Order Code RS20569
Updated January 16, 2001
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Water Resource Issues in the 107th Congress
Betsy A. Cody
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
H. Steven Hughes
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
Growing population and changing values have increased pressure on existing water
supplies, resulting in water use conflicts throughout the country. These conflicts are
particularly evident in the West, where population is expected to increase by 30% in the
next 20-25 years and where urban needs often conflict with agricultural needs, as well
as with increased demand for water for endangered species, recreation, and scenic
enjoyment. The 107th Congress may debate several water resource issues, including:
appropriations for recently authorized projects (e.g., Animas La Plata, and Garrison
(Dakota Water Resources project)); privatization of federal facilities; and, agency
policy/program changes (e.g. reoperation of federal projects and restoration efforts
affecting the California Bay-Delta (CALFED), the Columbia/Snake river system, and the
Missouri River system). The 107th Congress may also consider proposals to reform the
way the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluates its projects. Also at issue is the broader
question of what the future role of traditional water resource agencies ought to be in an
era of changing public demands, declining budgets, and integrated
environmental/resource management. This product will be updated as legislative
developments warrant. For more information on western water resource legislation, see
CRS Issue Brief IB10019.
Introduction
Water supply and management issues are becoming increasingly important as the
demand on existing supplies continues to grow. Increasing populations in many areas,
combined with increasing demand for water for recreation, scenic value, and fish and
wildlife habitat, have resulted in conflicts throughout the country, especially in the arid
West. Major water resource development projects (large dams and diversions) tradition-
ally met much of the consumptive demand for water, especially for the largest categorical
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
user, irrigated agriculture; however, the financial and environmental costs of such projects
have limited development for more than two decades. Additionally, development projects
for consumptive use, power generation, and flood control have been criticized for
degrading recreational opportunities and scenic values, and for limiting flows or altering
stream temperatures and otherwise degrading water quality for fish and wildlife.
Consequently, considerable public pressure has been focused on getting water resources
agencies to alter project operations or to otherwise mitigate environmental impacts.
In the West, naturally scarce water supplies and increasing urban populations1 have
spawned new debates over water allocation — particularly over water for threatened or
endangered species — and have increased federal-state tensions, since states generally
have had primacy in intrastate water allocation. Water marketing and water trading are
becoming increasingly accepted, but some federal and state laws limit this option. Some
critics have called for more efficient use of agricultural water and even transfer of water
from agricultural to urban uses. Yet, agricultural users argue that stable supplies of low-
cost water contribute to production of the nation’s food supply, and therefore provide
widespread benefits. Further, any discussion of water allocation is complicated by the
labyrinth of individual water rights, long-term water contracts, and decades of incremental
state and federal law on water use and development. Nonetheless, urban water systems
will likely make major demands and play a major role in future allocation or re-allocation
decisions.
Nationwide, threatened and endangered species and general concern over the health
of the nation’s rivers and riparian areas have driven increased attention to river and
watershed restoration efforts. The federal government is involved in several restoration
initiatives ranging from the Florida Everglades to the San Francisco Bay-San
Joaquin/Sacramento Rivers Delta. Yet, the demand for traditional or new water supply
projects, navigational improvements, flood control projects, and beach and shoreline
protection efforts continues. These issues have been and will continue to be debated
during consideration of individual project authorizations, as well as during debate on water
resource development legislation and during consideration of FY2002 appropriations for
the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Energy and Water
Development Appropriations). For more information on funding issues, see CRS Report
RL30507, Appropriations for FY2001: Energy and Water Development.
Specific issues that may surface during the 107th Congress are discussed below.
Other, general issues that may arise include federal reserved water rights in relation to
federal lands, transfer of water across federal lands and through federal facilities, Indian
water rights settlements, removal of some dams, and licensing of non-federal hydro power
facilities (i.e., facilities regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)).
Further, with a new incoming Administration, there could be broad-based Executive
Branch initiatives affecting traditional institutional roles and policies, with or without
congressional legislative action.
1 The population in the West is projected to increase by 30% in the next 20-25 years. (Western
Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. Water in the West: Challenge for the Next Century.
Denver, CO: June, 1998. p. xiii.)

