Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress
Betsy A. Cody, Coordinator
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Pervaze A. Sheikh
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
January 31, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42947
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

Summary
The 113th Congress may face many issues related to water resource development, management,
and protection. Such issues include how to make investment decisions in the context of federal
fiscal constraints; how to distribute investments between activities to meet new demands for
water supplies and aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection; how to maintain and reinvest in
an aging portfolio of federal infrastructure (e.g., locks, dams, and levees); and how to effectively
respond to and prepare for flood and drought emergencies. These issues often arise at the regional
level, but have a federal nexus. For example, Congress may continue to be faced with issues
associated with flooding (e.g., Hurricane Sandy response and recovery), navigation and water
supply challenges due to drought-induced low river flows, and balancing water supply needs of
farm and urban communities with protection of threatened and endangered species.
The water resource issues of the 113th Congress are in part shaped by the actions of past
Congresses, including the 112th Congress. In addition to holding numerous oversight hearings on
agency policies and activities, the 112th Congress provided regular annual and supplemental
appropriations for major federal water research agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The 112th Congress did not
formally consider an omnibus Corps project authorization and policy bill—typically called a
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)—but a draft Senate Environment and Public Works
bill was circulated and discussed in the fall of 2012.
The 112th Congress also considered legislation to augment developed water supplies (e.g., water
storage, water reuse), settle Indian water rights claims, and facilitate small conduit hydropower
development. The 112th Congress considered several bills related to aquatic ecosystem restoration
throughout the country (e.g., Everglades, Gulf Coast, Great Lakes, Klamath Basin, and
Chesapeake Bay). The 112th Congress also considered legislation related to the energy sector’s
water use and the water sector’s energy use, as well as water research and development
legislation, including research related to climate change, water resource availability, drought
indicators and streamflow.
The 113th Congress may consider measures similar to those left pending in the 112th Congress
(e.g., a farm bill, a WRDA, hydropower development, and water research legislation), as well as
other proposals. Because of current water conditions, disasters, or legal or agency developments,
certain basin issues are particularly likely to receive congressional attention (e.g., operation of
federal reservoirs in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin, Sacramento and San
Joaquin river basins (Central Valley Project), and Missouri River Basin). Other related legislation
may include the energy-water nexus and environmental policy.
This report discusses recent congressional activity and possible topics for the 113th Congress. It
provides an overview of the federal role in water resources development, management, and
protection, including a discussion of the two major federal water resources agencies and related
legislation. It also discusses overarching policy issues, such as flood and drought management
and response; project funding and authorization priorities; and aquatic ecosystem restoration.

Congressional Research Service

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Recent Congressional Activity .................................................................................................. 1
Looking Forward ....................................................................................................................... 3
Federal Role in Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 3
Federal Water Resource Agencies.................................................................................................... 4
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .................................................................................................. 5
Legislation ........................................................................................................................... 6
Bureau of Reclamation .............................................................................................................. 6
Legislation ........................................................................................................................... 8
Overarching Legislative Issues ........................................................................................................ 8
Flood and Drought Preparedness and Response ........................................................................ 8
Funding and Authorization Priorities ........................................................................................ 9
Aging Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 9
Changing Federal Partnerships .......................................................................................... 10
Earmarks and Project Authorization.................................................................................. 10
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration ............................................................................................... 10

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 11
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 11

