Order Code IB10019
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Western Water Resource Issues
Updated October 4, 2004
Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze A. Sheikh
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
Colorado River Water and California’s 4.4 Plan
Salton Sea
LEGISLATION


IB10019
10-04-04
Western Water Resource Issues
SUMMARY
For more than a century, the federal
The 107th Congress considered a number
government has constructed water resource
of bills on western water issues, including
projects for a variety of purposes, including
several title transfer and wastewater reclama-
flood control, navigation, power generation,
tion and reuse bills. One of the most legisla-
and irrigation. While most municipal and
tively active areas involved attempted reautho-
industrial water supplies have been built by
rization of CALFED — a joint federal and
non-federal entities, most of the large, federal
state program to restore fish and wildlife
water supply projects in the West, including
habitat and address California water supply/
Hoover and Grand Coulee dams, were con-
quality issues. Another hotly debated issue
structed by the Bureau of Reclamation (De-
involved management of the Klamath River
partment of the Interior) to provide water for
Project (OR and CA) and impacts on farmers,
irrigation.
fish, and other interests in the Klamath River
Basin.
Growing populations and changing
values have increased demands on water
The 108th Congress is considering a
supplies and river systems, resulting in water
number of the same issues; however, new
use and management conflicts throughout the
developments involving California’s alloca-
country, particularly in the West, where the
tion of Colorado River water has spurred
population is expected to increase 30% in the
additional oversight of related issues, such as
next 20-25 years. In many western states,
progress in restoring the Salton Sea. Action is
agricultural needs are often in direct conflict
also occurring on CALFED. The federal
with urban needs, as well as with water de-
portion of the CALFED program has not been
mand for threatened and endangered species,
authorized since FY2000 and thus federal
recreation, and scenic enjoyment.
participation has been limited. Several other
oversight issues may be addressed, including
Debate over western water resources
oversight of, or changes to, the Central Valley
revolves around the issue of how best to plan
Project Improvement Act, management of the
for and manage the use of this renewable, yet
Columbia, Snake, Klamath, and Colorado
sometimes scarce and increasingly sought
River Systems, implementation of other legis-
after, resource. Some observers advocate
lation such as the Dakota Water Resources
enhancing water supplies, for example, by
Act, and more broadly, federal water policy
building new storage or diversion projects,
and coordination. The 108th Congress is also
expanding old ones, or funding water reclama-
considering several Indian water rights settle-
tion and reuse facilities. Others emphasize the
ment bills; however, these bills are not tracked
need to manage existing supplies more effi-
in this issue brief.
ciently — through conservation, revision of
policies that encourage inefficient use of
water, and establishment of market mecha-
nisms to allocate water.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10019
10-04-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On September 15, 2004, the Senate amended and passed by unanimous consent H.R.
2828 — a bill to authorize implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The
CALFED Program is a federal and state effort to coordinate water management and
ecosystem restoration activities at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers
and San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta) in California. Federal funding for the CALFED Program
expired at the end of FY2000, although some activities supporting the program have been
funded. The House amended and passed its version of H.R. 2828 on July 9, 2004. While
H.R. 2828 and S. 1097 are similar in many respects, they contain several differences. Chief
among these differences is how water storage projects are authorized. The House version
includes a controversial provision authorizing storage projects upon completion of project
feasibility studies, subject to a disapproval resolution; the Senate bill instead includes a
provision that triggers a determination of program imbalance if Congress does not authorize
storage projects within a certain time.
The House Resources Committee held an oversight hearing on title transfer legislation
on March 24, 2004. On September 22, 2004, the House Resources Committee amended and
ordered reported by unanimous consent H.R. 3391, the Provo River Project Transfer Act.
On September 28, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute a related bill, S. 1876 (S.Rept. 108-365). These bills
would transfer the title of the Murdock Canal in Utah to the Provo Water District. On July
16, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ordered reported H.R. 1648, which
would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer title of two Bureau of Reclamation
water distribution systems to the Carpinteria Valley Water District and the Montecito Water
District in Santa Barbara County, CA. The Senate passed the bill without amendment
September 15.
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 multipurpose 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
CRS-1

IB10019
10-04-04
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
— including 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
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’ share in 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
CRS-2

