Order Code IB10019
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Western Water Resource Issues
Updated August 22, 2002
Betsy A. Cody
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Legislative and Oversight Issues
Security of Reclamation Facilities
Klamath River Basin
Title Transfer
Project Construction
California Bay-Delta/CALFED
Rural Water Supply Projects
Title 16 Projects
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10019
08-22-02
Western Water Resource Issues
SUMMARY
For more than a century, the federal
example, new storage or diversion projects,
government has constructed water resource
expanding old ones, or funding water reclama-
projects for a variety of purposes including
tion and reuse facilities. Others emphasize the
flood control, navigation, power generation,
need to manage existing supplies more effi-
and irrigation. While most municipal and
ciently — through conservation, revision of
industrial water supplies have been built by
policies that encourage inefficient use of
non-federal entities, most of the large, federal
water, and establishment of market mecha-
water supply projects in the West, including
nisms to allocate water.
Hoover and Grand Coulee dams, were con-
structed by the Bureau of Reclamation
The 107th Congress is considering a
(Department of the Interior) to provide water
number of bills on western water issues,
for irrigation.
including several title transfer and wastewater
reclamation and reuse bills. Several bills
Growing populations and changing
addressing implementation of a Record of
values have increased demands on water
Decision on a program (known as CALFED)
supplies and river systems, resulting in water
to restore fish and wildlife habitat and address
use and management conflicts throughout the
California water supply/quality issues have
country, particularly in the West, where the
been introduced. Additionally, several over-
population is expected to increase 30% in the
sight issues may be addressed, including
next 20-25 years. In many western states,
oversight of the Central Valley Project Im-
agricultural needs are often in direct conflict
provement Act (e.g., contract renewals and
with urban needs, as well as with water de-
water allocation), and management of the
mand for threatened and endangered species,
Columbia, Snake, and Colorado River Sys-
recreation, and scenic enjoyment.
tems. The 107th Congress may also consider
one or more Indian water rights settlement

Debate over western water resources
bills. In light of events September 11, 2001,
revolves around the issue of how best to plan
the Congress has increased appropriations
for and manage the use of this renewable, yet
levels for security activities to protect the
sometimes scarce and increasingly sought
Bureau’s critical infrastructure.
after, resource. Some observers advocate
enhancing water supplies, by building, for
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10019
08-22-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On July 25, 2002, the House Subcommittee on Water and Power marked up the
Colorado River Quantification Settlement Facilitation Act (H.R. 5123), but the bill was not
reported from the subcommittee. H.R. 5123 provides that four Southern California Water
Agencies “should contribute a combined $50 million to mitigate the effects of the water
transfers on the Salton Sea” and would eliminate the liability of the agencies under any
federal law with respect to the water transfers. H.R. 5123 would also authorize an
additional $60 million in federal funds for habitat restoration projects at or near the Salton
Sea.
The House Resources Committee conducted a field hearing on June 14 to examine the
progress of California in reducing its reliance on water from the Colorado River. California
was allocated 4.4 million acre feet of water per year from an interstate compact created in
1922. For several years, California has been using more than its allocation of water under
the compact, while other participating states developed projects and grew enough to use
their full allocations. Participating states in the compact have recently begun to demand
their share of the water and have requested that California reduce its use of Colorado River
water.
On May 31, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service both issued Final Biological Opinions finding jeopardy on the Bureau’s 10-year
Operation Plan for the Klamath Project; however, on June 3, 2002, the Bureau formally
rejected both Final Biological Opinions, but opted instead to operate under a one-year plan
that it asserts complies with the Opinions. The action pertains to the issue of how much
water farmers and other water uses in the Klamath River Basin will receive from Bureau
of Reclamation irrigation projects in the Upper Basin.
On June 5, the Senate Energy and Resources Committee approved and ordered
reported an amendment (introduced by Senator Feinstein) as a substitute to S. 1768 that
would reauthorize the California Bay-Delta Restoration Program (CALFED). The bill was
subsequently reported on June 24 and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. The
amendment reduces the authorization for Stage 1 activities under the CALFED Program
from 5 years to 3 years, reduces the authorization for appropriations from $2.4 billion to
$1.6 billion, and includes authorization for funding for a list of specific activities under each
of the CALFED Program components. A new bill (H.R. 4657) authorizing implementation
of the CALFED Program was introduced by Representative Napolitano on May 2nd. This
bill is similar to the earlier version of S. 1768 except that it includes authorization for
certain water re-use and recycling projects, as well as studies on desalination. On
November 7, the House Resources Committee marked up and ordered reported H.R. 3208
(reported on February 14, 2002, H.Rept. 107-360, Part I. ), a bill to authorize certain water
supply and environmental activities associated with the CALFED program, as well as other
programs. The bill effectively replaces H.R. 1985, which had been marked up by the Water
and Power Subcommittee on September 13, 2001.
CRS-1

