Order Code RS20569
Updated January 9, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Water Resource Issues in the 108th 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 108th Congress is likely to consider numerous water resource bills,
including: appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for FY2003 and FY2004, a Water Resources Development bill for 2003, and
various agency policy and program changes — e.g. operation of federal projects along
the Klamath, Missouri, and Colorado Rivers, and restoration efforts affecting the
California Bay-Delta (CALFED) and the Florida Everglades. Also at issue is the broader
question of the future role of traditional water resource agencies in an era of changing
public demands, declining budgets, and integrated environmental resource management.
This product will be updated periodically as warranted by developments.
Introduction
Water supply and management issues are becoming increasingly important as
pressure 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
use, irrigated agriculture; however, the financial and environmental costs of such projects
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
have limited development for more than two decades.1 Additionally, development
projects for consumptive use, power generation, and flood control have been criticized
for degrading recreational opportunities, scenic values, and fish and wildlife habitat.
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 populations2 have
spawned new debates over water allocation — particularly over water for threatened or
endangered species — and have increased federal-state tensions, since states traditionally
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 producing the nation’s food supply, and therefore provide
widespread benefits. Further, discussion of water allocation is complicated by the
labyrinth of water rights, long-term water contracts, and decades of incremental state and
federal law on water use and development. Nonetheless, municipal water demands will
likely play a major role in future allocation or re-allocation decisions. For example,
conflicts such as the current debate over transferring Colorado River water from the
agriculture-based Imperial Irrigation District in southern California to the city of San
Diego may become more common.
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 (Bay-Delta).3 Yet, the demand for traditional or new
water supply projects, navigational improvements, flood control projects, and beach and
shoreline protection efforts continues. In fact, both the Everglades and Bay-Delta
restoration efforts include significant water supply components. Controversy over how
much water should be devoted to recovering threatened and endangered species,
protecting water quality, and supplying farms, cities, and other uses has been on-going.
Further, widespread drought throughout the country over the past several years has
1 Municipal supplies of water have traditionally been developed locally or regionally, without
federal assistance. Although some municipalities are supplied water from federal facilities, for
decades (especially since the 1970s), the bulk of water-related federal assistance has been
channeled to municipalities through the states for wastewater treatment and for safe drinking
water, not for development of water supplies. For more information on federal water projects and
programs, see CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater
Treatment Programs.
2 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.
3 For more information on federal involvement in Everglades restoration, see CRS Report
RS20702, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan. For information on Bay-Delta issues, see CRS Issue Brief IB10019, Western Water
Resource Issues.
CRS-3
spurred new requests for support for developing and ensuring water supplies, and new
security issues have placed added pressures on budgetary resources.
These issues will continue to be debated during consideration of individual project
authorizations, as well as during debate on water resource development legislation and
on the FY2003 and FY2004 appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts).
Specific issues likely to surface during the 108th 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, licensing of non-federal hydro power facilities (i.e., private dams
regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)), and whether to
establish a national water commission to address federal water policy and coordination.
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,4 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 30
years, particularly in “real dollar†amounts appropriated for construction. The Corps was
appropriated $4.6 billion for FY2002, including $1.72 billion for construction. Reflecting
its relatively smaller size and narrower scope of activities, the Bureau received a total of
$0.86 billion for FY2002. Both agencies received emergency supplemental funds for
security activities for FY2002 — the Bureau received $30 million and the Corps received
$139 million in emergency funding for activities related to terrorism in P.L. 107-117.
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 is a reversal of sorts from development
criticisms during the 1980s and early 1990s, and reflects the different and changing
priorities 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 current and past executive branch requests for lower than
average historical construction levels. (For more information on funding issues, see CRS
Report RL31307, Appropriations for FY2003: Energy and Water Development.) Many
4 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
CRS-4
non-water user groups 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. (See CRS Report RL30928, Army Corps of Engineers: Civil Works
Reform Issues for the 107th Congress.)
Corps of Engineers. In 1986, after nearly two decades of policy confrontations
with the Executive Branch over cost-sharing and specific construction authorizations,
Congress enacted major water project reform legislation known as the Water Resources
Development Act (P.L. 99-662, 33 U.S.C. 2201). This Act, known as WRDA ‘86,
reestablished the tradition of a biennial omnibus authorization bill for Corps projects and
programs. It 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 (WRDA bills) followed in 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1999, and
2000. This traditionally biennial enactment5 of a Water Resources Development Act
provides for policy oversight of Corps programs and a legislative vehicle for 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 projects totaling $5.4 billion (federal and
local share), including funding for 44 future Corps projects and studies, and changed
federal and nonfederal cost sharing ratios for both flood control and dredge material
disposal. WRDA 1999 (P.L. 106-53) included $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, including 9 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; numerous habitat, watershed, and ecosystem restoration activities in
additional river basins; and more than 100 environmental and water quality infrastructure
projects, including dozens to address municipal combined sewer overflows and to develop
water supply and wastewater infrastructure. WRDA 1999 also increased local cost-
sharing for shore protection and 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.6 Federal costs are
approximately $4.5 billion, about two-thirds of total project and program authorizations.