Congressional Research Service

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

Introduction
The 113th Congress is likely to face numerous water resources issues as it conducts oversight and
deliberates on authorizations and appropriations related to federal water resource development,
management, and protection. Such issues include how to make investment decisions in the
context of federal fiscal constraints; how to distribute investments between activities to meet new
demands for water supplies and aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection; how to maintain
and reinvest in an aging portfolio of federal infrastructure (e.g., locks, dams, and levees); and how
to effectively respond to and prepare for flood and drought emergencies. These issues often arise
at the regional level, but have a federal nexus. For example, Congress may be faced with
responding to coastal flooding issues associated with Hurricane Sandy, addressing navigation and
water supply challenges due to drought-induced low river flows, and addressing water supply
needs of farm and urban communities while protecting threatened and endangered species. The
crux of many of these challenges is how to balance competing demands for water and river
management, including how to cope with the effect of federal project operations on the
environment and growing fiscal limitations.
This report first discusses recent congressional activity and possible topics for the 113th Congress.
Next it provides an overview of the federal role in water resources development, management,
and protection, including a discussion of the two major federal water resources agencies and
related legislation. The report then provides an overview of overarching policy issues, including
flood and drought preparedness and response; project funding and authorization priorities; and
aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Recent Congressional Activity
The water resource issues of the 113th Congress are in part shaped by the actions of past
Congresses, including the 112th Congress. Legislative activity often is specific to the federal water
resource management agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter referred to
as the Corps) and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (hereinafter referred to
as Reclamation), or is specific to water use by particular sectors, such as energy, agriculture, and
municipal and industrial use. Occasionally, Congress takes up broader water resource policy
issues, such as coordination of federal water resource activities and programs.
The 112th Congress provided regular annual appropriations and supplemental appropriations for
the Corps to conduct its work, and conducted a number of oversight hearings. The 112th Congress
did not formally consider an omnibus Corps project authorization and policy bill—typically
called a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)—but a draft Senate Environment and
Public Works bill was circulated and discussed in the fall of 2012. Typically, a WRDA authorizes
hundreds of site-specific projects and a few regional projects and establishes agency policy and
guidelines for project planning and implementation. Because the bulk of past WRDA bills have
been composed of geographically specific authorizations, enactment of a bill in the 111th and
112th Congresses was complicated by various moratoria on “earmarks.”1

1 In the 112th Congress, the House Republican Conference, Senate Republican Conference, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee all adopted moratoria on earmark requests that are significant to how Congress directs these
activities. For more on Corps authorization and appropriations issues, see CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of
Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations
, by Nicole T. Carter and Charles V. Stern.
Congressional Research Service
1

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

The 112th Congress also provided regular annual appropriations for Reclamation to conduct its
ongoing activities, and conducted numerous oversight hearings on Reclamation-related activities.
The 112th Congress also considered legislation to augment developed water supplies (e.g., water
storage, water reuse), settle Indian water rights claims, and facilitate small conduit hydropower
development. As with the Corps, legislation enacted for Reclamation during the 112th Congress
was less than in prior Congresses, in large part due to earmark moratoria.
The 112th Congress considered several bills related to aquatic ecosystem restoration throughout
the country. These bills addressed issues related to water quality and habitat restoration, as well as
project construction for restoration and water supply allocation among users and the environment.
Bills authorizing comprehensive ecosystem restoration initiatives were introduced for the Gulf
Coast, Great Lakes, Klamath Basin, and Chesapeake Bay. These bills addressed governance of
ecosystem restoration initiatives and the creation of comprehensive plans to guide restoration
efforts, among other things. Other bills addressed specific aspects of ongoing restoration
initiatives, such as expediting restoration project approval in the Everglades ecosystem.
Ecosystem restoration initiatives frequently involve several federal, state, and local agencies and
stakeholders. The bills introduced in the 112th Congress and oversight hearings related to
ecosystem restoration initiatives reflected the roles and interests of multiple stakeholders.
The 112th Congress considered, but did not enact, a farm bill. In addition to providing support for
farmers and crop production, farm bills provide support for agricultural water conservation and
efficiency measures, conservation programs in priority watersheds, and groundwater protection
and recharge, as well as water resource and infrastructure needs associated with soil and water
conservation.2
Energy and environmental policy also affects water resources management and development. The
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported S. 1343, the Energy and Water
Integration Act of 2011, in the 112th Congress to study and address the energy sector’s water use
and the water sector’s energy use. Water use by the energy sector is anticipated to increase
because of expanding domestic onshore energy production, in part stimulated by changes in
technology, as well as federal programs and policies such as blending mandates of the Renewable
Fuel Standard, which have bolstered biofuel production from corn ethanol produced by both
irrigated and non-irrigated corn. Additionally, the 112th Congress also considered legislation that
aimed to facilitate new hydropower development, including H.R. 2842, H.R. 6247, and S. 629.
The 112th Congress also considered water research and development legislation, including
research related to climate change and water resource availability. Water science and research and
development are spread across more than 20 agencies. No single water research strategy or
formal coordination or prioritization mechanism exists. The interest in congressional action in
this area is in part based on concerns that current research is insufficient to prepare the United
States to confront domestic and international water challenges. The 112th Congress considered,
but did not enact, proposals to provide additional direction and funding for the federal water
research portfolio (e.g., H.R. 5862), to support specific research topics (e.g., energy-water
research in H.R. 5827), and/or to reauthorize appropriations or provide appropriations for existing

