Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Changes from December 7, 2021 to March 8, 2022

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation
~~December 7, 2021~~March 8, 2022
The Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal water project owned and operated by the U.S. The Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal water project owned and operated by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), is one of the world’s largest water supply projects. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), is one of the world’s largest water supply projects. The
Charles V. Stern
CVP covers approximately 400 miles in California, from Redding to Bakersfield, and draws from CVP covers approximately 400 miles in California, from Redding to Bakersfield, and draws from
Specialist in Natural Specialist in Natural
two large river basins: the Sacramento and the San Joaquin. It is composed of 20 dams and two large river basins: the Sacramento and the San Joaquin. It is composed of 20 dams and
Resources Policy Resources Policy
reservoirs and numerous pieces of water storage and conveyance infrastructure. In an average reservoirs and numerous pieces of water storage and conveyance infrastructure. In an average

year, the CVP delivers more than 7 million acre-feet of water to support irrigated agriculture, year, the CVP delivers more than 7 million acre-feet of water to support irrigated agriculture,
Pervaze A. Sheikh
municipalities, and fish and wildlife needs, among other purposes. About 75% of CVP water is municipalities, and fish and wildlife needs, among other purposes. About 75% of CVP water is
Specialist in Natural Specialist in Natural
used for agricultural irrigation, including 7 of California’s top 10 agricultural counties. The CVP used for agricultural irrigation, including 7 of California’s top 10 agricultural counties. The CVP
Resources Policy Resources Policy
is operated jointly with the State Water Project (SWP), which provides much of its water to is operated jointly with the State Water Project (SWP), which provides much of its water to

municipal users in Southern California. municipal users in Southern California.
Erin H. Ward
CVP water is delivered to users that have contracts with Reclamation, which is part of the CVP water is delivered to users that have contracts with Reclamation, which is part of the
Legislative Attorney Legislative Attorney
Department of the Interior. These contractors receive varying levels of priority for water Department of the Interior. These contractors receive varying levels of priority for water

deliveries based on several factors, including hydrology, water rights, prior agreements with deliveries based on several factors, including hydrology, water rights, prior agreements with
Reclamation, and regulatory requirements. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’ confluence Reclamation, and regulatory requirements. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’ confluence

with the San Francisco Bay ( with the San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta or or Delta) is a hub for CVP water deliveries; many CVP ) is a hub for CVP water deliveries; many CVP
contractors south of the Delta receive water that is “exported” from north of the Delta. contractors south of the Delta receive water that is “exported” from north of the Delta.
Development of the CVP resulted in significant changes to the area’s natural hydrology. However, construction of most CVP Development of the CVP resulted in significant changes to the area’s natural hydrology. However, construction of most CVP
facilities predated major federal natural resources and environmental protection laws. Much of the current debate related to facilities predated major federal natural resources and environmental protection laws. Much of the current debate related to
the CVP revolves around how to deal with changes to the hydrologic system that were not significantly mitigated when the the CVP revolves around how to deal with changes to the hydrologic system that were not significantly mitigated when the
project was constructed. Dry conditionsproject was constructed. Dry conditions ~~since the onset of these requirements~~—including a prolonged drought from 2012 to —including a prolonged drought from 2012 to
~~2016 and dry conditions in 2020 and 2021—have once again~~2016 and the current drought, which dates to 2020—have led to curtailment of led to curtailment of contracted water supplies. Reclamation has been unable to provide any water supplies to most CVP agricultural water service contractors in 4 of the past 11 years (including 2021 and 2022) and has cut supplies for some senior water rights holders during this time~~water supplies and increased the stakes of~~
~~these debates~~. .
Various state and federal proposals are currently under consideration and have generated controversy for their potential to Various state and federal proposals are currently under consideration and have generated controversy for their potential to
affect CVP operations and allocations. In late 2018, the State of California finalized revisions to its Bay-Delta Water Quality affect CVP operations and allocations. In late 2018, the State of California finalized revisions to its Bay-Delta Water Quality
Control Plan that would require more flows from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers to reach the Bay-Delta for water Control Plan that would require more flows from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers to reach the Bay-Delta for water
quality and fish and wildlife enhancement (i.e., reduced water supplies for other users). “Voluntary agreements” that might quality and fish and wildlife enhancement (i.e., reduced water supplies for other users). “Voluntary agreements” that might
replace some or all of these requirements are currently being negotiated but have yet to be finalized. Concurrently, the Trump replace some or all of these requirements are currently being negotiated but have yet to be finalized. Concurrently, the Trump
Administration attempted to increase CVP water supplies for users and made changes to long-term operations of the CVP in Administration attempted to increase CVP water supplies for users and made changes to long-term operations of the CVP in
a 2019 biological opinion created under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). California and some a 2019 biological opinion created under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). California and some
environmental organizations opposed these efforts and filed lawsuits to prevent implementation of the changes. The court environmental organizations opposed these efforts and filed lawsuits to prevent implementation of the changes. The court
issued a preliminary injunction on May 11, 2020, temporarily prohibiting Reclamation from implementing the operational issued a preliminary injunction on May 11, 2020, temporarily prohibiting Reclamation from implementing the operational
changes through May 31, 2020 (an extension was denied by the court). On September 30, 2021, Reclamation requested changes through May 31, 2020 (an extension was denied by the court). On September 30, 2021, Reclamation requested
reinitiation of consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to reinitiation of consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
assess the effects of proposed changes to CVP operations and to voluntarily reconcile CVP operations with SWP operational assess the effects of proposed changes to CVP operations and to voluntarily reconcile CVP operations with SWP operational
requirements under the California ESA permit. Reclamation and California submitted to the court a proposed revised interim requirements under the California ESA permit. Reclamation and California submitted to the court a proposed revised interim
operations plan for the October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022, water year while reinitiated consultation is ongoing. Other operations plan for the October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022, water year while reinitiated consultation is ongoing. Other
parties to the litigation have raised objections to the plan. Reclamation and California submitted motions requesting adoption parties to the litigation have raised objections to the plan. Reclamation and California submitted motions requesting adoption
of the interim operations plan and a stay of the litigation through September 30, 2022. of the interim operations plan and a stay of the litigation through September 30, 2022.
Congress has engaged in CVP issues through oversight and legislation, most recently in the form of provisions enacted under Congress has engaged in CVP issues through oversight and legislation, most recently in the form of provisions enacted under
the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322). Among other things, this act the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322). Among other things, this act
authorized changes to CVP operations that are intended to provide increased water supplies for agricultural and municipal authorized changes to CVP operations that are intended to provide increased water supplies for agricultural and municipal
contractors under certain circumstances. In the same legislation, Congress also authorized funding for new water storage contractors under certain circumstances. In the same legislation, Congress also authorized funding for new water storage
projects that are expected to benefit CVP operations. In the 117th Congress, legislators may consider bills and conduct projects that are expected to benefit CVP operations. In the 117th Congress, legislators may consider bills and conduct
oversight on efforts to increase CVP water exports compared with current baselines. Some in Congress have also weighed in oversight on efforts to increase CVP water exports compared with current baselines. Some in Congress have also weighed in
on disagreements between state and federal project operators and the status of coordinated operations of the CVP and SWP. on disagreements between state and federal project operators and the status of coordinated operations of the CVP and SWP.
Congress is also considering whether to approve funding for new water storage projects and may consider legislation to Congress is also considering whether to approve funding for new water storage projects and may consider legislation to
extend or amend CVP authorities. extend or amend CVP authorities.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page 37 link to page 39 link to page 37 link to page 39 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Appendixes
Appendix. CVP Water Contractors ................................................................................................ 33

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 35

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page 9 link to page 9 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Introduction
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), part of the Department of the Interior (DOI), operates The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), part of the Department of the Interior (DOI), operates
the multipurpose federal Central Valley Project (CVP) in California, one of the world’s largest the multipurpose federal Central Valley Project (CVP) in California, one of the world’s largest
water storage and conveyance systems. The CVP runs approximately 400 miles in California, water storage and conveyance systems. The CVP runs approximately 400 miles in California,
from Redding to Bakersfield from Redding to Bakersfield (Figure 1). It supplies water to hundreds of thousands of acres of . It supplies water to hundreds of thousands of acres of
irrigated agriculture throughout the state, including some of the most valuable cropland in the irrigated agriculture throughout the state, including some of the most valuable cropland in the
country. It also provides water to selected state and federal wildlife refuges, as well as to some country. It also provides water to selected state and federal wildlife refuges, as well as to some
municipal and industrial (M&I) water users. The CVP’s operations are coordinated with the municipal and industrial (M&I) water users. The CVP’s operations are coordinated with the
state’s other largest water supply project, the state-operated State Water Project (SWP). state’s other largest water supply project, the state-operated State Water Project (SWP).
This report provides information on hydrologic conditions in California and their impact on state This report provides information on hydrologic conditions in California and their impact on state
and federal water management, with a focus on deliveries related to the federal CVP. It also and federal water management, with a focus on deliveries related to the federal CVP. It also
summarizes selected issues for Congress related to the CVP. summarizes selected issues for Congress related to the CVP.
Recent Developments
The drought of 2012-2016, widely considered to be among California’s most severe droughts in The drought of 2012-2016, widely considered to be among California’s most severe droughts in
recent history, resulted in major reductions to CVP contractor allocations and economic and recent history, resulted in major reductions to CVP contractor allocations and economic and
environmental impacts throughout the state.1 These impacts were of interest to Congress, which environmental impacts throughout the state.1 These impacts were of interest to Congress, which
oversees federal operation of the CVP. Although the drought ended with the wet winter of 2017, oversees federal operation of the CVP. Although the drought ended with the wet winter of 2017,
dry conditions in 2020 and 2021 (the driest water year on record since 1977) have resulted in dry conditions in 2020 and 2021 (the driest water year on record since 1977) have resulted in
renewed water supply curtailments.2 Absent major changes to existing hydrologic, legislative, and renewed water supply curtailments.2 Absent major changes to existing hydrologic, legislative, and
regulatory baselines, most agree that at least some water users are likely to face constrained water regulatory baselines, most agree that at least some water users are likely to face constrained water
supplies in water year 2022. Due to the limited available water supplies, proposed changes to the supplies in water year 2022. Due to the limited available water supplies, proposed changes to the
current operations and allocation system are controversial. current operations and allocation system are controversial.
Because of the relative scarcity of water in the West and the importance of federal water Because of the relative scarcity of water in the West and the importance of federal water
infrastructure to the region, western water issues are regularly of interest to many lawmakers. infrastructure to the region, western water issues are regularly of interest to many lawmakers.
Legislation enacted in the 114th Congress (Title II of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for Legislation enacted in the 114th Congress (Title II of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for
the Nation [WIIN] Act; P.L. 114-322) included several CVP-related sections.3 These provisions the Nation [WIIN] Act; P.L. 114-322) included several CVP-related sections.3 These provisions
directed pumping to “maximize” water supplies for the CVP (including pumping or “exports” to directed pumping to “maximize” water supplies for the CVP (including pumping or “exports” to
CVP water users south of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’ confluence with the San CVP water users south of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’ confluence with the San
Francisco Bay, known as the Francisco Bay, known as the Bay-Delta or or Delta) in accordance with applicable biological ) in accordance with applicable biological
opinions (BiOps) for project operations.4 They also allowed for increased pumping during certain opinions (BiOps) for project operations.4 They also allowed for increased pumping during certain
storm events generating high flows, authorized actions to facilitate water transfers, and storm events generating high flows, authorized actions to facilitate water transfers, and
established a new standard for measuring the effects of water operations on species. In addition to established a new standard for measuring the effects of water operations on species. In addition to

1 For more information on drought in general, see CRS Report R46911, 1 For more information on drought in general, see CRS Report R46911, Drought in the United States: Science, Policy,
and Selected Federal Authorities, coordinated by Charles V. Stern and Eva Lipiec. , coordinated by Charles V. Stern and Eva Lipiec.
2 A 2 A water year is a hydrologic unit for measuring a 12-month total for which precipitation totals are measured. In is a hydrologic unit for measuring a 12-month total for which precipitation totals are measured. In
California, the water year typically is measured from October 1 of one year to September 30 of the following year. California, the water year typically is measured from October 1 of one year to September 30 of the following year.
3 For more information, see CRS Report R44986, 3 For more information, see CRS Report R44986, Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act:
Bureau of Reclamation and California Water Provisions, by Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Nicole T. Carter. , by Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Nicole T. Carter.
4 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that a federal agency proposing an action that may have an effect on a 4 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that a federal agency proposing an action that may have an effect on a
listed species consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (i.e., regulatory listed species consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (i.e., regulatory
agencies). The action agency will commonly complete a biological assessment on potential effects to the fish or its agencies). The action agency will commonly complete a biological assessment on potential effects to the fish or its
habitat and submit it to the regulatory agency. The regulatory agency then renders a biological opinion, or BiOp, to the habitat and submit it to the regulatory agency. The regulatory agency then renders a biological opinion, or BiOp, to the
action agency making the proposal. The intent of a BiOp is to ensure that the proposed action will not reduce the action agency making the proposal. The intent of a BiOp is to ensure that the proposed action will not reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of an ESA-listed species. BiOps typically include conservation recommendations likelihood of survival and recovery of an ESA-listed species. BiOps typically include conservation recommendations
intended to further recovery of the ESA-listed species. For more information, see CRS Report R46677, intended to further recovery of the ESA-listed species. For more information, see CRS Report R46677, The
Endangered Species Act: Overview and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Erin H. Ward, and R. Eliot Crafton. , by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Erin H. Ward, and R. Eliot Crafton.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1 1

link to page 9 link to page 9 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

operational provisions, the WIIN Act authorized funding for construction of new federal and operational provisions, the WIIN Act authorized funding for construction of new federal and
nonfederal water storage projects. CVP projects are among the most likely recipients of this nonfederal water storage projects. CVP projects are among the most likely recipients of this
funding. funding.
Due to increased precipitation and disagreements with the state, among other factors, the WIIN Due to increased precipitation and disagreements with the state, among other factors, the WIIN
Act’s operational authorities generally did not yield significant new water exports south of the Act’s operational authorities generally did not yield significant new water exports south of the
Delta in 2017-2020. However, Reclamation received funding for WIIN Act-authorized water Delta in 2017-2020. However, Reclamation received funding for WIIN Act-authorized water
storage project design and construction in FY2017-FY2021, and the majority of this funding has storage project design and construction in FY2017-FY2021, and the majority of this funding has
gone to CVP-related projects. gone to CVP-related projects.
Separate state and federal plans under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, Separate state and federal plans under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act,
respectively, would alter water allocation and operational criteria in markedly different ways and respectively, would alter water allocation and operational criteria in markedly different ways and
have generated controversy. In mid-2018, the State of California proposed revisions to its Bay-have generated controversy. In mid-2018, the State of California proposed revisions to its Bay-
Delta Water Quality Control Plan (developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act [CWA; 33 U.S.C. Delta Water Quality Control Plan (developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act [CWA; 33 U.S.C.
§§1251-138]). These changes would require that more flows from the San Joaquin and §§1251-138]). These changes would require that more flows from the San Joaquin and
Sacramento Rivers reach the California Bay-Delta for water quality and fish and wildlife Sacramento Rivers reach the California Bay-Delta for water quality and fish and wildlife
enhancement (and would thus further reduce water supplies for CVP and SWP users). Separately, enhancement (and would thus further reduce water supplies for CVP and SWP users). Separately,
in February 2020, the Trump Administration finalized an operational plan to increase water in February 2020, the Trump Administration finalized an operational plan to increase water
supplies for users and issued a new biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; supplies for users and issued a new biological opinion under the Endangered Species Act (ESA;
16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544) that reflects these changes. Both plans are the subject of ongoing 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544) that reflects these changes. Both plans are the subject of ongoing
litigation. On September 30, 2021, Reclamation requested reinitiation of consultation with the litigation. On September 30, 2021, Reclamation requested reinitiation of consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under
Section 7 of the ESA to address proposed changes to CVP operations and to voluntarily reconcile Section 7 of the ESA to address proposed changes to CVP operations and to voluntarily reconcile
CVP operations to SWP operational requirements imposed by the permit issued pursuant to the CVP operations to SWP operational requirements imposed by the permit issued pursuant to the
California ESA. Reclamation and California proposed an interim operations plan for CVP and California ESA. Reclamation and California proposed an interim operations plan for CVP and
SWP operations during the October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022, water year while reinitiated SWP operations during the October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022, water year while reinitiated
consultation is ongoing. Other parties to the litigation have objected to the interim operations consultation is ongoing. Other parties to the litigation have objected to the interim operations
plan. On November 23, 2021, the federal defendants requested that the court approve a voluntary plan. On November 23, 2021, the federal defendants requested that the court approve a voluntary
remand of the 2019 BiOps and 2020 record of decision (ROD) without vacating them and require remand of the 2019 BiOps and 2020 record of decision (ROD) without vacating them and require
implementation of the interim operations plan as injunctive relief through September 30, 2022. implementation of the interim operations plan as injunctive relief through September 30, 2022.
Background
California’s Central Valley encompasses almost 20,000 square miles in the center of the state California’s Central Valley encompasses almost 20,000 square miles in the center of the state
(Figure 1). It is bound by the Cascade Range to the north, the Sierra Nevada to the east, the . It is bound by the Cascade Range to the north, the Sierra Nevada to the east, the
Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Coast Ranges and San Francisco Bay to the west. The Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Coast Ranges and San Francisco Bay to the west. The
northern third of the valley is drained by the Sacramento River, and the southern two-thirds of the northern third of the valley is drained by the Sacramento River, and the southern two-thirds of the
valley are drained by the San Joaquin River. Historically, this area was home to significant fish valley are drained by the San Joaquin River. Historically, this area was home to significant fish
and wildlife populations. and wildlife populations.
The CVP was originally conceived as a state project; the state studied the project as early as 1921, The CVP was originally conceived as a state project; the state studied the project as early as 1921,
and the California state legislature formally authorized it for construction in 1933. After it became and the California state legislature formally authorized it for construction in 1933. After it became
clear that the state was unable to finance the project, the federal government (through the U.S. clear that the state was unable to finance the project, the federal government (through the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE) assumed control of the CVP as a public works Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE) assumed control of the CVP as a public works
construction project under authority provided under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935.5 The construction project under authority provided under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935.5 The
Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration subsequently transferred the project to Reclamation.6 Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration subsequently transferred the project to Reclamation.6

5 49 Stat. 1028. 5 49 Stat. 1028.
6 Transfer of the project to Reclamation was pursuant to a presidential directive in 1935 and subsequent congressional 6 Transfer of the project to Reclamation was pursuant to a presidential directive in 1935 and subsequent congressional
enactment of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 844, 850). enactment of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 844, 850).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2 2

link to page 9 link to page 9 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Construction on the first unit of the CVP (Contra Costa Canal) began in October 1937, with water Construction on the first unit of the CVP (Contra Costa Canal) began in October 1937, with water
first delivered in 1940. Additional CVP units were completed and came online over time, and first delivered in 1940. Additional CVP units were completed and came online over time, and
some USACE-constructed units have also been incorporated into the project.7 The New Melones some USACE-constructed units have also been incorporated into the project.7 The New Melones
Unit was the last unit of the CVP to come online; it was completed in 1978 and began operations Unit was the last unit of the CVP to come online; it was completed in 1978 and began operations
in 1979. in 1979.
The CVP made significant changes to California’s natural hydrology to develop water supplies The CVP made significant changes to California’s natural hydrology to develop water supplies
for irrigated agriculture, municipalities, and hydropower, among other things. Most of the CVP’s for irrigated agriculture, municipalities, and hydropower, among other things. Most of the CVP’s
major units, however, predated major federal natural resources and environmental protection laws major units, however, predated major federal natural resources and environmental protection laws
such as ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.), such as ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.),
among others. Thus, much of the current debate surrounding the project revolves around how to among others. Thus, much of the current debate surrounding the project revolves around how to
address the project’s changes to California’s hydrologic system that were not major address the project’s changes to California’s hydrologic system that were not major
considerations when it was constructed. considerations when it was constructed.
Today, CVP water serves a variety of different purposes for both human uses and fish and wildlife Today, CVP water serves a variety of different purposes for both human uses and fish and wildlife
needs. The CVP provides a major source of support for California agriculture, which is first in the needs. The CVP provides a major source of support for California agriculture, which is first in the
nation in terms of farm receipts.8 CVP water supplies irrigate more than 3 million acres of land in nation in terms of farm receipts.8 CVP water supplies irrigate more than 3 million acres of land in
central California and support 7 of California’s top 10 agricultural counties. In addition, CVP central California and support 7 of California’s top 10 agricultural counties. In addition, CVP
M&I water provides supplies for approximately 2.5 million people per year. CVP operations are M&I water provides supplies for approximately 2.5 million people per year. CVP operations are
also critical for hydropower, recreation, and fish and wildlife protection. In addition to fisheries also critical for hydropower, recreation, and fish and wildlife protection. In addition to fisheries
habitat, CVP flows support wetlands, which provide habitat for migrating birds. habitat, CVP flows support wetlands, which provide habitat for migrating birds.
Overview of the CVP and California Water Infrastructure
The CVP The CVP (Figure 1) is made up of 20 dams and reservoirs, 11 power plants, and 500 miles of is made up of 20 dams and reservoirs, 11 power plants, and 500 miles of
canals, as well as numerous other conduits, tunnels, and storage and distribution facilities.9 In an canals, as well as numerous other conduits, tunnels, and storage and distribution facilities.9 In an
average year, it delivers approximately 5 million acre-feet (AF) of water to farms (including some average year, it delivers approximately 5 million acre-feet (AF) of water to farms (including some
of the nation’s most valuable farmland); 600,000 AF to M&I users; 410,000 AF to wildlife of the nation’s most valuable farmland); 600,000 AF to M&I users; 410,000 AF to wildlife
refuges; and 800,000 AF for other fish and wildlife needs, among other purposes. A separate refuges; and 800,000 AF for other fish and wildlife needs, among other purposes. A separate
major project owned and operated by the State of California, the State Water Project (SWP), major project owned and operated by the State of California, the State Water Project (SWP),
draws water from many of the same sources as the CVP and coordinates its operations with the draws water from many of the same sources as the CVP and coordinates its operations with the
CVP under several agreements. In contrast to the CVP, the SWP delivers about 70% of its water CVP under several agreements. In contrast to the CVP, the SWP delivers about 70% of its water
to urban users (including water for approximately 25 million users in the San Francisco Bay, to urban users (including water for approximately 25 million users in the San Francisco Bay,
Central Valley, and Southern California); the remaining 30% is used for irrigation. Central Valley, and Southern California); the remaining 30% is used for irrigation.
At their confluence, the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers flow into the San Francisco Bay (the At their confluence, the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers flow into the San Francisco Bay (the
Bay-Delta, or Delta). Operation of the CVP and SWP occurs through the storage, pumping, and Bay-Delta, or Delta). Operation of the CVP and SWP occurs through the storage, pumping, and
conveyance of significant volumes of water from both river basins (as well as trans-basin conveyance of significant volumes of water from both river basins (as well as trans-basin
diversions from the Trinity River Basin in Northern California) for delivery to users. Federal and diversions from the Trinity River Basin in Northern California) for delivery to users. Federal and
state pumping facilities in the Delta near Tracy, CA, export water from Northern California to state pumping facilities in the Delta near Tracy, CA, export water from Northern California to