Initial authorization of funds for Everglades restoration total approximately $1.4 billion
— nearly $700 million for the federal share. One of the largest projects authorized under
5 Although WRDA bills are traditionally enacted every other year, there was no WRDA bill in
1994, and the WRDA bill for 1998 was not enacted until 1999. Similarly, the 107th Congress
considered WRDA legislation for 2002, but none was enacted. It is expected that the 108th
Congress will follow up by considering a WRDA bill for 2003.
6 With the passage of each WRDA , dozens of new projects are authorized; however, not all
projects receive appropriations. The Corps’ current “backlog†of authorized but unfunded
projects is estimated to be more than $40 billion.
CRS-5
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 a $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 issues discussed during 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 for the Great Lakes estimated at $100 million.7 In part in response to publicly
expressed environmental concerns, Congress authorized several “restoration†features as
offsets or mitigation for environmental effects in connection with several dozen more
traditional navigation and flood control projects — with the New England region broadly
targeted to receive $60 million. Conferees on WRDA 2000 dropped a variety of
environmental infrastructure provisions, some of which were subsequently included in
a consolidated appropriations bill for FY2001 (P.L. 106-554; Appendix D, Section 108
(114 Stat. 2763A-219)). Other WRDA 2000 issues included Corps project planning and
management procedures that have come under criticism, including allegations that the
Corps consistently uses “unrealistic assumptions†in its economic analyses. WRDA
2000 contains a provision (§216) directing the Corps to contract with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the feasibility of an independent peer review of the
Corps’ project feasibility reports. The final report, which recommended an independent
peer review process, was released in July 2002. Additional Academy studies on broader
Corps’ management and organizational issues are due in late 2003.
WRDA 2002. Renewed interest in changing the way the Corps operates, as well
as late-term scheduling issues, complicated passage of a WRDA bill for 2002. Although
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reported a WRDA bill for 2002
(H.R. 5428, H.Rept. 107-717), there was no floor action on the bill. The Senate did not
report a WRDA bill for 2002. Chief among the items being debated was whether to
change the way the Corps plans for and evaluates projects. H.R. 5428 as reported (as
amended) would not have significantly changed Corps operations; however, several
individual bills addressed this issue (e.g., H.R. 1320, H.R. 2353, S. 646, and S. 1987.)
Such changes have been controversial and whether any agreement on reforms will be
made by the 108th Congress may depend in part on the Administration’s water policy and
spending priorities and whether the recommendations of outside entities, such as the
NAS, serve to promote legislative consensus or compromise. At the same time, pressure
to authorize new projects and to increase funding or modify existing projects is often
intense and could “jumpstart†a WRDA bill early in 2003.
Bureau of Reclamation. Since the early 1900s, the Bureau has constructed and
operated large, multi-purpose water supply projects, primarily for irrigation.
7 These large-scale plans involve studies and pilot phases –- $1.4 billion of at least $4 billion in
federal construction for the Everglades over two decades (if current estimates hold); not including
matching state funds. (For more information on Everglades restoration, see CRS Report
RS20702.) More limited watershed improvements were authorized for Lake Champlain ($20
million), the lower Columbia area ($30 million), and Puget Sound ($40 million).
CRS-6
Construction authorizations slowed during the 1970s and 1980s due to several factors.
In 1987, the Bureau announced a new mission: environmentally sensitive water resources
management. 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.8 Bureau-related water project and management issues that are likely to be
considered during the 108th Congress include:
! management and allocation of lower Colorado River water;
! oversight of the Central Valley [California] Project Improvement Act;
! reauthorization of appropriations for CALFED (Bay-Delta restoration);
! oversight of the Klamath River Basin Project;
! Salton Sea [California] restoration activities;
! transfer of ownership title to specific Bureau facilities;
! authorization of rural water supply and water recycling projects; and
! desalination proposals.
(For information on these and other active legislative proposals affecting the Bureau
of Reclamation, see CRS Issue Brief IB10019, Western Water Resource Issues.)
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 processes) or other existing agencies (e.g., U.S. 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?
8 However, Congress occasionally passes omnibus bills addressing key Bureau policy changes,
as well as new or revised project and program authorizations, the latest being the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575)).