May 13, 2015
Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for
Federal Investments in Water Resources
Congress and the Administration guide how federal
Table 1. Milestones in PR&G Development
agencies develop and participate in water resource
investments. Most often congressional direction is focused
Date Milestone
on individual agencies or projects. One exception was the
09/12/2008
Federal Register (FR) notice of Corps release of
Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-80), which
draft Principles for studies; public comment was
attempted to promote coordinated planning of water and
open until 10/15/2008
related land resources. The act created a Water Resources
Council (WRC) and charged it with, among other things,
07/01/2009
FR notice that the Administration was considering
establishing principles, standards, and procedures for
government-wide planning standards for studies
evaluations of federal water resource projects (42 U.S.C.
with suggestions open until 07/17/2009
1962a-2). Since they replaced earlier guidance in 1983, the
WRC’s Principles and Guidelines (P&G) have provided the
12/09/2009
FR notice of the draft Principles and Standards for
framework for developing federal water resource studies.
studies; public comment was open until
04/05/2010
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007
12/02/2010
National Academy of Sciences released its review
(P.L. 110-114) directed the Secretary of the Army to update
of the 2009 draft Principles and Standards
the 1983 P&G for Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) use; it
required that the update address advancements in economic
03/27/2013
FR publication of the reframed and final Principles
and analytic techniques; public safety; low-income
and Requirements for federal investments and
communities; nonstructural solutions; and integrated,
draft Interagency Guidelines, which were open for
adaptive, and watershed approaches. Table 1 summarizes
comment until 6/27/2013
the update process since WRDA 2007, which has spanned
12/17/2014
Administration released final Interagency
the Bush and Obama Administrations. Eight cabinet
Guidelines and responses to comments on the
secretaries were convened as the Water Resources Council
draft guidelines
(which has been without appropriations since 1983) for the
purpose of approving the updated documents. New
12/24/2014
FR publication of final Interagency Guidelines (FR
Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) that
Doc. No. 2014-30170)
broadly apply to federal water resource investments are
Source: CRS.
expected to replace the P&G on June 15, 2015, except for
the Corps per a prohibition in the statement accompanying
Public comments throughout the update process were
FY2015 appropriations (P.L. 113-235). Congress advised
varied. Traditional beneficiaries of federal water resources
on limiting PR&G-related changes for the U.S. Department
investment often were critical, whereas environmental
of Agriculture (USDA) in H.Rept. 113-333 accompanying
groups and supporters of broader social considerations
the 2014 Agricultural Act (P.L. 113-79).
generally were in favor of the update’s approach. Themes in
these favorable comments included support for the
At issue is whether the PR&G reflect how Congress wants
combined economic and environmental federal objective;
agencies to develop and evaluate federal water resource
more holistic and flexible federal agency responses;
investments. The explanatory statement accompanying P.L.
consideration of nonmonetary costs and benefits; and
113-235 expressed concerns that the update “is not
greater attention to local priorities and nonstructural or
proceeding consistent with the language or intent” of
green alternatives. Common themes in critical comments
WRDA 2007. Table 2 compares aspects of the 2013/2014
were overreach in the inclusion of additional federal entities
PR&G and the 1983 P&G. The most significant differences
(e.g., FEMA, Commerce) and activities (e.g., programs,
are that the PR&G
plans, operations); concerns associated with the clarity of
• applies to a wider range of federal agencies and actions;
the federal investment selection criteria; impact of the
and
broadened selection discretion on decisionmaking and
• provides more flexibility to agencies to develop and to
project timelines; and dilution of federal fiscal resources
decisionmakers to select alternatives with trade-offs
through selection of alternatives that are less focused on
among economic, environmental, and social goals.
economic development and infrastructure investment.
Implementation
Like the P&G, the PR&G are not regulations and do not
supersede requirements established in law.
Agencies subject to the PR&G (see Table 2) are
responsible for developing agency-specific procedures for
implementation and documenting whether existing
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