7 Although Reclamation constructed much of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and maintains control over its 7 Although Reclamation constructed much of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and maintains control over its
operations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has also been involved in the project over the course of its operations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has also been involved in the project over the course of its
history. Some dams, such as Folsom Dam and New Melones Dam, initially were built by USACE but have been turned history. Some dams, such as Folsom Dam and New Melones Dam, initially were built by USACE but have been turned
over to Reclamation for operations and maintenance and incorporated into the CVP. Additionally, USACE constructed over to Reclamation for operations and maintenance and incorporated into the CVP. Additionally, USACE constructed
and continues to operate several major dams in and around the Central Valley for flood control and other purposes, and continues to operate several major dams in and around the Central Valley for flood control and other purposes,
including Terminus Dam, Isabella Dam, Pine Flat Dam, and Success Dam in the San Joaquin Valley. Since USACE including Terminus Dam, Isabella Dam, Pine Flat Dam, and Success Dam in the San Joaquin Valley. Since USACE
operates these dams for flood control, Reclamation administers contracts to use surplus water from these reservoirs for operates these dams for flood control, Reclamation administers contracts to use surplus water from these reservoirs for
irrigation. irrigation.
8 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 8 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Cash Receipts by State, Commodity Ranking and Share
of U.S. Total, 2016, at https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=at https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=
17843#Pcb53fbff4c3c47c9b0afcc74d03a7403_3_17iT0R0x5.17843#Pcb53fbff4c3c47c9b0afcc74d03a7403_3_17iT0R0x5.
9 Bureau of Reclamation, “About the Central Valley Project,” at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/about-cvp.html. 9 Bureau of Reclamation, “About the Central Valley Project,” at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/about-cvp.html.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

3 3

link to page 10 link to page 10 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Central and Southern California and are a hub for CVP operations and related debates. In the Central and Southern California and are a hub for CVP operations and related debates. In the
context of these controversies, context of these controversies, north of Delta (NOD) and (NOD) and south of Delta (SOD) are important (SOD) are important
categorical distinctions for water users. categorical distinctions for water users.
CVP storage is spread throughout Northern and Central California. The largest CVP storage CVP storage is spread throughout Northern and Central California. The largest CVP storage
facility is Shasta Dam and Reservoir in Northern California facility is Shasta Dam and Reservoir in Northern California (Figure 2), which has a capacity of , which has a capacity of
4.5 million AF. Other major storage facilities, from north to south, include Trinity Dam and 4.5 million AF. Other major storage facilities, from north to south, include Trinity Dam and
Reservoir (2.4 million AF), Folsom Dam and Reservoir (977,000 AF), New Melones Dam and Reservoir (2.4 million AF), Folsom Dam and Reservoir (977,000 AF), New Melones Dam and
Reservoir (2.4 million AF), Friant Dam and Reservoir (520,000 AF), and San Luis Dam and Reservoir (2.4 million AF), Friant Dam and Reservoir (520,000 AF), and San Luis Dam and
Reservoir (1.8 million AF of storage, of which half is federal and half is nonfederal). Reservoir (1.8 million AF of storage, of which half is federal and half is nonfederal).
The CVP also includes numerous water conveyance facilities, the longest of which are the Delta- The CVP also includes numerous water conveyance facilities, the longest of which are the Delta-
Mendota Canal (which runs for 117 miles from the federally operated Bill Jones pumping plant in Mendota Canal (which runs for 117 miles from the federally operated Bill Jones pumping plant in
the Bay-Delta to the San Joaquin River near Madera) and the Friant-Kern Canal (which runs 152 the Bay-Delta to the San Joaquin River near Madera) and the Friant-Kern Canal (which runs 152
miles from Friant Dam to the Kern River near Bakersfield). miles from Friant Dam to the Kern River near Bakersfield).
Non-CVP water storage and infrastructure is also spread throughout the Central Valley and in Non-CVP water storage and infrastructure is also spread throughout the Central Valley and in
some cases is integrated with CVP operations. Major non-CVP storage infrastructure in the some cases is integrated with CVP operations. Major non-CVP storage infrastructure in the
Central Valley includes multiple storage projects that are part of the SWP (the largest of which is Central Valley includes multiple storage projects that are part of the SWP (the largest of which is
Oroville Dam and Reservoir in Northern California), as well as private storage facilities (e.g., Oroville Dam and Reservoir in Northern California), as well as private storage facilities (e.g.,
Don Pedro and Exchequer Dams and Reservoirs) and local government-owned dams and Don Pedro and Exchequer Dams and Reservoirs) and local government-owned dams and
infrastructure (e.g., O’Shaughnessy Dam and Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir and Aqueduct, which are infrastructure (e.g., O’Shaughnessy Dam and Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir and Aqueduct, which are
owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission). owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission).
In addition to its importance for agricultural water supplies, California’s Central Valley also In addition to its importance for agricultural water supplies, California’s Central Valley also
provides valuable wetland habitat for migratory birds and other species. As such, it is home to provides valuable wetland habitat for migratory birds and other species. As such, it is home to
multiple state, federal, and private wildlife refuges north and south of the Delta. Nineteen of these multiple state, federal, and private wildlife refuges north and south of the Delta. Nineteen of these
refuges (including 12 refuges within the National Wildlife Refuge system, 6 State Wildlife refuges (including 12 refuges within the National Wildlife Refuge system, 6 State Wildlife
Areas/Units, and 1 privately managed complex) provide managed wetland habitat that receives Areas/Units, and 1 privately managed complex) provide managed wetland habitat that receives
water from the CVP and other sources. Five of these units are located in the Sacramento River water from the CVP and other sources. Five of these units are located in the Sacramento River
Basin (i.e., North of the Delta), 12 are in the San Joaquin River Basin, and the remaining 2 are in Basin (i.e., North of the Delta), 12 are in the San Joaquin River Basin, and the remaining 2 are in
the Tulare Lake Basin.10 the Tulare Lake Basin.10

10 Tulare Lake, a freshwater dry lake in the San Joaquin River Valley, historically was one of the largest freshwater 10 Tulare Lake, a freshwater dry lake in the San Joaquin River Valley, historically was one of the largest freshwater
lakes west of the Great Lakes. Under most normal (nonflood) conditions, the lake was lakes west of the Great Lakes. Under most normal (nonflood) conditions, the lake was terminal, meaning it had no , meaning it had no
outlet and did not drain downstream. Damming in the mid-20th century by the USACE of the Kaweah (Terminus Dam), outlet and did not drain downstream. Damming in the mid-20th century by the USACE of the Kaweah (Terminus Dam),
Kern (Isabella Dam), Kings (Pine Flat Dam), and Tule Rivers (Success Dam), coupled with development of the basin Kern (Isabella Dam), Kings (Pine Flat Dam), and Tule Rivers (Success Dam), coupled with development of the basin
for irrigated agriculture, dried up the lake bed under most conditions. for irrigated agriculture, dried up the lake bed under most conditions.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

4 4

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Figure 1. Central Valley Project (CVP) and Related Facilities

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: Colored areas are based on water and irrigation district boundaries and do not correspond to the Colored areas are based on water and irrigation district boundaries and do not correspond to the
amount of water delivered from the Central Valley Project or the State Water Project. For example, some large amount of water delivered from the Central Valley Project or the State Water Project. For example, some large
areas have relatively small contracts for water compared with other, smaller areas. areas have relatively small contracts for water compared with other, smaller areas.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

5 5

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Figure 2. Shasta Dam and Reservoir

Source: Bureau of Reclamation. Bureau of Reclamation.
Central Valley Project Water Contractors and Allocations
In normal years, snowpack accounts for approximately 30% of California’s water supplies and is In normal years, snowpack accounts for approximately 30% of California’s water supplies and is
an important factor in determining CVP and SWP allocations. Water from snowpack typically an important factor in determining CVP and SWP allocations. Water from snowpack typically
melts in the spring and early summer, and it is stored and made available to meet water needs melts in the spring and early summer, and it is stored and made available to meet water needs
throughout the state in the summer and fall. By late winter, the state’s water supply outlook is throughout the state in the summer and fall. By late winter, the state’s water supply outlook is
typically sufficient for Reclamation to issue the amount of water it expects to deliver to its typically sufficient for Reclamation to issue the amount of water it expects to deliver to its
contractors.11 At that time, Reclamation announces estimated deliveries for its 250 CVP water contractors.11 At that time, Reclamation announces estimated deliveries for its 250 CVP water
contractors in the upcoming water year. contractors in the upcoming water year.
More than 9.5 million AF of water per year is More than 9.5 million AF of water per year is potentially available from the CVP for delivery available from the CVP for delivery
based on contracts between Reclamation and CVP contractors.12 However, most CVP water based on contracts between Reclamation and CVP contractors.12 However, most CVP water
contracts provide exceptions for Reclamation to reduce water deliveries due to hydrologic contracts provide exceptions for Reclamation to reduce water deliveries due to hydrologic
conditions and other conditions outside Reclamation’s control.13 As a result of these stipulations, conditions and other conditions outside Reclamation’s control.13 As a result of these stipulations,
Reclamation regularly makes cutbacks to actual CVP water deliveries to contractors due to Reclamation regularly makes cutbacks to actual CVP water deliveries to contractors due to
drought and other factors. drought and other factors.

11 A 11 A water contractor, as described in this report, has a contract for specified water deliveries from conveyance , as described in this report, has a contract for specified water deliveries from conveyance
structures managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation typically estimates these deliveries as a structures managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation typically estimates these deliveries as a
percentage of the total contract allocation to be made available for contractors within certain divisions, geographic percentage of the total contract allocation to be made available for contractors within certain divisions, geographic
areas, and/or contractor types (e.g., south-of-Delta agricultural contractors). areas, and/or contractor types (e.g., south-of-Delta agricultural contractors).
12 Water service contracts charge users a per-acre-foot rate based on the amount of water delivered. In contrast, 12 Water service contracts charge users a per-acre-foot rate based on the amount of water delivered. In contrast,
repayment contracts (the most common type of Reclamation contract outside of the CVP) charge users based on the repayment contracts (the most common type of Reclamation contract outside of the CVP) charge users based on the
amount of water storage allocated to a contractor, among other things. amount of water storage allocated to a contractor, among other things.
13 See U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, 13 See U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Final Form of Contract,4-19-2004, Articles 3b, 11, 12a, and , Articles 3b, 11, 12a, and
12b, at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/3404c/lt_contracts/index.html. 12b, at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/3404c/lt_contracts/index.html.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

6 6

link to page 9 link to page 12 link to page 27 link to page 9 link to page 12 link to page 27 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Even under normal hydrological circumstances, the CVP often delivers much less than the Even under normal hydrological circumstances, the CVP often delivers much less than the
maximum contracted amount of water; since the early 1980s, an average of about 7 million AF of maximum contracted amount of water; since the early 1980s, an average of about 7 million AF of
water has been made available to CVP contractors annually (including 5 million AF to water has been made available to CVP contractors annually (including 5 million AF to
agricultural contractors). However, during drought years deliveries may be significantly less. In agricultural contractors). However, during drought years deliveries may be significantly less. In
the extremely dry water years of 2012-2015, CVP annual deliveries averaged approximately 3.45 the extremely dry water years of 2012-2015, CVP annual deliveries averaged approximately 3.45
million AF.14 million AF.14
CVP contractors receive varying levels of priority for water deliveries based on their water rights CVP contractors receive varying levels of priority for water deliveries based on their water rights
and other related factors, and some of the largest and most prominent water contractors have a and other related factors, and some of the largest and most prominent water contractors have a
relatively low allocation priority. Major groups of CVP contractors include relatively low allocation priority. Major groups of CVP contractors include water rights
contractors (i.e., senior water rights holders such as the Sacramento River Settlement and San contractors (i.e., senior water rights holders such as the Sacramento River Settlement and San
Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, see box below), North and South of Delta water service Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, see box below), North and South of Delta water service
contractors, and Central Valley refuge water contractors. The relative locations for these groups contractors, and Central Valley refuge water contractors. The relative locations for these groups
are shown iare shown in Figure 1.
Water Rights Contractors
California’s system of state water rights has a profound effect on who gets how much water and when, particularly California’s system of state water rights has a profound effect on who gets how much water and when, particularly
during times of drought or other restrictions on water supply. Because the waters of California are considered to during times of drought or other restrictions on water supply. Because the waters of California are considered to
be “the property of the people of the State," anyone wishing to use those waters must acquire a right to do so. be “the property of the people of the State," anyone wishing to use those waters must acquire a right to do so.
California fol ows a dual system of water rights, recognizing both the riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. California fol ows a dual system of water rights, recognizing both the riparian and prior appropriation doctrines.
Under the riparian doctrine, a person who owns land that borders a watercourse has the right to make Under the riparian doctrine, a person who owns land that borders a watercourse has the right to make
reasonable use of the water on that land (riparian rights). Riparian rights are reduced proportionally during times reasonable use of the water on that land (riparian rights). Riparian rights are reduced proportionally during times
of shortage. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, a person who diverts water from a watercourse (regardless of shortage. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, a person who diverts water from a watercourse (regardless
of his location relative thereto) and makes reasonable and beneficial use of the water acquires a right to that use of his location relative thereto) and makes reasonable and beneficial use of the water acquires a right to that use
of the water (appropriated rights). Appropriated rights are fil ed in order of seniority during times of shortage. of the water (appropriated rights). Appropriated rights are fil ed in order of seniority during times of shortage.
Before exercising the right to use the water, appropriative users must obtain permission from the state through a Before exercising the right to use the water, appropriative users must obtain permission from the state through a
permit system run by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). permit system run by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
Both the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) acquired rights for water use from the Both the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) acquired rights for water use from the
State of California, receiving several permits for water diversions at various points between 1927 and 1967. Since State of California, receiving several permits for water diversions at various points between 1927 and 1967. Since
the Bureau of Reclamation found it necessary to take the water rights of other users to construct the CVP, it the Bureau of Reclamation found it necessary to take the water rights of other users to construct the CVP, it
entered into entered into settlement or or exchange contracts with water users who had rights predating the CVP (and thus were contracts with water users who had rights predating the CVP (and thus were
senior users in time and right). Many of these special contracts were entered into in areas where water users senior users in time and right). Many of these special contracts were entered into in areas where water users
were diverting water directly from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. were diverting water directly from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.
Sacramento River Settlement Contractors include the contractors (both individuals and districts) that diverted Sacramento River Settlement Contractors include the contractors (both individuals and districts) that diverted
natural flows from the Sacramento River prior to the CVP’s construction and executed a settlement agreement natural flows from the Sacramento River prior to the CVP’s construction and executed a settlement agreement
with Reclamation that provided for negotiated allocation of water rights. San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors with Reclamation that provided for negotiated allocation of water rights. San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors
are the irrigation districts that agreed to “exchange” exercising their water rights to divert water on the San are the irrigation districts that agreed to “exchange” exercising their water rights to divert water on the San
Joaquin and Kings Rivers for guaranteed water deliveries from the CVP (typically in the form of deliveries from the Joaquin and Kings Rivers for guaranteed water deliveries from the CVP (typically in the form of deliveries from the
Delta-Mendota Canal and waters north of the Delta). In contrast to water service contractors, water rights Delta-Mendota Canal and waters north of the Delta). In contrast to water service contractors, water rights
contractors receive 100% of their contracted amounts in most water-year types. During water shortages (typically contractors receive 100% of their contracted amounts in most water-year types. During water shortages (typically
designated as “critical years” based on inflows to Lake Shasta), their annual maximum entitlement may be reduced, designated as “critical years” based on inflows to Lake Shasta), their annual maximum entitlement may be reduced,
but not by more than 25%. but not by more than 25%.
The largest contract holders of CVP water by percentage of total contracted amounts are The largest contract holders of CVP water by percentage of total contracted amounts are
Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, located on the Sacramento River. The second-largest Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, located on the Sacramento River. The second-largest
group are SOD water service contractors (including Westlands Water District, the CVP’s largest group are SOD water service contractors (including Westlands Water District, the CVP’s largest
contractor), located in the area south of the Delta. Other major contractors include San Joaquin contractor), located in the area south of the Delta. Other major contractors include San Joaquin
River Exchange Contractors, located west of the San Joaquin River, and Friant Division River Exchange Contractors, located west of the San Joaquin River, and Friant Division
contractors, located on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. Central Valley refuges and several contractors, located on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. Central Valley refuges and several
smaller contractor groups (e.g., Eastside Contracts, In-Delta-Contra Costa Contracts, and SOD smaller contractor groups (e.g., Eastside Contracts, In-Delta-Contra Costa Contracts, and SOD
Settlement Contracts) also factor into CVP water allocation discussions.15Settlement Contracts) also factor into CVP water allocation discussions.15 Figure 3 depicts an depicts an

14 CRS analysis of CVP contract water delivery information by the Bureau of Reclamation, October 3, 2018. 14 CRS analysis of CVP contract water delivery information by the Bureau of Reclamation, October 3, 2018.
15 Central Valley Project refuges are discussed more in the below section, 15 Central Valley Project refuges are discussed more in the below section, “Central Valley Project Improvement Act.”
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

7 7

link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 37 link to page 38 ~~link to page 14~~

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

approximate division of approximate division of maximum available CVP water deliveries pursuant to contracts with available CVP water deliveries pursuant to contracts with
Reclamation. The largest contractor groups and their relative delivery priority are discussed in Reclamation. The largest contractor groups and their relative delivery priority are discussed in
more detail in tmore detail in the Appendix to this report. to this report.
Figure 3. Central Valley Project: Maximum Contract Amounts
(relative share of total maximum contracted CVP supplies) (relative share of total maximum contracted CVP supplies)

Source: CRS, using Bureau of Reclamation contractor data. CRS, using Bureau of Reclamation contractor data.
Notes: SOD = South-of-Delta; M&I = municipal and industrial water service contractors. Sacramento River SOD = South-of-Delta; M&I = municipal and industrial water service contractors. Sacramento River
Settlement Contractors includes both “base” water rights supplies (18.6%) and additional CVP “project” supplies Settlement Contractors includes both “base” water rights supplies (18.6%) and additional CVP “project” supplies
(3.5%). For SOD Refuges, chart does not reflect “Level 4” supplies (for more information on Level 4 supplies, (3.5%). For SOD Refuges, chart does not reflect “Level 4” supplies (for more information on Level 4 supplies,
see below section,see below section, “Central Valley Wildlife Refuges”). .
CVP Allocations
Reclamation Reclamation ~~released its~~ announced its initial allocations for the allocations for the ~~2021~~2022 water year in February water year in February ~~2021~~2022.16 In announcing .16 In announcing ~~its~~
the allocations, Reclamation allocations, Reclamation ~~stated that for the second year in a row, precipitation and snowfall were~~
~~“well below normal.”17 The 2021 forecast inflow to Shasta Lake was at a low enough level (i.e.,~~
~~3.2 million acre-feet or less) for the 2021 water year to be designated by Reclamation as a “Shasta~~
~~Critical Year.”~~
Table 1, below, shows 2021 and prior year allocations. Because of the Shasta Critical Year
~~designation, the most senior water rights contractors and some refuges were allocated 75% of~~

noted that early season storms in October and December 2021 were followed by the driest January and February on record.17 Reclamation also observed that the December storms over the CVP’s headwaters were notably heavy in the American River Basin but light in the Sacramento River Basin, which feeds Shasta Reservoir.18 Thus, the 2022 16 Estimated allocations may be revised throughout the spring, depending on hydrology. 16 Estimated allocations may be revised throughout the spring, depending on hydrology.
17 Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation 17 Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation ~~outlines Central Valley Project initial 2021 water allocation~~Outlines Initial 2022 Water Allocations for Central Valley Project Contractors,” press release, ,” press release,
February 23, February 23, ~~2021,~~ 2022, at https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/~~newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=73745~~#/news-release/4104. Hereinafter “Reclamation Initial 2022 CVP Allocations. 18 Reclamation Initial 2022 CVP Allocations. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

8 8

link to page 14 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation forecast inflow to Shasta Lake was at a low enough level (i.e., 3.2 million acre-feet or less) for Reclamation to once again designate the 2022 water year as a “Shasta Critical Year.” Table 1, below, shows initial 2022 and prior year allocations. Because of the Shasta Critical Year designation, the most senior water rights contractors and some refuges were allocated 75% of ~~Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation~~

their maximum contract allocations in their maximum contract allocations in ~~2021~~2022. SOD and NOD agricultural water service contractors . SOD and NOD agricultural water service contractors
initially were allocated initially were allocated 50% of their contracted supplies in % of their contracted supplies in ~~2021~~2022, but Reclamation , but Reclamation ~~subsequently~~
~~reduced~~theoretically could upgrade these allocations these allocations ~~to 0% due to extremely dry~~based on hydrologic conditions. These contractors have received conditions. These contractors have received
their full contract allocations four times since 1990: 1995, 1998, 2006, and 2017.their full contract allocations four times since 1990: 1995, 1998, 2006, and 2017.18 19 In 2022, Reclamation Reclamation
allocated allocated 2015% for Friant Class 1 contractor allocations and 0% for Class 2 allocations. % for Friant Class 1 contractor allocations and 0% for Class 2 allocations.