IB10019
10-04-04
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 has 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
continues from some sectors for new or previously authorized large water supply projects
(e.g., Auburn and Temperance Flats dams, and Sites Reservoir in California).
Legislative and Oversight Issues
The 108th 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, Salton Sea
restoration, allocation of Colorado River water supplies (particularly within California), 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. The broader topic of whether to review federal water activities or establish
a national water policy commission may also be addressed. Funding and policy direction
through the annual Energy and Water appropriations bill also influences the construction and
operation of projects. (See CRS Report RL32307, Appropriations for FY2005: Energy and
Water Development
.) In 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,
facilities may close or reopen depending on security alert levels and site-specific concerns
at any time. For example, the Bureau heightened security at many facilities during recent
code orange alerts and is expected to do so in the future. Further, in February, the Bureau
closed the road over Folsom Dam (CA), largely because of security concerns. Legislation
to authorize the Bureau to build a new bridge near the dam has been introduced (H.R. 901).
The Administration opposes the legislation largely on the grounds of its cost — $66 million
(roughly 8% of the Bureau’s annual budget). The bill was marked up and ordered reported
from the House Resources Committee on June 11, 2003; the bill was reported July 14
(H.Rept. 108-202).
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 following
the attack. However, the agency received $30.3 million for security at Bureau facilities as
part of the third cluster of emergency supplemental funding included in Division B, Chapter
CRS-3

IB10019
10-04-04
5, of the FY2002 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 3338, P.L. 107-117). The Bureau
received $28.4 million for site security for FY2003 in its annual appropriation (Water and
Related Resources Account), and an additional $25 million in supplemental appropriations
for FY2003. For FY2004, $28.6 million was provided for Bureau site security.
Klamath River Basin
Controversy erupted in 2001 when the Bureau announced it would not release water
from Upper Klamath Lake — part of its Klamath irrigation project — to approximately
200,000 acres of farm and pasture lands within the roughly 235,000-acre project service area.
The operational change was made to make water available for three fish species under ESA
protection (two endangered sucker species, and a threatened coho salmon population). The
Klamath Project straddles the Oregon/California border and has been the site of increasingly
complex water management issues involving several tribes, fishermen, farmers,
environmentalists, and recreationists. Upstream farmers are generally pitted against
fishermen, Native American interests, and other downstream users, and many sides have
policy concerns involving valuable sectors of the local economy. Farmers point to their
contractual rights to water deliveries from the federal Klamath Project and to hardships for
their families if water is cut off; others assert that the salmon fishery is more valuable and
that farmers could be provided temporary economic assistance, while salmon extinction
would be permanent. Still others assert that there are ways to serve all interests, or that the
science underlying the determinations of the relevant agencies is simply wrong. Specifically
at issue is how to operate the Bureau’s project facilities to meet irrigation contract
obligations without jeopardizing the three listed fish.
To address this issue, the Bureau issued a 10-year operations plan in February 2002 and
a biological assessment (a process necessary under the ESA) for operating its Klamath
Project. However, subsequent biological opinions found that the Bureau’s 10-year operations
plan would likely jeopardize the continued existence of the listed suckers and coho salmon,
as well as adversely modify proposed critical habitat. Although the biological opinions issued
on May 31, 2002, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (now called NOAA Fisheries) both included “reasonable and prudent
alternatives,” the Bureau formally rejected both final biological opinions and opted to operate
under a one-year plan that it asserts complies with the opinions. While met with enthusiasm
from area farmers, the Bureau’s decision was met with much criticism and concern from
environmentalists, fishermen, tribes, and others. On April 10, 2003, the Bureau issued its
Klamath Project 2003 operations plan and noted that planning for multiyear operations of the
project is ongoing; on April 7, 2004, the Bureau issued its 2004 operations plan. In both
years, the Bureau states that the current year plan is consistent with the 2002 biological
opinions. The ESA agencies (FWS and NOAA Fisheries) have not issued a biological
opinion on the one-year operations plans and instead are working within the biological
opinions released in May 2002.
Because of the controversy in 2001, the Secretary of the Interior asked the National
Research Council (NRC) to evaluate the federal biological opinions that had been used to
prevent the Bureau from delivering water to farmers in 2001. The NRC released an interim
report in February 2002, and a final report in October 2003, both of which concluded there
was neither sound scientific basis for maintaining Upper Klamath Lake levels and increased
river flows as recommended in the 2001 biological opinions, nor sufficient basis for
CRS-4