2 For more information on agricultural soil and water conservation programs, see CRS Report R42093, Agricultural
Conservation and the Next Farm Bill
, by Megan Stubbs, and CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for
Agricultural Land Rehabilitation
, by Megan Stubbs.
Congressional Research Service
2

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

efforts (e.g., the National Integrated Drought Information System, federal desalination research,
and federal support of stream gages and state water resources research institutes).
Looking Forward
The 113th Congress may consider measures similar to those left pending in the 112th Congress
(e.g., a farm bill, a WRDA, and hydropower development legislation), as well as other proposals.
Because of current water conditions, disasters, or legal or agency developments, certain basin
issues are particularly likely to receive congressional attention. These include the operation of
federal reservoirs in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river basin, Sacramento and San
Joaquin river basins (Central Valley Project in California), and Missouri River Basin. Other
basins with federal reservoirs experiencing past oversight and potential oversight in the 113th
Congress include the Colorado, Columbia, Klamath, and Rio Grande river basins.
The 113th Congress also may conduct oversight of the Chesapeake Bay, Everglades, Great Lakes,
and San Joaquin River restoration initiatives, as well as federal activities related to management
of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Delta and its confluence with San Francisco Bay (Bay-
Delta). Common themes in regional restoration efforts include demand for new project services
(e.g., improved or new flood control, water supply, and navigation facilities), protection of
threatened and endangered species, drought management, and water quality concerns. Other
topics that also might be addressed in the 113th Congress include energy production effects on
water resources and water resources research and development.
Federal Role in Water Resources
The federal government has long been involved in efforts to facilitate navigation, expand
irrigation, and reduce flood and drought losses. For example, nearly every large river basin in the
country—from the Columbia, Sacramento, and Colorado rivers in the West to the Missouri,
Mississippi, and Delaware rivers—contains one or more federal dam or navigation projects.
These projects have largely been constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Department
of Defense) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Department of the Interior). More recently, federal
involvement has expanded to include municipal water supply development and efforts to protect
water-related resources such as fish and wildlife. Increasing pressures on the quality and quantity
of available water supplies have resulted in heightened local and regional water use conflicts
throughout the country, particularly in the West and Southeast. Pressures include population
growth, environmental regulation, in-stream species and ecosystem needs, water source
contamination, agricultural and energy water demands, climate change and variability, and
changing public interests.
Congress historically has played a major role in water resources through authorizations of and
appropriations for regional and site-specific activities; however, numerous responsibilities are
split or shared with state, local, and tribal governments, particularly related to water allocation
and resource planning and management. Congress also establishes the policies that define the
federal role in planning for federal water resource projects, and provides direction for
construction, maintenance, inspection, and support of federal projects. Congress makes these
decisions within the context of multiple and often conflicting objectives, competing legal
decisions, long-established institutional mechanisms (e.g., century-old water rights, and
Congressional Research Service
3

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

contractual obligations), and in response to events such as floods, droughts, and structural
failures.
Federal water resource construction activities shrank during the last decades of the 20th century,
marking the end of earlier expansionist policies that had supported large federal investments in
dams and hydropower, navigation locks and channels, irrigation diversions, and flood control
levees, as well as basin-wide planning and development efforts. Fiscal constraints, changes in
national priorities and local needs, few remaining prime construction locations, and
environmental and species impacts of construction and operation of federal projects all
contributed to this shift. Although these forces are still active, there are proposals for greater
federal financial and technical assistance to address growing pressures on developed water
supplies, to manage regional water resources to meet demands of multiple water uses, and to
address the aging stock of water resources infrastructure.
Hurricane Sandy, the extended and widespread drought of 2012, and record-level floods of 2011
have raised other questions about the federal role in water resources. In particular, the disasters
have brought attention to the trade-offs in approaches to distributing federal appropriations
among competing water resources projects, to risk management in water resources, and to the
trade-offs in benefits, costs, and risks of the current division of responsibilities among local, state,
and federal entities.
Federal Water Resource Agencies
Most of the large dams and water diversion structures in the United States were built by, or with
the assistance of, Reclamation or the Corps. Historically, Reclamation projects were designed
principally to provide reliable supplies of water for irrigation and some municipal and industrial
uses. Corps projects were planned principally to improve navigation and reduce flood damages,
with power generation, water supply, and recreation being incidental benefits. Reclamation
currently manages more than 600 dams and reservoirs in 17 western states,3 providing water to
approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people, as well as 58 power plants
capable of producing 40 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually (enough for approximately
3.5 million homes). The Corps operates nationwide, and its activities are diverse. The Corps has
constructed thousands of flood damage reduction and navigation projects throughout the country,
including nearly 12,000 miles of commercially active waterways, nearly 1,000 harbors, and 600
dam and reservoir projects (with 75 hydroelectric plants generating 68 billion kilowatt-hours
annually). Additionally, the Corps constructed, usually with nonfederal participation, roughly
9,000 miles of the estimated 100,000 miles of the nation’s levees, but only maintains 900 miles.
The remaining levees are operated by nonfederal entities, often local governments or special
districts.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture also
facilitates water resources development, primarily for flood control in small watersheds and for
soil and water conservation purposes.