1819 Bureau of Reclamation, “Summary of Water Supply Allocations,” at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/ Bureau of Reclamation, “Summary of Water Supply Allocations,” at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/
water_allocations_historical.pdf. water_allocations_historical.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

9 9

link to page 14 link to page 14
Table 1. Central Valley Project Contractor Water Allocations by Water Year, 2012-~~2021~~2022
(percentage of maximum contract allocation made available) (percentage of maximum contract allocation made available)

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022 North-of-Delta

Users
Agricultural Agricultural
100% 100%
75% 75%
0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
50% 50%
0% 0%
0% M&I M&I
100% 100%
100% 100%
50% 50%
25% 25%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
75% 75%
25% 25%
25% Settlement Settlement
100% 100%
100% 100%
75% 75%
75% 75%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
75% 75%
75% Contractors Contractors
Refuges (Level 2) Refuges (Level 2)
100% 100%
100% 100%
75% 75%
75% 75%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
75% 75%
75% American River American River
100% 100%
75% 75%
50% 50%
25% 25%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
75% 75%
75% 75%
25% M&I M&I
In Delta- Contra In Delta- Contra
100% 100%
75% 75%
50% 50%
25% 25%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
75% 75%
75% 75%
25% Costa Costa
South-of-Delta

Users
Agricultural Agricultural
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
0% 0%
5% 5%
100% 100%
50% 50%
75% 75%
20% 20%
0% 0%
0% M&I M&I
75% 75%
70% 70%
50% 50%
25% 25%
55% 55%
100% 100%
75% 75%
100% 100%
70% 70%
25% 25%
25% Exchange Exchange
100% 100%
100% 100%
65% 65%
75% 75%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
75% 75%
75% Contractors Contractors
Refuges (Level 2) Refuges (Level 2)
100% 100%
100% 100%
65% 65%
75% 75%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
75% 75%
75% Eastside Division Eastside Division
100% 100%
100% 100%
55% 55%
0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
TBA Friant Class I Friant Class I
50% 50%
62% 62%
0% 0%
0% 0%
65% 65%
100% 100%
88% 88%
100% 100%
65% 65%
20% 20%
15% Friant Class 2 Friant Class 2
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
13% 13%
100% 100%
9% 9%
a
0% 0%
0% 0%
~~Source~~0% Sources: U.S.U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, CVP Historical Water Supply Allocations and Bureau of Reclamation, CVP Historical Water Supply Allocations and ~~2021~~2022 Allocations. Allocations.
Notes: CVP = Central Valley Project. M&I = municipal and industrial water contractors. CVP = Central Valley Project. M&I = municipal and industrial water contractors. TBA denotes allocations that have yet to be announced as of this report’s publication date. M&I contractor allocations typically reference a percentage in terms of historic M&I contractor allocations typically reference a percentage in terms of historic
use (or public health and safety needs, whichever is greater).use (or public health and safety needs, whichever is greater).
a. “Uncontrol ed” Class 2 releases for Friant Contractors were available through June 30, 2019. a. “Uncontrol ed” Class 2 releases for Friant Contractors were available through June 30, 2019.
CRS-10 CRS-10

link to page 15 link to page link to page 15 link to page ~~16 link to page~~ 17 17 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

State Water Project Allocations
The other major water project serving California, the SWP, is operated by California’s The other major water project serving California, the SWP, is operated by California’s
Department of Water Resources (DWR). The SWP primarily provides water to M&I users and Department of Water Resources (DWR). The SWP primarily provides water to M&I users and
some agricultural users, and it integrates its operations with the CVP. Similar to the CVP, the some agricultural users, and it integrates its operations with the CVP. Similar to the CVP, the
SWP has considerably more contracted supplies than it typically makes available in its deliveries. SWP has considerably more contracted supplies than it typically makes available in its deliveries.
SWP contracted entitlements are 4.17 million AF, but average annual deliveries are typically SWP contracted entitlements are 4.17 million AF, but average annual deliveries are typically
considerably less than that amount. considerably less than that amount.
SWP water deliveries were at their lowest point in 2014 and 2015, and they were significantly SWP water deliveries were at their lowest point in 2014 and 2015, and they were significantly
higher in the wet year of 2017. In higher in the wet year of 2017. In December 2021, contractors 2021, contractors ~~again received reduced allocations. SWP~~
initially had a 0% allocation, but this was increased to 15% in January 2022.20 SWP water supply allocations for water years 2012-water supply allocations for water years 2012-~~2021~~2022 are are shown inin Table 2.
Table 2. California State Water Project Allocations by Water Year, 2012-~~2021~~2022
(percentage of maximum contract allocation) (percentage of maximum contract allocation)

2012
~~2013~~
~~2014~~
~~2015~~
~~2016~~
~~2017~~
~~2018~~
~~2019~~
~~2020 2021~~ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
State Water State Water
65% 65%
35% 35%
5% 5%
20% 20%
60% 60%
85% 85%
35% 35%
75% 75%
20% 20%
5% 5%
15% Project Project
Source: California Department of Water Resources, “Notices to State Water Project Contractors,” at California Department of Water Resources, “Notices to State Water Project Contractors,” at
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/Management/SWP-Water-Contractors. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/Management/SWP-Water-Contractors.
Combined CVP/SWP Operations
The CVP and SWP are operated in conjunction under the 1986 Coordinated Operations The CVP and SWP are operated in conjunction under the 1986 Coordinated Operations
Agreement (COA), which was executed pursuant to P.L. 99-546.Agreement (COA), which was executed pursuant to P.L. 99-546.1921 COA defines the rights and COA defines the rights and
responsibilities of the CVP and SWP with respect to in-basin water needs and provides a responsibilities of the CVP and SWP with respect to in-basin water needs and provides a
mechanism to account for those rights and responsibilities. Several major changes to California mechanism to account for those rights and responsibilities. Several major changes to California
water supply allocations that occurred since 1986 (e.g., water delivery reductions pursuant to the water supply allocations that occurred since 1986 (e.g., water delivery reductions pursuant to the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the Endangered Species Act requirements, and new Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the Endangered Species Act requirements, and new
Delta Water Quality Standards, among other things) caused some to argue for renegotiation of the Delta Water Quality Standards, among other things) caused some to argue for renegotiation of the
agreement’s terms.agreement’s terms.2022 Dating to 2015, Reclamation and DWR conducted a mutual review of COA Dating to 2015, Reclamation and DWR conducted a mutual review of COA
but were unable to agree on revisions. On August 17, 2018, Reclamation provided a Notice of but were unable to agree on revisions. On August 17, 2018, Reclamation provided a Notice of
Negotiations to DWR.Negotiations to DWR.2123 Following negotiations in fall 2018, Reclamation and DWR agreed to an Following negotiations in fall 2018, Reclamation and DWR agreed to an
addendum to COA in December 2018.addendum to COA in December 2018.2224 Whereas the original 1986 agreement included a fixed Whereas the original 1986 agreement included a fixed
ratio of 75% CVP/25% SWP for the sharing of regulatory requirements associated with storage ratio of 75% CVP/25% SWP for the sharing of regulatory requirements associated with storage
~~withdrawals for Sacramento Valley in-basin uses (e.g., curtailments for water quality and species~~
~~uses), the revised addendum adjusted the ratio of sharing percentages based on water year types~~
~~(Table 3).~~

19 20 California Department of Water Resources, “State Water Project Historical Table A Allocations, 1996-2022,” January 20, 2022, at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/State-Water-Project/Management/SWP-Water-Contractors/Files/1996-2022-Allocation-Progression-012022a.pdf. 21 “Agreement Between the United States of America and the State of California for Coordinated Operation of the “Agreement Between the United States of America and the State of California for Coordinated Operation of the
Central Valley Project and the State Water Project,” No. 7-07-20-WO551. November 24, 1986. Central Valley Project and the State Water Project,” No. 7-07-20-WO551. November 24, 1986.
2022 For example, see Joint Letter to the Bureau of Reclamation from Placer County Water Agency, City of Folsom, For example, see Joint Letter to the Bureau of Reclamation from Placer County Water Agency, City of Folsom,
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority et al., March 1, 2016, at http://www.ccwater.com/DocumentCenter/View/1854. For Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority et al., March 1, 2016, at http://www.ccwater.com/DocumentCenter/View/1854. For
more information on water delivery restrictions as they apply to the CVP, see more information on water delivery restrictions as they apply to the CVP, see “Constraints on CVP Deliveries.”
2123 Letter from David G. Murillo, Regional Directory, Bureau of Reclamation, to Karla Nemeth, Director, California Letter from David G. Murillo, Regional Directory, Bureau of Reclamation, to Karla Nemeth, Director, California
Department of Water Resources, August 17, 2018. Department of Water Resources, August 17, 2018.
~~22See~~24See Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources, Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources, Addendum to the Agreement Between the
United States of America and the Department of Water Resources of the State of California for Coordinated Operation
of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, December 12, 2018. December 12, 2018.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

11 11

link to page link to page 16 link to page 17 17 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

withdrawals for Sacramento Valley in-basin uses (e.g., curtailments for water quality and species uses), the revised addendum adjusted the ratio of sharing percentages based on water year types (Table 3). Table 3. Coordinated Operations Agreement (COA) Regulatory Requirements for
CVP/SWP In-basin Storage Withdrawals
(requirements pursuant to 1986 and 2018 agreements) (requirements pursuant to 1986 and 2018 agreements)
Water Year Type
1986 COA
COA with 2018 Addendum
All All
75% CVP, 25% SWP 75% CVP, 25% SWP
NA NA
Wet & Above Normal Wet & Above Normal
NA NA
80% CVP, 20% SWP 80% CVP, 20% SWP
Below Normal Below Normal
NA NA
75% CVP, 25% SWP 75% CVP, 25% SWP
Dry Dry
NA NA
65% CVP, 35% SWP 65% CVP, 35% SWP
Critically Dry Critically Dry
NA NA
60% CVP, 40% SWP 60% CVP, 40% SWP
Source: Addendum to the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Department of Water Resources of
the State of California for Coordinated Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, December December
12, 2018. 12, 2018.
The 2018 addendum also adjusted the sharing of export capacity under constrained conditions. The 2018 addendum also adjusted the sharing of export capacity under constrained conditions.
Whereas under the 1986 COA, export capacity was shared evenly between the CVP and the SWP, Whereas under the 1986 COA, export capacity was shared evenly between the CVP and the SWP,
under the revised COA the split is to be 60% CVP/40% SWP during excess conditions, and 65% under the revised COA the split is to be 60% CVP/40% SWP during excess conditions, and 65%
CVP/35% SWP during balanced conditions.CVP/35% SWP during balanced conditions.2325 Finally, the state also agreed in the 2018 revisions Finally, the state also agreed in the 2018 revisions
to transport up to 195,000 AF of CVP water through the SWP’s California Aqueduct during to transport up to 195,000 AF of CVP water through the SWP’s California Aqueduct during
certain conditions. Recent disagreements related to CVP and SWP operational changes by the certain conditions. Recent disagreements related to CVP and SWP operational changes by the
federal and state governments, in particular those under the ESA, have called into question the federal and state governments, in particular those under the ESA, have called into question the
future of coordinated operations under COA. future of coordinated operations under COA.
CVP/SWP Exports
Combined CVP and SWP exports (i.e., water transferred from north to south of the Delta) is of Combined CVP and SWP exports (i.e., water transferred from north to south of the Delta) is of
interest to many observers because it reflects trends over time in the transfer of water from north interest to many observers because it reflects trends over time in the transfer of water from north
to south (i.e., to south (i.e., exports) by the two projects, in particular through pumping. Exports of the CVP and ) by the two projects, in particular through pumping. Exports of the CVP and
SWP, as well as total combined exports since 1978, have varied over timSWP, as well as total combined exports since 1978, have varied over time (Figure 4). Most . Most
recently, combined exports dropped significantly during the 2012-2016 drought but have recently, combined exports dropped significantly during the 2012-2016 drought but have
rebounded since 2016. Prior to the drought, overall export levels had increased over time, having rebounded since 2016. Prior to the drought, overall export levels had increased over time, having
averaged more from 2001 to 2011 than over any previous 10-year period. The 6.42 million AF of averaged more from 2001 to 2011 than over any previous 10-year period. The 6.42 million AF of
combined exports in 2017 was the second most on record, behind 6.59 million AF in 2011. combined exports in 2017 was the second most on record, behind 6.59 million AF in 2011.
Over time, CVP exports have decreased on average, whereas SWP exports have increased. Over time, CVP exports have decreased on average, whereas SWP exports have increased.
Additionally, exports for agricultural purposes have declined as a subset of total exports, in part Additionally, exports for agricultural purposes have declined as a subset of total exports, in part
due to those exports being made available for other purposes (e.g., fish and wildlife). due to those exports being made available for other purposes (e.g., fish and wildlife).

2325 “Balanced” conditions refer to those conditions under which reservoir releases and unregulated flows in the Delta are “Balanced” conditions refer to those conditions under which reservoir releases and unregulated flows in the Delta are
equal to the water supply needed to meet Sacramento Valley in-basin uses plus exports. Excess conditions are periods equal to the water supply needed to meet Sacramento Valley in-basin uses plus exports. Excess conditions are periods
in which releases and unregulated flows exceed the aforementioned uses. in which releases and unregulated flows exceed the aforementioned uses.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

12 12

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Figure 4. Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) Exports
(exports in millions of acre-feet, 1976-2021) (exports in millions of acre-feet, 1976-2021)

Source: CRS based on data provided by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, email CRS based on data provided by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, email
communication, October 27, 2021, communication, October 27, 2021, Total Annual Pumping at Banks, Jones, and Contra Costa Pumping Plants 1976-
2021 (MAF).
Constraints on CVP Deliveries
Concerns over CVP water supply deliveries persist in part because even in years with high levels Concerns over CVP water supply deliveries persist in part because even in years with high levels
of precipitation and runoff, some contractors (in particular SOD water service contractors) have of precipitation and runoff, some contractors (in particular SOD water service contractors) have
regularly received allocations of less than 100% of their contract supplies. Allocations for some regularly received allocations of less than 100% of their contract supplies. Allocations for some
users have declined over time; additional environmental requirements in recent decades have users have declined over time; additional environmental requirements in recent decades have
reduced water deliveries for human uses. Those factors, coupled with reduced water supplies reduced water deliveries for human uses. Those factors, coupled with reduced water supplies
available in drought years, have led some policymakers and stakeholders to increasingly focus on available in drought years, have led some policymakers and stakeholders to increasingly focus on
what can be done to increase water supplies for users. At the same time, others that depend on or what can be done to increase water supplies for users. At the same time, others that depend on or
advocate for the health of the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries, including fishing and advocate for the health of the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries, including fishing and
environmental groups and water users throughout Northern California, have argued for environmental groups and water users throughout Northern California, have argued for
maintaining or increasing existing environmental protections (the latter of which would likely maintaining or increasing existing environmental protections (the latter of which would likely
further constrain CVP exports). further constrain CVP exports).
Hydrology and state water rights are the two primary drivers of CVP allocations. However, at Hydrology and state water rights are the two primary drivers of CVP allocations. However, at
least three other regulatory factors affect the timing and amount of water available for delivery to least three other regulatory factors affect the timing and amount of water available for delivery to
CVP contractors and are regularly the subject of controversy: CVP contractors and are regularly the subject of controversy:
 State water quality requirements pursuant to state and the federal water quality  State water quality requirements pursuant to state and the federal water quality
laws (including the Clean Water Act [CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§1251-138]) laws (including the Clean Water Act [CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§1251-138])
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

13 13

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

 Regulations and court orders pertaining to implementation of the federal  Regulations and court orders pertaining to implementation of the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA, 87 Stat. 884. 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544) Endangered Species Act (ESA, 87 Stat. 884. 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544)2426
 Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA; P.L.  Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA; P.L.
102-575) 102-575)2527
Each of these factors is discussed in more detail below. Each of these factors is discussed in more detail below.
Water Quality Requirements: Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan
California sets water quality standards and issues permits for the discharge of pollutants in California sets water quality standards and issues permits for the discharge of pollutants in
compliance with the federal CWA, enacted in 1972.compliance with the federal CWA, enacted in 1972.2628 Through the Porter-Cologne Act (a state Through the Porter-Cologne Act (a state
law), California implements federal CWA requirements and authorizes the State Water Resources law), California implements federal CWA requirements and authorizes the State Water Resources
Control Board (State Water Board) to adopt water quality control plans, or basin plans.Control Board (State Water Board) to adopt water quality control plans, or basin plans.2729 The The
CVP and the SWP affect water quality in the Bay-Delta depending on how much freshwater the CVP and the SWP affect water quality in the Bay-Delta depending on how much freshwater the
projects release into the area as “unimpaired flows” (thereby affecting area salinity levels). projects release into the area as “unimpaired flows” (thereby affecting area salinity levels).
The first Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta (Bay-Delta Plan) was issued by the State The first Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta (Bay-Delta Plan) was issued by the State
Water Board in 1978. Since then, there have been three substantive updates to the plan—in 1991, Water Board in 1978. Since then, there have been three substantive updates to the plan—in 1991,
1995, and 2006. The plans have generally required the SWP and CVP to meet certain water 1995, and 2006. The plans have generally required the SWP and CVP to meet certain water
quality and flow objectives in the Delta to maintain desired salinity levels for in-Delta diversions quality and flow objectives in the Delta to maintain desired salinity levels for in-Delta diversions
(e.g., water quality levels for in-Delta water supplies) and fish and wildlife, among other things. (e.g., water quality levels for in-Delta water supplies) and fish and wildlife, among other things.
These objectives often affect the amount and timing of water available to be pumped, or exported, These objectives often affect the amount and timing of water available to be pumped, or exported,
from the Delta and thus at times result in reduced Delta exports to CVP and SWP water users from the Delta and thus at times result in reduced Delta exports to CVP and SWP water users
south of the Delta.south of the Delta.2830 The Bay-Delta Plan is currently implemented through the State Water The Bay-Delta Plan is currently implemented through the State Water
Board’s Decision 1641 (or D-1641), which was issued in 1999 and placed responsibility for plan Board’s Decision 1641 (or D-1641), which was issued in 1999 and placed responsibility for plan
implementation on the state’s largest two water rights holders, Reclamation and the California implementation on the state’s largest two water rights holders, Reclamation and the California
DWR.DWR.2931
Pumping restrictions to meet state-set water quality levels—particularly increases in salinity Pumping restrictions to meet state-set water quality levels—particularly increases in salinity
levels—can sometimes be significant. However, the relative magnitude of these effects varies levels—can sometimes be significant. However, the relative magnitude of these effects varies
depending on hydrology. For instance, Reclamation estimated that in 2014, water quality depending on hydrology. For instance, Reclamation estimated that in 2014, water quality

2426 Requirements of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) currently are being satisfied through Requirements of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) currently are being satisfied through
implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to a California state determination that project implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to a California state determination that project
operations under the federal biological opinions are consistent with requirements under CESA. Presumably, if operations under the federal biological opinions are consistent with requirements under CESA. Presumably, if
protections afforded to threatened and endangered species under the federal ESA were no longer in place, the State of protections afforded to threatened and endangered species under the federal ESA were no longer in place, the State of
California could invoke protections under CESA. California could invoke protections under CESA.
2527 P.L. 102-575, Title 34, 106 Stat. 4706. P.L. 102-575, Title 34, 106 Stat. 4706.
2628 The CWA requires the states to implement water quality standards that designate water uses to be protected and The CWA requires the states to implement water quality standards that designate water uses to be protected and
adopt water quality criteria that protect the designated uses. For application to California, see United States v. State adopt water quality criteria that protect the designated uses. For application to California, see United States v. State
Water Resources Control Board (Racanelli), 182 Cal. App. 3d 82, 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). Water Resources Control Board (Racanelli), 182 Cal. App. 3d 82, 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).
2729 See Cal. Water Code §13160. See Cal. Water Code §13160.
2830 Inability to reach agreement on water quality objectives through deliberation and litigation nearly shut down Delta Inability to reach agreement on water quality objectives through deliberation and litigation nearly shut down Delta
pumping in the early 1990s and was a significant factor in the creation of the Bay-Delta Accord—a partnership pumping in the early 1990s and was a significant factor in the creation of the Bay-Delta Accord—a partnership
between federal and state agencies with projects, responsibilities, and activities affecting the Delta. Habitat protection between federal and state agencies with projects, responsibilities, and activities affecting the Delta. Habitat protection
commitments in the accord were incorporated into the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, as were actions called for commitments in the accord were incorporated into the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, as were actions called for
under the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program, and were included by the State Water Board in D-1641. (See U.S. under the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program, and were included by the State Water Board in D-1641. (See U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Long-Term Central Valley Project
Operations Criteria and Plan, Sacramento, CA, May 22, 2008, pp. 2-6.) , Sacramento, CA, May 22, 2008, pp. 2-6.)
2931 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, “Revised Water Right Decision California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, “Revised Water Right Decision
1641,” March 15, 2000, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/decisions/1641,” March 15, 2000, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/decisions/
d1600_d1649/wrd1641_1999dec29.pdf. d1600_d1649/wrd1641_1999dec29.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