IB10019
10-04-04
supporting the lower flows in the Bureau’s original operations plan for 2001. Further, the
NRC concluded (1) that recovery of endangered suckers and threatened coho salmon in the
Klamath Basin might best be achieved by broadly addressing land and water management
concerns and (2) that the operation of the Klamath Project (as opposed to operation of other
basin projects such as that on the Trinity River) was not the cause of a 2002 lower basin fish
kill and that changes in project operation at the time of the fish kill would not have prevented
it.
In the 108th Congress, H.R. 1760 would establish water conservation and habitat
restoration programs in the Klamath River Basin and provide emergency disaster assistance
to those who suffered economic harm from the Klamath River Basin fish kill of 2002. A
prohibition on Interior Department funding for the Klamath Fishery Management Council
was included in the FY2004 Interior Appropriations bill, passed by the House on July 17,
2003, but was deleted in conference (H.R. 2691, H.Rept. 108-330). It is not clear whether
the Bureau’s recent announcement of a “dry” water year for the 2004 growing season will
spawn further congressional action.
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, seven title transfer bills have been introduced in the 108th Congress:
S. 520 and H.R. 1106, dealing with transfer of title for the Freemont-Madison project
(became P.L. 108-85, September 2003); S. 900 and H.R. 2257, dealing with transfer of the
Lower Yellowstone Project; H.R. 1648, dealing with portions of the Cachuma project; and
H.R. 3391 and S. 1876, dealing with the transfer of the Provo River Project. Other more
limited title transfer bills have been introduced as well.
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 U.S.C. 498), regardless of the process used to get to a transfer agreement.
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
CRS-5

IB10019
10-04-04
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 that it contemplates that facilities would be maintained and managed without
significant changes, and in some cases bill language states that 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
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. For FY2005, the Administration has requested $15 million
for “authorized activities that are consistent with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.” For
FY2004, $9 million was appropriated for activities that support the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program goals. For more information on funding investigations and other appropriations
issues, see CRS Report RL32307, Appropriations for FY2005: Energy and Water
CRS-6

IB10019
10-04-04
Development; and CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Overview of
Institutional and Water Use Issues
, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Betsy A. Cody.
Given increasing pressure on California to live within its entitlement of 4.4 million acre
feet of Colorado River water (see “Salton Sea” and “Colorado River Water and California’s
4.4 Plan,” below), as well as pressure on federal and state agencies to meet environmental
and contractual legal demands in operating water delivery facilities, the 108th Congress is
again considering comprehensive legislation authorizing the CALFED program. On May
21, 2003, Senators Feinstein and Boxer introduced S. 1097, a bill to authorize federal
funding for the CALFED program using the August 2000 ROD as a framework for
implementation. On June 26, Congressman George Miller introduced another CALFED bill,
H.R. 2641. Meanwhile, the House Resources Committee held a series of CALFED oversight
hearings, including one in May 2003 on cross-cut budget issues and three field hearings in
California in June 2003, two to discuss the CALFED Program and water needs in the Central
Valley of California and a third to discuss water shortage problems in southern California.
On July 23, 2003, Chairman Calvert of the House Resources Water and Power
Subcommittee introduced another CALFED-related bill (H.R. 2828). On October 30, 2003,
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on S. 1097. Issues such
as funding levels for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, balanced implementation, and cost
allocation provisions were discussed. S. 1097 was marked up April 28 and ordered reported
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; it was reported as amended on May 20
(S.Rept. 108-268). H.R. 2828 was marked up and ordered reported June 25, 2004 (H.Rept.
108-573). After defeating a motion to recommit the bill with instructions to delete a
controversial storage project authorization provision, the House approved H.R. 2828, as
amended, by voice vote on July 9, 2004. On September 15, 2004, the Senate amended and
passed under unanimous consent H.R. 2828 in lieu of S. 1097. The Senate-amended H.R.
2828 now awaits House action.
While the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2828 contain differences, the chief
difference is how the bills address water storage project authorization. The House bill would
“pre-authorize” construction of storage projects based on feasibility studies that adhere to
requirements provided in the bill, and subject to a congressional disapproval resolution. The
Senate bill takes a very different approach and instead sets a timeline for Congress to
consider the authorization of storage projects listed in the bill. If a storage project is not
authorized under the Senate bill within the specified timeline, an “imbalance determination”
is triggered, which forces a re-balancing process and reconsideration of the project (and
alternatives) by Congress.
In general, storage proponents have voiced concern that environmental aspects of the
program have outpaced progress on developing new water supplies. On the other hand, some
environmental groups and others have vocally opposed storage language such as the “pre-
authorization” language. Some also believe granting authorization (subject to a disapproval
resolution) prior to completion of project feasibility studies would amount to a forfeiture of
congressional authority over final projects and that the Senate may again reject a bill with
“pre-authorization” language. Given these positions, it appears the new Senate language
attempts to ensure that storage projects remain in the CALFED program component mix
without pre-authorizing specific projects. A key question for congressional decision makers
is whether the language in the Senate bill is sufficient to meet the objectives of storage
proponents without losing support from other stakeholders involved in the debate.
CRS-7