3 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Congressional Research Service
4

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

Many other federal agencies have water-related programs (e.g., the Environmental Protection
Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration). However, the remainder of this report focuses on the projects, programs, and
policies of the Corps and Reclamation.
• For more information on USDA conservation programs and policies, see CRS
Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs, by Megan
Stubbs, and CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land
Rehabilitation
, by Megan Stubbs.
• For more information on other federal water activities, see CRS Report R42653,
Selected Federal Water Activities: Agencies, Authorities, and Congressional
Committees
, coordinated by Betsy A. Cody.
• For more information on federal water projects and programs—including types
of financing and financial assistance—see CRS Report RL30478, Federally
Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs
, coordinated by
Claudia Copeland.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
During 2011 and 2012, the Corps was active in its civil works mission and responded to multiple
significant flood and drought events, as well as performing its regular activities of constructing
and operating navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration projects. As previously noted,
Congress authorizes Corps water resources activities and makes changes to the agency’s policies
generally in Water Resources Development Acts. Although WRDA enactment is usually
attempted on a biennial schedule, enactment is less regular in part because of multiple and
conflicting stakeholder interests and tensions over potential changes in Corps policies. Also, the
bill is not a reauthorization bill, per se—rather, it is largely an authorization bill, since few Corps
authorities expire.4 The most recent WRDAs were enacted in 2000 and 2007. Congress typically
appropriates funds for these activities in annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations
acts, and at times, it uses supplemental appropriations bills to fund Corps emergency activities.5
Interest in authorizing new studies, projects, and policies is likely to prompt consideration of a
WRDA bill in the 113th Congress. However, the effect of congressional earmark policy, the level
of authorizations in the bill, and the effect of new authorizations on the agency’s existing
“backlog” of authorized projects may continue to be issues. Debate over whether policy and
program changes are needed to set priorities for the agency may arise in the context of either
WRDA deliberations or consideration of appropriations. Related to this discussion is frustration
by some with the cost and extended project development process of Corps projects.
The status of numerous policy changes included in WRDA 2007 (P.L. 110-114)—revision of
federal water resources project planning guidelines, independent review requirements for Corps
studies, and national levee safety efforts—may be the subject of congressional oversight. WRDA

4 While Corps authorizations generally do not expire or have established sunsets, an automatic de-authorization process
begins if projects have not received funding for five years. A number of projects that were authorized in WRDA 2007
(P.L. 110-114) may soon initiate this process.
5 For more on these topics, see CRS Report R42841, Army Corps Supplemental Appropriations: Recent History,
Trends, and Policy Issues
, by Charles V. Stern and Nicole T. Carter.
Congressional Research Service
5