14 14

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

restrictions accounted for 176,300 AF of the reduction in pumping from the long-term average for restrictions accounted for 176,300 AF of the reduction in pumping from the long-term average for
CVP exports.CVP exports.3032 In 2016, Reclamation estimated that D-1641 requirements accounted for 114,500 In 2016, Reclamation estimated that D-1641 requirements accounted for 114,500
AF in reductions from the long-term export average. AF in reductions from the long-term export average.
Bay-Delta Plan Update
Updates to the 2006 Bay Delta Plan (i.e., the Bay-Delta Plan Update) are being carried out in two Updates to the 2006 Bay Delta Plan (i.e., the Bay-Delta Plan Update) are being carried out in two
separate processes: one for the San Joaquin River and Southern Delta, and the other for the separate processes: one for the San Joaquin River and Southern Delta, and the other for the
Sacramento River and tributaries north of the Delta.Sacramento River and tributaries north of the Delta.3133 In December 2018, the State Water Board In December 2018, the State Water Board
adopted amendments to the 2006 Bay Delta Plan establishing flow objectives and revised salinity adopted amendments to the 2006 Bay Delta Plan establishing flow objectives and revised salinity
objectives for the Lower San Joaquin River and Southern Delta.objectives for the Lower San Joaquin River and Southern Delta.3234 The San Joaquin portion of the The San Joaquin portion of the
Bay-Delta Plan Update requires additional flows to the ocean (generally referred to as Bay-Delta Plan Update requires additional flows to the ocean (generally referred to as unimpaired
flows) from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries (i.e., the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced ) from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries (i.e., the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced
Rivers). Under the proposal, the unimpaired flow requirement for the San Joaquin River is Rivers). Under the proposal, the unimpaired flow requirement for the San Joaquin River is
approximately 40% (within a range of 30%-50%); average unimpaired flows currently range from approximately 40% (within a range of 30%-50%); average unimpaired flows currently range from
21% to 40%.21% to 40%.3335 The state estimates that the updated version of the plan would reduce water The state estimates that the updated version of the plan would reduce water
available for human use from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries by between 7% and 23%, available for human use from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries by between 7% and 23%,
on average, depending on the water year type, but it could reduce these water supplies by as much on average, depending on the water year type, but it could reduce these water supplies by as much
as 38% during critically dry years.as 38% during critically dry years.3436 The state also is updating flow requirements on the The state also is updating flow requirements on the
Sacramento River and its tributaries, but a detailed plan has yet to be finalized.Sacramento River and its tributaries, but a detailed plan has yet to be finalized.3537 The conditions The conditions
in the Bay-Delta Plan Update would be implemented through water rights conditions imposed by in the Bay-Delta Plan Update would be implemented through water rights conditions imposed by
the State Water Board; these conditions are to be implemented no later than 2022. the State Water Board; these conditions are to be implemented no later than 2022.
According to the state, the Bay Delta Plan Update establishes a “starting point” for increased river According to the state, the Bay Delta Plan Update establishes a “starting point” for increased river
flows but also makes allowances for reduced flow requirements on tributaries where stakeholders flows but also makes allowances for reduced flow requirements on tributaries where stakeholders
have reached so-called have reached so-called voluntary agreements (see box below) to pursue both flow and “non-flow” (see box below) to pursue both flow and “non-flow”
measures, such as habitat restoration projects and funding.measures, such as habitat restoration projects and funding.3638 Negotiations to finalize these Negotiations to finalize these
agreements have been ongoing since prior to the passage of the first plan update amendments, and agreements have been ongoing since prior to the passage of the first plan update amendments, and
the negotiations involve the state and federal governments as well as numerous stakeholders. the negotiations involve the state and federal governments as well as numerous stakeholders.
According to the State Water Board, if water users do not enter into voluntary agreements to According to the State Water Board, if water users do not enter into voluntary agreements to

3032 Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, October 15, 2015. Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, October 15, 2015.
3133 For more information, see the State Water Resources Control Board Bay Delta Plan update website at For more information, see the State Water Resources Control Board Bay Delta Plan update website at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/.
3234 See California State Water Board, See California State Water Board, Adoption of Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary and Final Substitute Environmental Document, Resolution No. 2018-, Resolution No. 2018-
0059, December 12, 2018. 0059, December 12, 2018.
3335 California Water Boards, “State Water Board Seeks Public Comment on Final Draft Bay-Delta Plan Update for the California Water Boards, “State Water Board Seeks Public Comment on Final Draft Bay-Delta Plan Update for the
Lower San Joaquin River and Southern Delta,” July 6, 2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/Lower San Joaquin River and Southern Delta,” July 6, 2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/
water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/Bay-Delta_Plan_Update_Press_Release.pdf. water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/Bay-Delta_Plan_Update_Press_Release.pdf.
3436 California Water Boards, “Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan,” July 6, California Water Boards, “Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan,” July 6,
2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/sed/2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/sed/
lsjr_sdwq_summary_070618.pdf. “Critically dry” years refers to a classification that is part of a broader index of water lsjr_sdwq_summary_070618.pdf. “Critically dry” years refers to a classification that is part of a broader index of water
year types for the San Joaquin River; it is calculated based on runoff from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. A year types for the San Joaquin River; it is calculated based on runoff from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. A
similar index characterizes Sacramento River runoff. similar index characterizes Sacramento River runoff.
3537 A preliminary framework released by the state in July 2018 proposed a potential requirement of 55% unimpaired A preliminary framework released by the state in July 2018 proposed a potential requirement of 55% unimpaired
flows from the Sacramento River (within a range of 45% to 65%). See California Water Boards, “July 2018 Framework flows from the Sacramento River (within a range of 45% to 65%). See California Water Boards, “July 2018 Framework
for the Sacramento/Delta Update to the Bay-Delta Plan,” July 6, 2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/for the Sacramento/Delta Update to the Bay-Delta Plan,” July 6, 2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/
water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/sed/sac_delta_framework_070618%20.pdf. Hereinafter California Water water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/sed/sac_delta_framework_070618%20.pdf. Hereinafter California Water
Boards, “July 2018 Framework.” Boards, “July 2018 Framework.”
3638 California Water Boards, “State Water Board Adopts Bay-Delta Plan Update,” press release, December 12, 2018, at California Water Boards, “State Water Board Adopts Bay-Delta Plan Update,” press release, December 12, 2018, at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2018/pr121218_bay-delta_plan_update.pdf. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2018/pr121218_bay-delta_plan_update.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

15 15

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

implement the plan update, the board could eventually take actions to require their implement the plan update, the board could eventually take actions to require their
implementation, such as promulgation of regulations and conditioning of water rights.implementation, such as promulgation of regulations and conditioning of water rights.3739
Voluntary Agreements
Voluntary agreements are proposed agreements between the State of California and water users that would aim to are proposed agreements between the State of California and water users that would aim to
improve conditions for native fish with new flows for the environment, habitat restoration, and new funding for improve conditions for native fish with new flows for the environment, habitat restoration, and new funding for
environmental improvements and science. These agreements, if finalized, would apply in lieu of flow-only measures environmental improvements and science. These agreements, if finalized, would apply in lieu of flow-only measures
in the State Water Resources Control Board’s update to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. The state has in the State Water Resources Control Board’s update to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. The state has
created a framework for the agreements, which it expects would be monitored, enforceable, and in place for 15 created a framework for the agreements, which it expects would be monitored, enforceable, and in place for 15
years. Preliminary estimated costs for implementing the agreements by the state indicate they wil cost years. Preliminary estimated costs for implementing the agreements by the state indicate they wil cost
approximately $5.2 bil ion over 15 years. Of this amount, the federal government is assumed to contribute $740 approximately $5.2 bil ion over 15 years. Of this amount, the federal government is assumed to contribute $740
mil ion, the state government would contribute $2.2 bil ion, and water users would contribute $2.3 bil ion. mil ion, the state government would contribute $2.2 bil ion, and water users would contribute $2.3 bil ion.
Sources: California Natural Resources Agency, California Natural Resources Agency, Voluntary Agreements to Improve Flow and Habitat, 2020; and , 2020; and
California Natural Resources Agency, California Natural Resources Agency, Framework of Voluntary Agreements to Update and Implement the Bay-Delta
Water Quality Control Plan, February 4, 2020. February 4, 2020.
Reclamation and its contractors would likely play key roles in implementing any update to the Reclamation and its contractors would likely play key roles in implementing any update to the
Bay-Delta Plan, as they do in implementing the current Bay Delta Plan under D-1641. Pursuant to Bay-Delta Plan, as they do in implementing the current Bay Delta Plan under D-1641. Pursuant to
Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902,Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902,3840 Reclamation generally defers to state water law in Reclamation generally defers to state water law in
carrying out its authorities, but the proposed Bay Delta Plan Update has generated controversy. In carrying out its authorities, but the proposed Bay Delta Plan Update has generated controversy. In
a July 2018 letter to the State Water Board, the Commissioner of Reclamation opposed the a July 2018 letter to the State Water Board, the Commissioner of Reclamation opposed the
proposed standards for the San Joaquin River, arguing that meeting them would necessitate proposed standards for the San Joaquin River, arguing that meeting them would necessitate
decreased water in storage at New Melones Reservoir of approximately 315,000 AF per year (a decreased water in storage at New Melones Reservoir of approximately 315,000 AF per year (a
higher amount than estimated by the State Water Board). Reclamation argued that such a change higher amount than estimated by the State Water Board). Reclamation argued that such a change
would be contrary to the CVP prioritization scheme as established by Congress.would be contrary to the CVP prioritization scheme as established by Congress.3941 Another Another
complicating factor is that the voluntary agreements have assumed a baseline for flows based on complicating factor is that the voluntary agreements have assumed a baseline for flows based on
the 2008-2009 biological opinions, despite the federal government finalizing new biological the 2008-2009 biological opinions, despite the federal government finalizing new biological
opinions (see below section, “Endangered Species Act”). opinions (see below section, “Endangered Species Act”).
On March 28, 2019, the Department of Justice and DOI filed civil actions in federal and state On March 28, 2019, the Department of Justice and DOI filed civil actions in federal and state
court against the State Water Board for failing to comply with the California Environmental court against the State Water Board for failing to comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).Quality Act (CEQA).4042 The federal district court stayed the CEQA claim on December 2, 2019, The federal district court stayed the CEQA claim on December 2, 2019,
while the state case was pending.while the state case was pending.4143 The United States appealed the stay to the Ninth Circuit, The United States appealed the stay to the Ninth Circuit,
which reversed and remanded the case on February 24, 2021.which reversed and remanded the case on February 24, 2021.4244 On June 8, 2021, the United On June 8, 2021, the United
States requested that the court stay the case after newly appointed officials in Reclamation States requested that the court stay the case after newly appointed officials in Reclamation
decided to pursue other means of resolving the dispute, such as a voluntary agreement.decided to pursue other means of resolving the dispute, such as a voluntary agreement.4345 The case The case

3739 California Water Boards, “July 2018 Framework.” California Water Boards, “July 2018 Framework.”
3840 43 U.S.C. §383. 43 U.S.C. §383.
3941 Letter from Brenda Burman, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, DOI, to Felicia Marcus, Chair, State Water Letter from Brenda Burman, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, DOI, to Felicia Marcus, Chair, State Water
Resources Control Board, July 27, 2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/Resources Control Board, July 27, 2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/
bay_delta/docs/comments_lsjr_finalsed/Brenda_Burman_BOR.pdf. Hereinafter Letter from Brenda Burman to Felicia bay_delta/docs/comments_lsjr_finalsed/Brenda_Burman_BOR.pdf. Hereinafter Letter from Brenda Burman to Felicia
Marcus. Marcus.
4042 Department of Justice, “United States Files Lawsuit Against California State Water Resources Control Board for Department of Justice, “United States Files Lawsuit Against California State Water Resources Control Board for
Failure to Comply With California Environmental Quality Act,” press release, March 28, 2019, at Failure to Comply With California Environmental Quality Act,” press release, March 28, 2019, at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-lawsuit-against-california-state-water-resources-control-board-https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-lawsuit-against-california-state-water-resources-control-board-
failure; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., No. 2:19-cv-failure; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., No. 2:19-cv-
00547 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019); Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Under the California Environmental Quality 00547 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019); Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Under the California Environmental Quality
Act, United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., No. 34-2019-80003111 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 28, 2019). Act, United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., No. 34-2019-80003111 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 28, 2019).
4143 United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 418 F. Supp. 3d 496, 515-19 (E.D. Cal. 2019). United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 418 F. Supp. 3d 496, 515-19 (E.D. Cal. 2019).
4244 United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, 988 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2021). United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, 988 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2021).
4345 Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Case for 120 Days, United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Case for 120 Days, United States v. State Water Resources Control Board,
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

16 16

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

has been stayed through February 7, 2022. has been stayed through February 7, 2022.4446 The state case is being coordinated with 11 other The state case is being coordinated with 11 other
cases challenging the Bay Delta Plan Update.cases challenging the Bay Delta Plan Update.4547
Endangered Species Act
Several species listed under the ESA are affected by the operations of the CVP and the SWP.Several species listed under the ESA are affected by the operations of the CVP and the SWP.4648
For example, the Delta smelt, a small pelagic fish that was listed as threatened under the ESA in For example, the Delta smelt, a small pelagic fish that was listed as threatened under the ESA in
1993, is susceptible to entrainment in CVP and SWP pumps in the Delta. No Delta smelt were 1993, is susceptible to entrainment in CVP and SWP pumps in the Delta. No Delta smelt were
found in the annual September midwater trawl survey in 2021, marking four years in a row with found in the annual September midwater trawl survey in 2021, marking four years in a row with
no smelt found in the September survey.no smelt found in the September survey.4749 This has caused some scientists to assert that Delta This has caused some scientists to assert that Delta
smelt may disappear from the wild in 2021 or 2022.smelt may disappear from the wild in 2021 or 2022.4850
These results for ESA-listed fish raised concerns for many stakeholders, because a low Delta These results for ESA-listed fish raised concerns for many stakeholders, because a low Delta
smelt population could result in greater restrictions on water flowing to users. The survey result smelt population could result in greater restrictions on water flowing to users. The survey result
also raises larger concerns among stakeholders about the overall health and resilience of the Bay-also raises larger concerns among stakeholders about the overall health and resilience of the Bay-
Delta ecosystem. In addition to Delta smelt, multiple anadromous salmonid species found in the Delta ecosystem. In addition to Delta smelt, multiple anadromous salmonid species found in the
Bay-Delta ecosystem have been listed under the ESA since 1991. These species include the Bay-Delta ecosystem have been listed under the ESA since 1991. These species include the
endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, the threatened Central Valley spring-endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, the threatened Central Valley spring-
run Chinook salmon, the threatened Central Valley steelhead, threatened Southern run Chinook salmon, the threatened Central Valley steelhead, threatened Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon, and the threatened Central California Coast Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon, and the threatened Central California Coast
steelhead.steelhead.4951 Certain runs of chinook salmon also are faced with population declines in the Bay- Certain runs of chinook salmon also are faced with population declines in the Bay-
Delta; scientists estimate that 2% of winter-run juvenile chinook salmon survived the summer of Delta; scientists estimate that 2% of winter-run juvenile chinook salmon survived the summer of
2021, largely due to drought and warming temperatures.2021, largely due to drought and warming temperatures.5052 Escapements (i.e., salmon returning to Escapements (i.e., salmon returning to
spawn), however, have varied significantly in the last 10 years.spawn), however, have varied significantly in the last 10 years.5153
Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies generally must consult with FWS in DOI or NMFS Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies generally must consult with FWS in DOI or NMFS
in the Department of Commerce (DOC) to determine whether a federal agency action (e.g., in the Department of Commerce (DOC) to determine whether a federal agency action (e.g.,
project) is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species listed under the ESA or project) is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species listed under the ESA or

No. 2:19-cv-00547 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2021). No. 2:19-cv-00547 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2021).
4446 Order Continuing Stay for 120 Days, United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, No. 2:19-cv-00547 Order Continuing Stay for 120 Days, United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, No. 2:19-cv-00547
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021). (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021).
4547 Order Granting Petition for Coordination of Add-On Case, State Water Board Cases, JCCP No. 5013 (Dec. 13, 2019 Order Granting Petition for Coordination of Add-On Case, State Water Board Cases, JCCP No. 5013 (Dec. 13, 2019
Cal. Sup. Ct.) (granting petition to coordinate Cal. Sup. Ct.) (granting petition to coordinate United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, No. 34-2019-, No. 34-2019-
80003111, with coordinated cases in State Water Board Cases, JCCP No. 5013). 80003111, with coordinated cases in State Water Board Cases, JCCP No. 5013).
4648 Act of December 28, 1973, P.L. 93-205; 87 Stat. 884, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq. This report assumes a Act of December 28, 1973, P.L. 93-205; 87 Stat. 884, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq. This report assumes a
basic knowledge of the act; an overview of the ESA and its major provisions may be found in CRS Report R46677, basic knowledge of the act; an overview of the ESA and its major provisions may be found in CRS Report R46677, The
Endangered Species Act: Overview and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Erin H. Ward, and R. Eliot Crafton. , by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Erin H. Ward, and R. Eliot Crafton.
4749 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Monthly Abundance Index for Delta Smelt, October 2021, at , October 2021, at
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/fmwt/indices.asp. https://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/fmwt/indices.asp.
4850 Peter Moyle et al., “2021: Is This the Year That Wild Delta Smelt Become Extinct?,” Peter Moyle et al., “2021: Is This the Year That Wild Delta Smelt Become Extinct?,” California Water Blog, press press
release, January 10, 2021, at https://californiawaterblog.com/2021/01/10/2021-is-this-the-year-that-wild-delta-smelt-release, January 10, 2021, at https://californiawaterblog.com/2021/01/10/2021-is-this-the-year-that-wild-delta-smelt-
become-extinct/. become-extinct/.
4951 Anadromous fish are born in freshwater, spend the majority of life in saltwater, and return to freshwater to spawn. fish are born in freshwater, spend the majority of life in saltwater, and return to freshwater to spawn.
Examples include salmon and some species of sturgeon. Winter-run Chinook salmon, listed in 1991, were the first Examples include salmon and some species of sturgeon. Winter-run Chinook salmon, listed in 1991, were the first
anadromous species listed from the Central Valley. Other species were listed subsequently. anadromous species listed from the Central Valley. Other species were listed subsequently.
5052 Nick Cahill, “Data Confirms Salmon Slaughter on California’s Main River,” Nick Cahill, “Data Confirms Salmon Slaughter on California’s Main River,” Courthouse News Service, November 4, , November 4,
2021, at https://www.courthousenews.com/data-confirms-salmon-slaughter-on-californias-main-river/. 2021, at https://www.courthousenews.com/data-confirms-salmon-slaughter-on-californias-main-river/.
5153 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CDFW Fisheries Branch Anadromous Resources Assessment - Chinook
Salmon, June 30, 2021, at https://www.calfish.org/ProgramsData/Species/CDFWAnadromousResourceAssessment/, June 30, 2021, at https://www.calfish.org/ProgramsData/Species/CDFWAnadromousResourceAssessment/
tabid/415/Agg1270_SelectTab/2/Default.aspx. tabid/415/Agg1270_SelectTab/2/Default.aspx.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

17 17

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

adversely modify critical habitat. adversely modify critical habitat.5254 If an adverse effect is possible, the agency initiates formal If an adverse effect is possible, the agency initiates formal
consultation with the applicable service, which generally concludes with FWS or NMFS issuing a consultation with the applicable service, which generally concludes with FWS or NMFS issuing a
BiOp on the potential harm the project poses to the species and critical habitat—specifically, BiOp on the potential harm the project poses to the species and critical habitat—specifically,
whether the action is likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat, as whether the action is likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat, as
proposed.proposed.5355 If the action is likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat, If the action is likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat,
FWS or NMFS suggests any reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to the action that may FWS or NMFS suggests any reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to the action that may
avoid such harm.avoid such harm.5456 If the action is not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify If the action is not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify
critical habitat, or if there are RPAs to the action, the service specifies, as necessary and critical habitat, or if there are RPAs to the action, the service specifies, as necessary and
appropriate, reasonable and prudent measures to reduce the harm.appropriate, reasonable and prudent measures to reduce the harm.5557 The BiOp also includes an The BiOp also includes an
incidental take statement (ITS), which authorizes the incidental take of listed species from the incidental take statement (ITS), which authorizes the incidental take of listed species from the
agency’s action, provided the agency complies with the terms and conditions of the ITS that agency’s action, provided the agency complies with the terms and conditions of the ITS that
implement the reasonable and prudent measures.implement the reasonable and prudent measures.5658
Biological Opinion Consultation and Legal Activity
CVP and SWP BiOps have been challenged in court and revised by FWS and NMFS over time. CVP and SWP BiOps have been challenged in court and revised by FWS and NMFS over time.
Until 2004, a 1993 winter-run Chinook salmon BiOp and a 1995 Delta smelt BiOp (as amended) Until 2004, a 1993 winter-run Chinook salmon BiOp and a 1995 Delta smelt BiOp (as amended)
governed CVP and SWP operations, including Delta exports, for federal ESA purposes. In 2004, a governed CVP and SWP operations, including Delta exports, for federal ESA purposes. In 2004, a
proposed change in coordinated operation of the SWP and CVP (including increased Delta proposed change in coordinated operation of the SWP and CVP (including increased Delta
exports), known as OCAP (Operations Criteria and Plan), resulted in reinitiation of consultation exports), known as OCAP (Operations Criteria and Plan), resulted in reinitiation of consultation
and the development of new BiOps. Environmental groups challenged the services’ 2004 BiOps; and the development of new BiOps. Environmental groups challenged the services’ 2004 BiOps;
this challenge resulted in the development of new BiOps by FWS and NMFS in 2008 and 2009, this challenge resulted in the development of new BiOps by FWS and NMFS in 2008 and 2009,
respectively.respectively.5759 These BiOps both concluded that the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP These BiOps both concluded that the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP
and SWP, as proposed in Reclamation’s 2008 biological assessment (BA), was likely to and SWP, as proposed in Reclamation’s 2008 biological assessment (BA), was likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species and destroy or adversely modify designated jeopardize the continued existence of listed species and destroy or adversely modify designated
critical habitat. Accordingly, both BiOps included RPAs designed to allow the CVP and the SWP critical habitat. Accordingly, both BiOps included RPAs designed to allow the CVP and the SWP
to continue operating without jeopardizing listed species or destroying or adversely modifying to continue operating without jeopardizing listed species or destroying or adversely modifying
designated critical habitat. The RPAs placed additional restrictions on the amount of water designated critical habitat. The RPAs placed additional restrictions on the amount of water
exported via SWP and CVP Delta pumps and other limitations on pumping and release of stored exported via SWP and CVP Delta pumps and other limitations on pumping and release of stored
water.water.5860 Reclamation accepted the BiOps and began project operations consistent with the FWS Reclamation accepted the BiOps and began project operations consistent with the FWS
and NMFS RPAs. and NMFS RPAs.
In August 2016, Reclamation and DWR requested reinitiation of consultation on long-term, In August 2016, Reclamation and DWR requested reinitiation of consultation on long-term,
system-wide operations of the CVP and the SWP based on new information related to multiple system-wide operations of the CVP and the SWP based on new information related to multiple
years of drought, species decline, and related data.years of drought, species decline, and related data.5961

