119-HR-338 Investigative Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary

• What the bill changes: expands eligible projects under IIJA §40903 to include average‑annual groundwater recharge projects (200–150,000 acre‑feet) and extends program authority from 5 to 10 years; preserves state, federal, tribal, and compact water rights. [1]Congress.gov — Text - H.R.338 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Every Drop Counts A…
• Program context: the Small Storage Program currently funds 200–30,000 acre‑feet storage projects in Reclamation states with a 25% federal cost share (≤$30M) and NEPA compliance. [3]U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — Small Storage Program | Bureau of Reclamation[2]LII / Cornell Law School — 43 U.S. Code § 3203 - Small water storage and ground…
• Process status (as of Nov 21, 2025): referred to Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries (Nov 12, 2025); subcommittee hearing held Nov 19, 2025. [7]Congress.gov — H.R.338 - Titles/All Actions page (includes 11/19/2025 subcommit…

Economic Effects

Directional impacts depend on local hydrology, project mix (surface vs. groundwater storage), and cost controls.

• Capital outlays and jobs (construction phase): small‑scale storage and recharge projects spur civil works spending; federal share capped at 25% or $30M per project under §3203(c), limiting federal exposure but leveraging non‑federal funds. [2]LII / Cornell Law School — 43 U.S. Code § 3203 - Small water storage and ground…
• Cost per acre‑foot: empirical syntheses show managed aquifer recharge (MAR) typically $90–$1,100/AF (median ≈$390–$410), compared with ~${\sim}$2,100/AF for surface storage options—suggesting the bill’s expanded recharge eligibility could favor lower‑cost yield where conditions permit. [8]Stanford Water in the West — Cost Comparison of Water Projects[9]Stanford News — Stanford researchers reveal cost‑effective path to drought resi…
• Reliability and portfolio value: conjunctive use and MAR have reversed local groundwater declines in parts of California and Arizona and add multi‑year drought buffering, complementing surface reservoirs. [10]USGS Publications Warehouse — Enhancing drought resilience with conjunctive use…
• Agricultural and municipal benefits: greater storage flexibility can mitigate curtailments and crop or industrial losses during dry years; Arizona’s long‑running water banking program illustrates scale (≈4.41 MAF of long‑term credits accrued through 2024). [11]Arizona Water Banking Authority — Home | Arizona Water Banking Authority (credi…
• Fiscal/market risks: surface impoundments face cost escalation (materials, permitting) and longer lead times; groundwater projects can face siting, land access, and water‑right accounting costs that erode apparent unit‑cost advantages. (Inference from program rules and regional project experience.) [2]LII / Cornell Law School — 43 U.S. Code § 3203 - Small water storage and ground…[3]U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — Small Storage Program | Bureau of Reclamation

Social Effects

Impacts vary by community type and existing water governance.

• Domestic wells and vulnerable communities: stabilizing groundwater levels can reduce dry‑well incidents; state tools (e.g., California’s Dry Well Reporting/Susceptibility platforms) show persistent vulnerability in droughts. Expanded recharge eligibility targets this issue indirectly. [12]California DWR / SWRCB — Dry Well Reporting System (California) — dashboard
• Tribal and rural users: the bill’s construction clause preserves water rights and treaty/compact obligations; examples like Arizona’s Water Banking Authority demonstrate storage used to firm tribal and municipal supplies under shortage. [1]Congress.gov — Text - H.R.338 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Every Drop Counts A…[11]Arizona Water Banking Authority — Home | Arizona Water Banking Authority (credi…
• Equity considerations: fees and reporting under state groundwater laws (e.g., SGMA probation fees) can burden small users; recharge that lifts groundwater can offset these pressures locally. [13]Web search · turn 2 #1

Environmental Effects

Net ecological effects depend on whether projects emphasize aquifer recharge or new impoundments—and on design/operations.

• Evaporation vs. recharge: Lower Colorado River analyses estimate ~1.3 MAF/yr in combined evaporation and riparian evapotranspiration losses (2017–2021), underscoring efficiency gains when storage shifts underground. [4]U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — Lower Colorado River Operations — Mainstream Evapo…
• Reservoir greenhouse gases: reservoirs can emit methane; U.S. agencies are actively measuring emissions to improve inventories, and global syntheses find non‑trivial fluxes, context‑dependent. [5]U.S. EPA — Research on Emissions from U.S. Reservoirs (SuRGE)[6]BioScience (PMC) — Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Reservoir Water Surfaces: A Ne…
• Groundwater quality risks from MAR/ASR: mismatches in injectate–aquifer geochemistry can mobilize arsenic, iron, manganese, or form disinfection byproducts if not managed; EPA documents exceedances at some sites, guiding risk controls. [14]U.S. EPA — Aquifer Recharge and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (UIC)
• Habitat/fisheries: dams and impoundments alter temperature, dissolved gases, and sediment regimes affecting salmonids and other species; screening and fish‑passage/operational mitigations are critical. [15]NOAA Fisheries — How Dams Affect Water and Habitat on the West Coast
• Subsidence mitigation: sustained recharge and conjunctive management can help arrest land subsidence that threatens canals and levees in overdrafted basins (e.g., San Joaquin Valley). [16]USGS — Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley