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

2007 included numerous reporting requirements. The 113th Congress may review the status of
these reports and consider action on the recommendations in completed reports. Additionally,
Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and Midwest flooding in 2011 raised many questions about the national
flood risk and federal actions to reduce that risk which the 113th Congress may pursue.
Corps river and reservoir management, in the context of drought conditions and climate concerns,
also may receive congressional attention during WRDA or appropriations deliberations. In many
cases, Corps facilities and their operations are central to debates over multi-purpose river
management. For example, reservoir management by the Corps, such as in the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint basin (which provides much of the water supply for Atlanta, GA), is often
controversial and has been challenged in the courts. Likewise, Corps operation of dams on the
Missouri River and its effect on downstream navigation, flood control, species, and upstream
water supplies remain controversial. The situation has been exacerbated by both regional drought
in 2012 and flood conditions in 2011.
Legislation
No WRDA was formally introduced in the 112th Congress, but the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee held hearings on a draft WRDA bill in November 2012.6 In contrast to
previous WRDA bills and to alleviate concerns related to the congressional earmark debate, the
draft Senate WRDA in the 112th Congress included no site-specific project authorizations. Such
an approach may continue to frame consideration of a WRDA in the 113th Congress. While most
Corps authorizations are typically enacted in a WRDA, the 113th Congress may consider more
targeted legislation, including proposals to change the system of financing for inland waterway
and harbor maintenance projects. In the 112th Congress, H.R. 4342 proposed major changes to the
Inland Waterway Trust Fund and inland waterway project development process.7 H.R. 104
proposed similarly significant alterations to spending from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.8
Finally, if some are frustrated by a lack of progress on a WRDA, they may introduce legislation to
authorize specific projects or programs. In the 112th Congress, S. 3509 would have authorized the
construction of four Corps Everglades restoration projects.
Bureau of Reclamation
Since the early 1900s, Reclamation has constructed and operated many large, multi-purpose water
projects, such as Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia
River. Water supplies from these projects have been primarily for irrigation; however, some
municipalities also receive water from Reclamation projects. Construction authorizations slowed
during the 1970s and 1980s due to several factors. In 1987, Reclamation announced a new
mission: environmentally sensitive water resources management. Since then, increased
population, prolonged drought, fiscal constraints, and water demands for fish and wildlife,
recreation, and scenic enjoyment have resulted in increased pressure to alter operation of many
Reclamation projects. Such changes have been controversial, however, as water rights,

6 The hearing transcript and draft bill text are available at
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_id=e2296a4c-bf7b-4e29-2cbb-
e3d5168326cd.
7 See CRS Report R41430, Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues for Congress, by Charles V. Stern.
8 See CRS Report R41042, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Expenditures, by John Frittelli.
Congressional Research Service
6

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

contractual obligations, and the potential economic effects of altering project operations
complicate any change in water allocation, delivery, or project operations.
In contrast to the Corps, there is no tradition of a regularly scheduled authorization vehicle (e.g., a
WRDA) for Reclamation projects. Instead, Reclamation projects are generally considered
individually; occasionally individual project authorizations are rolled into an omnibus bill such as
P.L. 111-11 enacted in in the 111th Congress or P.L. 102-575 enacted in the 102nd Congress.9
Because project authorizations are typically enacted in stand-alone legislation, project
authorization slowed considerably in the 112th Congress under the congressional earmark policy.
It is not clear if pent-up demand for projects will result in more legislation in the 113th Congress
or whether project sponsors will instead seek administrative remedies to project issues.
As with the Corps, Reclamation river and reservoir management in the face of drought conditions
and climate change may also receive congressional attention. In many cases, Reclamation
facilities and their operation are central to debates over multi-purpose river management,
particularly during times of drought or years of lower than normal precipitation and runoff. For
example, controversies associated with Reclamation water resources management in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin river watersheds (CA), the Colorado River Basin, and Klamath
River Basin (CA and OR) have often been exacerbated by low water flows and have also been the
subject of extended litigation—sometimes even in normal water years. Likewise, the ongoing
controversy over Reclamation’s operation of pumps in the San Francisco Bay/San Joaquin and
Sacramento Rivers Delta (Bay-Delta) and their effect on water users and threatened and
endangered species also is quite controversial. This situation also has been exacerbated by low
water conditions in some years.
Examples of some Reclamation-related water project and management issues that may be
considered during the 113th Congress include:
• miscellaneous project adjustments;
• small conduit hydropower development;
• regulatory impediments to new water storage projects;
• authorization and appropriations to address aging infrastructure;
• response to drought, and effects of climate variability on federal reservoirs;
• Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley water reliability;
• San Joaquin River restoration settlement funding and oversight;
• Central Oregon water security;
• Klamath River Basin and Klamath project management;
• Central Valley Project (CA) operations oversight (e.g., proposed Bay-Delta
Conservation Plan, impact on Delta Smelt, salmon, and water deliveries);

9 Congress occasionally passes omnibus bills addressing key Reclamation policy changes, as well as new or revised
project and program authorizations. Congress enacted P.L. 111-11 in 2009, which included multiple water and land
subtitles. The last time Congress enacted a Reclamation omnibus bill was in 1992, the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act (P.L. 102-575).
Congressional Research Service
7