---

IB10019
08-22-02
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
For more than a century, the federal government has been involved in developing water
projects for a variety of purposes including flood control, navigation, power generation, and
irrigation. Most major water projects, such as large dams and diversions, were constructed
by either the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), in the Department of the Interior, or the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), in the Department of Defense. Traditionally, the Corps
has built and maintained projects designed primarily for flood control, navigation, and power
generation, whereas Bureau projects were designed primarily to facilitate settlement of the
West by storing and providing reliable supplies of water for irrigation and “reclamation” of
arid lands. While both agencies supply water for some municipal and industrial uses, they
do so largely as a secondary responsibility in connection with larger multi-purpose projects.
Most of the Nation’s public municipal water systems have been built by local communities
under prevailing state water laws.
Today, the Bureau operates nearly 350 storage reservoirs and approximately 250
diversion dams – including some of the largest dams in the world, such as Hoover Dam on
the Colorado River and Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. In total, the Bureau’s
projects provide water to approximately 9 million acres of farmland and nearly 31 million
people in 17 western states. The Bureau also operates 58 power plants. Because of the
strategic importance of the Bureau’s largest facilities, the Bureau has heightened security at
all key facilities to protect projects in the wake of the terrorist attacks on New York and the
Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Most Bureau water supply projects were built under authority granted to the Secretary
of the Interior in the Reclamation Act of 1902, or through individual project authorizations.
The original intent of the Reclamation Act was to encourage families to settle and farm lands
in the arid and semi-arid West where precipitation is typically 30% to 50% of what it is in
the East. Construction of reclamation projects expanded greatly during the 1930s and 1940s,
and continued rapidly until the late 1960s and early 1970s. By the late 1960s, a combination
of changing national priorities and local needs, increasing construction costs, and the
development of most prime locations for water works contributed to a decline in new
construction of major water works nationwide. Water supply for traditional off-stream uses
— such as municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses — was increasingly in direct
competition with a growing interest in allocating water to maintain or enhance in-stream
uses, such as recreation, scenic enjoyment, and fisheries and wildlife habitat.
During the 1970s, construction of new projects slowed to a handful of major works,
culminating in the completion of the Tellico dam project in Tennessee and the Tennessee
Tombigbee waterway through Alabama and Mississippi. These projects pitted conservation
and environmental groups, as well as some fiscal conservatives, against the traditional water
resources development community. New on the scene was the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), which for the first time required an assessment of the
environmental effects of federal projects, and provided for more public scrutiny of such
projects. In 1978, President Carter announced that future federal water policy would focus
on improving water resources management, constructing only projects that were
economically viable, cooperating with state and local entities, and sustaining environmental
quality. The Reagan Administration continued to oppose large projects, contending they
CRS-2

---

IB10019
08-22-02
were fiscally unsound. New construction of federally financed water projects virtually
stopped until Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986,
which addressed Corps projects and policies. Federal water research and planning activities
were also reduced during the early years of the Reagan Administration, which felt that states
should have a greater role in carrying out such activities. Consistent with this outlook,
President Reagan abolished the Water Resources Council, an umbrella agency established
in 1968 to coordinate federal water policy and to assess the status of the nation’s water
resource and development needs.
Congress subsequently scaled back several remaining authorized projects, changed
repayment and cost-share structures, and passed laws that altered project operations and
water delivery programs. For example, in 1982 Congress passed the Reclamation Reform
Act, which altered the Bureau’s water pricing policies for some users. The Act revised
acreage limitation requirements and charges for water received to irrigate leased lands.
Congress soon increased local entities’ to share construction costs for Corps water resource
projects with passage of the 1986 WRDA.
Over the last decade, both the Corps and the Bureau have undertaken projects or
programs aimed at mitigating or preventing environmental degradation due in part to the
construction and operation of large water projects. The agencies have pursued these actions
through administrative efforts and congressional mandates, as well as in response to court
actions. Currently, the federal government is involved in several restoration initiatives,
including the Florida Everglades, the California Bay-Delta, and the Columbia and Snake
River basins in the Pacific Northwest. These initiatives have been quite controversial. Each
involves many stakeholders at the local and regional level (water users, landowners, farmers,
commercial and sports fishermen, urban water suppliers and users, navigational interests,
hydropower customers and providers, recreationists, and environmentalists) and have been
years in the making. At the same time, demand for traditional or new water resource projects
continues — particularly for ways to augment local water supplies, maintain or improve
navigation, and control or prevent floods and shoreline erosion. In addition, demand from
some sectors for a few long-discussed large water supply projects continues (e.g., the
Animas-La Plata Project (CO), the Garrison Diversion Unit (ND), and the Auburn Dam
(CA)).
Legislative and Oversight Issues
The 107th Congress is considering several water resource issues in legislation ranging
from transferring title of federal facilities to local project users, to individual project
authorizations and agency policy changes (e.g., reoperation of water project facilities in the
Central Valley of California and in the Colorado and Columbia River Basins). Oversight of
ongoing agency activities, such as water management in the Klamath River Basin,
implementation of the Central Valley Project Act (P.L. 102-575, Title 34), and authorization
of a program to carry out activities affecting the delta confluence of the San Joaquin and
Sacramento Rivers at the San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta, or CALFED) are also being
discussed. Funding and policy direction through the annual Energy and Water
Appropriations bill also influences the construction and operation of projects. (See CRS
Report RL31007, Appropriations for FY2002: Energy and Water Development.) In
CRS-3

---

IB10019
08-22-02
particular, appropriations language concerning funding (or lack thereof) for the CALFED
program has been the subject of much debate.
Security of Reclamation Facilities
Security remains heightened at Bureau facilities in the wake of terrorist attacks in New
York and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. The Bureau initially closed visitor
facilities and cancelled tours at all facilities. While most visitor facilities have reopened,
tours, some facilities remain closed to tours. Additionally, roads over some dams remain
closed at night. Legislation to strengthen federal law enforcement at Bureau facilities was
introduced following the September 11 attacks (H.R. 2925 and S. 1480). The House passed
H.R. 2925 on October 23; the Senate passed the bill on October 30. It became P.L. 107-69
on November 12, 2001. For more information on water supply infrastructure more generally,
see the Water Infrastructure Supply page in the CRS electronic briefing book on terrorism.
Because Bureau facilities were not directly affected by September 11 events, it did not
receive funding in the first two releases of emergency supplemental appropriations; however,
the agency will receive $30.3 million for security at Bureau facilities as part of the third
cluster of emergency supplemental funding included in Division B, Chapter 5, of the FY2002
Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 3338, P.L. 107-117).
Klamath River Basin
On February 27, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) issued its final 2002 biological
assessment (a process necessary under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) for operations of
its Klamath Project for the 2002-2012 water years. Given projected water conditions, the
Bureau fully expects to deliver water to farmers in the federal project area for the 2002
growing season and proposes actions to meet water demands over the next 10 years. On May
31, 2002, after issuing temporary draft opinions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service both issued Final Biological Opinions on the Bureau’s 10-
year Operation Plan for the Project. The agencies found that the Bureau’s proposed action
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the two listed suckers and coho salmon, as
well as result in the adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; however, both
Opinions also included “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for operating the Project that
would remove the jeopardizing effects of the proposed action. However, on June 3, 2002,
the Bureau formally rejected both Final Biological Opinions, but opted instead to operate
under a one-year plan that it asserts complies with the Opinions.
These are a few of the latest developments in a controversy that erupted nearly a year
ago when the Bureau announced it would not release water from Upper Klamath Lake during
the 2001 growing season to approximately 200,000 acres of farm and pasture lands within
the roughly 235,000-acre Klamath project service area. The area straddles the
Oregon/California border and has been the site of increasingly complex water management
issues involving several tribes, fishermen, farmers, environmentalists, and recreationists.
The Bureau based its 2001 announcement on two biological opinions issued under the ESA
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). These opinions concluded that the Bureau’s proposed operation of the Klamath
project for the 2001 water year would jeopardize the continued existence of the two species
of suckers and the coho salmon, and would harm, but not jeopardize, the continued existence
CRS-4