IB10019
10-04-04
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.
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
(excluding “deferred” projects such as Auburn Dam).
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.) For
FY2004, the Bureau requested a total of $43.5 million for three rural water supply projects.
On October 15, 2003, Senator Domenici introduced S. 1732 to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program to plan, design, and construct
projects in Reclamation States as defined by the bill. This bill was preceded by S. 1085,
which was introduced on May 15 by Senator Bingaman to assist states and local communities
in evaluating and developing rural and small community water supply systems (generally
serving no more than 40,000 people) and for other purposes. These bills differ according to
factors such as the scope of their water supply program; eligibility criteria, program
priorities, and implementation; ability to pay for construction, operation and maintenance;
and feasibility studies and reporting requirements. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Reclamation
is preparing a proposal to coordinate and revamp its rural water supply activities. The
proposal was precipitated by a 2002 Office of Management and Budget review of the
Bureau’s rural water supply projects and actions.
CRS-8

IB10019
10-04-04
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 five reclamation wastewater projects and six 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. Since then, several individual project bills amending the Reclamation and
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act have been passed. To date, 10 bills
authorizing projects or amending the Title 16 program have been introduced in the 108th
Congress (see “Legislation,” below). 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.

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
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.1 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.
Total funding for the program for FY2003 was 30.6 million. The Title 16 program was
also subject to the OMB program review, which ultimately led to a lower request of $12.6
million for FY2004 — 65% less than was enacted for the program for FY2002 and 59% less
than enacted for FY2003. Total funding for Title 16 projects for FY2004 was $28.4 million.
The Administration requested $11.5 million for FY2005.
Colorado River Water and California’s 4.4 Plan. Colorado River water is
apportioned among Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin States pursuant to the Boulder
1 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-9