Temporal Analysis

• Immediate (0–2 years): planning, feasibility, and permitting activity increase; limited near‑term physical yield except for shovel‑ready recharge basins or conveyance tweaks. Program authority extension provides continuity through ~2031 (10 years after Nov 15, 2021). [2]LII / Cornell Law School — 43 U.S. Code § 3203 - Small water storage and ground…
• Medium term (3–7 years): MAR and small‑surface projects begin delivering reliability gains; localized aquifer stabilization benefits (domestic wells, reduced pumping lifts) accrue; costs realized with construction inflation risk. [9]Stanford News — Stanford researchers reveal cost‑effective path to drought resi…
• Long term (8+ years): cumulative storage improves drought resilience where hydrologic surplus exists to capture; ecological outcomes hinge on adaptive operations and water‑quality management; federal exposure remains capped per project. [10]USGS Publications Warehouse — Enhancing drought resilience with conjunctive use…[2]LII / Cornell Law School — 43 U.S. Code § 3203 - Small water storage and ground…

Unintended Consequences and Risks

• Hydrologic shortfalls: eligibility expansion cannot create surplus water; Lower Colorado mainstream losses highlight scarcity and the need for realistic yield assumptions. [4]U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — Lower Colorado River Operations — Mainstream Evapo…
• Quality setbacks at recharge sites: arsenic or disinfection byproducts can emerge without careful pretreatment and geochemical controls; monitoring and contingency plans are essential. [14]U.S. EPA — Aquifer Recharge and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (UIC)
• Ecological trade‑offs: even small impoundments can affect temperature/oxygen regimes and fish movement; require passage and thermal‑management designs. [15]NOAA Fisheries — How Dams Affect Water and Habitat on the West Coast
• Cost escalation/permitting delay: surface components risk overruns; although projects are smaller than major dams, environmental compliance and local opposition can still delay benefits. (Inference grounded in existing program rules.) [2]LII / Cornell Law School — 43 U.S. Code § 3203 - Small water storage and ground…
• Governance/accounting frictions: recovery rights, allocation, and metering can create disputes without clear state‑level accounting (Arizona’s experience shows the value of robust crediting systems). [11]Arizona Water Banking Authority — Home | Arizona Water Banking Authority (credi…

Assessment (Analytical Stance)

Neutral.

On balance, H.R. 338 is likely to be neutral overall: it modestly increases the menu of eligible projects and extends the program’s runway, enabling cost‑effective groundwater recharge where conditions are favorable, while maintaining existing cost‑share limits and deference to state and tribal water law. Net benefits depend on rigorous project selection, transparent accounting of evapotranspiration/evaporation losses, and enforceable water‑quality safeguards at MAR sites. [1]Congress.gov — Text - H.R.338 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Every Drop Counts A…[2]LII / Cornell Law School — 43 U.S. Code § 3203 - Small water storage and ground…[4]U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — Lower Colorado River Operations — Mainstream Evapo…[14]U.S. EPA — Aquifer Recharge and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (UIC)

Sourcing (selected)

Core documentation and data consulted for this assessment:

• Bill text and status: Congress.gov bill text/actions and subcommittee hearing listing. [1]Congress.gov — Text - H.R.338 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Every Drop Counts A…[7]Congress.gov — H.R.338 - Titles/All Actions page (includes 11/19/2025 subcommit…
• Program authority and limits: 43 U.S.C. §3203 (eligibility, federal share, NEPA, termination). [2]LII / Cornell Law School — 43 U.S. Code § 3203 - Small water storage and ground…
• Program implementation context: Bureau of Reclamation Small Storage Program guidance. [3]U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — Small Storage Program | Bureau of Reclamation
• Hydrologic baselines: Reclamation’s Lower Colorado evaporation/ET overview (≈1.3 MAF/yr). [4]U.S. Bureau of Reclamation — Lower Colorado River Operations — Mainstream Evapo…
• Reservoir GHG science: EPA SuRGE program; Deemer et al. BioScience synthesis. [5]U.S. EPA — Research on Emissions from U.S. Reservoirs (SuRGE)[6]BioScience (PMC) — Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Reservoir Water Surfaces: A Ne…
• Recharge economics: Stanford Water in the West/Stanford Report cost syntheses. [8]Stanford Water in the West — Cost Comparison of Water Projects[9]Stanford News — Stanford researchers reveal cost‑effective path to drought resi…
• Conjunctive use benefits: USGS analyses of MAR and conjunctive management. [10]USGS Publications Warehouse — Enhancing drought resilience with conjunctive use…
• Subsidence risk context: USGS San Joaquin Valley program. [16]USGS — Land Subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley
• Recharge water‑quality risks: EPA UIC guidance on AR/ASR. [14]U.S. EPA — Aquifer Recharge and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (UIC)
• Ecological impacts of dams: NOAA Fisheries overview. [15]NOAA Fisheries — How Dams Affect Water and Habitat on the West Coast
• Operational precedent: Arizona Water Banking Authority crediting and firming. [11]Arizona Water Banking Authority — Home | Arizona Water Banking Authority (credi…