---

IB10019
08-22-02
of the bald eagles which use nearby refuges. The Klamath area had experienced significantly
low precipitation and according to the Bureau’s April 6 announcement, the current year was
“expected to be one of the driest years since the Project began in 1907....” Operation of the
project even in normal water years is controversial because of the many demands for water
throughout the Klamath River basin.

In response to the biological opinions, the Bureau immediately announced on April 6,
2001, that it would deliver very little water to farmers in the area. This announcement was
generally supported by fishermen who depend on lake storage and seasonal flows to support
commercial and recreational fishing, tribes who assert priority water rights, and by
environmentalists. However, many farmers and others in the surrounding community who
also depend on those waters were opposed to the action. Some protesters desperate to release
water from the lake on several occasions pried open Bureau facilities to release water into
irrigation canals. Since then, the Bureau has installed new security measures to guard the
Klamath irrigation headgates.
Because many disagreed over the fundamental guidance contained in the 2001
biological opinions, the Secretary of the Interior sought and secured review of the scientific
decisions by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). On February 6, 2002, the Academy
released its Interim Report from the Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the
Klamath River Basin. The Committee concluded that there was insufficient scientific
support for FWS and NMFS recommendations to maintain minimum water levels in Upper
Klamath Lake and increase minimum flows in the Klamath River mainstem. While the
report noted all other components of the biological opinions appeared to have scientific
support, it stated these critical decisions did not. At a House Resources Committee oversight
hearing on March 13, William Lewis, Chairman of the NAS Committee, noted that “[d]espite
the availability of a substantial amount of data collected by federal scientists and others, no
clear connection has been documented between low water level in Upper Klamath Lake and
conditions that are adverse to the welfare to [sic] the suckers.”1 He also noted that the NAS
Committee found no “...sound scientific basis for NMFS recommendations on increased
minimum flows in the Klamath River main stem.” Further, the Committee concluded there
was no sound scientific basis for operating the lake at the lower levels proposed in the
Bureau’s 2001 biological assessment. In other words, the Committee found there were
insufficient scientific data to support either of the management regimes proposed by federal
agencies for the 2001 growing season.
Congress has reacted to the controversy in a number of ways. Most recently, the House
approved the conference report for H.R. 2646, the 2002 farm bill (H.Rept. 107-424), which
includes $50 million in mandatory spending for water conservation activities in the Klamath
Basin (Title II, subtitle D, §2301 (“§1240I”)). The bill also authorizes study of options for
improving fish passage at Chiloquin Dam, including dam removal. The House Resources
Committee held an oversight hearing on March 13, 2002, to discuss findings of the NAS
interim report on threatened and endangered Klamath Basin fishes. During last session,
Congress provided $20 million to eligible farmers in the basin as part of the FY2001
supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 2216, §2104; P.L. 107-20). Nearly $15.5 million was
1 William M. Lewis, Jr., Ph.D. Statement before the House Committee on Resources, March 13,
2002. p. 6.
CRS-5

---

IB10019
08-22-02
provided for the Klamath project as part of the FY2002 Energy and Water appropriations bill
(H.R. 2311,P.L. 107-66); the Administration had requested nearly $13 million for FY02 and
is requesting $14.3 million for FY03. Two significant amendments were defeated last
session: 1) an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill to provide $200
million to farmers to compensate for the loss of water was rejected on a point of order July
18 (H.Amdt. 178 to H.R. 2500 (amendment number 1 as printed in the Congressional
Record)); and 2 ) a Senate amendment (S.Amdt. 899) to the FY2002 Interior Appropriations
bill (H.R. 2217), which would have prohibited the use of funds to manage water flows under
the most recent biological opinions, was rejected on a 52-48 vote to table the amendment
(Roll call Vote No. 232, July 12, 2001). The latter amendment would have directed water
flows to be managed as set forth under two earlier biological opinions until the Fish and
Wildlife Service took certain actions identified in a 1993 recovery plan for the Lost River
and Shortnose suckers.
In November, the House passed H.R. 2828, a bill to refund and waive Bureau of
Reclamation operation and maintenance charges to certain Klamath project water users. The
bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; and on July
31, 2002, the committee ordered the bill reported without amendment. A stand alone bill
(H.R. 2389) has also been introduced to compensate individuals in the Klamath area for their
economic losses due to the Bureau’s decision. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary
Committee – to date, there has been no action on the bill. Additionally, a provision directing
the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Klamath Basin Interagency Task Force (§262) was
included in Senate-passed version of the farm bill (H.R. 2646). The language would have
directed $175 million of Commodity Credit Corporation funds to be used for a variety of
Task Force related activities. Of the total, $30 million would have been made available to
the four Tribes in the Klamath Basin: the Klamath, Yurok, Hoopa, and Karuk. House and
Senate conferees struck the language and replaced it with $50 million in mandatory funding
(to be transferred from the Commodity Credit Corporation) for water conservation activities
in the Klamath Basin.
Relatedly, §215 of the Senate-passed farm bill would have authorized a new water
conservation program under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, whereby
states could arrange with willing sellers and lessors to secure water rights for land taken out
of agricultural production. The original version of §215, debated in the Senate December
12, 2001, would have authorized the Department of Agriculture to give priority to the leasing
or purchase from willing sellers of water rights on up to 1.1 million acres of land enrolled
in the Conservation Reserve Program. Many western Senators objected to the original
language on the grounds it might abrogate state water rights, create a new type of federal
water right, or force farmers who wish to participate in the Conservation Reserve Program
to put their water in jeopardy to do so. Sponsors of the provision argued that such concerns
were already addressed by authorizing only willing transfers or sales. The provision was
subsequently amended to address some states’ rights concerns; however, Senate leaders
eventually halted debate on the farm bill altogether until the beginning of second session of
the 107th. Section 215 was substantially rewritten, offered as an amendment by Senator Reid,
and approved during passage of the Senate farm bill in early February 2002. The language
was ultimately deleted in conference.
Debate over how and if area farmers and others dependent on the agricultural economy
of the area ought to be compensated is likely to continue. Some have called for a re-
CRS-6