IB10019
10-04-04
Canyon Project Act of 1928, Colorado River Compact of 1922, and a host of other legal
instruments and agreements between involved parties. Under this body of law, known as the
“Law of the River,” California is to receive 4.4 million acre feet (maf) of water annually,
while Arizona and Nevada are to receive 1.2 maf and 0.3 maf respectively. Because Arizona
and Nevada were not able to use their full entitlement to Colorado River water until recently,
California for decades has been able to use more than its 4.4 maf share of water and has been
using approximately 5.2 maf annually in recent years. Since 1997, however, both Arizona
and Nevada have been receiving close to their full entitlement to Colorado River water,
thereby increasing pressure on California to reduce its draw of water.
Under the “Law of the River,” the Secretary of the Interior may determine annually if
and how much “surplus” water is available for use in the lower Colorado River basin. From
2001 until just recently, the Secretary operated the river under regulations known as Interim
Surplus Guidelines. These interim guidelines were developed in part to allow California to
develop a plan to ease its transition from an approximate 5.2 maf draw of Colorado River
water to its 4.4 allocation. Under the interim guidelines, a Quantification Settlement
Agreement (QSA) — an agreement among relevant water agencies to quantify, limit, and re-
allocate Colorado River entitlements (within California) — was to be signed and executed
by December 31, 2002.
While a tentative agreement had been reached in early December 2002, the parties did
not come to final agreement by the December 31 deadline. Reasons for the impasse included
disagreement over potential impacts of the proposed transfer on the Imperial Valley
agriculture community and impacts on the Salton Sea. In particular, it was not clear who
would be held responsible or liable for any negative impacts of reducing agricultural water
run-off to the Sea. Consequently, on January 1, the Secretary of the Interior announced that
the surplus guidelines would no longer be in effect. The result was two-fold: (1) the
Secretary of the Interior immediately limited California to its 4.4 maf entitlement, and (2) the
Secretary reallocated water among the California water agencies with rights to Colorado
River water.
On October 10, 2003, the four California water agencies signed a new QSA for the
Colorado River which was later approved by U.S. Interior Secretary. The agreement allows
California to gradually reduce its over-dependence on the Colorado River to 4.4 million acre-
feet in the absence of surplus water through voluntary agriculture-to-urban water transfers
and other water supply programs. Provisions from the agreement call for a potential transfer
of up to 200,000 acre-feet of water from Imperial Irrigation District (IID) to San Diego
starting at $258 per acre-foot; a restoration funding program whereby the state of California
purchases up to 1.6 maf of water from IID for sale to MWD to generate up to $300 million
for Salton Sea restoration; the lining of the All-American and Coachella Canals, with 77,000
acre-feet of water produced annually as a result of those conservation measures going to the
San Diego County Water District Authority (SDWDA) for 110 years; and the termination
of the de novo Part 417 Review issued by Secretary Norton as well as the dismissal of the
suit IID filed against the federal government in January 2003.
While many proclaimed the agreement would mark an end to perpetual conflict on the
allocation of Colorado River water supplies in California, the deal has already prompted two
lawsuits alleging that the negotiations failed to adequately evaluate the damage to the
CRS-10

IB10019
10-04-04
Imperial Valley’s environment and economy that would result from the impact of a reduction
of water use on the county’s 500,000 acres of farmland.
Salton Sea
A set of three bills enacted by the State of California on September 12, 2003 contains
provisions that would allocate an estimated $300 million for restoring the Salton Sea. This
funding for the Salton Sea was secured when the QSA, discussed above, was passed. The
agreement will attempt to protect inflows to the sea for 15 years and establish a restoration
fund that will receive money from fees collected from water sales in the region.
The Salton Sea is a large, inland water body in California that is saline-rich and is
sustained by agricultural run-off from farmlands in nearby Imperial and Coachella valleys.
It provides permanent and temporary habitat for many species of plants and animals,
including several endangered species.2 It also serves as an important recreational area for the
region. The Salton Sea has been altered by increasing salinity caused by a steadily
decreasing water table. High salinity levels have changed habitats and stressed several
populations of plants and animals. The scope and costs of efforts to restore the Salton Sea
was reported in a study done by the Department of the Interior.3
Several proposals have been floated to address Salton Sea issues. On April 22, 2004,
the Salton Sea Authority endorsed a restoration plan for the Salton Sea that calls for the
construction of a causeway across the center of the sea. This would separate the sea into two
basins, an 85,000-acre North Basin that would reach salinity levels similar to the ocean, and
a southern section that would consist of wetlands areas as well as numerous recreational
lakes ranging from freshwater to hyper-saline. The estimated cost of this project is $738
million. This plan is now under review by the California Department of Water Resources.
As proposals for restoring the Salton Sea and related Colorado River issues continue to be
negotiated, congressional oversight is expected to continue.
LEGISLATION
P.L. 108-233, H.R. 1598
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in projects within the San Diego Creek
Watershed, California, and for other purposes. Signed into law May 28, 2004.
H.R. 142 (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 carry out a program to assist agencies in projects to construct regional
brine lines in California, and to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination
2 The Salton Sea is considered an important stopover for birds on the Pacific flyway.
3 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Salton Sea Study: Status Report, January
2003.
CRS-11

