Order Code IB10019
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Western Water Resource Issues
Updated May 19, 2005
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
Salton Sea
LEGISLATION
Title 16 Projects
Water Supply and Conservation
Miscellaneous

---

IB10019
05-19-05
Western Water Resource Issues
SUMMARY
For more than a century, the federal
after, resource. Some observers advocate
government has constructed water resource
enhancing water supplies, for example, by
projects for a variety of purposes, including
building new storage or diversion projects,
flood control, navigation, power generation,
expanding old ones, or funding water reclama-
and irrigation. While most municipal and
tion and reuse facilities. Others emphasize the
industrial water supplies have been built by
need to manage existing supplies more effi-
non-federal entities, most of the large, federal
ciently — through conservation, revision of
water supply projects in the West, including
policies that encourage inefficient use of
Hoover and Grand Coulee dams, were con-
water, and establishment of market mecha-
structed by the Bureau of Reclamation (De-
nisms to allocate water.
partment of the Interior) to provide water for
irrigation.
The 109th Congress is likely to consider
a number of bills on western water issues,
Growing populations and changing
including title transfer, water recycling, and
values have increased demands on water
rural water supply legislation and may also
supplies and river systems, resulting in water
revisit drought legislation introduced in the
use and management conflicts throughout the
108th Congress. Oversight of CALFED — a
country, particularly in the West, where the
joint federal and state program to restore fish
population is expected to increase 30% in the
and wildlife habitat and address California
next 20-25 years. In many western states,
water supply/quality issues — and Klamath
agricultural needs are often in direct conflict
River Basin issues is also likely.
with urban needs, as well as with water de-
mand for threatened and endangered species,
The 109th Congress may also consider
recreation, and scenic enjoyment.
Indian water rights settlement legislation;
however, Indian settlement bills are not
Debate over western water resources
tracked in this issue brief.
revolves around the issue of how best to plan
for and manage the use of this renewable, yet
sometimes scarce and increasingly sought
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10019
05-19-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On May 11, 2005, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing
on S. 895, a bill to establish a new rural water supply program to be administered by the
Bureau of in Reclamation, Department of the Interior. The bill combines elements of three
bills that had been introduced in the 108th Congress: S. 1085 (Bingaman), S. 1732
(Domenici, by request), and S. 2218 (Domenici).

Recent news reports of food chain and fisheries declines in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers confluence with San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta), combined with fiscal issues
at both the state and federal levels, have raised questions about the implementation and
viability of the CALFED Program — a federal and state effort to coordinate water
management and ecosystem restoration activities within and around the Bay-Delta. The
Administration’s FY2006 request for the Bureau of Reclamation’s CALFED program
account is $35 million; the House Appropriations Committee approved that amount during
full committee markup of FY2006 Energy and Water Development legislation (H.R. 2419)
on May 18, 2005.
To date, ten Title 16 (water re-use and recycling) bills have been introduced in the 109th
Congress (two bills are identical). Numerous other water supply, conservation, and western
water bills have also been introduced.
In pending legislation, S. 728, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers would be authorized to conduct a study of pilot projects identified
in the preferred restoration concept plan approved by the Salton Sea Authority. This study
would determine that the pilot projects are economically justifiable, technically sound,
environmentally acceptable, and meet the objectives of restoring the Salton Sea. Under S.
728, a total cost of $26.0 million would be authorized, of which $16.9 million would be the
federal cost, and $9.1 million the non-federal cost.
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
CRS-1

---

IB10019
05-19-05
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 its largest facilities, the Bureau has heightened security at all key
facilities to protect projects in the wake of the terrorist attacks 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 prior
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, while at the same time expanding water
supply facilities. The agencies have pursued these actions through administrative efforts and
CRS-2

---

IB10019
05-19-05
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 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). For both the Everglades and CALFED, water supply
facilities are included in proposals for restoration.
Legislative and Oversight Issues
The 109th Congress is likely to consider 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) may also
be discussed. The broader topic of whether to review federal water activities or establish a
national water policy commission was discussed during the 108th Congress, and may also be
addressed in the 109th. Funding and policy direction through the annual Energy and Water
appropriations bill also influences the construction and operation of projects. (See CRS
Report RL32852, Appropriations for FY2006: 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 2004, 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).
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
CRS-3