---

IB10019
08-22-02
examination of water uses in the basin, including the possibility of retiring farm lands from
production. The status of water rights throughout the basin is the subject of an ongoing water
rights adjudication process at the state level. (For more information on the Klamath project
issues, see CRS Report RL31098 and CRS Issue Brief IB10072.) Relatedly, on March 19,
Secretary Norton announced a series of upcoming meetings with the Klamath Tribes to work
on long-term solutions to the issues facing stakeholders in the Klamath River Basin. On
March 1, President Bush announced the creation of a Klamath River Basin Federal Working
Group to address economic and natural resource issues in the basin.
Title Transfer
Congress more and more is considering legislation that would transfer the ownership
(title) of individual Bureau of Reclamation water supply projects to current water users.
These “title transfer” bills vary depending on the circumstances of each project; however,
some general issues apply. Transfer issues range from questions regarding a project’s worth
and valuation to legal and policy questions regarding the transfer’s affect on other area water
users, fish and wildlife, future project operations, and future management of lands associated
with the project. So far, two title transfer bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress:
Lower Yellowstone (H.R. 2202 and S. 1148). The bills are very similar, but not identical.
Congress is also considering the transfer of lands near Elephant Butte and Caballo reservoirs
in New Mexico (H.R. 706), which currently are leased for cabin sites. The House Resources
Committee held a field hearing on H.R. 706 on December 10, 2001. The bill passed the
House under suspension of the rules on March 19, 2002, and was sent to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings were held and this bill was ordered
reported without amendment on July 31, 2002.
The Clinton Administration first actively negotiated title transfer on a voluntary basis
with interested water/irrigation districts beginning in 1995 when it announced a policy
“framework” to establish a process for negotiating title transfers. While some districts
pursued the Administration’s framework process, others sought direct legislative authority
for transfers. In general, Congress must authorize transfer of title to reclamation facilities
(32 Stat. 389; 43 USC 498), regardless of the process used to get to a transfer agreement.
The 106th Congress enacted 10 title transfer bills for projects in eight states: Wellton-
Mohawk, AZ (P.L. 106-221); Clear Creek, CA (P.L. 106-566, Title IV), Sugar Pine, CA
(P.L. 106-566, Title V), and Sly Park, CA (P.L. 106-377, Division B); Northern Colorado
Conservancy District, CO (P.L. 106-367); Nampa-Meridian, ID (P.L. 106-466); Middle
Loup, NE ( P.L. 106-366); Griffith, NV (P.L. 106-249); Carlsbad, NM (P.L. 106-220); and
Palmetto Bend, TX (P.L. 106-512).
Two title transfer bills were enacted at the end of the 105th Congress: 1) transfer of
certain Minidoka project facilities to the Burley Irrigation District, ID (S. 538, P.L. 105-351);
and, 2) transfer of the Canadian River Project, TX, pending prepayment of the district’s debt
on the project (H.R. 3687, P.L. 105-316). The Burley title transfer was completed on
February 24, 2000, and the Canadian River transfer was completed in May, 1999. (Another
title transfer bill was enacted during the first session of the 105th Congress — Oroville-
Tonasket (H.R. 412, P.L. 105-9); however, this transfer is somewhat different from the others
in that it was developed in response to a settlement agreement between the Bureau and an
irrigation district in Washington State.)
CRS-7

---

IB10019
08-22-02
A central issue with title transfer legislation is whether the transfers should be mandated
or simply authorized. Some argue that the transfers are “minor land transactions” and
advocate that Congress direct they take place within a certain time period. Others strongly
disagree. Debate mostly centers on the role the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
would and should play prior to a project’s transfer. Environmentalists generally fear that a
directed transfer with or without specific NEPA language would effectively allow the Bureau
and project transfer proponents to avoid assessing and/or mitigating environmental effects
of the proposed transfers. Conversely, project proponents have pursued directed transfers
to avoid what they view are unnecessary delays and to ensure the transfers take place. For
example, some title transfer legislation directs the transfer to occur “in accordance with all
applicable law,” while other legislation directs the transfer take place pursuant to an
agreement already negotiated with project water users. Two laws recently enacted (P.L. 106-
220 and P.L. 106-221) authorize the transfers; whereas, others (P.L. 106-249, P.L. 106-377,
and P.L. 106-512) direct the transfer.
Other discussions center on the role the Endangered Species Act (ESA) might play on
project operations after the transfer. One of the main concerns for environmentalists appears
to be that once the project is out of federal ownership there will no longer be a legal
obligation for the district to consult with other federal entities on the impact of project
operations on threatened or endangered species as is now required of the Bureau under
Section 7 of the ESA. Additionally, environmentalists and others fear that once out of
federal hands there will be little if any public scrutiny of project operations. Conversely,
project proponents are likely to favor private operations.
Controversies regarding the application of NEPA and ESA to project title transfers, as
well as the question of whether to direct or authorize the transfers, are likely to remain at
issue. Other issues involve concerns about the overall costs of the transfers, who should pay
for costs associated with the transfer, effects on third parties, liability, the valuation of project
facilities and lands (and treatment of mineral or other receipts), and financial compensation
for the projects. Related to many of the issues outlined above is the question of how these
projects might be operated in the future. Although the House Resources Committee has
noted it contemplates that facilities would be maintained and managed without significant
changes, and in some cases bill language states the projects shall be managed for the
purposes for which the project was authorized, transfer bills approved by the committees
have been silent on enforcement issues and in describing what might occur if the new owners
change operations (other than they must comply with all applicable laws at that time). Little
has been said, for example, about what might occur if new project owners decided to
partition project lands for new homes and convert irrigation water to domestic use.
Project Construction
California Bay-Delta/CALFED. The authorization of an annual appropriation of
$143 million for implementing portions of an ecosystem protection plan and long-term
restoration projects for the San Francisco Bay/San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers Delta
(Bay-Delta, also known as the CALFED program) expired September 30, 2000. The initial
authorization for CALFED funding (P.L. 104-208, Division E) came on the heels of a 1994
agreement among state and federal agencies, urban, agricultural, and environmental interests
to protect the Bay-Delta while satisfying key needs of various involved interests. The
process was initiated to address critical water quality, water supply, and fish and wildlife
CRS-8