IB10019
10-04-04
project. Introduced January 7, 2003. Passed the House on July 19, 2004, and sent to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 901 (Ose)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge on federal land west of and
adjacent to Folsom Dam in California, and for other purposes. Introduced February 25,
2003; reported by the House Committee on Resources July 14, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-202).
H.R. 1156 (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 March 6, 2003; referred to
Committee on Resources. Ordered reported on May 19, 2004. Passed the House on July 19,
2004, and sent to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 1648 (Capps)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain water distribution systems of
the Cachuma Project, California, to the Carpinteria Valley Water District and the Montecito
Water District. Introduced April 7, 2003; referred to Committee on Resources. Ordered
reported by unanimous consent October 29, 2003; reported November 17, H.Rept. 108-363.
Passed House November 17, 2003. Sent to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources; ordered reported June 16, 2004 and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
Senate passed by unanimous consent without amendment on September 15, 2004. Awaits
President’s signature.
H.R. 1732 (Carter)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Williamson County, Texas, Water
Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes. Introduced April 10, 2003; referred to
Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Ordered reported by unanimous consent
October 29, 2003; reported November 17, H.Rept. 108-364. Passed House November 17,
2003. Sent to Senate committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered reported June
16, 2004, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar.

H.R. 1760 (Thompson)
Establishes water conservation and habitat restoration programs in the Klamath River
basin and provides emergency disaster assistance to fishermen, Indian tribes, small
businesses, and others that suffer economic harm from the effects of the Klamath River basin
fish kill of 2002. Introduced April 10, 2003; referred to Committee on Resources.
H.R. 2257 (Rehberg)
Conveys the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project, the Savage Unit of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program, and the Intake Irrigation Project to the appurtenant Irrigation
Districts. Introduced May 22, 2003; referred to Committee on Resources. Hearings held
May 18, 2004.
H.R. 2355 (Abercrombie)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize certain projects in the State of Hawaii and amends the Hawaii Water Resources Act
CRS-12

IB10019
10-04-04
of 2000 to modify the water resources study. Introduced June 5, 2003; referred to Committee
on Resources.

H.R. 2828 (Calvert)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply technology and
infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic water resources. Title
II authorizes implementation of certain CALFED activities. Introduced July 23, 2003;
referred to Committees on Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure. Resources
Committee held hearings July 24, 2003; forwarded to full committee September 25, 2003.
Amended and ordered reported. Passed the House on July 9, 2004. Amended and passed
the Senate by unanimous consent September 15, 2004.
H.R. 2960 (Ortiz)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Brownsville Public Utility Board
water recycling and desalinization project. Introduced July 25, 2003; referred to Committee
on Resources. House Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing
September 10, 2003. Mark-up session held and ordered reported on July 14, 2004.
H.R. 2991 (Dreier)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Inland Empire regional recycling
project and in the Cucamonga County Water District recycling project. Introduced September
3, 2003; referred to Committee on Resources. House Resources Subcommittee on Water
and Power held a hearing September 10, 2003. Ordered reported on May 5, 2004 and
reported on May 20 (H.Rept. 108-506). Passed the House on July 19, 2004, and sent to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 3391 (Cannon)
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands and facilities of the
Provo River Project. Introduced October 29, 2003, and referred to the House Subcommittee
on Water and Power. On July 8, 2004, forwarded to the full committee; full committee
ordered reported by unanimous consent September 22. See S. 1876 for related bill.
H.R. 3466 (Lewis)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Yucaipa Valley Regional Water
Supply Renewal Project. Introduced November 11, 2003; referred to Committee on
Resources.
H.R. 3747 (Walden)
Authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the rehabilitation of the Wallowa
Lake Dam in Oregon, and for other purposes. Introduced January 28, 2004 and referred to
the House Resources Committee. Hearings held March 24, 2004.
H.R. 3900 (Capps)
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 permanent facilities for the GREAT project to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters
CRS-13

IB10019
10-04-04
water in the area of Oxnard, California. Introduced March 24, 2004 and referred to the
House Resources Committee. Hearings held March 24, 2004.
H.R. 3945 (Calvert)
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 City
of Corona Water Utility, California. Introduced March 11, 2004 and referred to the House
Resources Committee.
H.R. 4045 (Pombo)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a feasibility study with respect to the
Mokelumne River, and for other purposes. Introduced March 25, 2004 and referred to the
House Resources Committee. Ordered reported by the full committee on June 14, 2004.
H.R. 4389 (Issa)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to construct facilities to provide water for
irrigation, municipal, domestic, military, and other uses from the Santa Margarita River,
California, and for other purposes. Introduced May 19, 2004, and referred to the House
Resources Committees. Subcommittee hearing held June 23, 2004.
H.R. 4459 (Pombo)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and
in coordination with other Federal, State, and local government agencies, to participate in the
funding and implementation of a balanced, long-term groundwater remediation program in
California, and for other purposes. Introduced May 20, 2004, and referred to the House
Resources Committee. Ordered reported by the full committee on June 14, 2004.
H.R. 4606 (Baca)
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and
in coordination with other federal, state, and local government agencies, to participate in the
funding and implementation of a balanced, long-term groundwater remediation program in
California, and for other purposes. Introduced June 17, 2004, and referred to the House
Resources Committee. Ordered reported on July 14, 2004.
H.R. 4775 (Reyes)
To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the El Paso, Texas, water reclamation,
reuse, and desalinization project, and for other purposes. Introduced July 7, 2004, and
referred to the House Committee on Resources.
H.R. 4907 (Issa)
To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District Wildomar Service Area Recycled Water Distribution Facilities and Alberhill
Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Facility Projects. Introduced July 22, 2004, and
referred to the House Committee on Resources.
CRS-14