---

IB10019
05-19-05
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). The Bureau
received $28.6 million for site security for FY2004 and $43.2 million in FY2005. For
FY2006, the Administration has requested $50.0 million for site security. The House
Appropriations Committee on May 18 approved $40 million in appropriations and the
collection of $10 million from water users for security operations costs, for a total of $50
million for the program.
Klamath River Basin
The Klamath River Basin — an area on the California-Oregon border — has become
a focal point for local and national discussions on water management and water scarcity.
These issues were brought to the forefront in 2001 when severe drought prompted the Bureau
to curtail irrigation water deliveries to approximately 200,000 acres of farm and pasture lands
within the roughly 235,000-acre Klamath Project service area. The cutback was made to
make water available for three fish species under federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
protection (two endangered sucker species, and a threatened coho salmon population).
Tensions were also high in 2002 when water temperatures and atypically low flows in the
lower Klamath corresponded with the death of at least 33,000 adult salmon.
The Klamath Project has been part of increasingly complex water management issues
involving several tribes, fishermen, farmers, environmentalists, hydropower producers, 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 also economically 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.
One specific 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
(necessary under the ESA) for operating its Klamath Project. However, subsequent biological
opinions found 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 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 drew 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; the Bureau is expected
to issue its 2005 operating plan in April 2005. In both 2003 and 2004, the Bureau stated that
the current year plan was 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.
CRS-4

---

IB10019
05-19-05
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 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 supporting the
lower flows in the Bureau’s original operations plan for 2001. Further, the NRC concluded
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 (including the
Klamath dams). NRC also concluded that 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 changes in Klamath project operations would not have
prevented the fish kill. On October 13, 2004, the Secretary of the Interior announced the
signing of a Klamath Watershed Coordination Agreement among four cabinet-level federal
agencies. The agreement was initiated to address the fractured resource management
specifically noted by the NRC and others.
Legislation pertaining to the Klamath Basin has not been proposed in the 109th
Congress. However, the 108th Congress passed §132 of P.L. 108-137, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations for 2004. This section provides authority for the Secretary of
the Army to provide “environmental assistance” (design and construction assistance to
improve water use efficiency) to non-federal interests in the Upper Klamath River Basin.
Additional funding for Klamath basin activities is likely to be included in FY2006
appropriations.
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.
The 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 just 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
CRS-5

---

IB10019
05-19-05
what they see as unnecessary delays and to ensure transfers take place. For example, some
title transfer legislation directs the transfer to occur “in accordance with all applicable law,”
while other legislation directs it to take place pursuant to an agreement already negotiated
with project water users. Some laws authorize the transfers (e.g., P.L. 106-220 and P.L. 106-
221), whereas others direct the transfer (e.g., P.L. 106-249, P.L. 106-377, and P.L. 106-512).
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.
In total, four title transfers were approved during the 108th Congress (two in P.L. 108-
382, and one each in P.L. 108-315 and P.L. 108-85, which passed during the first session).
To date, no title transfer legislation has been introduced in the 109th Congress.
Project Construction
California Bay-Delta/CALFED. On October 25, 2004, the President signed into law
P.L. 108-361 (H.R. 2828), a bill to authorize implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. Authorization for federal funding for the CALFED Program expired at the end of
FY2000, although some activities supporting the program were funded. P.L. 108-361
authorizes $389 million for the federal share of costs for activities authorized under the act
for FY2005-FY2010. The Administration’s FY2006 request for the Bureau of Reclamation’s
CALFED program account is $35 million; the House Appropriations Committee approved
that amount during full committee markup of H.R. 2419 on May 18.
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
CRS-6

---

IB10019
05-19-05
agencies, urban, agricultural, and environmental interests to protect the Bay-Delta while
satisfying key needs of various involved interests. A Record of Decision (ROD) for the
current CALFED Program was issued by a consortium of state and federal agencies in
August 2000. 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.
On October 25, 2004, the President signed into law P.L. 108-361 (H.R. 2828) — a bill
to authorize implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. P.L. 108-361 approves
the ROD as a framework for addressing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program and authorizes,
under existing and new authorizations, several activities and projects related to the
components of CALFED. This law also authorizes $389 million for the federal share of
costs for activities authorized under the act for FY2005-FY2010. For more information on
the status of the CALFED Program, see CRS Report RL31975, CALFED Bay-Delta
Program: Overview of Institutional and Water Use Issues, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Betsy
A. Cody.
The debate over the reauthorization of CALFED in the 108th Congress largely centered
on specific issues such as authorization for water storage projects, cost allocation, balance
among project and program activities, and water supplies for the environment, as well as
broader issues such as governance and the degree to which the ROD is implemented. The
chief difference between the two reported bills was how they addressed water storage project
authorization. The House bill would have “pre-authorized” 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 took a very different approach and
instead set 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 rebalancing 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 believed 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 would again reject a bill with
“pre-authorization” language. Ultimately, lawmakers decided to approve the Senate-passed
version of H.R. 2828.
Oversight issues during the 109th Congress are expected to include project financing,
water storage project programs, and implementation of the Operations Criteria and Plan and
South Delta Improvements Plan. However, recent news reports of food chain and fisheries
declines in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers confluence with San Francisco Bay (Bay-
Delta), combined with fiscal issues at both the state and federal levels, have raised questions
about the implementation and viability of the CALFED Program. It is not yet clear if, or
how, the 109th Congress might address this issue.
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
CRS-7