---

IB10019
08-22-02
habitat issues in the 738,000 acre Bay-Delta estuary and has grown into a comprehensive
effort to address long-term water supply/quality issues for most of the state.
Appropriators have been reluctant to fund the program absent an explicit authorization
from the authorizing committees. No funds were included for CALFED in the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill for FY2001, and none were included for the
CALFED program for FY2002. However, appropriators included $30 million for FY2002
for Central Valley Project (California) activities which support the CALFED program.
While the language is similar to earlier Senate language recommending $40 million for
CALFED-related activities, the conference report directs funding towards several specific
water supply projects, including:$7.5 million to the Delta Division for oversight activities;
$1 million for planning activities associated with enlarging Los Vaqueros Reservoir; $3
million to construct the Tracy Test Fish Facility; $2.5 million to investigate storage in the
Upper San Joaquin watershed; $12.5 million for the Environmental Water Account; $0.75
to the Sacramento River Division to continue planning activities related to Sites Reservoir;
and $1.9 million to continue evaluating potential impacts of raising Shasta Dam. (For more
information on appropriations issues, see CRS Report RL31007, Appropriations for FY2002:
Energy and Water Development.).
Six bills have been introduced to authorize a CALFED program. Two bills authorizing
appropriations for the program were introduced on May 24 and May 25, 2001 (H.R. 1985
and S. 796, respectively). Both bills would authorize certain activities outlined in an August
2000 record of decision (ROD) on the CALFED program; however, neither bill appears to
authorize implementation of the ROD in its entirety. Additionally, while similar, the bills
differ in several respects, including approaches to establishing a “governance structure” for
the program, authorization of several water supply projects, study and report requirements,
use of water from an Environmental Water Account, and water supply “assurances” to
certain water users south of the Delta. On September 13, the House Resources subcommittee
on Water and Power marked up H.R. 1985. Five amendments were offered; three were
accepted and two were withdrawn. The most controversial amendments had to do with water
supply “assurances” language and project construction authorization. These two
amendments were withdrawn; however, it was agreed the provisions would be the subject
of discussion prior to or during full committee mark-up.
On November 7, the House Resources Committee marked up and ordered reported H.R.
3208, in lieu of H.R. 1985. An amendment modifying the “assurances” language – arguably
bringing it more in line with the Record of Decision – was adopted by the committee.
However, some Members continued to voice concern that the language might create a new
class of water rights recipients for project water. A revised version of the construction
authorization provision was eliminated from the bill, while a controversial amendment
applying Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rate requirements to projects constructed under the
bill was accepted. H.R. 3208 was reported from the Committee February 14, 2002 (H.Rept.
107-360, Part I).
On December 5, Senators Feinstein and Boxer introduced a new CALFED bill, S. 1768.
The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to implement the CALFED program
largely as framed in the August 2001 ROD. The bill does not include many of the more
controversial items, such as the assurances language and “expedited” project authorization
procedures, contained in the earlier introduced bills. On June 5, the Senate Energy and
CRS-9

---

IB10019
08-22-02
Resources Committee approved and ordered reported an amendment (introduced by Senator
Feinstein) as a substitute to S. 1768 that would reauthorize the California Bay-Delta
Restoration Program (CALFED). The amendment reduces the authorization of the CALFED
Program from 5 years to 3 years for Stage 1 activities, reduces the authorization for
appropriations from $2.4 billion to $1.6 billion, and includes authorization for funding a list
of specific activities under each of the CALFED Program components.2 The CALFED
components and activities listed in S. 1768 come from the ROD. The amendment to S. 1768
also provides for activities and reports that are aimed toward increasing program
management, oversight and coordination. Furthermore, an annual report called for by S.1768
will include a section that states whether CALFED is progressing in a balanced fashion. An
evaluation of balanced progress among the CALFED components is expected to be derived
from statements about the progress and implementation of several project activities ranging
from the implementation of a comprehensive science program to the improvement of water
supply reliability. On May 2, Representative Napolitano introduced H.R. 4657, which is
similar to the introduced version of S. 1768, but also includes authorization for certain water
recycling and re-use projects, as well as studies for desalination projects.
The primary or “lead” federal agencies involved in the CALFED process include: the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Service, both within the Department of the
Interior; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Marine Fisheries Service
(Department of Commerce); the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense);
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Department of Agriculture). State agencies
include: the Resources Agency (Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish and
Game, Reclamation Board, and Delta Protection Commission); the California Environmental
Protection Agency (including the State Water Resources Control Board); and the Department
of Food and Agriculture. To date, federal funding has been provided to provide fish screens
for existing water diversions, pollution control measures, and management of fish, riparian
and estuarine habitat. The funding has been in addition to funds already authorized for
projects and programs under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34, P.L. 102-
575) and other previously authorized projects and programs.
Rural Water Supply Projects. Beginning with authorization of the WEB Rural
Water Supply Act in 1980 (P.L. 96-355), Congress has authorized the Bureau to fund the
construction of several “rural water supply” projects and oversee construction of another,
with funding coming from the Department of Agriculture. These projects have individual
authorizations, but all are generally aimed at providing water for municipal and industrial
(M&I) uses in rural areas — a departure from the historical mission of providing water for
irrigation, with M&I use as an incidental project purpose. To date, two identical rural water
supply bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress: H.R. 1946 and S. 934. These bills
would direct the Secretary to construct the Rocky Boy’s/North Central Montana Regional
Water System to serve the Chippewa Cree Tribe and non-Indian water suppliers in North
Central Montana. A third bill, H.R. 3223, to supply water to the Jicarilla Apache
Reservation has also been introduced. It is not clear if the project would supply water to non-
reservation lands.
2 CALFED program components include: water storage, conveyance, water use efficiency, water
transfers, environmental water account, water management, ecosystem restoration, watersheds, water
quality, levee stability, and science.
CRS-10