5254 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2). 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2).
5355 16 U.S.C. §1536(b); 50 C.F.R. §402.14. 16 U.S.C. §1536(b); 50 C.F.R. §402.14.
5456 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(3). 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(3).
5557 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4). 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4).
5658 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4). 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4).
5759 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Proposed Coordinated
Operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), December 15, 2008, at , December 15, 2008, at
https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/Documents/SWP-CVP_OPs_BO_12-15_final_OCR.pdf; National Marine Fisheries https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/Documents/SWP-CVP_OPs_BO_12-15_final_OCR.pdf; National Marine Fisheries
Service, Service, Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and
State Water Project, June 4, 2009, at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/biological-opinion-and-, June 4, 2009, at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/biological-opinion-and-
conference-opinion-long-term-operations-central-valley. conference-opinion-long-term-operations-central-valley.
5860 Among other things, the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service BiOp requires temperature considerations for the Among other things, the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service BiOp requires temperature considerations for the
benefit of species in the Sacramento River and in the Bay-Delta. benefit of species in the Sacramento River and in the Bay-Delta.
5961 Letter from David Murillo, Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, and Mark W. Cowin, Director, Department of Letter from David Murillo, Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, and Mark W. Cowin, Director, Department of
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

18 18

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

On October 19, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum on western water supplies that, On October 19, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum on western water supplies that,
among other things, directed DOI to issue its final BA proposing changes for the operation of the among other things, directed DOI to issue its final BA proposing changes for the operation of the
CVP and SWP by January 31, 2019; it also directed that FWS and the Comerce Department’s CVP and SWP by January 31, 2019; it also directed that FWS and the Comerce Department’s
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issue their final BiOps in response to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issue their final BiOps in response to
the BA within 135 days of that time.the BA within 135 days of that time.6062 Reclamation completed the BA and sent it to FWS and Reclamation completed the BA and sent it to FWS and
NMFS for review on January 31, 2019.NMFS for review on January 31, 2019.6163 The BA discussed the operational changes proposed by The BA discussed the operational changes proposed by
Reclamation and mitigation factors to address listed species. According to Reclamation, the Reclamation and mitigation factors to address listed species. According to Reclamation, the
changes in the BA reflected a shift to pumping based on real-time monitoring rather than changes in the BA reflected a shift to pumping based on real-time monitoring rather than
calendar-based targets, as well as updated science and monitoring information and a revised plan calendar-based targets, as well as updated science and monitoring information and a revised plan
for cold-water management and releases at Shasta Dam. The BA also stated that nonoperational for cold-water management and releases at Shasta Dam. The BA also stated that nonoperational
activities would be implemented to augment and bolster listed fish populations. These activities activities would be implemented to augment and bolster listed fish populations. These activities
included habitat restoration and the introduction of hatchery-bred Delta smelt, among other included habitat restoration and the introduction of hatchery-bred Delta smelt, among other
things. things.
FWS and NOAA simultaneously issued BiOps for Reclamation’s proposed changes to CVP FWS and NOAA simultaneously issued BiOps for Reclamation’s proposed changes to CVP
operations on October 21, 2019.operations on October 21, 2019.6264 In contrast to the 2008 and 2009 BiOps, the Services concluded In contrast to the 2008 and 2009 BiOps, the Services concluded
that Reclamation’s proposed operations would not jeopardize threatened or endangered species or that Reclamation’s proposed operations would not jeopardize threatened or endangered species or
adversely modify their designated critical habitat. In reaching these conclusions, FWS and NMFS adversely modify their designated critical habitat. In reaching these conclusions, FWS and NMFS
reported that they worked with Reclamation during the consultation process to modify the reported that they worked with Reclamation during the consultation process to modify the
proposed action to reduce potential threats to the listed species and their critical habitat and to proposed action to reduce potential threats to the listed species and their critical habitat and to
increase mitigation measures, such as habitat restoration, to support listed species. The final increase mitigation measures, such as habitat restoration, to support listed species. The final
action was modified to include performance metrics for real-time monitoring, cold-water action was modified to include performance metrics for real-time monitoring, cold-water
management in Lake Shasta, increased habitat restoration, and a process for independent management in Lake Shasta, increased habitat restoration, and a process for independent
scientific review, among other things.scientific review, among other things.6365 After issuing the BiOps, Reclamation completed its After issuing the BiOps, Reclamation completed its
review of environmental impacts of the proposed action under NEPA,review of environmental impacts of the proposed action under NEPA,6466 and Reclamation’s and Reclamation’s
proposed changes were finalized in a record of decision (ROD) on February 20, 2020.proposed changes were finalized in a record of decision (ROD) on February 20, 2020.6567

Water Resources, to Ren Lohoefener, Pacific Southwest Regional Director, August 2, 2016, at https://www.fws.gov/Water Resources, to Ren Lohoefener, Pacific Southwest Regional Director, August 2, 2016, at https://www.fws.gov/
sfbaydelta/documents/08-02-2016_BOR-DWR_Reinitiation_Letter.pdf. sfbaydelta/documents/08-02-2016_BOR-DWR_Reinitiation_Letter.pdf.
6062 White House, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” White House, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,”
October 19, 2018. Hereinafter, 2018 White House Memo on Western Water. October 19, 2018. Hereinafter, 2018 White House Memo on Western Water.
6163 Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation, Updates to the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the CVP and SWP and Related
Facilities, January 2019, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/bdo/lto.html. , January 2019, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/bdo/lto.html.
6264 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated
Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, Service File No. 08FBTD00-2019-F-0164, October , Service File No. 08FBTD00-2019-F-0164, October
21, 2019, at https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/CVP-SWP/documents/10182019_ROC_BO_final.pdf; and National 21, 2019, at https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/CVP-SWP/documents/10182019_ROC_BO_final.pdf; and National
Marine Fisheries Service, Marine Fisheries Service, Biological Opinion on Long-term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water
Project, WCRO-2016-00069, October 21, 2019, at https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/CVP-SWP/documents/, WCRO-2016-00069, October 21, 2019, at https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/CVP-SWP/documents/
10182019_ROC_BO_final.pdf. 10182019_ROC_BO_final.pdf.
6365 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated
Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, Summary, October 21, 2019, at , October 21, 2019, at
https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/CVP-SWP/documents/Overall_Summary.pdf. https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/CVP-SWP/documents/Overall_Summary.pdf.
6466 After issuing the BiOps, Reclamation completed its review of environmental impacts of the proposed action under After issuing the BiOps, Reclamation completed its review of environmental impacts of the proposed action under
NEPA. Reclamation concluded its NEPA review by issuing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on December 19, NEPA. Reclamation concluded its NEPA review by issuing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on December 19,
2019, regarding the anticipated environmental effects of the action. Bureau of Reclamation, 2019, regarding the anticipated environmental effects of the action. Bureau of Reclamation, Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Modified Operations of the Central
Valley Project and State Water Project, December 2019, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_project_details.php?, December 2019, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_project_details.php?
Project_ID=39181. Herinafter, “Final 2019 EIS.” Project_ID=39181. Herinafter, “Final 2019 EIS.”
6567 Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation, Record of Decision, Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Modified
Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, February 2020, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/, February 2020, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/
nepa_project_details.php?Project_ID=39181. nepa_project_details.php?Project_ID=39181.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

19 19

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

California Endangered Species Act
The state also must approve SWP operations pursuant to a permit under the California Endangered Species Act. The state also must approve SWP operations pursuant to a permit under the California Endangered Species Act.
For the state and federal projects to be operated in a coordinated manner and to avoid management confusion, For the state and federal projects to be operated in a coordinated manner and to avoid management confusion,
historically DWR complied with the SWP’s state law requirements through state “consistency determinations” historically DWR complied with the SWP’s state law requirements through state “consistency determinations”
that federal protections complied with the California Endangered Species Act. However, in April 2019, the state that federal protections complied with the California Endangered Species Act. However, in April 2019, the state
announced it would develop a separate permit for the SWP that did not rely on the federal analysis. In November announced it would develop a separate permit for the SWP that did not rely on the federal analysis. In November
2019, the state announced it had determined that Reclamation’s proposed changes did not adequately protect 2019, the state announced it had determined that Reclamation’s proposed changes did not adequately protect
species and state interests. The state finalized its incidental take permit for the SWP on March 31, 2020. The species and state interests. The state finalized its incidental take permit for the SWP on March 31, 2020. The
permit requires additional protective actions beyond those provided for in Reclamation’s operational plans. permit requires additional protective actions beyond those provided for in Reclamation’s operational plans.

Source: California Natural Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency, “State Agencies California Natural Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency, “State Agencies
Lay Out Actions to Protect Endangered Species and Meet State Water Needs,” press release, November 21, Lay Out Actions to Protect Endangered Species and Meet State Water Needs,” press release, November 21,
2019, at http://resources.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CNRA-CalEPA-11.21.19-State-Agencies-Lay-Out-2019, at http://resources.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CNRA-CalEPA-11.21.19-State-Agencies-Lay-Out-
Actions-to-Protect-Endangered-Species-and-Meet-State-Water-Needs.pdf. Actions-to-Protect-Endangered-Species-and-Meet-State-Water-Needs.pdf.
On February 20, 2020, California sued the federal government for violations of the ESA, NEPA, On February 20, 2020, California sued the federal government for violations of the ESA, NEPA,
and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in adopting the 2019 BiOps and issuing the 2020 and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in adopting the 2019 BiOps and issuing the 2020
ROD.ROD.6668 Among other relief sought, California asked that the court enjoin Reclamation from Among other relief sought, California asked that the court enjoin Reclamation from
implementing any actions that rely on the 2019 BiOps.implementing any actions that rely on the 2019 BiOps.6769 Separately, a group of nongovernmental Separately, a group of nongovernmental
organizations also sued the federal government for alleged violations stemming from the 2019 organizations also sued the federal government for alleged violations stemming from the 2019
BiOps and 2020 ROD and similarly asked that the court prohibit implementation of the new BiOps and 2020 ROD and similarly asked that the court prohibit implementation of the new
operations.operations.6870
Both the nongovernmental organizations and California also requested that the court prohibit Both the nongovernmental organizations and California also requested that the court prohibit
Reclamation from implementing these operational changes while the litigation is pending.Reclamation from implementing these operational changes while the litigation is pending.6971 On On
May 11, 2020, the court granted the motions in part, finding that NMFS’s failure to carry forward May 11, 2020, the court granted the motions in part, finding that NMFS’s failure to carry forward
an RPA from the 2009 BiOp was likely to cause irreparable harm to the California Central Valley an RPA from the 2009 BiOp was likely to cause irreparable harm to the California Central Valley
Steelhead.Steelhead.7072 The court’s order required Reclamation to implement the RPA from the 2009 BiOp The court’s order required Reclamation to implement the RPA from the 2009 BiOp
instead of any conflicting operational changes through May 31, 2020.instead of any conflicting operational changes through May 31, 2020.7173 On June 24, 2020, the On June 24, 2020, the
court declined to extend the injunction further.court declined to extend the injunction further.7274 The court determined that based on the evidence The court determined that based on the evidence
presented to date, the injunction was not “likely to materially improve conditions vis-à-vis the presented to date, the injunction was not “likely to materially improve conditions vis-à-vis the

6668 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 3:20-cv-01299 (N.D. Cal. Feb. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 3:20-cv-01299 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
20, 2020). 20, 2020).
6769 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 36, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 3:20-cv-01299 (N.D. Cal. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 36, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 3:20-cv-01299 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 20, 2020). Feb. 20, 2020).
6870 First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 57-67, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 57-67, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v.
Ross, No. 3:19-cv-07897 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020). For additional background on these lawsuits and other legal issues Ross, No. 3:19-cv-07897 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020). For additional background on these lawsuits and other legal issues
related to the CVP, congressional clients may contact CRS Legislative Attorney Erin H. Ward. related to the CVP, congressional clients may contact CRS Legislative Attorney Erin H. Ward.
6971 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Ross, No. 3:19-cv-07897 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Ross, No. 3:19-cv-07897
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2020); Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-(N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2020); Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-
00426 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020). 00426 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020).
7072 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part as Moot Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Holding Certain Issues in Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part as Moot Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Holding Certain Issues in
Abeyance, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00426, & Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No. Abeyance, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00426, & Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No.
1:20-cv-00431, at 4 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2020). 1:20-cv-00431, at 4 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2020).
7173 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part as Moot Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Holding Certain Issues in Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part as Moot Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Holding Certain Issues in
Abeyance, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00426, & Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No. Abeyance, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00426, & Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No.
1:20-cv-00431, at 4 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2020). 1:20-cv-00431, at 4 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2020).
7274 Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Shasta Operations, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Shasta Operations, Pac. Coast Fed’n of
Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 4 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2020). Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 4 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2020).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

20 20

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

current operating regime for the species of concern during the current temperature management current operating regime for the species of concern during the current temperature management
period.”period.”7375
Following the change in administration in January 2021, Executive Order 13990 required Following the change in administration in January 2021, Executive Order 13990 required
Reclamation, FWS, and NMFS to reconsider the 2019 BiOps.Reclamation, FWS, and NMFS to reconsider the 2019 BiOps.7476 On July 14, 2021, the federal On July 14, 2021, the federal
defendants asked the court to stay the case until September 30, 2021.defendants asked the court to stay the case until September 30, 2021.7577 In the motion, the federal In the motion, the federal
defendants argued that a stay was warranted because the federal and state agencies were already defendants argued that a stay was warranted because the federal and state agencies were already
reviewing and potentially would revise the challenged agency actions, and the federal defendants reviewing and potentially would revise the challenged agency actions, and the federal defendants
had already committed to reinitiating consultation by October 1, 2021.had already committed to reinitiating consultation by October 1, 2021.7678 In addition, the federal In addition, the federal
defendants observed that Reclamation employees were already working overtime to address defendants observed that Reclamation employees were already working overtime to address
extreme drought conditions in the western United States and that, due to the drought, the CVP extreme drought conditions in the western United States and that, due to the drought, the CVP
operations generally were governed by conditions and requirements not at issue in the litigation.operations generally were governed by conditions and requirements not at issue in the litigation.7779
The court granted the stay on August 19, 2021, and required the parties to file a joint status report The court granted the stay on August 19, 2021, and required the parties to file a joint status report
on or before October 1, 2021, on their perspectives about how the case should proceed in light of on or before October 1, 2021, on their perspectives about how the case should proceed in light of
the administrative and ecological developments.the administrative and ecological developments.7880
On September 30, 2021, Reclamation and California DWR submitted a request for reinitiation of On September 30, 2021, Reclamation and California DWR submitted a request for reinitiation of
consultation to FWS and NMFS.consultation to FWS and NMFS.7981 In the letter, Reclamation stated that reinitiation was warranted In the letter, Reclamation stated that reinitiation was warranted
due to anticipated changes to the proposed action (i.e., CVP operations) that may affect the due to anticipated changes to the proposed action (i.e., CVP operations) that may affect the
species or critical habitat in ways the services had not analyzed in the 2019 BiOps.species or critical habitat in ways the services had not analyzed in the 2019 BiOps.8082 Reclamation Reclamation
identified as bases for modifying CVP operations the agency action review required by Executive identified as bases for modifying CVP operations the agency action review required by Executive
Order 13990 and an interest in voluntarily reconciling CVP operations to the operational Order 13990 and an interest in voluntarily reconciling CVP operations to the operational
requirements of the SWP under the California ESA.requirements of the SWP under the California ESA.8183 Reclamation stated that its goals in revising Reclamation stated that its goals in revising
CVP operations were “to support species viability, protect life history diversity, support CVP operations were “to support species viability, protect life history diversity, support
operational flexibility, provide regulatory certainty, support science and monitoring, and to create operational flexibility, provide regulatory certainty, support science and monitoring, and to create
a single feasible adaptable cooperated operation for the CVP and SWP.”a single feasible adaptable cooperated operation for the CVP and SWP.”8284 Reclamation stated that Reclamation stated that
it would continue to operate the CVP pursuant to the 2019 BiOps and 2020 ROD while it would continue to operate the CVP pursuant to the 2019 BiOps and 2020 ROD while
reinitiation proceeded, but it noted that such operations might be modified by interim measures reinitiation proceeded, but it noted that such operations might be modified by interim measures

7375 Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Shasta Operations, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to Shasta Operations, Pac. Coast Fed’n of
Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 19 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2020). Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 19 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2020).
7476 86 86 Federal Register 7037, January 25, 2021. 7037, January 25, 2021.
7577 Notice of Motion and Motion for Stay, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431 Notice of Motion and Motion for Stay, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431
(E.D. Cal. July 14, 2021). (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2021).
7678 Federal Defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion for Stay, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. Federal Defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion for Stay, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No.
1:20-cv-00431, at 2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2021). 1:20-cv-00431, at 2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2021).
7779 Federal Defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion for Stay, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. Federal Defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion for Stay, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No.
1:20-cv-00431, at 2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2021). 1:20-cv-00431, at 2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2021).
7880 Order Granting Motion to Stay Until September 30, 2021, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. Order Granting Motion to Stay Until September 30, 2021, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No.
1:20-cv-00431, at 6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021). 1:20-cv-00431, at 6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021).
7981 Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021. the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021.
8082 Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021. The Services’ regulations the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021. The Services’ regulations
include four scenarios that require reinitiation of consultation, including “if the identified action is subsequently include four scenarios that require reinitiation of consultation, including “if the identified action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the
biological opinion or written concurrence.” 50 C.F.R. §402.16(a)(3). biological opinion or written concurrence.” 50 C.F.R. §402.16(a)(3).
8183 Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021. the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021.
8284 Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021, p. 1. the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

21 21

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

“as required by ongoing drought conditions or as ordered in conjunction with any ongoing “as required by ongoing drought conditions or as ordered in conjunction with any ongoing
litigation.”litigation.”8385 The services responded to the request for reinitiation on October 1, 2021. The services responded to the request for reinitiation on October 1, 2021.8486
In their October 1, 2021, joint status report, the parties informed the court that Reclamation had In their October 1, 2021, joint status report, the parties informed the court that Reclamation had
requested reinitiation of consultation for the CVP operations and that the federal defendants and requested reinitiation of consultation for the CVP operations and that the federal defendants and
California were working to develop a plan for CVP and SWP operations through September 30, California were working to develop a plan for CVP and SWP operations through September 30,
2022, while reinitiated consultation is ongoing.2022, while reinitiated consultation is ongoing.8587 The parties requested an additional two weeks to The parties requested an additional two weeks to
attempt to agree on a path forward in the litigation.attempt to agree on a path forward in the litigation.8688
In their October 14, 2021, joint status report, the federal defendants and California submitted a In their October 14, 2021, joint status report, the federal defendants and California submitted a
revised interim operations plan for the October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022, water year to the revised interim operations plan for the October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022, water year to the
court, an initial version of which had been circulated to litigation parties for comment on court, an initial version of which had been circulated to litigation parties for comment on
September 27.September 27.8789 The federal defendants and California acknowledged that they had not reached The federal defendants and California acknowledged that they had not reached
an agreement with the other parties about the interim operations plan.an agreement with the other parties about the interim operations plan.8890 The Pacific Coast The Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen’s Associations objected to staying the litigation, wanting to proceed with Federation of Fishermen’s Associations objected to staying the litigation, wanting to proceed with
pending motions to supplement the administrative record.pending motions to supplement the administrative record.8991 They and other parties raised They and other parties raised
objections to the proposed interim operations plans. For example, several parties noted that they objections to the proposed interim operations plans. For example, several parties noted that they
had requested but not received modeling and other technical information underlying the interim had requested but not received modeling and other technical information underlying the interim
operations plan.operations plan.9092 In addition, multiple parties contended that Reclamation must comply with In addition, multiple parties contended that Reclamation must comply with
statutory obligations such as the ESA, NEPA, and WIIN Act before adopting the interim statutory obligations such as the ESA, NEPA, and WIIN Act before adopting the interim
operations plan due to the nature of the changes being made to the CVP operations adopted in the operations plan due to the nature of the changes being made to the CVP operations adopted in the
2020 ROD.2020 ROD.9193 Parties also objected to specific substantive aspects of the changes, with the PCFFA Parties also objected to specific substantive aspects of the changes, with the PCFFA
contending the interim operations plan does not provide adequate protection for the species and contending the interim operations plan does not provide adequate protection for the species and
defendant intervenors arguing the changes are not necessary and breach Reclamation’s defendant intervenors arguing the changes are not necessary and breach Reclamation’s
contractual obligations to water rights holders.contractual obligations to water rights holders.9294
On October 20, 2021, the court granted the request to file motions on approving the interim On October 20, 2021, the court granted the request to file motions on approving the interim
operations plan and staying the litigation.operations plan and staying the litigation.9395 The court noted that the federal defendants have The court noted that the federal defendants have

8385 Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021. the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021.
8486 Letter from FWS to Reclamation, Request for Reinitiation of the 2019 Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Letter from FWS to Reclamation, Request for Reinitiation of the 2019 Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term
Operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), October 1, 2021; Letter from NMFS to Operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), October 1, 2021; Letter from NMFS to
Reclamation, Request for Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Reclamation, Request for Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley
Project and State Water Project, October 1, 2021. Project and State Water Project, October 1, 2021.
8587 October 1, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 1-2 October 1, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 1-2
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2021). (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2021).
8688 October 1, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 2 October 1, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 2
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2021). (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2021).
8789 October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 1- October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 1-
2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021). 2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021).
8890 October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 2 October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 2
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021). (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021).
8991 October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 3- October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 3-
7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021). 7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021).
9092 October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 4, October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 4,
6-7, 16 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021). 6-7, 16 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021).
9193 October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 7- October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 7-
9, 13-14 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021). 9, 13-14 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021).
9294 October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 5, October 14, 2021, Joint Status Report, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 5,
10-15 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021). 10-15 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021).
9395 Order Regarding Further Scheduling and Status of Pending Motions, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Order Regarding Further Scheduling and Status of Pending Motions, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