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

• Colorado River water management.
A broader issue that could receive attention from Congress is oversight of Reclamation’s mission
and its future role in western water supply and water resource management generally. As public
demands and concerns have changed, so has legislation affecting Reclamation. For example,
some project sponsors are considering new partnerships in project development, with project
construction largely to be undertaken by nonfederal sponsors. In part, this has developed due to
project sponsor frustration in delays over new project studies. Further, many in Congress have
questioned Reclamation’s shift in focus from a water resources development agency to a water
resources management agency and believe Reclamation is not doing enough to develop new
water storage. Others argue for increased funds and attention to augment water supplies in the
West through water reuse, recycling, aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination technologies.
Some also have expressed frustration with regulatory hurdles facing project development and
expansions. On the other hand, some groups contend Reclamation has not done enough to protect
species and the environment generally.
Legislation
There was a marked decrease in Reclamation legislation in the 112th Congress compared with
prior Congresses. This largely had to do with the self-imposed congressional “earmark” ban,
which extended to site-specific project authorizations for Reclamation projects. Legislation
enacted during the 112th Congress primarily consisted of individual project adjustments (e.g., P.L.
112-45, clarifying jurisdiction with respect to the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir in Arizona, and
P.L. 112-52, prepayment authorization for the Uintah project). Multiple bills passed the House,
but did not pass the Senate (e.g., H.R. 1837 addressing multiple California water issues, H.R. 461,
H.R. 2060, and H.R. 2842). Legislation left pending in the 112th Congress is likely to be
reintroduced in the 113th Congress.
Overarching Legislative Issues
In addition to issues related to federal projects, the 113th Congress faces a number of overarching
water resources issues, including flood and drought management and response; project funding
and authorization priorities; and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Flood and Drought Preparedness and Response
Congress is often faced with reacting to natural disasters such as floods and drought. Coastal
flooding resulting from Hurricane Sandy, widespread drought in 2012, and Midwest floods in
2011 have tested the nation’s emergency response system and have resulted in billions of dollars
in damages. Although the Corps is the principal flood-fighting agency, other agencies also play a
role in flood response, including providing disaster assistance (e.g., the Federal Emergency
Management Agency). Additionally, responsibilities for flood damage reduction are spread
among federal, state, local, and tribal governments. States and local governments in many ways
play a primary role in floodplain management because of their jurisdiction over land use
decisions and local zoning ordinances—deciding where and how development may occur. It is
not clear to what extent flood policy might be addressed in the 113th Congress; however,
continuing oversight of federal agency responses to recent flood events appears likely.
Congressional Research Service
8

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

Responsibilities for drought planning and response also are split among various levels of
government and involve many different federal agencies. Although Congress has enacted
legislation to coordinate drought information through the National Integrated Drought
Information Systerm (NIDIS), there is no overarching national drought policy and the law
authorizing NIDIS appropriations is up for reauthorization. NIDIS reauthorization legislation was
introduced in the 112th Congress (H.R. 6489 and S. 3584), but was not enacted. Because of the
widespread drought conditions in 2012, Congress might again address drought planning and
preparedness through oversight hearings and/or specific legislation, including provisions of a
farm bill, WRDA, or other legislation.
For more information on drought impacts and congressional response, see:
• CRS Report RL34580, Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress, by
Peter Folger, Betsy A. Cody, and Nicole T. Carter;
• CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by Dennis A. Shields; and
• CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation, by
Megan Stubbs.
Funding and Authorization Priorities
Aging Infrastructure
U.S. water infrastructure is aging; the majority of the nation’s dams, locks, and levees are more
than 50 years old.10 Failure of these structures could have significant effects on local communities
as well as regional and national impacts. Major capital investments in these structures have been
limited in recent years and repairing these facilities would cost billions of dollars.11 Congressional
funding has largely been at the project level and has remained essentially flat, while funding
needs have increased over time. To date, no comprehensive funding solution to these issues has
been enacted. Some propose funding mechanisms that might be more conducive to major capital
investments in these projects, such as authorization of loan programs for some infrastructure
types, or else including water resource infrastructure among the eligible recipients of funding
from an infrastructure bank (such as that proposed in H.R. 402 in the 112th Congress). Others
have proposed harnessing revenues from beneficiaries of these projects (hydropower revenues,
user fees, etc.) to fund project repairs and upgrades, or even transferring projects to nonfederal
entities, such as state or local governments. Still others think the current system is adequate, but
that increased investment in the form of project appropriations is warranted.