IB10019
10-04-04
S. 625 (Smith)
Authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct certain feasibility studies in the
Tualatin River Basin in Oregon, and for other purposes. Introduced March 13, 2003; referred
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported with an amendment
and with S.Rept. 108-63 June 9, 2003. Passed Senate June 16, 2003; referred to the House
Committee on Resources June 17. Reported November 17, H.Rept. 108-369.
S. 649 (Feinstein)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in projects within the San Diego Creek
Watershed, California, and for other purposes. Introduced March 18, 2003; referred to
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held May 14, 2003. (See H.R. 1598,
which became P.L. 108-233).
S. 900 (Burns)
Conveys 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.
Introduced April 11, 2003; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Hearings held May 19, 2004.
S. 960 (Akaka)
Amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize certain projects in the State of Hawaii and amends the Hawaii Water Resources Act
of 2000 to modify the water resources study. Introduced April 30, 2003; referred to
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. On February 11, 2004, ordered reported with
an amendment (S.Rept. 108-232). Passed Senate May 19, 2004 with amendments and
referred to the House Committee on Resources on June 1, 2004.
S. 993 (Smith)
Amends the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, and for other purposes.
Introduced May 5, 2003; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Energy
and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held hearings May 13, 2003.
S. 1085 (Bingaman)
Provides for a Bureau of Reclamation program to assist states and local communities
in evaluating and developing rural and small community water supply systems, and for other
purposes. Introduced May 20, 2003; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Hearing held March 25, 2004.
S. 1097 (Feinstein)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to implement the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
Introduced May 21, 2003; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearing
held October 30, 2003. Reported May 20, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-268), and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar. Senate amended and passed H.R. 2828 September 15 in lieu of S.
1097.
S. 1211 (Domenici)
Furthers the purposes of Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992, the “Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
CRS-15

IB10019
10-04-04
Facilities Act”, by directing the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a demonstration
program for water reclamation in the Tularosa Basin of New Mexico, and for other purposes.
Introduced June 9, 2003; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered
reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on July 14, 2004.
S. 1876 (Bennett)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands and facilities of the
Provo River Project. Introduced November 18, 2003, and referred to the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held May 19, 2004. Full committee reported
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on September 28, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-365).
S. 2218 (Domenici)
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a rural water supply program in the
Reclamation States for the purpose of providing a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water
supply to rural residents and for other purposes; authorizes the Secretary to conduct appraisal
and feasibility studies for rural water projects, and establishes the guidelines for any projects
authorized under this program. Introduced March 22, 2004; referred to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources. Hearing held March 25, 2004. (See also S. 1732, introduced
by request of the Administration.)
S. 2460 (Domenici)
Provides assistance to the State of New Mexico for the development of comprehensive
state water plans, and for other purposes. Introduced May 20, 2004, and referred to the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered reported with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute on July 14, 2004.
S. 2511 (Domenici)
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study of a Chimayo water
supply system; provides for the planning, design, and construction of a water supply,
reclamation, and filtration facility for Espanola, New Mexico, and for other purposes.
Introduced June 8, 2004; referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ordered reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on July 14, 2004.
S. 2513 (Bingaman)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the Eastern
New Mexico Rural Water Authority for the planning, design, and construction of the Eastern
New Mexico Rural Water System, and for other purposes. Introduced June 9, 2004; referred
to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held June 17, 2004.
CRS-16