22 22

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

agreed to provide the modeling data to the other parties. agreed to provide the modeling data to the other parties.9496 Finally, the court declined to stay the Finally, the court declined to stay the
case with respect to PCFFA’s motion to complete the administrative record.case with respect to PCFFA’s motion to complete the administrative record.9597 On November 23, On November 23,
2021, the federal defendants asked for a voluntary remand of the 2019 BiOps and 2020 ROD 2021, the federal defendants asked for a voluntary remand of the 2019 BiOps and 2020 ROD
without vacating them and requested that the court order implementation of the interim operations without vacating them and requested that the court order implementation of the interim operations
plan through September 30, 2022, as injunctive relief. plan through September 30, 2022, as injunctive relief.
How Much Water Is Accounted for by ESA Restrictions?
The exact magnitude of reductions in pumping due to ESA restrictions compared to the aforementioned water The exact magnitude of reductions in pumping due to ESA restrictions compared to the aforementioned water
quality restrictions has varied considerably over time. In absolute terms, ESA-driven reductions are typically quality restrictions has varied considerably over time. In absolute terms, ESA-driven reductions are typically
greater in wet years than in dry years, but the proportion of ESA reductions relative to deliveries depends on greater in wet years than in dry years, but the proportion of ESA reductions relative to deliveries depends on
numerous factors. For instance, Reclamation estimated that ESA restrictions accounted for a reduction in numerous factors. For instance, Reclamation estimated that ESA restrictions accounted for a reduction in
deliveries of 62,000 AF from the long-term average for CVP deliveries in 2014 and 144,800 AF of CVP delivery deliveries of 62,000 AF from the long-term average for CVP deliveries in 2014 and 144,800 AF of CVP delivery
reductions in 2015 (both years were extremely dry). In wet years, when more water is delivered to contractors, reductions in 2015 (both years were extremely dry). In wet years, when more water is delivered to contractors,
ESA reductions may be larger, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of total deliveries. ESA reductions may be larger, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of total deliveries.
During the 2012-2016 drought, implementation of the RPAs (which generally limit pumping under specific During the 2012-2016 drought, implementation of the RPAs (which generally limit pumping under specific
circumstances and call for water releases from key reservoirs to support listed species) was modified due to circumstances and call for water releases from key reservoirs to support listed species) was modified due to
temporary urgency change orders (TUCs). These TUCs, issued by the California State Water Resources Control temporary urgency change orders (TUCs). These TUCs, issued by the California State Water Resources Control
Board in 2014 and again in 2015, were deemed consistent with the existing BiOps by NMFS and FWS. Such Board in 2014 and again in 2015, were deemed consistent with the existing BiOps by NMFS and FWS. Such
changes allowed more water to be pumped during certain periods based on real-time monitoring of species and changes allowed more water to be pumped during certain periods based on real-time monitoring of species and
water conditions. DWR estimated that approximately 400,000 AF of water was made available in 2014 for export water conditions. DWR estimated that approximately 400,000 AF of water was made available in 2014 for export
due to these orders. due to these orders.
Sources: Reclamation, “Water Year 2016 CVIPA §3406(b)(2) Accounting,” at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/Reclamation, “Water Year 2016 CVIPA §3406(b)(2) Accounting,” at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/
vungvari/FINAL_wy16_b2_800TAF_table_20170930.pdf, and California Environmental Protection Agency and vungvari/FINAL_wy16_b2_800TAF_table_20170930.pdf, and California Environmental Protection Agency and
State Water Resources Control Board, “March 5, 2015 Order Modifying an Order That Approved in Part and State Water Resources Control Board, “March 5, 2015 Order Modifying an Order That Approved in Part and
Denied in Part a Petition for Temporary Urgency Changes to Permit Terms and Conditions Requiring Compliance Denied in Part a Petition for Temporary Urgency Changes to Permit Terms and Conditions Requiring Compliance
with Delta Water Quality Objectives in Response to Drought Conditions,” p. 4, at with Delta Water Quality Objectives in Response to Drought Conditions,” p. 4, at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/docs/tucp/tucp_order030515.pdf.http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/docs/tucp/tucp_order030515.pdf.
Central Valley Project Improvement Act
In an effort to mitigate many of the environmental effects of the CVP, in 1992, Congress passed In an effort to mitigate many of the environmental effects of the CVP, in 1992, Congress passed
the CVPIA as Title 34 of P.L. 102-575. The act made major changes to the management of the the CVPIA as Title 34 of P.L. 102-575. The act made major changes to the management of the
CVP. Among other things, it formally established fish and wildlife purposes as an official project CVP. Among other things, it formally established fish and wildlife purposes as an official project
purpose of the CVP and called for a number of actions to protect, restore, and enhance these purpose of the CVP and called for a number of actions to protect, restore, and enhance these
resources. Overall, the CVPIA’s provisions resulted in a combination of decreased water resources. Overall, the CVPIA’s provisions resulted in a combination of decreased water
availability and increased costs for agricultural and M&I contractors, along with new water and availability and increased costs for agricultural and M&I contractors, along with new water and
funding sources to restore fish and wildlife. Thus, the law remains a source of tension, and some funding sources to restore fish and wildlife. Thus, the law remains a source of tension, and some
would prefer to see it repealed in part or in full. would prefer to see it repealed in part or in full.
Some of the CVPIA’s most prominent changes to the CVP included directives to Some of the CVPIA’s most prominent changes to the CVP included directives to
 double certain anadromous fish populations by 2002 (which did occur);  double certain anadromous fish populations by 2002 (which did occur);9698

Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 3-5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021). Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 3-5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021).
9496 Order Regarding Further Scheduling and Status of Pending Motions, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Order Regarding Further Scheduling and Status of Pending Motions, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v.
Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021). Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021).
9597 Order Regarding Further Scheduling and Status of Pending Motions, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Order Regarding Further Scheduling and Status of Pending Motions, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v.
Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 5-7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021). Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 5-7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021).
9698 CVPIA’s “fish doubling” goal was established on a baseline of average population levels during the period of 1967- CVPIA’s “fish doubling” goal was established on a baseline of average population levels during the period of 1967-
1991. 1991.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

23 23

link to page 37 link to page 37 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

 allocate 800,000 AF of “(b)(2)” CVP yield (600,000 AF in drought years) to fish  allocate 800,000 AF of “(b)(2)” CVP yield (600,000 AF in drought years) to fish
and wildlife purposes; and wildlife purposes;9799
 provide water supplies (in the form of “Level 2”  provide water supplies (in the form of “Level 2” and “Level 4”and “Level 4” supplies) for 19 supplies) for 19
designated Central Valley wildlife refuges; designated Central Valley wildlife refuges;98100 and and
 establish a fund, the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF), to be  establish a fund, the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF), to be
financed by water and power users for habitat restoration and land and water financed by water and power users for habitat restoration and land and water
acquisitions. acquisitions.
Pursuant to court rulings since enactment of the legislation, CVPIA (b)(2) allocations may be Pursuant to court rulings since enactment of the legislation, CVPIA (b)(2) allocations may be
used to meet other state and federal requirements that reduce exports or require an increase from used to meet other state and federal requirements that reduce exports or require an increase from
baseline reservoir releases. Thus, in a given year, the aforementioned export reductions due to baseline reservoir releases. Thus, in a given year, the aforementioned export reductions due to
state water quality and federal ESA restrictions are counted and reported on annually as (b)(2) state water quality and federal ESA restrictions are counted and reported on annually as (b)(2)
water, and in some cases overlap with other stated purposes of CVPIA (e.g., anadromous fish water, and in some cases overlap with other stated purposes of CVPIA (e.g., anadromous fish
restoration). The exact makeup of (b)(2) water in a given year typically varies. For example, in restoration). The exact makeup of (b)(2) water in a given year typically varies. For example, in
2014 (a critically dry year), out of a total of 402,000 AF of (b)(2) water, 176,300 AF (44%) was 2014 (a critically dry year), out of a total of 402,000 AF of (b)(2) water, 176,300 AF (44%) was
attributed to export reductions for Bay-Delta Plan water quality requirements.attributed to export reductions for Bay-Delta Plan water quality requirements.99101 Remaining (b)(2) Remaining (b)(2)
water was composed of a combination of reservoir releases classified as CVPIA anadromous fish water was composed of a combination of reservoir releases classified as CVPIA anadromous fish
restoration and NMFS BiOp compliance purposes (163,500 AF) and export reductions under the restoration and NMFS BiOp compliance purposes (163,500 AF) and export reductions under the
2009 salmonid BiOp (62,200 AF).2009 salmonid BiOp (62,200 AF).~~100~~102 In 2016 (a wet year), 793,000 AF of (b)(2) water included In 2016 (a wet year), 793,000 AF of (b)(2) water included
528,000 AF (66%) of export pumping reductions under FWS and NMFS BiOps and 114,500 AF 528,000 AF (66%) of export pumping reductions under FWS and NMFS BiOps and 114,500 AF
(14%) for Bay-Delta Plan requirements. The remaining water was accounted for as reservoir (14%) for Bay-Delta Plan requirements. The remaining water was accounted for as reservoir
releases for the anadromous fish restoration programs, the NMFS BiOp, and the Bay-Delta releases for the anadromous fish restoration programs, the NMFS BiOp, and the Bay-Delta
Plan.Plan.~~101~~103
The CVPRF, which funds CVPIA restoration activities, receives approximately $54 million The CVPRF, which funds CVPIA restoration activities, receives approximately $54 million
annually in congressional appropriations. These funds typically are offset by the water and power annually in congressional appropriations. These funds typically are offset by the water and power
user surcharges authorized under CVPIA. In previous years, revenues from water user surcharges user surcharges authorized under CVPIA. In previous years, revenues from water user surcharges
(which are based largely on actual water deliveries) dictated the corresponding level of CVPRF (which are based largely on actual water deliveries) dictated the corresponding level of CVPRF
charges for power users. However, a recent court ruling required, among other things, that charges for power users. However, a recent court ruling required, among other things, that
Reclamation adjust the assessment of these charges to make them proportional to water and Reclamation adjust the assessment of these charges to make them proportional to water and
power user repayment obligations.power user repayment obligations.~~102~~104 As a result, Reclamation is implementing changes to the As a result, Reclamation is implementing changes to the
assessment of and accounting for CVPIA surcharges in accordance with the ruling; these changes assessment of and accounting for CVPIA surcharges in accordance with the ruling; these changes
could alter future CVPRF balances and activities. While most water and power users generally could alter future CVPRF balances and activities. While most water and power users generally
support the changes, some environmental interests are concerned that the changes have the support the changes, some environmental interests are concerned that the changes have the
potential to reduce the reliability of CVPRF funding. potential to reduce the reliability of CVPRF funding.

9799 The term “ The term “(b)(2) water” references the provision in CVPIA that required these allocations. ” references the provision in CVPIA that required these allocations.
98100 Authorized refuge water supply under CVPIA is divided into two categories: Level 2 and Level 4 supplies. Level 2 Authorized refuge water supply under CVPIA is divided into two categories: Level 2 and Level 4 supplies. Level 2
supplies (422,251 AF, except in critically dry years, when the allocation is reduced to 75%) are the historical average of supplies (422,251 AF, except in critically dry years, when the allocation is reduced to 75%) are the historical average of
water deliveries to the refuges prior to enactment of CVPIA. Reclamation is obligated to acquire and deliver this water water deliveries to the refuges prior to enactment of CVPIA. Reclamation is obligated to acquire and deliver this water
under CVPIA, and costs are 100% reimbursable by CVP contractors through the Central Valley Project Restoration under CVPIA, and costs are 100% reimbursable by CVP contractors through the Central Valley Project Restoration
Fund. For more information, seFund. For more information, see Appendix.
99101 Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Year 2014 CVPIA Section 3406(b)(2) Operations and Accounting, January 28, 2015, , January 28, 2015,
at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/data/FINAL_WY14_b2_presentation.pdf. at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/data/FINAL_WY14_b2_presentation.pdf.
~~100~~102 Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Year 2014 CVPIA Section 3406(b)(2) Operations and Accounting, January 28, 2015, , January 28, 2015,
at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/data/FINAL_WY14_b2_presentation.pdf. at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/data/FINAL_WY14_b2_presentation.pdf.
~~101~~103 Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation, Water Year 2016 CVIPA §3406(b)(2) Accounting, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/
vungvari/FINAL_wy16_b2_800TAF_table_20170930.pdf. vungvari/FINAL_wy16_b2_800TAF_table_20170930.pdf.
~~102~~104 N. Cal. Power Agency v. United States, 942 F.3d 1091, 1093, 1098-99 (Fed. Cir. 2019). N. Cal. Power Agency v. United States, 942 F.3d 1091, 1093, 1098-99 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

24 24

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Ecosystem Restoration Efforts
Development of the CVP made significant changes to California’s natural hydrology. In addition Development of the CVP made significant changes to California’s natural hydrology. In addition
to the aforementioned CVPIA efforts to address some of these impacts, three ongoing, to the aforementioned CVPIA efforts to address some of these impacts, three ongoing,
congressionally authorized restoration initiatives also factor into federal activities associated with congressionally authorized restoration initiatives also factor into federal activities associated with
the CVP: the CVP:
 The Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP), administered by Reclamation,  The Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP), administered by Reclamation,
attempts to mitigate impacts and restore fisheries impacted by construction of the attempts to mitigate impacts and restore fisheries impacted by construction of the
Trinity River Division of the CVP. Trinity River Division of the CVP.
 The San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) is an ongoing effort to  The San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) is an ongoing effort to
implement a congressionally enacted settlement to restore fisheries in the San implement a congressionally enacted settlement to restore fisheries in the San
Joaquin River. Joaquin River.
 The California Bay-Delta Restoration Program aims to restore and protect areas  The California Bay-Delta Restoration Program aims to restore and protect areas
within the Bay-Delta that are affected by the CVP and other activities. within the Bay-Delta that are affected by the CVP and other activities.
In addition to their habitat restoration activities, both the TRRP and the SJRRP involve the In addition to their habitat restoration activities, both the TRRP and the SJRRP involve the
maintenance of instream flow levels that use water that was at one time diverted for other uses. maintenance of instream flow levels that use water that was at one time diverted for other uses.
Each effort is discussed briefly below. Each effort is discussed briefly below.
Trinity River Restoration Program
TRRP—administered by DOI—aims to mitigate impacts of the Trinity Division of the CVP and TRRP—administered by DOI—aims to mitigate impacts of the Trinity Division of the CVP and
restore fisheries to their levels prior to the Bureau of Reclamation’s construction of this division restore fisheries to their levels prior to the Bureau of Reclamation’s construction of this division
in 1955. The Trinity Division primarily consists of two dams (Trinity and Lewiston Dams), in 1955. The Trinity Division primarily consists of two dams (Trinity and Lewiston Dams),
related power facilities, and a series of tunnels (including the 10.7-mile Clear Creek Tunnel) that related power facilities, and a series of tunnels (including the 10.7-mile Clear Creek Tunnel) that
divert water from the Trinity River Basin to the Sacramento River Basin and Whiskeytown divert water from the Trinity River Basin to the Sacramento River Basin and Whiskeytown
Reservoir. Diversion of Trinity River water (which originally required that a minimum of 120,000 Reservoir. Diversion of Trinity River water (which originally required that a minimum of 120,000
AF be reserved for Trinity River flows) resulted in the near drying of the Trinity River in some AF be reserved for Trinity River flows) resulted in the near drying of the Trinity River in some
years, thereby damaging spawning habitat and severely depleting salmon stocks. years, thereby damaging spawning habitat and severely depleting salmon stocks.
Efforts to mitigate the effects of the Trinity Division date back to the early 1980s, when DOI Efforts to mitigate the effects of the Trinity Division date back to the early 1980s, when DOI
initiated efforts to study the issue and increase Trinity River flows for fisheries. Congress initiated efforts to study the issue and increase Trinity River flows for fisheries. Congress
authorized legislation in 1984 (P.L. 98-541) and in 1992 (P.L. 102-575) providing for restoration authorized legislation in 1984 (P.L. 98-541) and in 1992 (P.L. 102-575) providing for restoration
activities and construction of a fish hatchery, and directed that 340,000 AF per year be reserved activities and construction of a fish hatchery, and directed that 340,000 AF per year be reserved
for Trinity River flows (a significant increase from the original amount). Congress also mandated for Trinity River flows (a significant increase from the original amount). Congress also mandated
completion of a flow evaluation study, which was formalized in a 2000 ROD that called for completion of a flow evaluation study, which was formalized in a 2000 ROD that called for
additional water for instream flows,additional water for instream flows,~~103~~105 river channel restoration, and watershed rehabilitation. river channel restoration, and watershed rehabilitation.~~104~~106
The 2000 ROD forms the basis for TRRP. The flow releases outlined in that document have in The 2000 ROD forms the basis for TRRP. The flow releases outlined in that document have in
some years been supplemented to protect fish health in the river, and these increases have been some years been supplemented to protect fish health in the river, and these increases have been
controversial among some water users. From FY2013 to FY2018, TRRP was funded at controversial among some water users. From FY2013 to FY2018, TRRP was funded at
approximately $12 million per year in discretionary appropriations from Reclamation’s Fish and approximately $12 million per year in discretionary appropriations from Reclamation’s Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development activity. Wildlife Management and Development activity.

~~103~~105 The additional flows outlined in the 2000 record of decision are based on water-year type and range from 369,000 The additional flows outlined in the 2000 record of decision are based on water-year type and range from 369,000
AF in critically dry years to 815,000 AF in extremely wet years. A greater proportion of Trinity River water goes to the AF in critically dry years to 815,000 AF in extremely wet years. A greater proportion of Trinity River water goes to the
river in dry years, and a greater proportion of the water goes to CVP contractors in wet years. river in dry years, and a greater proportion of the water goes to CVP contractors in wet years.
~~104~~106 DOI, DOI, Record of Decision for Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report, December 2000, at http://www.restoresjr.net/?wpfb_dl=2163. , December 2000, at http://www.restoresjr.net/?wpfb_dl=2163.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

25 25

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

San Joaquin River Restoration Program
Historically, the San Joaquin River supported large Chinook salmon populations. After the Historically, the San Joaquin River supported large Chinook salmon populations. After the
Bureau of Reclamation completed Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River in the late 1940s, much Bureau of Reclamation completed Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River in the late 1940s, much
of the river’s water was diverted for agricultural uses and approximately 60 miles of the river of the river’s water was diverted for agricultural uses and approximately 60 miles of the river
became dry in most years. These conditions made it impossible to support Chinook salmon became dry in most years. These conditions made it impossible to support Chinook salmon
populations upstream of the Merced River confluence. populations upstream of the Merced River confluence.
In 1988, a coalition of environmental, conservation, and fishing groups advocating for river In 1988, a coalition of environmental, conservation, and fishing groups advocating for river
restoration to support Chinook salmon recovery sued the Bureau of Reclamation. A U.S. District restoration to support Chinook salmon recovery sued the Bureau of Reclamation. A U.S. District
Court judge eventually ruled that operation of Friant Dam was violating state law because of its Court judge eventually ruled that operation of Friant Dam was violating state law because of its
destruction of downstream fisheries.destruction of downstream fisheries.~~105~~107 Faced with mounting legal fees, considerable uncertainty, Faced with mounting legal fees, considerable uncertainty,
and the possibility of dramatic cuts to water diversions, the parties agreed to negotiate a and the possibility of dramatic cuts to water diversions, the parties agreed to negotiate a
settlement instead of proceeding to trial on a remedy regarding the court’s ruling. This settlement settlement instead of proceeding to trial on a remedy regarding the court’s ruling. This settlement
was agreed to in 2006 and implementing legislation was enacted by Congress in 2010 (Title X of was agreed to in 2006 and implementing legislation was enacted by Congress in 2010 (Title X of
P.L. 111-11). P.L. 111-11).
The settlement agreement and its implementing legislation form the basis for the SJRRP, which The settlement agreement and its implementing legislation form the basis for the SJRRP, which
requires new releases of CVP water from Friant Dam to restore fisheries (including salmon requires new releases of CVP water from Friant Dam to restore fisheries (including salmon
fisheries) in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam (which forms Millerton Lake) to the fisheries) in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam (which forms Millerton Lake) to the
confluence with the Merced River, a distance of 60 miles. The SJRRP also requires efforts to confluence with the Merced River, a distance of 60 miles. The SJRRP also requires efforts to
mitigate water supply delivery losses due to these releases, among other things. In combination mitigate water supply delivery losses due to these releases, among other things. In combination
with the new releases, the settlement’s goals are to be achieved through a combination of channel with the new releases, the settlement’s goals are to be achieved through a combination of channel
and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River and the reintroduction of Chinook and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River and the reintroduction of Chinook
salmon. These activities are funded in part by federal discretionary appropriations and in part by salmon. These activities are funded in part by federal discretionary appropriations and in part by
repayment and surcharges paid by CVP Friant water users that are redirected toward the SJRRP repayment and surcharges paid by CVP Friant water users that are redirected toward the SJRRP
as required by P.L. 111-11. as required by P.L. 111-11.
Because increased water flows for restoring fisheries (known as Because increased water flows for restoring fisheries (known as restoration flows) would reduce ) would reduce
CVP diversions of water for off-stream purposes, such as irrigation, hydropower, and M&I uses, CVP diversions of water for off-stream purposes, such as irrigation, hydropower, and M&I uses,
the settlement and its implementation have been controversial. The quantity of water used for the settlement and its implementation have been controversial. The quantity of water used for
restoration flows and the quantity by which water deliveries would be reduced are related, but the restoration flows and the quantity by which water deliveries would be reduced are related, but the
relationship is not necessarily one-for-one, due to flood flows in some years and other mitigating relationship is not necessarily one-for-one, due to flood flows in some years and other mitigating
factors. Under the settlement agreement, no water would be released for restoration purposes in factors. Under the settlement agreement, no water would be released for restoration purposes in
the driest of years; thus, the agreement would not reduce deliveries to Friant contractors in those the driest of years; thus, the agreement would not reduce deliveries to Friant contractors in those
years. Additionally, in some years, the restoration flows released in late winter and early spring years. Additionally, in some years, the restoration flows released in late winter and early spring
may free up space for additional runoff storage in Millerton Lake, potentially minimizing may free up space for additional runoff storage in Millerton Lake, potentially minimizing
reductions in deliveries later in the year—assuming Millerton Lake storage is replenished. reductions in deliveries later in the year—assuming Millerton Lake storage is replenished.
Consequently, how deliveries to Friant water contractors may be reduced in any given year is Consequently, how deliveries to Friant water contractors may be reduced in any given year is
likely to depend on many factors. Regardless of the specifics of how much water may be released likely to depend on many factors. Regardless of the specifics of how much water may be released
for fisheries restoration vis-à-vis diverted for off-stream purposes, the SJRRP will impact existing for fisheries restoration vis-à-vis diverted for off-stream purposes, the SJRRP will impact existing
surface and groundwater supplies in and around the Friant Division service area and affect local surface and groundwater supplies in and around the Friant Division service area and affect local
economies. SJRRP construction activities are in the early stages, but planning efforts have economies. SJRRP construction activities are in the early stages, but planning efforts have
targeted a completion date of 2024 for the first stage of construction efforts.targeted a completion date of 2024 for the first stage of construction efforts.~~106~~108

