House Bill Grants 10 Governors Veto Power Over Missouri River Water Projects

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a federal water bill with a 415-9 vote, embedding a provision that grants ten governors absolute veto power over water infrastructure projects. The measure, part of the Water Resources Development Act, now waits for Senate action, where a separate version of the legislation lacks this specific requirement. This legislative move has intensified a long-standing dispute between upstream and downstream states regarding water rights and flow management.

The House bill defines Missouri River states to include the seven states where the river flows, plus Colorado, Minnesota, and Wyoming. These ten states share a 530,000-square-mile drainage basin. Under the proposed rule, any project moving water from the river or its tributaries to a non-Missouri River state requires the approval of every governor within that basin. The House version sponsors the bill, U.S. Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri, alongside the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, which argues that downstream states need a mechanism to prevent water loss to drier western regions.

Shane Kinne, executive director of the coalition, stated that Missourians have faced real water shortages for the last four years. He noted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has limited water releases from upper reservoirs during that period, which disrupted commercial barge traffic. Kinne argued that basin states must collaborate to manage the resource together, saying, "If this isn't the proposal, let's bring some ideas to address this concern."

Governors from Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, and Wyoming recently signed a letter opposing the House provision. The governor of Utah, a state outside the basin, also joined the opposition. Utah relies on the Colorado River, but its Great Salt Lake Commission has identified the Missouri River as a potential source for imported water. The letter argues that the bill gives each governor "absolute veto power" to stop other states from studying the feasibility of projects in a watershed covering one-sixth of the continental United States.

U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota was one of nine representatives who voted against the House bill. In a statement to South Dakota Searchlight, he said the provision would hamper the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to manage dams and reservoirs. He questioned why the Corps would need unanimous approval from governors to study a project that provides water across state lines.

Jay Gilbertson, who manages the East Dakota Water Development District in Brookings, opposed the provision despite acknowledging that several currently proposed pipeline projects in South Dakota would not be impeded by the new rule. He warned that the language marks the start of a process that will limit future capabilities. Gilbertson criticized the requirement for ten states to agree, stating, "You can't get 10 states to agree on anything."

Darrell Raschke, a member of the boards for the Mid-Dakota Rural Water System and the Upper Missouri Water Association, expressed similar concerns. He argued that the unanimity requirement is bad policy because a single governor can stop a project. Raschke asked, "One governor says no, you just shot the whole project down. Why would you put that in law?"