---

CRS-3
Water Resource Projects
Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the United States were built
by, or with the assistance of, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) or the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps). Traditionally, Bureau projects were designed principally to provide
reliable supplies of water for irrigation and some municipal and industrial uses; Corps
projects were designed principally for flood control, navigation, and power generation.
The Bureau currently manages nearly 350 storage reservoirs and approximately 250
diversion dams in 17 western states,2 providing water to approximately 9 million acres of
farmland and 31 million people. The Corps’ operations are much more widespread and
diverse, and include several thousand flood control and navigation projects throughout the
country, including 25,000 miles of waterways (with 238 locks), 926 harbors, and 383 dam
and reservoir projects (plus 75 hydroelectric plants).
Both the Corps and the Bureau have experienced budget declines over the past 20
years, particularly in “real dollar” amounts appropriated for construction. The Corps was
appropriated $4.5 billion for FY2001, including $1.72 billion for construction. Reflecting
its relatively smaller size and more narrow scope of activities, the Bureau received a total
of $0.79 billion for FY2001. Additionally, both agencies have been criticized by some
appropriations and authorizing committees for shifting their focus from water resources
development to water resources management and environmental mitigation. This
represents a reversal, of sorts, of agency criticisms during the 1980s and early 1990s, and
reflects the different and changing priorities inherent in executive and legislative programs
and budgets. At the same time, the Corps has been publicly criticized for what some view
as catering to development interests and attempting to “grow” the construction budget for
traditional navigation and water infrastructure projects, despite the Clinton
Administration’s repeated budget requests reflecting lower than average historical
construction levels. Relatedly, many non-water user groups outside Congress still view
these agencies as largely water resource development agencies and have been critical of
the Corps in particular for alleged bias in justifying new construction projects. (For more
appropriations information see: CRS Report RL30207, Appropriations for FY2000:
Energy and Water Development.)
Corps of Engineers. After nearly two decades of legislative-executive policy
confrontations over cost-sharing and specific construction authorizations, the Congress
passed major water project reform legislation known as the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986 (WRDA’86, PL. 99-662) – re-establishing the tradition of a biennial omnibus
authorization bill for Corps projects and programs. This Act fundamentally changed many
of the policies governing Corps operations, especially increased cost-share formulas, which
in turn provided broader distribution of funds and planning for additional
navigational/harbor projects, as well as more cooperative federal-local initiatives for flood
control or flood prevention.
Omnibus water project authorizations have now followed in 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996,
1999, and 2000. This traditionally biennial enactment of a Water Resources Development
Act (WRDA) provides for policy oversight of Corps programs and a legislative vehicle for
2 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

---

CRS-4
authorizing new projects and programs, as well as for adjusting financing and other aspects
of water project planning and construction. The 1996 WRDA (P.L. 104-303) approved
a grand total of $5.4 billion (federal and local share), including funding for 44 future Corps
projects and studies, and changed federal and non-federal cost sharing ratios for both flood
control and dredge material disposal. The 105th Congress considered but did not pass a
1998 WRDA; however, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (PL. 106-53) was
enacted during the first session of the 106th Congress.
The 1999 WRDA authorized a grand total of $6.3 billion in project and program
authorizations. The major new activities authorized for future appropriations included:
45 large flood control, navigation, and shore protection plans of which nine were harbor
improvements ($1.2 billion); several hundred million dollars of increased flood protection
for the Sacramento area (doubling flood protection to a 135-year frequency level); a new
5-year/$200 million Corps program aimed at non-structural flood mitigation and flood
plain restoration (similar to the Clinton Administration’s Challenge 21 proposal);
numerous habitat, watershed, and ecosystem restoration activities in additional river
basins; and more than 100 miscellaneous/environmental infrastructure projects including
dozens to address combined sewer overflows and to develop water supply and wastewater
infrastructure. The 1999 WRDA also increased local cost-sharing for shore
protection/beach erosion with the local portion to be increased in phases from 35 to 50%.
WRDA 2000 (P.L. 106-541). The final WRDA 2000 bill “costed out” at $7.3 billion
and included authorizations for 24 new construction projects. Federal costs are
approximately $4.5 billion, which constitutes about two-thirds of total estimates for
project and program authorizations. Initial funds for the Everglades total approximately
$1.4 billion – nearly $700 million for the federal share. The major project authorized
under the Corps’ traditional mission is a $1.8 billion expansion of the New York-New
Jersey Harbor, which now will benefit from the user-paid Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
along with $700 million federal construction cost-share. At least 28 other large
authorizations are made conditional on planning still in progress; they are mainly for flood
control and shore protection projects contained in Title I of the bill.
Project-related issues discussed during debate on WRDA 2000 included the
Everglades and other regional restoration projects, notably, a sediment/runoff study for
the Upper Mississippi River Basin; aquatic and riparian habitat mitigation and restoration
totaling $100 million for the Illinois River and $75 million for the upper Missouri River
Basin; and sediment clean-up related to fisheries for the Great Lakes estimated at $100
million.3 Several dozen more traditional navigation and flood control project provisions
are being rewritten with their own “restoration” features as offsets or mitigation for
environmental effects–with the New England region broadly targeted to research $60
million. Smaller projects and study provisions also reflect some attention to these fish,
wildlife, and water quality values at this legislative stage. Nonetheless, given the large
3 These large-scale plans involve studies and pilot phases – $1.4 billion of at least $4 billion in
federal construction for the Everglades if completed over two decades with matching state funds
(if current estimates hold). (For more information on Everglades restoration, see CRS Report
RS20702.) More limited watershed improvements are authorized for Lake Champlain
lower Columbia area and Puget Sound, with initial funding of $20 million and $40 million
respectively.