~~105~~107 NRDC v. Patterson, 333 F. Supp. 2d 906, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2004). NRDC v. Patterson, 333 F. Supp. 2d 906, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
~~106~~108 For more information, see San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP), For more information, see San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP), Funding Constrained Framework for
Implementation, May 2018. , May 2018.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

26 26

link to page 34 link to page 34 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

CALFED Bay-Delta Restoration Program
The Bay-Delta Restoration Program is a cooperative effort among the federal government, the The Bay-Delta Restoration Program is a cooperative effort among the federal government, the
State of California, local governments, and water users to proactively address the water State of California, local governments, and water users to proactively address the water
management and aquatic ecosystem needs of California’s Central Valley. The CALFED Bay-management and aquatic ecosystem needs of California’s Central Valley. The CALFED Bay-
Delta Restoration Act (P.L. 108-361), enacted in 2004, provided new and expanded federal Delta Restoration Act (P.L. 108-361), enacted in 2004, provided new and expanded federal
authorities for six agencies related to the 2000 ROD for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program’s authorities for six agencies related to the 2000 ROD for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program’s
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.~~107~~109 These authorities were extended through These authorities were extended through
FY2019 under the WIIN Act. The interim action plan for CALFED has four objectives: a FY2019 under the WIIN Act. The interim action plan for CALFED has four objectives: a
renewed federal-state partnership, smarter water supply and use, habitat restoration, and drought renewed federal-state partnership, smarter water supply and use, habitat restoration, and drought
and floodplain management.and floodplain management.~~108~~110
From FY2010 to FY2020, Reclamation’s Bay-Delta restoration activities received congressional From FY2010 to FY2020, Reclamation’s Bay-Delta restoration activities received congressional
appropriations averaging $37 million per year; the majority of this funding has gone for projects appropriations averaging $37 million per year; the majority of this funding has gone for projects
to address the degraded Bay-Delta ecosystem (see below section, to address the degraded Bay-Delta ecosystem (see below section, “Delta Conveyance Project”).).~~109~~111
Other agencies receiving funding to carry out authorities under CALFED include DOI’s FWS and Other agencies receiving funding to carry out authorities under CALFED include DOI’s FWS and
U.S. Geological Survey; the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation U.S. Geological Survey; the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation
Service; the Department of Defense’s USACE; the Department of Commerce’s NOAA; and the Service; the Department of Defense’s USACE; the Department of Commerce’s NOAA; and the
Environmental Protection Agency. Similar to Reclamation, these agencies report on CALFED Environmental Protection Agency. Similar to Reclamation, these agencies report on CALFED
expenditures that involve a combination of activities under “base” authorities and new authorities expenditures that involve a combination of activities under “base” authorities and new authorities
that were provided under the CALFED authorizing legislation. The annual CALFED crosscut that were provided under the CALFED authorizing legislation. The annual CALFED crosscut
budget reports the funding for CALFED across all federal agencies. The budget is generally budget reports the funding for CALFED across all federal agencies. The budget is generally
included in the Administration’s budget request and contains CALFED programs, their authority, included in the Administration’s budget request and contains CALFED programs, their authority,
and requested funding. Overall funding for CALFED is typically in the hundreds of millions of and requested funding. Overall funding for CALFED is typically in the hundreds of millions of
dollars. For instance, in FY2020, $602.6 million was spent on CALFED-related activities.dollars. For instance, in FY2020, $602.6 million was spent on CALFED-related activities.~~110~~112
New Storage and Conveyance
Reductions in available water deliveries due to hydrological and regulatory factors have caused Reductions in available water deliveries due to hydrological and regulatory factors have caused
some stakeholders, legislators, and state and federal government officials to look at other methods some stakeholders, legislators, and state and federal government officials to look at other methods
of augmenting water supplies. In particular, proposals to build new or augmented CVP and/or of augmenting water supplies. In particular, proposals to build new or augmented CVP and/or
SWP water storage projects have been of interest to some policymakers. Additionally, the State of SWP water storage projects have been of interest to some policymakers. Additionally, the State of
California is pursuing a major water conveyance project, the California WaterFix, with a nexus to California is pursuing a major water conveyance project, the California WaterFix, with a nexus to
CVP operations. CVP operations.
New and Augmented Water Storage Projects
The aforementioned CALFED legislation (P.L. 108-361) authorized the study of several new or The aforementioned CALFED legislation (P.L. 108-361) authorized the study of several new or
augmented storage projects throughout the Central Valley that have been ongoing for a number of augmented storage projects throughout the Central Valley that have been ongoing for a number of
years. Additionally, a number of other projects in and around the Central Valley have been years. Additionally, a number of other projects in and around the Central Valley have been

~~107~~109 CALFED Bay-Delta Program, CALFED Bay-Delta Program, Programmatic Record of Decision, August 28, 2000, at http://www.calwater.ca.gov/, August 28, 2000, at http://www.calwater.ca.gov/
content/Documents/ROD8-28-00.pdf. Other key documents available at http://www.calwater.ca.gov/calfed/library/content/Documents/ROD8-28-00.pdf. Other key documents available at http://www.calwater.ca.gov/calfed/library/
Archive_ROD.html. Archive_ROD.html.
~~108~~110 Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta, December 22, 2009, at http://www.doi.gov/news/, December 22, 2009, at http://www.doi.gov/news/
doinews/upload/CAWaterWorkPlan.pdf. doinews/upload/CAWaterWorkPlan.pdf.
~~109~~111 In addition to funding under its CALFED authorities, Reclamation counts funding under its other CVP restoration In addition to funding under its CALFED authorities, Reclamation counts funding under its other CVP restoration
authorities (e.g., CVPIA, SJRRP) as CALFED activities in its annual reporting. authorities (e.g., CVPIA, SJRRP) as CALFED activities in its annual reporting.
~~110~~112 Office of Management and Budget, Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: CALFED Bay-Delta Federal Budget Crosscut Report, ,
Office of Management and Budget, 2020. Office of Management and Budget, 2020.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

27 27

link to page 33 link to page 33 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

proposed in recent years. While it is unclear whether any of these projects will be completed proposed in recent years. While it is unclear whether any of these projects will be completed
and/or incorporated into the CVP itself, their status has ramifications for the water supply and/or incorporated into the CVP itself, their status has ramifications for the water supply
questions related to the CVP. In the past, construction recommendations for new Reclamation questions related to the CVP. In the past, construction recommendations for new Reclamation
projects have been subject to congressional approval; however, Section 4007 of the WIIN Act projects have been subject to congressional approval; however, Section 4007 of the WIIN Act
authorized Reclamation financial support for new or expanded federal and nonfederal water authorized Reclamation financial support for new or expanded federal and nonfederal water
storage projects and provided that these projects could be deemed authorized, subject to a finding storage projects and provided that these projects could be deemed authorized, subject to a finding
by the Administration that individual projects met certain criteria.by the Administration that individual projects met certain criteria.~~111~~113 As of the date of this report’s As of the date of this report’s
publication, most recommendations under this authority had been approved in appropriations publication, most recommendations under this authority had been approved in appropriations
acts, with the only exception being proposed funding for the Shasta Dam and Reservoir acts, with the only exception being proposed funding for the Shasta Dam and Reservoir
Enlargement Project, which has appeared in the most recent three project recommendation lists. Enlargement Project, which has appeared in the most recent three project recommendation lists.
Table 4 shows recent funding levels for these projects. shows recent funding levels for these projects.

~~111~~113 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10626, For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10626, Reclamation Water Storage Projects: Section 4007 of the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, by Charles V. Stern. , by Charles V. Stern.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

28 28

Table 4. Congressionally Approved Allocations for Section 4007 Water Storage Projects
($ in millions) ($ in millions)
Project (State)
Jan. 2018 List
Feb. 2019 List
June 2020 List
Dec. 2020 List
July 2021 List
Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement
$20.00 $20.00
— —
— —
— —
— —
Project (CA) Project (CA)
Sites Reservoir Storage Project (CA) Sites Reservoir Storage Project (CA)
$4.35 $4.35
$6.00 $6.00
$4.00 $4.00
$9.70 $9.70
$80.00 $80.00
Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage
$1.50 $1.50
— —
— —
— —
— —
Investigation (CA) Investigation (CA)
Friant-Kern Canal Subsidence Challenges Friant-Kern Canal Subsidence Challenges
$2.20 $2.20
$2.35 $2.35
$71.00 $71.00
$135.00 $135.00
— —
Project (CA) Project (CA)
Boise River Basin Feasibility Study (ID) Boise River Basin Feasibility Study (ID)
$0.75 $0.75
$1.75 $1.75
$2.88 $2.88
$10.00 $10.00
— —
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement
$2.00 $2.00
$4.00 $4.00
$1.00 $1.00
$2.00 $2.00
— —
Project—Cle Elum Pool Raise (WA) Project—Cle Elum Pool Raise (WA)
Upper Yakima System Storage Feasibility Upper Yakima System Storage Feasibility
$2.50 $2.50
— —
— —
— —
— —
Study (WA) Study (WA)
Del Puerto Water District Feasibility Study Del Puerto Water District Feasibility Study
— —
$1.50 $1.50
$1.50 $1.50
— —
$15.00 $15.00
(CA) (CA)
Los Vaqueros Reservoir Phase 2 Expansion Los Vaqueros Reservoir Phase 2 Expansion
— —
$2.16 $2.16
$7.85 $7.85
$4.10 $4.10
$50.00 $50.00
(CA) (CA)
Delta Mendota Canal Subsidence Delta Mendota Canal Subsidence
— —
— —
$3.00 $3.00
— —
— —
Correction (CA) Correction (CA)
San Luis Low Point Improvement Project San Luis Low Point Improvement Project
— —
— —
$1.70 $1.70
— —
— —
(CA) (CA)
Sacramento Regional Water Bank (CA) Sacramento Regional Water Bank (CA)
— —
— —
$0.87 $0.87
— —
— —
B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir
— —
— —
— —
— —
$60.0 $60.0
Expansion (CA) Expansion (CA)
Total
$33.30
$17.76
$93.80
$160.80
$205.00
Sources: Bureau of Reclamation Reports to House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, January 2018, February 2019, June 2020, and December 2020; enacted Bureau of Reclamation Reports to House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, January 2018, February 2019, June 2020, and December 2020; enacted
appropriations legislation for FY2018 (P.L. 115-141), FY2020 (P.L. 116-94), FY2021 (P.L. 116-260), and FY2022 (P.L. 117-43). appropriations legislation for FY2018 (P.L. 115-141), FY2020 (P.L. 116-94), FY2021 (P.L. 116-260), and FY2022 (P.L. 117-43).
Notes: In its proposed project allocations to Congress for 2019 and 2020, Reclamation recommended a total of $172 mil ion for the Shasta Dam and Reservoir In its proposed project allocations to Congress for 2019 and 2020, Reclamation recommended a total of $172 mil ion for the Shasta Dam and Reservoir
Enlargement Project. Congress did not agree to these allocations. Enlargement Project. Congress did not agree to these allocations.
CRS-29 CRS-29

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Delta Conveyance Project
In addition to water storage, some have advocated for a more flexible water conveyance system In addition to water storage, some have advocated for a more flexible water conveyance system
for CVP and SWP water. In spring 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom introduced a plan for CVP and SWP water. In spring 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom introduced a plan
for conveying water through the Delta, known as the Delta Conveyance Project. for conveying water through the Delta, known as the Delta Conveyance Project.
The Delta Conveyance Project is expected to involve the construction of a single tunnel to convey The Delta Conveyance Project is expected to involve the construction of a single tunnel to convey
water from two intakes on the Sacramento River to the existing pumps in the Bay-Delta. DWR’s water from two intakes on the Sacramento River to the existing pumps in the Bay-Delta. DWR’s
stated reasons for supporting this approach are to protect water supplies from sea-level rise, stated reasons for supporting this approach are to protect water supplies from sea-level rise,
saltwater intrusion, and earthquakes.saltwater intrusion, and earthquakes.~~112~~114 The project will require a new environmental review The project will require a new environmental review
process for federal and state permits. The Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, a process for federal and state permits. The Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, a
joint powers authority created by public water agencies to oversee the design and construction of joint powers authority created by public water agencies to oversee the design and construction of
the new conveyance system, is leading the project.the new conveyance system, is leading the project.~~113~~115 DWR is overseeing the planning effort for DWR is overseeing the planning effort for
the project; the estimated $15.9 billion cost is expected to be paid largely by public water the project; the estimated $15.9 billion cost is expected to be paid largely by public water
agencies.agencies.~~114~~116 The federal government’s role in the project beyond evaluating permit applications The federal government’s role in the project beyond evaluating permit applications
and maintaining related CVP operations has not been defined.and maintaining related CVP operations has not been defined.~~115~~117 However, regardless of federal However, regardless of federal
participation, the operations of a new Delta Conveyance Project could have implications for participation, the operations of a new Delta Conveyance Project could have implications for
combined state/federal pumping operations in the Bay-Delta.combined state/federal pumping operations in the Bay-Delta.~~116~~118 Some stakeholders support the Some stakeholders support the
initiative because it might result in less fish mortality at the pumps, more consistent water initiative because it might result in less fish mortality at the pumps, more consistent water
supplies for users, and greater protection against earthquakes and levee failures. Others assert that supplies for users, and greater protection against earthquakes and levee failures. Others assert that
the project’s cost might not be worth the benefits and that the effort might not benefit water users the project’s cost might not be worth the benefits and that the effort might not benefit water users
without assurances of water supplies. without assurances of water supplies.
Congressional Interest
Congress plays a role in CVP water management and has attempted to make available additional Congress plays a role in CVP water management and has attempted to make available additional
water supplies in the region by facilitating efforts such as water banking, water transfers, and the water supplies in the region by facilitating efforts such as water banking, water transfers, and the
construction of new and augmented storage. In 2016, Congress enacted provisions aiming to construction of new and augmented storage. In 2016, Congress enacted provisions aiming to
benefit the CVP and the SWP, including major operational changes in the WIIN Act and benefit the CVP and the SWP, including major operational changes in the WIIN Act and
additional appropriations for western drought response and new water storage that have benefited additional appropriations for western drought response and new water storage that have benefited
(or are expected to benefit) the CVP. Congress also continues to consider legislation that would (or are expected to benefit) the CVP. Congress also continues to consider legislation that would
further alter CVP operational authorities and responsibilities related to individual project units. further alter CVP operational authorities and responsibilities related to individual project units.
The below section discusses some CVP-related issues that may receive congressional attention. The below section discusses some CVP-related issues that may receive congressional attention.

~~112~~114 California Department of Water Resources, “State Withdraws WaterFix Approvals, Initiates Planning and California Department of Water Resources, “State Withdraws WaterFix Approvals, Initiates Planning and
Permitting for a Smaller Single Tunnel,” press release, May 2, 2019, at https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/Permitting for a Smaller Single Tunnel,” press release, May 2, 2019, at https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/
2019/May/State-Withdraws-WaterFix-Approvals. Hereinafter “DWR May 2019 Press Release.” 2019/May/State-Withdraws-WaterFix-Approvals. Hereinafter “DWR May 2019 Press Release.”
~~113~~115 California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Water Resources, Modernizing Delta Conveyance Infrastructure Q&A, California , California
Department of Water Resources, at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Delta-Department of Water Resources, at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Delta-
Conveyance/Delta-Conveyance-QA.pdf?la=en&hash=373E0DBCD7AD988C9987A3197304E55D9115F798. Conveyance/Delta-Conveyance-QA.pdf?la=en&hash=373E0DBCD7AD988C9987A3197304E55D9115F798.
~~114~~116 The State of California is in the process of creating a draft environmental impact report that is to analyze a range of The State of California is in the process of creating a draft environmental impact report that is to analyze a range of
alternatives for the project. According to the state, the report is expected to be available for public review and comment alternatives for the project. According to the state, the report is expected to be available for public review and comment
mid-2022. California Department of Water Resources, mid-2022. California Department of Water Resources, Frequently Asked Questions Related to the Delta Conveyance
Project, August 2021, at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Delta-Conveyance/Public-, August 2021, at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Delta-Conveyance/Public-
Information/DCP_FAQ_Final_August_2021.pdf. Hereafter, California Department of Water Resources, Information/DCP_FAQ_Final_August_2021.pdf. Hereafter, California Department of Water Resources, Frequently
Asked Questions.
~~115~~117 California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Water Resources, Frequently Asked Questions.
~~116~~118 The State of California notes that Section 7 consultation under the ESA is anticipated for the project. The lead The State of California notes that Section 7 consultation under the ESA is anticipated for the project. The lead
federal action agency for consultation under ESA is expected to be the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. federal action agency for consultation under ESA is expected to be the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

30 30

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

CVP Operations Under the WIIN Act and Other ~~Authorities117~~Authorities119
According to Reclamation, there was limited implementation of many of the WIIN Act’s According to Reclamation, there was limited implementation of many of the WIIN Act’s
operational authorities. Reportedly, pursuant to the WIIN Act, communication and transparency operational authorities. Reportedly, pursuant to the WIIN Act, communication and transparency
between Reclamation and other agencies have occasionally increased for some operational between Reclamation and other agencies have occasionally increased for some operational
decisions, allowing for reduced or rescheduled pumping restrictions.decisions, allowing for reduced or rescheduled pumping restrictions.~~118~~120 Additionally, in spring Additionally, in spring
2018, WIIN Act allowances of relaxed restrictions on inflow-to-export ratios were used to effect a 2018, WIIN Act allowances of relaxed restrictions on inflow-to-export ratios were used to effect a
transfer resulting in additional exports of 50,000-60,000 AF of water.transfer resulting in additional exports of 50,000-60,000 AF of water.~~119~~121 Reclamation noted, Reclamation noted,
however, that hydrology during 2017 and 2018 affected the agency’s ability to implement some however, that hydrology during 2017 and 2018 affected the agency’s ability to implement some
of the act’s provisions. In some cases, Reclamation proposed other federal operational changes of the act’s provisions. In some cases, Reclamation proposed other federal operational changes
pursuant to the WIIN Act that reportedly were deemed incompatible with state requirements.pursuant to the WIIN Act that reportedly were deemed incompatible with state requirements.~~120~~122
Most of the WIIN Act’s operational provisions are set to expire at the end of 2021 (five years Most of the WIIN Act’s operational provisions are set to expire at the end of 2021 (five years
after the bill’s enactment). However, the Trump Administration’s revised 2020 BiOps cited after the bill’s enactment). However, the Trump Administration’s revised 2020 BiOps cited
congressional direction to maximize water supplies in Section 4001 of the WIIN Act. During the congressional direction to maximize water supplies in Section 4001 of the WIIN Act. During the
Trump Administration, Reclamation also reported that the general principles in Sections 4002-Trump Administration, Reclamation also reported that the general principles in Sections 4002-
4003 of the WIIN Act were incorporated into its operational changes.4003 of the WIIN Act were incorporated into its operational changes.~~121~~123 Thus, even if the WIIN Thus, even if the WIIN
Act’s CVP directives expire, many of them would remain manifest in CVP operations insofar as Act’s CVP directives expire, many of them would remain manifest in CVP operations insofar as
the Trump Administration BiOps continue to be implemented. the Trump Administration BiOps continue to be implemented.
Congress may be interested in oversight of CVP operational questions, including the status of the Congress may be interested in oversight of CVP operational questions, including the status of the
BiOps and the process underpinning any alterations to operations. Some also may propose BiOps and the process underpinning any alterations to operations. Some also may propose
extension of the WIIN Act operational provisions, thereby extending legislatively mandated extension of the WIIN Act operational provisions, thereby extending legislatively mandated
requirements and authorities on CVP operations. In the 117th Congress, H.R. 737 (the RENEW requirements and authorities on CVP operations. In the 117th Congress, H.R. 737 (the RENEW
WIIN Act), would extend the WIIN act’s CVP operational authorities through the end of 2031. WIIN Act), would extend the WIIN act’s CVP operational authorities through the end of 2031.
The Biden Administration also may evaluate and act within its authority on CVP-related The Biden Administration also may evaluate and act within its authority on CVP-related
operations actions, such as withdrawing or changing the Trump Administration BiOps. operations actions, such as withdrawing or changing the Trump Administration BiOps.
In debating CVP operations issues, stakeholders likely will focus on the extent to which the In debating CVP operations issues, stakeholders likely will focus on the extent to which the
changes provide for increased water deliveries relative to pre-reconsultation baselines for CVP changes provide for increased water deliveries relative to pre-reconsultation baselines for CVP
and SWP contractors and any related effects on species and water quality. Congress also may be and SWP contractors and any related effects on species and water quality. Congress also may be
interested in recent disagreements between state and federal project operators related to proposed interested in recent disagreements between state and federal project operators related to proposed
operating procedures and species protections, including how these disagreements may affect the operating procedures and species protections, including how these disagreements may affect the
historical norms of coordinated project operations and what this might mean for water deliveries. historical norms of coordinated project operations and what this might mean for water deliveries.
Proposed voluntary agreements under the Bay Delta Water Quality Plan also may receive Proposed voluntary agreements under the Bay Delta Water Quality Plan also may receive
congressional attention in this context. congressional attention in this context.
New Water Storage Projects
As noted, Reclamation and the State of California have funded the study of new water storage As noted, Reclamation and the State of California have funded the study of new water storage
projects in recent years. Congress may opt to provide additional direction for these and other projects in recent years. Congress may opt to provide additional direction for these and other