---

IB10019
08-22-02
Three rural water supply project authorizations were enacted during the 106th Congress:
Lewis and Clark (P.L. 106-246, Title IV); Perkins County (P.L. 106-136); and Fort Peck
(P.L. 106-382). The 105th Congress authorized the Fall River project (P.L. 105-352);
however, it gives responsibility to the Secretary of Agriculture for the project, while
authorizing the Bureau to oversee construction.
These projects have been somewhat controversial, largely due to the relatively large
share of federal construction costs proposed. Typically, the Bureau requires that people
benefitting from a reclamation project repay 100% of the construction costs (plus interest)
attributed to M&I project purposes. For example, if a project’s purpose is 50% irrigation,
30% flood control and 20% M&I, M&I water users would pay (reimburse the federal
government) for 100% of their 20% of construction costs of the project, plus interest (the
federal cost share would be 0% of the 20% cost allocated to M&I purposes). In contrast, the
federal cost share (non-reimbursable component) for the Bureau’s “rural water supply”
projects typically ranges from 75% to 85%. Some have raised concerns that these projects
have the potential to overwhelm the Bureau’s budget. For example, the federal contribution
to the Lewis and Clark project is estimated at $214 million. For perspective, the Bureau’s
budget ranges in the neighborhood of approximately $800 million (net current authority)
annually. Prior to the recent authorizations, the Bureau had approximately 60 authorized
projects in various stages of construction with projected construction costs for completion
of $4.9 billion. Outstanding construction authorizations now total approximately $7 billion.
Some also fear that these projects are outside the realm of those historically constructed
by the Bureau and believe they would be better handled via other existing federal water
quality or water supply programs, such as the USDA’s Rural Utility Service or the EPA’s
state revolving loan fund. However, as designed, the projects do not fit EPA or USDA
criteria, and thus project proponents have looked to the Bureau for funding. An additional
concern with the Lewis and Clark legislation was that it would authorize projects outside of
the Bureau of Reclamation’s historic service area (outside the 17 western states). For
information on other federal water supply programs, see CRS Report RL30478.
Title 16 Projects. Title 16 of P.L. 102-575 directs the Secretary of the Interior to
develop a program to “investigate and identify” opportunities to reclaim and reuse
wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface water. The original Act authorized
construction of 5 reclamation wastewater projects and 6 wastewater and groundwater
recycling/reclamation studies. The Act was amended in 1996 (P.L. 104-206) to authorize
another 18 construction projects and an additional study, and again in 1998 (P.L. 105-321)
and 2000 (P.L. 106-554, Division B, Section 106) to authorize two more construction
projects. Water reclaimed via Title 16 projects may be used for M&I water supply (non-
potable purposes only), irrigation supply, groundwater recharge, fish and wildlife
enhancement, or outdoor recreation. To date, nine Title 16 bills have been introduced in the
107th Congress, three of which address financing of previously authorized projects (H.R. 131,
H.R. 685, H.R. 1245, H.R. 1251(increase funding), H.R. 1261 (imposing limits on funding),
H.R. 1729 (increase ceiling on funding), H.R. 2115, S. 491, and S. 1385).

The general purpose of Title 16 projects is to provide supplemental water supplies by
recycling/reusing agricultural drainage water, wastewater, brackish surface and groundwater,
and other sources of contaminated water. Projects may be permanent or for demonstration
purposes. Project construction costs are shared by a local project sponsor or sponsors and
CRS-11