10 For example, the majority of the Bureau of Reclamation’s facilities are more than 50 years old, and Corps
infrastructure averages more than 55 years old. See CRS Report RL34466, The Bureau of Reclamation’s Aging
Infrastructure
, by Charles V. Stern.
11 For example, for the Corps alone, waterway users previously estimated that needed lock repairs and upgrades total $8
billion-$18 billion over the next 20 years, and the Corps has stated that it will require more than $26 billion for dam
safety repairs over the next 25 years. Needed repairs to Reclamation facilities totaled $3.2 billion in 2008.
Congressional Research Service
9

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

Changing Federal Partnerships
Frustration with the pace of authorization for federal water resource projects has resulted in some
local sponsors pursuing projects with limited federal partnership or support. An example includes
potential construction of Sites Reservoir in California—an off-stream water storage project
associated with the federal Central Valley Project (CA). Some have also proposed advanced
funding for federal projects by nonfederal sponsors, to spur project construction. Such proposals,
however, raise the question of whether federal investment is needed if local sponsors can finance
the projects on their own. Language authorizing nonfederal construction of proposed federal
projects (as long as no federal funding is used), was included in H.R. 1837 and H.R. 6247 in the
112th Congress. With existing fiscal constraints and potential continuation of an earmark ban, this
trend may continue in the 113th Congress. Related activity may address federal permitting or other
regulatory activities that are viewed by some as impeding such development (e.g., requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and related regulations).
Earmarks and Project Authorization
Water resource project funding is often a part of the debate on congressionally directed spending,
or “earmarks.” Although water resource project development has historically been directed by
Congress, the site-specific nature of the authorizations and appropriations process resulted in
projects being subject to earmark disclosure rules and earmark moratoria in the 112th Congress.12
Earmark moratoria appear to be altering the makeup of Corps and Reclamation appropriations in
particular by reducing the addition of specific projects to the budget, and by funding broad
categories of activities rather than specific projects. Some projects, which have historically
benefitted from congressional support, have received less (or no) funding in recently enacted
appropriations bills. In addition to funding impacts, earmark moratoria have also influenced
consideration of site-specific authorizations of water resource projects. WRDAs historically have
been omnibus bills that include many provisions for site-specific Corps activities. In the 112th
Congress, no WRDA was introduced in the House, and the Senate released a draft version of the
bill that, in contrast to prior WRDAs, included no site specific authorizations.13 Both approaches
could potentially have significant impacts on water resource project development.
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
The 113th Congress may consider the status and priority of major federal efforts to restore aquatic
ecosystems that have been altered or impaired by development, habitat loss, and federal water
resource projects. Some of these restoration initiatives include those in the Everglades, California
Bay-Delta, Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Klamath Basin, and elsewhere. Congressional interest
in many of these initiatives is likely to continue in the 113th Congress, which may consider a
number of issues pertaining to these ecosystems. For example, Congress may consider legislation
to authorize a framework for governance and a comprehensive restoration plan for the

12 In the 112th Congress, the House Republican Conference, Senate Republican Conference, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee all adopted moratoria on earmark requests that are significant to how Congress directs these
activities.
13 The draft bill is available at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=
e2296a4c-bf7b-4e29-2cbb-e3d5168326cd.
Congressional Research Service
10

Water Resource Issues in the 113th Congress

Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes. Further, lack of congressional authorization for several new
construction projects in the Everglades has caused concern that the initiative is being delayed.
Congress might consider policies that would streamline authorizations to allow for more projects
to be implemented. Funding for existing restoration initiatives is controversial and could face
challenges in the 113th Congress. In appropriations action during the 112th Congress, redirection
of funding for restoration efforts in the Missouri River basin to flood damage repair and recovery
efforts in the region were proposed but not enacted. In other areas, Congress may react to various
restoration activities proposed by state and private stakeholder actions (e.g., a Bay-Delta
Conservation Plan (BDCP) or plans for management of water flows and projects in the Klamath
River basin).

Author Contact Information

Betsy A. Cody, Coordinator
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
bcody@crs.loc.gov, 7-7229
ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854
Charles V. Stern
Pervaze A. Sheikh
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
cstern@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
psheikh@crs.loc.gov, 7-6070

Acknowledgments
Megan Stubbs also advised on the development of this report.
Congressional Research Service
11