~~117~~119 For more information on these provisions, see CRS Report R44986, For more information on these provisions, see CRS Report R44986, Water Infrastructure Improvements for the
Nation (WIIN) Act: Bureau of Reclamation and California Water Provisions, by Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh, , by Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh,
and Nicole T. Carter. and Nicole T. Carter.
~~118~~120 Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, May 30, 2018. Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, May 30, 2018.
~~119~~121 This provision of the WIIN Act generally lessened existing restrictions on the amount of water that could be This provision of the WIIN Act generally lessened existing restrictions on the amount of water that could be
exported for water transfers. Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, May 30, 2018. exported for water transfers. Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, May 30, 2018.
~~120~~122 Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, May 30, 2018. Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, May 30, 2018.
~~121~~123 Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Reclamation, Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley
Project and State Water Project, Final Biological Assessment, October 2019, pp. 1-6. , Final Biological Assessment, October 2019, pp. 1-6.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

31 31

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

efforts to develop new water supplies for the CVP in future appropriations acts and reports. In efforts to develop new water supplies for the CVP in future appropriations acts and reports. In
addition, Congress may consider oversight, authorization, and/or funding for these projects. Some addition, Congress may consider oversight, authorization, and/or funding for these projects. Some
projects, such as the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project, could augment CVP water projects, such as the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project, could augment CVP water
supplies but have generated controversy for their potential to conflict with the intent of certain supplies but have generated controversy for their potential to conflict with the intent of certain
state laws.state laws.~~122~~124 Although Reclamation has indicated its interest in pursuing the Shasta Dam project, Although Reclamation has indicated its interest in pursuing the Shasta Dam project,
the state opposed the project under Governor Brown’s Administration and has continued its the state opposed the project under Governor Brown’s Administration and has continued its
opposition during Governor Newsom’s Administration; it is unclear how such a project might opposition during Governor Newsom’s Administration; it is unclear how such a project might
proceed absent state regulatory approvals and financial support. As noted above, in early 2018, proceed absent state regulatory approvals and financial support. As noted above, in early 2018,
Reclamation proposed and Congress agreed to $20 million in design and preconstruction funding Reclamation proposed and Congress agreed to $20 million in design and preconstruction funding
for the project.for the project.~~123~~125 The Trump Administration recommended an additional $172 million for the The Trump Administration recommended an additional $172 million for the
Shasta Project in subsequent proposals to Congress for Section 4007 projects, but Congress did Shasta Project in subsequent proposals to Congress for Section 4007 projects, but Congress did
not approve this funding.not approve this funding.~~124~~126
Apart from the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project, Congress approved Reclamation- Apart from the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project, Congress approved Reclamation-
recommended study funding for other projects that could add flexibility to CVP operations, recommended study funding for other projects that could add flexibility to CVP operations,
including the Sites Reservoir Project, the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Phase 2 Project, and the Friant-including the Sites Reservoir Project, the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Phase 2 Project, and the Friant-
Kern Canal Subsidence Challenges Project, among others. Overall, from FY2017 to FY2021, Kern Canal Subsidence Challenges Project, among others. Overall, from FY2017 to FY2021,
Congress appropriated a total of $603 million to Reclamation for new and augmented water Congress appropriated a total of $603 million to Reclamation for new and augmented water
storage projects authorized under Section 4007 of the WIIN Act. The Infrastructure Investment storage projects authorized under Section 4007 of the WIIN Act. The Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58 ), enacted in November 2021, appropriated an additional $1.05 billion and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58 ), enacted in November 2021, appropriated an additional $1.05 billion
for these projects. A significant share of this funding is likely to be allocated for projects that for these projects. A significant share of this funding is likely to be allocated for projects that
benefit the CVP and other areas in California. benefit the CVP and other areas in California.
In the 117th Congress, H.R. 737 would reauthorize the WIIN Act’s storage authorities through the In the 117th Congress, H.R. 737 would reauthorize the WIIN Act’s storage authorities through the
end of 2031 (most of these authorities expire in late 2021). In the 116th Congress, proposals were end of 2031 (most of these authorities expire in late 2021). In the 116th Congress, proposals were
advanced that would have extended some aspects of the Section 4007 authority while altering the advanced that would have extended some aspects of the Section 4007 authority while altering the
underlying process authorized by Congress for these projects. underlying process authorized by Congress for these projects.
Concluding Observations
The CVP is one of the largest, most complex water storage and conveyance projects in the world. The CVP is one of the largest, most complex water storage and conveyance projects in the world.
Congress has regularly expressed interest in CVP operations and allocations, in particular Congress has regularly expressed interest in CVP operations and allocations, in particular
pumping in the Bay-Delta. In addition to ongoing oversight of project operations and previously pumping in the Bay-Delta. In addition to ongoing oversight of project operations and previously
enacted authorities, a number of developing issues and proposals related to the CVP may be of enacted authorities, a number of developing issues and proposals related to the CVP may be of
interest to congressional decisionmakers. These issues include study and approval of new water interest to congressional decisionmakers. These issues include study and approval of new water
storage and conveyance projects, updates to the state’s Bay-Delta Water Quality Plan, and the storage and conveyance projects, updates to the state’s Bay-Delta Water Quality Plan, and the
status of efforts by the Trump Administration to make available more water for CVP water status of efforts by the Trump Administration to make available more water for CVP water
contractors, in particular those south of the Delta. Drought or other stressors on California water contractors, in particular those south of the Delta. Drought or other stressors on California water
supplies are likely to magnify these issues. supplies are likely to magnify these issues.

~~122~~124 In particular, Section 5093.542 of the California State Public Resources Code prevents participation (other than In particular, Section 5093.542 of the California State Public Resources Code prevents participation (other than
technical or economic feasibility studies of the Shasta Dam raise project) by state departments or agencies in facilities technical or economic feasibility studies of the Shasta Dam raise project) by state departments or agencies in facilities
that would have an adverse effect on the free-flowing condition of the McCloud River. In previous documents, that would have an adverse effect on the free-flowing condition of the McCloud River. In previous documents,
Reclamation indicated this requirement could limit some state agency participation in the project. Reclamation indicated this requirement could limit some state agency participation in the project.
~~123~~125 This funding was provided from a pool of funds appropriated for FY2017 that was designated for water storage This funding was provided from a pool of funds appropriated for FY2017 that was designated for water storage
projects authorized under Section 4007 of the WIIN Act. Enacted appropriations in FY2018 and FY2019 have included projects authorized under Section 4007 of the WIIN Act. Enacted appropriations in FY2018 and FY2019 have included
similar funding amounts. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10692, similar funding amounts. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10692, Bureau of Reclamation: FY2018
Appropriations, by Charles V. Stern. , by Charles V. Stern.
~~124~~126 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11158, For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11158, Bureau of Reclamation: FY2020 Appropriations, by Charles V. , by Charles V.
Stern. Stern.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

32 32

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Appendix. CVP Water Contractors
The below sections provide a brief discussion some of the major contractor groups and individual The below sections provide a brief discussion some of the major contractor groups and individual
contractors served by the CVP. contractors served by the CVP.
Sacramento River Settlement Contractors and San Joaquin River
Exchange Contractors (Water Rights Contractors)
Reclamation first makes CVP water available for delivery to contractors north and south of the Reclamation first makes CVP water available for delivery to contractors north and south of the
Delta with water rights that predate construction of the CVP. The two largest of these groups are Delta with water rights that predate construction of the CVP. The two largest of these groups are
the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors. the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors.
(These contractors are sometimes referred to collectively as (These contractors are sometimes referred to collectively as water rights contractors.) .)
Sacramento River Settlement Contractors include the 145 contractors (both individuals and Sacramento River Settlement Contractors include the 145 contractors (both individuals and
districts) that diverted natural flows from the Sacramento River prior to the CVP’s construction districts) that diverted natural flows from the Sacramento River prior to the CVP’s construction
and executed a settlement agreement with Reclamation that provided for negotiated allocation of and executed a settlement agreement with Reclamation that provided for negotiated allocation of
water rights. Reclamation entered into this agreement in exchange for these contractors water rights. Reclamation entered into this agreement in exchange for these contractors
withdrawing their protests related to Reclamation’s application for water rights for the CVP. As a withdrawing their protests related to Reclamation’s application for water rights for the CVP. As a
result of their settlement, Sacramento River Settlement Contractors receive most of their supplies result of their settlement, Sacramento River Settlement Contractors receive most of their supplies
(“base supplies”) free of charge, while additional “project supplies” also are delivered to these (“base supplies”) free of charge, while additional “project supplies” also are delivered to these
contractors based on reclamation law and pricing requirements.contractors based on reclamation law and pricing requirements.~~125~~127 These contractors typically These contractors typically
receive 100% of their contracted amounts in most water-year types. During “critical” years, receive 100% of their contracted amounts in most water-year types. During “critical” years,
Reclamation may reduce total deliveries to these contractors by a maximum of 25%.Reclamation may reduce total deliveries to these contractors by a maximum of 25%.~~126~~128
The San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors include four irrigation districts that agreed to The San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors include four irrigation districts that agreed to
“exchange” exercising their water rights to divert water on the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers for “exchange” exercising their water rights to divert water on the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers for
guaranteed water deliveries from the CVP (typically in the form of deliveries from the Delta-guaranteed water deliveries from the CVP (typically in the form of deliveries from the Delta-
Mendota Canal and waters north of the Delta). During all years except for when critical Mendota Canal and waters north of the Delta). During all years except for when critical
conditions are declared, Reclamation is responsible for delivering 840,000 acre-feet (AF) of conditions are declared, Reclamation is responsible for delivering 840,000 acre-feet (AF) of
“substitute” water to these users (i.e., water from north of the Delta as a substitute for San Joaquin “substitute” water to these users (i.e., water from north of the Delta as a substitute for San Joaquin
River water). In Critical years, this substitute water is reduced to 650,000 AF. However, in the River water). In Critical years, this substitute water is reduced to 650,000 AF. However, in the
event Reclamation is unable to make its contracted deliveries, these contractors have the right to event Reclamation is unable to make its contracted deliveries, these contractors have the right to
divert water directly from the San Joaquin River, which may in turn reduce water available for divert water directly from the San Joaquin River, which may in turn reduce water available for
other San Joaquin River water service contactors. other San Joaquin River water service contactors.
Friant Division Contractors
CVP’s Friant Division contractors receive water stored behind Friant Dam (completed in 1944) in CVP’s Friant Division contractors receive water stored behind Friant Dam (completed in 1944) in
Millerton Lake. This water is delivered through the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals. The 32 Millerton Lake. This water is delivered through the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals. The 32
Friant Division contractors, who irrigate roughly 1 million acres on the San Joaquin River, are Friant Division contractors, who irrigate roughly 1 million acres on the San Joaquin River, are
contracted to receive two “classes” of water: Class 1 water is the first 800,000 AF available for contracted to receive two “classes” of water: Class 1 water is the first 800,000 AF available for
delivery;delivery;~~127~~129 Class 2 water is the next 1.4 million AF available for delivery. Some districts receive Class 2 water is the next 1.4 million AF available for delivery. Some districts receive

~~125~~127 The total amount of base supply is 1,775,509 acre-feet and the total amount of project water is 340,111 acre-feet. The total amount of base supply is 1,775,509 acre-feet and the total amount of project water is 340,111 acre-feet.
~~126~~128 Critical years are years in which either (1) the forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the current water Critical years are years in which either (1) the forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the current water
year is equal to or less than 3.2 million acre-feet or (2) the total accumulated actual deficiencies below 4 million acre-year is equal to or less than 3.2 million acre-feet or (2) the total accumulated actual deficiencies below 4 million acre-
feet in the immediately prior water year, together with the forecasted efficiency for the current water year, exceed feet in the immediately prior water year, together with the forecasted efficiency for the current water year, exceed
800,000 acre-feet. 800,000 acre-feet.
~~127~~129 This water typically is provided for municipal and industrial use or for districts without access to groundwater. This water typically is provided for municipal and industrial use or for districts without access to groundwater.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

33 33

link to page 12 link to page 30 link to page 12 link to page 30 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

water from both classes. Generally, Class 2 waters are released as “uncontrolled flows” (i.e., for water from both classes. Generally, Class 2 waters are released as “uncontrolled flows” (i.e., for
flood control concerns), and may not necessarily be scheduled at a contractor’s convenience. flood control concerns), and may not necessarily be scheduled at a contractor’s convenience.
Deliveries to the Friant Division are affected by a 2009 congressionally enacted settlement Deliveries to the Friant Division are affected by a 2009 congressionally enacted settlement
stemming from Friant Dam’s effects on the San Joaquin River.stemming from Friant Dam’s effects on the San Joaquin River.~~128~~130 The settlement requires The settlement requires
reductions in deliveries to Friant users for protection of fish and wildlife purposes. In some years, reductions in deliveries to Friant users for protection of fish and wildlife purposes. In some years,
some of these “restorations flows” have been made available to contractors for delivery as Class 2 some of these “restorations flows” have been made available to contractors for delivery as Class 2
water. water.
Unlike most other CVP contractors, Friant Division contractors have converted their water Unlike most other CVP contractors, Friant Division contractors have converted their water
service contracts to repayment contracts and have repaid their capital obligation to the federal service contracts to repayment contracts and have repaid their capital obligation to the federal
government for the development of their facilities. In years in which Reclamation is unable to government for the development of their facilities. In years in which Reclamation is unable to
make contracted deliveries to Exchange Contractors, these contractors can make a “call” on water make contracted deliveries to Exchange Contractors, these contractors can make a “call” on water
in the San Joaquin River, thereby requiring releases from Friant Dam that otherwise would go to in the San Joaquin River, thereby requiring releases from Friant Dam that otherwise would go to
Friant contractors. Friant contractors.
South-of-Delta (SOD) Water Service Contractors:
Westlands Water District
As shown iAs shown in Figure 3, SOD water service contractors account for a large amount (2.09 million D water service contractors account for a large amount (2.09 million
AF, or 22.1%) of the CVP’s contracted water. The largest of these contractors is Westlands Water AF, or 22.1%) of the CVP’s contracted water. The largest of these contractors is Westlands Water
District, which consists of 700 farms covering more than 600,000 acres in Fresno and Kings District, which consists of 700 farms covering more than 600,000 acres in Fresno and Kings
Counties. In geographic terms, Westlands is the largest agricultural water district in the United Counties. In geographic terms, Westlands is the largest agricultural water district in the United
States; its lands are valuable and productive, producing more than $1 billion of food and fiber States; its lands are valuable and productive, producing more than $1 billion of food and fiber
annually.annually.~~129~~131 Westlands’ maximum contracted CVP water is in excess of 1.2 million AF, an amount Westlands’ maximum contracted CVP water is in excess of 1.2 million AF, an amount
that makes up more than half of the total amount of SOD CVP water service contracts and that makes up more than half of the total amount of SOD CVP water service contracts and
significantly exceeds any other individual CVP contactor.significantly exceeds any other individual CVP contactor.~~130~~132 However, due to a number of factors, However, due to a number of factors,
Westlands often receives considerably less water on average than it did historically. Westlands often receives considerably less water on average than it did historically.
Westlands has been prominently involved in a number of policy debates, including proposals to Westlands has been prominently involved in a number of policy debates, including proposals to
alter environmental requirements to increase pumping south of the Delta. Westlands is also alter environmental requirements to increase pumping south of the Delta. Westlands is also
involved in a major proposed settlement with Reclamation, the San Luis Drainage Settlement. involved in a major proposed settlement with Reclamation, the San Luis Drainage Settlement.
The settlement would, among other things, forgive Westlands’ share of federal CVP repayment The settlement would, among other things, forgive Westlands’ share of federal CVP repayment
responsibilities in exchange for relieving the federal government of its responsibility to construct responsibilities in exchange for relieving the federal government of its responsibility to construct
drainage facilities to deal with toxic runoff associated with naturally occurring metals in area drainage facilities to deal with toxic runoff associated with naturally occurring metals in area
soils. soils.
Central Valley Wildlife Refuges
The 20,000 square mile California Central Valley provides valuable wetland habitat for migratory The 20,000 square mile California Central Valley provides valuable wetland habitat for migratory
birds and other species. As such, it is the home to multiple state and federally designated wildlife birds and other species. As such, it is the home to multiple state and federally designated wildlife

~~128~~130 When constructed, Friant Dam impounded the entire flow of the San Joaquin River, except for releases to manage When constructed, Friant Dam impounded the entire flow of the San Joaquin River, except for releases to manage
flooding and provide water for some riparian water rights holders immediately below the dam. For more information, flooding and provide water for some riparian water rights holders immediately below the dam. For more information,
see the section see the section “San Joaquin River Restoration Program.”
~~129~~131 Westlands Water District, “Who We Are,” at https://wwd.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/wwd-who-we- Westlands Water District, “Who We Are,” at https://wwd.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/wwd-who-we-
are.pdf. are.pdf.
~~130~~132 CRS analysis of data from Bureau of Reclamation, “Central Valley Project Water Contractors,” March 30, 2016, at CRS analysis of data from Bureau of Reclamation, “Central Valley Project Water Contractors,” March 30, 2016, at
https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp-water/docs/latest-water-contractors.pdf. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp-water/docs/latest-water-contractors.pdf.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

34 34

link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 link to page 27 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

refuges north and south of the Delta. These refuges provide managed wetland habitat that refuges north and south of the Delta. These refuges provide managed wetland habitat that
receives water from the CVP and other sources. receives water from the CVP and other sources.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA; P.L. 102-575), The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA; P.L. 102-575),~~131~~133 enacted in 1992, sought enacted in 1992, sought
to improve conditions for fish and wildlife in these areas by providing them coequal priority with to improve conditions for fish and wildlife in these areas by providing them coequal priority with
other project purposes. CVPIA also authorized a Refuge Water Supply Program to acquire other project purposes. CVPIA also authorized a Refuge Water Supply Program to acquire
approximately 555,000 AF annually in water supplies for 19 Central Valley refuges administered approximately 555,000 AF annually in water supplies for 19 Central Valley refuges administered
by three managing agencies: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife by three managing agencies: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Grassland Water District (a private landowner). Pursuant to CVPIA, Reclamation Service, and Grassland Water District (a private landowner). Pursuant to CVPIA, Reclamation
entered into long-term water supply contracts with the managing agencies to provide these entered into long-term water supply contracts with the managing agencies to provide these
supplies. supplies.
Authorized refuge water supply under CVPIA is divided into two categories: Level 2 and Level 4 Authorized refuge water supply under CVPIA is divided into two categories: Level 2 and Level 4
supplies. Level 2 supplies (approximately 422,251 AF, except in critically dry years, when the supplies. Level 2 supplies (approximately 422,251 AF, except in critically dry years, when the
allocation is reduced to 75%) are the historical average of water deliveries to the refuges prior to allocation is reduced to 75%) are the historical average of water deliveries to the refuges prior to
enactment of CVPIA.enactment of CVPIA.~~132~~134 Reclamation is obligated to acquire and deliver this water under CVPIA, Reclamation is obligated to acquire and deliver this water under CVPIA,
and costs are 100% reimbursable by CVP contractors through a fund established by the act, the and costs are 100% reimbursable by CVP contractors through a fund established by the act, the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF; see previous section, Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF; see previous section, “Central Valley Project
Improvement Act”). Level 4 supplies (approximately 133,264 AF) are the additional increment of ). Level 4 supplies (approximately 133,264 AF) are the additional increment of
water beyond Level 2 supplies for optimal wetland habitat development. This water must be water beyond Level 2 supplies for optimal wetland habitat development. This water must be
acquired by Reclamation through voluntary measures and is funded as a 75% federal cost acquired by Reclamation through voluntary measures and is funded as a 75% federal cost
(through the CVPRF) and 25% state cost. (through the CVPRF) and 25% state cost.
In most cases, the Level 2 requirement is met; however, Level 4 supplies have not always been In most cases, the Level 2 requirement is met; however, Level 4 supplies have not always been
provided in full for a number of reasons, including a dearth of supplies due to costs in excess of provided in full for a number of reasons, including a dearth of supplies due to costs in excess of
available CVPRF funding and a lack of willing sellers. In recent years, costs for the Refuge Water available CVPRF funding and a lack of willing sellers. In recent years, costs for the Refuge Water
Supply Program (i.e., the costs for both Level 2 and Level 4 water) have ranged from $11 million Supply Program (i.e., the costs for both Level 2 and Level 4 water) have ranged from $11 million
to $20 million. to $20 million.

Author Information

Charles V. Stern Charles V. Stern
Erin H. Ward Erin H. Ward
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Legislative Attorney Legislative Attorney

Pervaze A. Sheikh Pervaze A. Sheikh

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

~~131~~133 P.L. 102-575, Title 34, 106 Stat. 4706. P.L. 102-575, Title 34, 106 Stat. 4706.
~~132~~134 Although this represents the historical average for deliveries, prior to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act Although this represents the historical average for deliveries, prior to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA; P.L. 102-575), refuges only had a legal entitlement to 121,700 acre-feet (AF). (CVPIA; P.L. 102-575), refuges only had a legal entitlement to 121,700 acre-feet (AF).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

35 35

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R45342 R45342 · VERSION 2729 · UPDATED
36 36