link to page 1 link to page 2 link to page 2 
Updated March 28, 2017
Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for
Federal Investments in Water Resources
The Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for
Table 2 compares the PR&G and the 1983 P&G. A
federal water resource investments largely replaced the
significant difference is the PR&G’s application to a wider
Principles and Guidelines (P&G) for federal water project
set of federal agencies and actions. The PR&G also
evaluations on June 15, 2015. The PR&G direct how
provides more flexibility to agencies to develop, and to
federal agencies plan and evaluate federal water resource
decisionmakers to select, alternatives with trade-offs among
investments, including studies of both new projects and
economic, environmental, and social goals.
reinvestment in existing facilities and grant and funding
programs. The PR&G are not regulations; they are guidance
Public comments on the PR&G varied. Traditional
internal to the executive branch. The PR&G do not
beneficiaries of federal projects often were critical, whereas
supersede requirements established in law. At issue is
environmental groups and supporters of broader social
whether the PR&G reflect how Congress wants agencies to
considerations generally favored the PR&G. Favorable
develop and evaluate federal water resource investments.
comments included support for the combined economic and
To date, the Trump Administration has not weighed in on
environmental federal objective; more holistic and flexible
the PR&G. The Administration’s position on evaluating
federal agency responses; consideration of nonmonetary
federal water investments may become known as broad
costs and benefits; and greater attention to local priorities
infrastructure investment efforts and efforts to expand the
and nonstructural or green alternatives. Common critical
use of public-private partnerships, including for water
comments were overreach in the inclusion of additional
resources projects, evolve.
federal entities (e.g., Federal Emergency Management
Agency [FEMA], Department of Commerce [DOC]) and
Origins of the PR&G
activities (e.g., programs, plans, operations); concerns with
Congress and the Administration guide federal water
the clarity of the federal investment selection criteria;
resource investments. Congressional direction often is
impact of the broadened selection discretion on
related to specific agencies or projects. One exception was
decisionmaking and project timelines; and dilution of
the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-80),
federal funds through selection of alternatives less focused
which attempted coordinated planning of water resources
on economic development and infrastructure investment.
activities. The act created a Water Resources Council
(WRC) tasked with establishing principles, standards, and
Table 1. Milestones in PR&G Development
procedures for evaluations of federal water resource
projects (42 U.S.C. §1962a-2). After a controversial effort
Date
Milestone
to have the WRC’s initial guidance (known as the 1973
Federal Register (FR) notice of Corps draft
“Principles and Standards”) become enforceable rules, the
09/12/08
Principles
WRC under the Reagan Administration issued the P&G in
1983 as nonbinding guidelines.
FR notice that the Obama Administration was
07/01/09
From 1983 until 2014, the P&G provided the framework for
considering government-wide planning standards
evaluating federal water resource projects. Congress in the
12/09/09
FR notice of the draft Principles and Standards
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007;
P.L. 110-114) directed an update of the 1983 P&G for use
FR publication of the reframed and final
by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). WRDA 2007
03/27/13
Principles and Requirements for federal
required that the update address advancements in economic
investments and draft Interagency Guidelines
and analytic techniques; public safety; low-income
12/24/14
FR publication of final Interagency Guidelines
communities; nonstructural solutions; and integrated,
adaptive, and watershed approaches.
Source: CRS.
Moving from 1983 P&G to PR&G
Implementation of the PR&G
Table 1 summarizes the update process, which spanned the
Agencies subject to the PR&G (see Table 2) are
George W. Bush and Obama Administrations. In 2009, the
responsible for developing agency-specific procedures for
Obama Administration announced that it was updating the
implementation and documenting whether existing
P&G government-wide, rather than only for the Corps.
processes are “equivalent pathways” to the PR&G.
During the PR&G development, the focus shifted from
Agencies are to consult with the Office of Management and
federal water project studies to federal water investments.
Budget and the Council on Environmental Quality
Eight Cabinet secretaries were convened as the WRC
regarding their procedures and alternative pathways.
(which has been without appropriations since 1983) for the
purpose of approving PR&G documents.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources
In November 2015, the Department of the Interior (DOI)
factors (e.g., reduced funding for affected programs,
released its Department Manual for PR&G implementation.
exclusions from the PR&G in law, and existing equivalent
DOI may be positioned to implement the PR&G for new
pathways for PR&G compliance). For the Corps, the most
water projects and federal investments in nonfederal
recent congressional direction was in the explanatory
projects by the Bureau of Reclamation and other DOI
statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
agencies (e.g., Bureau of Indian Affairs), including
Act for FY2016 (P.L. 114-113); it expressed concerns that
investments pursuant to P.L. 114-322, Water Infrastructure
the update “did not proceed consistent with the language or
Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN). The U.S.
intent” of WRDA 2007 and prohibited the use of Corps
Department of Agriculture (USDA) appears to be
funding for development or implementation of documents
minimally impacted by the PR&G due to a number of
to support PR&G implementation.
Table 2. Comparison of Selected Aspects of 1983 P&G and PR&G
1983 P&G
PR&G
Affected
Corps; Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); DOI’s Bureau Corps; TVA; DOI; USDA; DOC; Environmental Protection
Federal
of Reclamation; USDA’s Natural Resources
Agency; FEMA (Congress has provided direction on
Entities
Conservation Service
application of the PR&G to Corps and selected 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 of projects, plans, and programs that the federal government
water and related land resources implementation
undertakes whose purposes either directly or indirectly
studies. (Regulatory actions, research, monitoring, and
alter water quantity, quality, ecosystems, or related land
emergency actions were by default outside the P&G
management. (Regulatory, research, monitoring, and
given its focus on studies.)
emergency actions are outside the scope of the PR&G.)
Activity
Project Evaluations: Implementation studies that are
Projects: New, existing facility modifications or
Types and
pre- or post-authorization project formulation or
replacement, or changed operations.
Suggested
evaluation studies undertaken or assisted by four
<$10 million (M) are excluded; between $10M and $20M
Threshold
specified federal agencies. P&G generally are applicable
have scaled analyses; >$20M have full analyses
Criteria for
to eligible implementation studies, with no explicit
Plans: Studies or plans for potential new actions,
Analysis
cutoffs or exclusions provided. (There is no option for
management plans for federal lands, and operational plans
scaled analysis.)
for existing federal water resource infrastructure
<$10M are excluded; between $10M and $50M have scaled
analyses; >$50M have full analyses
Programs: Grant or funding programs. Grant programs
typically 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 full 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 public benefits relative
Criteria
protecting the environment (the NED plan) is selected
to public costs, using applicable selection criteria. Selection
unless the secretary of a department or head of an
criteria are to be identified in agency-specific procedures,
independent agency grants an exception. Plan selection
reflect agency-specific legal requirements (in statutes or
is made by the agency decisionmaker for federal and
regulations), and conform with the PR&G. The PR&G do
federally assisted plans.
not specify the decisionmaker for selecting the preferred
federal investment alternative.
Source: CRS.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources
Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Charles V. Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
IF10221
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10221 · VERSION 11 · UPDATED