding authority from $5 billion to $10 billion for these grants.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a straightforward expansion of federal grant eligibility and funding authority for water storage projects under existing IIJA authority. It increases thresholds and broadens project types without introducing new regulatory frameworks or hidden carve-outs.

What the text implies

• The bill raises the annual groundwater recharge threshold to 150,000 acre-feet but does not specify environmental review standards, aquifer sustainability criteria, or protections against over-extraction—potentially enabling projects that deplete aquifers faster than they recharge.
• Doubling federal funding authority ($5B to $10B) without appropriations language means the bill creates authority but does not guarantee funding; actual dollars depend on future appropriations bills, which may not materialize.
• The bill permits projects that 'convey water, directly or indirectly, to or from storage' without defining what indirect conveyance means—potentially capturing long-distance water transfers or inter-basin projects that may conflict with state water law or interstate compacts despite the savings clause.
• No priority criteria are stated for grant awards; federal agencies will have discretion to fund projects, creating risk that large agricultural operations or private water companies capture grants intended for public water security.
• The savings clause (section 3) preserves state water law and interstate compacts but does not clarify how federal grants interact with state permitting—projects may receive federal money while state permits are still pending or contested.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Citizens in water-stressed regions may benefit from expanded storage capacity and federal funding for drought resilience and water security. However, the bill does not specify how projects are prioritized, whether environmental protections apply, or how benefits are distributed across communities—creating risk that funding flows to large agricultural or industrial users rather than public water systems or disadvantaged areas.

Who stands to gain

• water districts and municipal water authorities
• agricultural water users and irrigation districts
• groundwater recharge and storage technology providers
• engineering and construction firms specializing in water infrastructure

Named in the bill

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Section 40903(b)(1) and 40903(e) of IIJA, House Committee on Natural Resources, State water agencies, Federal water law

Where it stands

7 cosponsors: 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats.

• Jan 13, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jan 13, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources”
• Nov 19, 2025 — Hearing held · Congress.gov: “Subcommittee Hearings Held”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

4 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $540,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 5 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 72% of bills with at least one filing.

Jim Costa, the sponsor, reported $855,144 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California — $380,000 on 2 filings
• National Water Resources Association — $120,000 on 1 filing
• Idaho Water Resource Board — $20,000 on 1 filing
• National Audubon Society — $20,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 15, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.