---

IB10019
08-22-02
the federal government. The federal share is generally limited to a maximum of 25% of total
project costs and in most cases the federal share is non-reimbursable, resulting in a de facto
grant to the local project sponsor(s). Congress limited the federal share of individual projects
to $20 million beginning in 1996 (P.L. 104-266). The federal share of feasibility studies is
limited to 50% of the total, except in cases of “financial hardship”; however, the federal
share must be reimbursed. The Secretary may also accept in-kind services that are
determined to positively contribute to the study.
The Bureau’s water reclamation and wastewater recycling program is limited to projects
and studies in the 17 western states authorized in the Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended
(32 Stat. 388), unless specifically authorized by Congress.3 Authorized recipients of program
assistance include “legally organized non-federal entities” (e.g., irrigation districts, water
districts, and municipalities). Construction funding is generally limited to projects where:
1) an appraisal investigation and feasibility study have been completed and approved by the
Secretary; 2) the Secretary has determined the project sponsor is capable of funding the non-
federal share of project costs; and 3) the local sponsor has entered a cost-share agreement
committing to funding its share.
The Bureau noted in its FY2001 budget justifications that it would focus its work on
projects that are: “1) economically justified and environmentally acceptable in a watershed
context, (2) not eligible for funding under another Federal program, and (3) directly address
Administration priorities for the Reclamation program such as providing instream flows for
federally endangered or threatened species, meeting the needs of Native American
communities, and meeting international commitments.” The FY2002 justifications note the
Bureau’s primary focus will be on ongoing projects for which the agency has requested funds
in prior years. Unlike other water supply or wastewater treatment programs run by the EPA,
USDA, or HUD, the Bureau’s Title 16 projects are statutorily authorized projects. While the
Bureau has the authority to undertake general appraisal investigations and feasibility studies,
it has interpreted the Title 16 language as requiring specific congressional authorization for
the construction of new projects. Total funding for the program for FY2002 is approximately
$36 million – nearly $5.5 million more than enacted for FY2001.
LEGISLATION
P.L. 107-69, H.R. 2925
Amends the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992 to provide for the
security of dams, facilities, and resources under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Introduced September 21, 2001; referred to the House Committee on Resources. Committee
consideration and mark-up held October 3; ordered to be reported (amended) by Unanimous
Consent. Passed the House by voice vote under suspension of the rules on October 23, 2001.
Received in the Senate October 24. Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous
Consent October 30. Became Public Law No. 107-69 on Nov. 12.
3 Section 103(a)(4) of P.L. 106-566 directs the Secretary of the Interior to study recycling,
reclamation, and reuse of water and wastewater for agricultural and non-agricultural uses in the state
of Hawaii.
CRS-12

---

IB10019
08-22-02
H.R. 131 (Miller, Gary)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Inland Empire regional water
recycling project, to authorize the Secretary to carry out a program to assist agencies in
projects to construct regional brine lines in California, and to authorize the Secretary to
participate in the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and reclamation
project. Introduced Jan. 3, 2001; referred to Committee on Resources. Referred to the
Subcommittee on Water and Power February 15, 2001.
H.R. 685 (Miller, George)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize certain projects in California for the use or reuse of reclaimed water and for the
design and construction of demonstration and permanent facilities for that purpose, and for
other purposes. Introduced February 14, 2001; referred to Committee on Resources.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power February 23, 2001.
H.R. 706 (Skeen)
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain properties in the vicinity of the
Elephant Butte Reservoir and the Caballo Reservoir, New Mexico. Introduced February 14,
2001; referred to the House Committee on Resources. Referred to the Subcommittee on
Water and Power on February 28. Subcommittee field hearing held December 10, 2001.
Reported from full committee (amended) March 7, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-368); markup held
February 27, 2002. Passed House March 19 under suspension of the rules. Referred to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources March 20, 2002. Subcommittee
hearings were held on June 6, 2002, and the bill was ordered reported by the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources without amendment on July 31, 2002.
H.R. 1245 (McKeon)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction
of a project to reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of the
Castaic Lake Water Agency, California. Introduced March 27, 2001; referred to House
Committee on Resources. Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power April 2, 2001.
H.R. 1251 (Napolitano)
Amends the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to
increase the federal share of the costs of the San Gabriel Basin demonstration project.
Introduced March 27, 2001; referred to Committee on Resources. Referred to the
Subcommittee on Water and Power April 2, 2001.
H.R. 1261 (Horn)
Amends the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to impose
a limit on the federal share of the costs of the Long Beach Desalinization Research and
Development Project in Los Angeles County, California. Introduced March 28, 2001;
referred to the Committee on Resources. Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power
April 2, 2001.
CRS-13

---

IB10019
08-22-02
H.R. 1729 (Sanchez)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
increase the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of phase I of the Orange County,
California, Regional Water Reclamation Project. Introduced May 3, 2001; referred to
Committee on Resources May 8, 2001.
H.R. 1946 (Rehberg), S. 934 (Burns)
The identical bills require the Secretary of the Interior to construct the Rocky
Boy’s/North Central Montana Regional Water System in the State of Montana, to offer to
enter into an agreement with the Chippewa Cree Tribe to plan, design, construct, operate,
maintain and replace the Rocky Boy’s Rural Water System, and to provide assistance to the
North Central Montana Regional Water Authority for the planning, design, and construction
of the noncore system, and for other purposes. H.R. 1946 introduced May 22, 2001; referred
to Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power May 31, 2001.
Subcommittee hearings held April 24, 2002. S. 934 introduced May 22, 2001; referred to
Committee on Indian Affairs. This bill was discharged with unanimous consent and referred
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and
Power on May 16, 2002, with the condition that if it was reported it would return to the
Committee on Indian Affairs. Subcommittee hearings held July 31, 2002.
H.R. 1985 (Calvert)
Authorizes funding through the Secretary of the Interior for the implementation of a
comprehensive program in California to achieve increased water yield and environmental
benefits, as well as improved water system reliability, water quality, water use efficiency,
watershed management, water transfers, and levee protection. Introduced May 24, 2001;
referred to Committee on Resources and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the House Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power June 6; referred to the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment May 25. (The bill would authorize certain CALFED program operations.)
Subcommittee on Water and Power held hearings July 26; markup held September 13, 2001
and sent to full committee. Full Resources Committee markup held November 11; the
committee marked up H.R. 3208 in lieu of H.R. 1985 and ordered it reported, as amended,
by recorded vote of 24-18.
H.R. 2115 (Smith, Adam)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction
of a project to reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of the
Lakehaven Utility District, Washington. Introduced June 18, 2001; referred to Committee
on Resources. Markup held October 17; ordered to be reported by voice vote. Reported
Nov. 27 (H.Rept. 107-302). Passed the House by voice vote under suspension of the rules
Dec. 5. Received in Senate Dec. 6; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Water and Power. Subcommittee hearings were held June 6, 2002. The
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources marked up H.R. 2115 on July 31, 2002, and
ordered it reported without amendment.
CRS-14