---

IB10019
05-19-05
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. The most recent project to be
approved is for Espanola New Mexico (P.L. 108-354). This legislation also includes
authorization for a feasibility study for a Chimayo water supply system.
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 authorized 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.)
In the 108th Congress, three bills were introduced addressing rural water supply issues.
One bill would have authorized 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;
a second would have assisted states and local communities in evaluating and developing rural
and small community water supply systems; and a third would have authorized the BOR to
coordinate and revamp its rural water supply activities. These bills differed 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.
On May 11, 2005, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing
on S. 895, a bill to establish a new rural water supply program to be administered by the
Bureau of in Reclamation, Department of the Interior. The bill combines elements of three
bills introduced in the 108th Congress: S. 1085 (Bingaman), S. 1732 (Domenici, by request),
and S. 2218 (Domenici).
CRS-8

---

IB10019
05-19-05
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 authorizations amending the Reclamation and
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act have been passed, including three
during the 108th Congress: P.L. 108-233, Irvine, CA; P.L. 108-7, North Las Vegas, NV
(originally authorized in P.L. 104-206); and P.L. 108-361, Williamson County, Texas. Nine
Title 16 bills (not including companion bills) have been introduced (see “Legislation,”
below) in the 109th Congress.

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. 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. 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. Total funding for Title 16 projects was $28.4 million for FY2004 and
$23.0 million for FY2005. The Administration requested $10.2 million for FY2006.
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
05-19-05
Salton Sea
Federal and state agencies, and regional organizations, are currently working to
determine the best alternative for restoring the Salton Sea. In P.L. 108-361, which
reauthorized the CALFED Program, a provision was included stating that not later than
December 2006, the Secretary of the Interior in coordination with the state of California and
the Salton Sea Authority shall determine the best alternative for restoring the Salton Sea.
Some restoration proposals have been suggested and alternatives for restoring the sea are
tentatively expected to be selected by June 2005.
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 in 2003.3
Several proposals have been floated to address Salton Sea issues. In July 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 between
$650 and $730 million. This plan is now under review by the California Department of
Water Resources. Funding for restoring the Salton Sea is expected to come from a
restoration fund that will receive money from fees collected from water sales in the region.
This fund was developed from a set of three bills enacted by the state of California on
September 12, 2003, and is expected to generate up to $300 million for restoring the Salton
Sea. As proposals for restoring the Salton Sea and related Colorado River issues continue
to be negotiated during the 109th Congress, congressional oversight is expected to continue.
LEGISLATION
Title 16 Projects
H.R. 122 (Issa). To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Eastern Municipal
Water District Recycled Water System Pressurization and Expansion Project. Introduced
Jan. 4, 2005; referred to House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and
Power).
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-10

---

IB10019
05-19-05
H.R. 123 (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 Jan. 4, 2005;
referred to House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power).
H.R. 177 (Miller, Gary). To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Prado
Basin Natural Treatment System Project, to authorize the Secretary to carry out a program
to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine lines in California, to authorize the
Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and
reclamation project, and for other purposes. Introduced on Jan. 4, 2005; referred to House
Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power).
H.R. 497 (Sanchez). To amend 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 Feb. 1, 2005;
referred to House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power).
H.R. 802 (Dreier). To amend 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 Valley Water District recycling project.
Introduced Feb. 15, 2005; referred to House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on
Water and Power). See also S. 746 (Feinstein).
H.R. 843 (Abercrombie), S. 264 (Akaka). To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain projects in the State of Hawaii and
to amend the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000; to modify the water resources study.
Introduced Feb. 16, 2005; referred to House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on
Water and Power); reported favorably without amendment by the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources (S.Rept. 109-33); placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Calendar No. 46 on March 10, 2005.
H.R. 855 (Ortiz). To amend 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 Feb. 16, 2005;
referred to the House Committe on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power).
H.R. 863 (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
Feb.16, 2005; referred to House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and
Power).
S. 746 (Feinstein). To amend 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 Valley Water District recycling project.
Introduced April 11, 2005; referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
See also H.R. 802 (Dreier).
CRS-11