---

Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources
processes are “equivalent pathways” as the PR&G.
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change effects in
Agencies are to consult with the Office of Management and
National Environmental Policy Act reviews (see FR Doc.
Budget and the Council on Environmental Quality
No. 2015-03606) and implementation of the federal flood
regarding their procedures and alternative pathways. The
risk management standard (see CRS Report IF10150, E.O.
PR&G update is occurring in the context of other updates
13690 and Federal Flood Risk Management Standard).
and debates that also may affect federal water resource
activities. These include Administration guidance on

Table 2. Comparison of Select Aspects of 1983 P&G and 2013/2014 PR&G

1983 P&G
2013/2014 PR&G
Affected
Army Corps of Engineers;
Corps; TVA; DOI; USDA;
Federal
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA);
Dept. of Commerce; Environmental Protection Agency;
Entities
Dept. of the Interior’s (DOI’s) Bureau of Reclamation;
Federal Emergency Management Agency
USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service
(Congress has provided direction on application of the
PR&G to Corps and select USDA activities.)
Scope of
Studies: Planning and evaluation of alternative plans by
Investments: Water resource investments, including
Application
four federal agencies in the formulation and evaluation
projects, plans, and programs that the federal government
of water and related land resources implementation
undertakes whose purposes either directly or indirectly
studies. (Regulatory actions, research and monitoring,
alter water quantity, quality, ecosystems, or related land
and emergency actions were by default outside the
management. (Regulatory, research, monitoring, and
P&G given its focus on studies.)
emergency actions are outside the scope of the PR&G.)
Activity
Studies: Implementation studies that are pre- or post-
Projects: New, existing facility modifications or
Types and
authorization project formulation or evaluation studies
replacement, or changed operations.
Suggested
undertaken or assisted by four specified federal
<$10 million (M) are excluded; between $10M and $20M
Threshold
agencies. P&G generally are applicable to eligible
have scaled analyses; >$20M have ful analyses
Criteria for
implementation studies, with no explicit cutoffs or
Plans: Studies or plans for potential new actions,
Analysis
exclusions provided. (There is no option for scaled
management plans for federal lands, and operational plans
analysis.)
for existing federal water resource infrastructure
<$10M are excluded; between $10M and $50M have
scaled analyses; >$50M have ful analyses
Programs: Grant or funding programs. Grant programs
typical y would use tiered programmatic analyses. Funding
programs (e.g., state revolving funds) would use
retrospective analyses. Grouped analyses may be used for
similar actions that individually do not have consequential
effects.
<$50M are excluded; between $50M and $100M have
scaled analyses; >$100M have ful analyses
Federal
The objective is to contribute to national economic
Federal investment should strive to maximize public
Objective
development (NED) consistent with protecting the
benefits, with appropriate cost considerations. Public
nation’s environment. Contributions to NED are
benefits encompass environmental, economic, and social
increases in the net value of the national output of
goals and include monetary and nonmonetary effects and
goods and services, expressed in monetary units.
quantified and unquantified measures. No hierarchy exists
Contributions to NED include net value of goods and
among these three goals and, as a result, trade-offs among
services that are marketed and also those that are not
alternatives are assessed.
marketed. (Environmental, regional, and social effects
that may inform trade-offs and alternative plans are
documented in accounts other than the NED account.)
Decision
Plan with greatest net economic benefit consistent with
Agencies should strive to maximize the public benefits
Criteria
protecting the environment (the NED plan) is selected
relative to public costs, using applicable selection criteria.
unless the secretary of a department or head of an
Section criteria are to be identified in the agency-specific
independent agency grants an exception. Plan selection
procedures, reflect agency-specific legal requirements in
is made by the agency decisionmaker for federal and
statutes or regulations, and conform with PR&G. The
federally assisted plans.
PR&G do not specify who the decisionmaker is for
selecting the preferred federal investment alternative.
Source: CRS.
Nicole T. Carter, ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854
IF10221
Betsy A. Cody, bcody@crs.loc.gov, 7-7229
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

---