---

IB10019
08-22-02
H.R. 2202 (Rehberg), S. 1148 (Burns)
The nearly identical bills would convey the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project, the
Savage Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, and the Intake Irrigation Project to
the pertinent irrigation districts. H.R. 2202 introduced June 14, 2001; referred to Committee
on Resources. Referred to the subcommittee on Water and Power on June 20. Subcommittee
hearings were held June 5, 2002. S. 1148 introduced June 29, 2001; referred to Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 2389 (Herger)
Provides for the compensation of persons of the Klamath Basin who were economically
harmed as a result of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Introduced
June 28, 2001; referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Referred to Subcommittee
on Immigration and Claims on July 16, 2001.
H.R. 2404 (Miller, George)
California Water Quality and Reliability Act of 2001. Authorizes federal agency
participation and financial assistance for programs and for infrastructure improvements for
the purposes of increasing deliverable water supplies, conserving water and energy, restoring
ecosystems, and enhancing environmental quality in the State of California, and for other
purposes. Introduced June 28, 2001: referred to Committee on Resources. Referred to the
subcommittee on Water and Power July 10. Subcommittee hearings held July 26.
H.R. 2565 (Cannon)
Amends the Central Utah Project Completion Act to clarify the responsibilities of the
Secretary of the Interior with respect to the Central Utah Project, to redirect unexpended
budget authority for the Central Utah Project for wastewater treatment and reuse and other
purposes, to provide for prepayment of repayment contracts for municipal and industrial
water delivery facilities, and to eliminate a deadline for such prepayment. Introduced July
19, 2001; referred to House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power,
July 26, 2001.
H.R. 2828 (Walden)
Authorizes refunds of amounts collected from Klamath Project irrigation and drainage
districts for operation and maintenance of the Project’s transferred and reserved works for
water year 2001, and for other purposes. Introduced August 2, 2001; referred to the House
Committee on Resources. Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, August 10.
Subcommittee consideration and markup held on November 7; reported (amended) by voice
vote. Full committee reported, amended, on November 13 (H.Rept. 107-284). Passed the
House by voice vote under suspension of the rules November 13. Received in Senate Nov.
14; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and
Power. Subcommittee hearings were held on June 6, 2002, and the bill was ordered reported
by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources without amendment on July 31, 2002.
H.R. 3208 (Calvert)
Authorizes funding through the Secretary of the Interior for the implementation of a
comprehensive program in California to achieve increased water yield and environmental
benefits (CALFED), as well as improved water system reliability, water quality, water use
efficiency, watershed management, water transfers, and levee protection. Introduced
November 1, 2001; referred to the House Committee on Resources, and in addition to the
CRS-15

---

IB10019
08-22-02
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Committee consideration and mark-up held
November 7; ordered to be reported (amended) by recorded vote (24 - 18). Reported
February 14, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-360, Part I). House Transportation Committee granted an
extension on February 14, 2002, for further consideration ending not later than March 14,
2002. Referred sequentially to House Committee on Education and the Workforce on
February 14. Discharged from both committees on March 14 and placed on Union Calendar.
H.R. 4657 (Napolitano)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.
Introduced May 2, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources and in addition to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On May 14, 2002, the bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Water and Power and an executive comment was requested from the
Department of the Interior.
H.R. 5123 (Hunter)
Provides funds for restoration projects at the Salton Sea and eliminates the liability of
several water agencies from effects of water transfers on the Salton Sea. Introduced July 15,
2002; referred to Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Subcommittee markup and hearing held on July 25, 2002, but the bill was not reported.
H.R. 5136 (Hunter)
Amends the Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998 to reauthorize activities relating to
river reclamation and wetlands projects for the Alamo River and New River, Imperial
County, California. Introduced July 16, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources. On
August 9, 2002, referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
S. 116 (Feingold)
Amends the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 to clarify the acreage limitations and
incorporate a means test for certain farm operations, and for other purposes. Introduced
January 22, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 491 (Campbell)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in design, planning, and construction of
the Denver Water Reuse project. Introduced March 8, 2001; referred to Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. Reported with amendment in the nature of a substitute (S.
Rept. 107-25), June 5. Passed Senate, amended, by unanimous consent August 3. Amended
in Senate by unanimous consent after passage by unanimous consent September 6.
S. 976 (Feinstein)
Provides authorization and funding for the enhancement of ecosystems, water supply,
and water quality of the State of California. Introduced May 25, 2001; referred to Energy
and Natural Resources Committee. Subcommittee on Water and Power held hearings July
19, 2001 (S. Hrg. 107-253). (The bill would authorize certain CALFED activities.)
CRS-16

---

IB10019
08-22-02
S. 1385 (Cantwell)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the provisions of the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to participate in the design, planning,
and construction of the Lakehaven water reclamation project for the reclamation and reuse
of water. Introduced August 3, 2001; referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Subcommittee on Water and Power held hearings June 6, 2002.
S. 1480 (Bingaman, by request)
Amends the Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992 in order to provide for
the security of dams, facilities, and resources under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Introduced October 1, 2001; referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearings held October 9 (S. Hrg.
107-335). Nearly identical House bill (H.R. 2925) that became law November 12.
S. 1768 (Feinstein)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to implement the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
Introduced Dec. 5, 2001; referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mark ups held on May 15, and June 5; ordered reported on June 5 with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. S. 1768 was reported on June 24 with additional views filed and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under general orders.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Beck, Robert E., ed. Waters and Water Rights. Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Co., 1991.
Getches, David H. Water Law in a Nutshell, 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1990.
National Research Council, Committee on the Future of Irrigation in the Face of Competing
Demands. A New Era for Irrigation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
——. Committee on Western Water Management. Water Transfers in the West: Efficiency,
Equity, and the Environment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992.
Reisner, Marc. Cadillac Desert, The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New
York: Viking Press, 1986.
Rogers, Peter. America’s Water, Federal Roles and Responsibilities. Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1996.
Simon, Benjamin M. Devolution of Federally Constructed Irrigation Projects. A
Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Columbian School of Arts and sciences,
George Washington University. August 31, 2001.
Wahl, Richard. Markets for Federal Water, Subsidies, Property Rights and the Bureau
of Reclamation. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.
Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. Water in the West: Challenge for the
Next Century. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, 1998.
CRS-17

---