---

CRS-5
backlog of previously authorized plans eligible for future funding, the execution of WRDA
2000 will involve long-term choices among competing priorities, when it comes to
appropriating funds for the growing list of project authorizations. Conferees dropped a
large variety of infrastructure/water supply assistance provisions–subject to later separate
consideration.
Other issues include Corps project planning and management procedures that have
come under criticism, including allegations that the Corps consistently uses “unrealistic
assumptions” in its economic analyses, particularly in the case of a report on navigation
facilities in the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Broader allegations are that the
Corps is pursuing an effort to “grow” the agency’s construction program without explicit
authorization. The WRDA bill for 2000 contains a Senate amendment directing the Corps
to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to study the feasibility of an
independent peer review of the Corps’ project feasibility reports (Section 216 of S. 2796,
P.L. 106-541). Direct Corps institutional changes were addressed in H.R. 4879 and S.
2309 during the 106th Congress.
Bureau of Reclamation. Since the early 1900s, the Bureau has constructed and
operated large, multi-purpose water supply projects in 17 western states. The first
projects were principally for irrigation, with new purposes added over time. Construction
authorizations slowed during the 1970s and 1980s due to several factors. Chief among
these were the increasing environmental and financial costs of building large dams and
diversion projects, as well as changing public attitudes toward such development. In
1987, the Bureau announced a new mission: instead of being largely a construction
agency, it would focus on environmentally sensitive water resources management and on
safety of existing projects. In the following decade, increased population, prolonged
drought, fiscal constraints, and increased water demands for fish and wildlife, recreation,
and scenic enjoyment resulted in increased pressure to alter operation of many Bureau
projects. Such changes have been controversial, however, as water rights, contractual
obligations, and the potential economic effects of altering project operations complicate
any change in water allocation or project operations.
In contrast to the Corps, there is no tradition of a regularly scheduled authorization
vehicle for Bureau projects. Instead, Bureau projects are generally considered
individually.4 Individual Bureau-related water project and management issues that may
be considered during the 107th Congress include the following:
! transferring ownership of specific Bureau facilities to non-federal
organizations or project users (title transfer);
! authorization of various rural water supply and water recycling projects;
! appropriations for the Animas-La Plata project in southern Colorado;
! appropriations for the Garrison Diversion Unit (Dakota Water Resources
Project) in North Dakota;
! management of the lower Colorado River;
4 However, on occasion Congress has passed omnibus bills addressing key policy changes for the
Bureau, as well as new or revised project and program authorizations (e.g., the Reclamation
Reform Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-293), and the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment
Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575)).

---

CRS-6
! oversight of the Central Valley [California] Project Improvement Act;
! reauthorization of appropriations for CALFED;
! Salton Sea [California] restoration activities;
! operations and management of Bureau and Corps facilities in the
Columbia and Snake River Basins;
! dam safety; and
! Indian water rights settlements.
(For information on these, and other active legislative proposals affecting the Bureau
of Reclamation, see CRS Issue Brief IB10019, Western Water Resource Issues, updated
regularly.)
A broader issue that often receives attention from Congress is oversight of the
Bureau’s mission and its future role in western water supply and water resource
management generally. As public demands and concerns have changed, so has legislation
affecting the Bureau. Further, many in Congress have questioned the Bureau’s shift in
focus from a water resources development agency to a water resource management
agency. Some have also questioned the increasing number of proposals to fund new rural
water supply projects with high federal cost-share ratios and grants for reclaiming and
reusing water — especially while overall funding for “traditional” reclamation projects is
declining. Critical questions Congress may address include: What should be the future
federal role in water resources development and management? Should (or to what extent
should) the federal government develop or augment new supply systems designed
primarily to serve communities/municipalities, or is this a local/regional responsibility?
Who should pay, and how much? Should the Bureau be involved in environmental
mitigation or is this best handled through new institutional arrangements (e.g., CALFED,
Everglades process) or other existing agencies (e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the
Environmental Protection Agency)? Should existing projects be revamped or re-operated
to accommodate changing demands, and, if so, do new policies and institutions (state-
federal roles) need to be addressed, and again, who should pay?
Conclusion
Numerous water resource issues may be debated during the 107th Congress, including
appropriations for the Animas-La Plata and Garrison Diversion (Dakota Water Resources)
projects, authorizations for rural water supply, and water re-use and recycling projects,
and reauthorization of appropriations for CALFED. Changes in agency policy (e.g.,
increasing expenditures for environmental restoration and mitigation efforts) and oversight
of agency activities (e.g., Corps administrative procedures, Central Valley Project
Improvement Act, Columbia River Basin activities, and Missouri River and lower
Colorado River water management may also be discussed.

---