---

IB10019
05-19-05
Water Supply and Conservation
H.R. 125 (Issa). To authorize 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 Jan. 4, 2005; referred to
House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power) and House Armed
Services.
H.R. 135 (Linder). To establish the “Twenty-First Century Water Commission” to
study and develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy to address future
water needs. Introduced Jan. 4, 2005; referred to House Committee on Resources
(Subcommittee on Water and Power) and House Transportation and Infrastructure
(Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment); considered and passed under
suspension of the rules on April 12, 2005; referred to Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
H.R. 386 (Hinojosa), S. 519 (Hutchinson). To amend the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 to authorize additional projects
and activities under that act, and for other purposes. Introduced Jan. 26, 2005; referred to
House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power); hearing held by
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 19, 2005.
H.R. 524 (Berkley). To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
incentives for the conservation of water. Introduced Feb. 2, 2005; referred to House
Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 1008 (Calvert). To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the
design and construction of the Riverside-Corona Feeder in cooperation with the Western
Municipal Water District of Riverside, California. Introduced March 1, 2005; referred to
House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power).
H.R. 1046 (Cubin), S. 99 (Enzi). To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract
with the city of Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the storage of the city’s water in the Kendrick
Project, Wyoming. Introduced March 2, 2005; referred to the House Committee on
Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power); considered and passed under suspension
of the rules on May 16, 2005; reported without amendment by Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources (S Rpt. 109-27) on March 10, 2005.
H.R. 1326 (Thompson). To enable a Bureau of Reclamation partnership with the
North Bay Water Reuse Authority and other regional partners to achieve water supply, water
quality, and environmental restoration objectives. Introduced March 15, 2005; referred to
House Committee on Resources.
S. 178 (Domenici), H.R. 1711 (Wilson). A bill to provide assistance to the State of
New Mexico for the development of comprehensive State water plans, and for other
purposes. Introduced January 26, 2005. Mark-up session held Feb. 9, 2005; reported
without amendment by Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 7,
2005 (S.Rept. 109-16).
CRS-12

---

IB10019
05-19-05
S. 247 (Smith, Gordon). A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the
planning, design, and construction of the Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation
Project in Deschutes County, Oregon. Introduced Feb. 1, 2005 ; referred to Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 251 (Smith, Gordon). A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a water resource feasibility study for the Little
Butte/Bear Creek Sub-basins in Oregon. Introduced Feb. 1, 2005 ; referred to Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; hearings held April 19, 2005.
S. 353 (Conrad). A bill to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to
direct the Secretary of the Army to provide assistance to design and construct a project to
provide a continued safe and reliable municipal water supply system for Devils Lake, North
Dakota. Introduced Feb. 10, 2005; referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Miscellaneous
H.R. 487 (Pearce). To impose limitations on the authority of the Secretary of the
Interior to claim title or other rights to water absent specific direction of law or to abrogate,
injure, or otherwise impair any right to the use of any quantity of water. Introduced Feb. 1,
2005; referred to the House Committee on Resources (Subcommittee on Water and Power).
S. 166 (Smith, Gordon). A bill to amend the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of
1996 to reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Deschutes River
Conservancy, and for other purposes. Introduced Jan. 25, 2005; referred to Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; hearings held April 19, 2005.
S. 231 (Smith, Gordon). A bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate
in the rehabilitation of the Wallowa Lake Dam in Oregon, and for other purposes.
Introduced Feb. 1, 2005. Mark-up session held Feb. 9, 2005; reported without amendment
by Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 10, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-30).
S. 232 (Smith, Gordon). A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation, to assist in the implementation of fish passage and
screening facilities at non-Federal water projects, and for other purposes. Introduced Feb.
1, 2005. Mark-up session held Feb. 9, 2005; reported without amendment by Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on March 10, 2005 (S.Rept. 109-31).
S. 648 (Smith, Gordon). To amend the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief
Act of 1991 to extend the authority for drought assistance. Introduced March 17, 2005;
referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S.728 (Bond). To provide for the consideration and development of water and related
resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes. Introduced
April 6, 2005; referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; reported
with amendments (S. Rpt.109-61); placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders. Calendar No. 93 on April 26, 2005.
CRS-13

---

IB10019
05-19-05
S. 802 (Domenici). To establish a National Drought Council within the Department of
Agriculture, to improve national drought preparedness, mitigation, and response efforts, and
for other purposes. Introduced April 14, 2005; referred to the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
S. 1017 (Chafee). To reauthorize grants from the water resources research and
technology institutes established under the Water Resources Research Act of 1984.
Introduced May 12, 2005; referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
CRS-14

---