Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation
December 12, 2022
The Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal water project owned and operated by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), is one of the world’s largest water supply projects. The
Charles V. Stern
CVP covers approximately 400 miles in California, from Redding to Bakersfield, and draws from
Specialist in Natural
two large river basins: the Sacramento and the San Joaquin. It is composed of 20 dams and
Resources Policy
reservoirs and numerous pieces of water storage and conveyance infrastructure. In an average

year, the CVP delivers more than 7 million acre-feet of water to support irrigated agriculture,
Pervaze A. Sheikh
municipalities, and fish and wildlife needs, among other purposes. About 75% of CVP water is
Specialist in Natural
used for agricultural irrigation, including 7 of California’s top 10 agricultural counties. The CVP
Resources Policy
is operated jointly with the State Water Project (SWP), which provides much of its water to

municipal users in Southern California.
Erin H. Ward
CVP water is delivered to users that have contracts with Reclamation, which is part of the
Legislative Attorney
Department of the Interior. These contractors receive varying levels of priority for water

deliveries based on several factors, including hydrology, water rights, prior agreements with
Reclamation, and regulatory requirements. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers’ confluence

with the San Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta or Delta) is a hub for CVP water deliveries; many CVP
contractors south of the Delta receive water that is “exported” from north of the Delta.
Development of the CVP resulted in significant changes to the area’s natural hydrology. However, construction of most CVP
facilities predated major federal natural resources and environmental protection laws. Much of the current debate related to
the CVP revolves around how to deal with changes to the hydrologic system that were not significantly mitigated when the
project was constructed. Dry conditions—including a prolonged drought from 2012 to 2016 and the current drought, which
dates to 2020—have led to curtailment of contracted water supplies. Reclamation has been unable to provide any water
supplies to most CVP agricultural water service contractors in 4 of the past 11 years (including 2021 and 2022) and has cut
supplies for some senior water rights holders during this time.
Various state and federal proposals are currently under consideration and have generated controversy for their potential to
affect CVP operations and allocations. In late 2018, the State of California finalized revisions to its Bay-Delta Water Quality
Control Plan that would require more flows from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers to reach the Bay-Delta for water
quality and fish and wildlife enhancement (i.e., reduced water supplies for other users). Voluntary agreements that might
replace some or all of these requirements are being negotiated but have not been finalized. The Trump Administration
attempted to increase CVP water supplies for users and proposed changes to long-term operations of the CVP in 2019. Those
changes were finalized in a record of decision in 2020 after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a no jeopardy biological opinion after consultation required by the Endangered
Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). California and some environmental organizations opposed these efforts and filed
lawsuits to prevent implementation of the changes. The court issued a preliminary injunction on May 11, 2020, temporarily
prohibiting Reclamation from implementing the operational changes. Under the Biden Administration, Reclamation is
implementing an interim operations plan for the CVP while the litigation is pending and has requested reinitiation of
consultation with FWS and NMFS to assess the effects of proposed changes to CVP operations.
Congress has engaged in CVP issues through oversight and legislation, most recently in the form of provisions enacted under
the 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322). Among other things, this act
authorized changes to CVP operations that were intended to provide increased water supplies for agricultural and municipal
contractors under certain circumstances (most of these provisions have since expired). In the same legislation, Congress
authorized funding for new water storage projects that are expected to benefit CVP operations. Legislators may consider bills
and conduct oversight on efforts to increase CVP water exports compared with current baselines. Some in Congress have also
weighed in on disagreements between state and federal project operators and the status of coordinated operations of the CVP
and SWP. Congress is also considering whether to approve funding for new water storage projects and may consider
legislation to extend or amend the aforementioned CVP authorities.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 34 link to page 36 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Appendixes
Appendix. CVP Water Contractors ................................................................................................ 34

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 36

Congressional Research Service

link to page 9 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Introduction
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), part of the Department of the Interior (DOI), operates
the multipurpose federal Central Valley Project (CVP) in California, one of the world’s largest
water storage and conveyance systems. The CVP runs approximately 400 miles in California,
from Redding to Bakersfield (Figure 1). It supplies water to hundreds of thousands of acres of
irrigated agriculture throughout the state, including some of the most valuable cropland in the
country. It also provides water to selected state and federal wildlife refuges, as well as to some
municipal and industrial (M&I) water users. The CVP’s operations are coordinated with the
state’s other largest water supply project, the state-operated State Water Project (SWP).
This report provides information on hydrologic conditions in California and their impact on state
and federal water management, with a focus on deliveries related to the federal CVP. It also
summarizes selected issues for Congress related to the CVP.
Recent Developments
California’s water supplies are highly variable, with extended drought often followed by
extremely wet years. The drought of 2012-2016, widely considered to be among California’s
most severe droughts in recent history, resulted in major reductions to CVP contractor allocations
and economic and environmental impacts throughout the state.1 These impacts were of interest to
Congress, which oversees federal operation of the CVP. Although the wet winter of 2017
temporarily alleviated those conditions, October 2019 through September 2022 was the driest
three water year period on record since 1977, and resulted in renewed water delivery curtailments
and attention on California’s constrained water supplies.2 Most expect water users to once again
face constrained water supplies in water year 2023 as a result of the ongoing drought. In addition
to the likelihood of another year of dry hydrology in the short-term, many also point to longer-
term trends of reduced water availability, which reduce runoff and carryover supplies from one
year to the next, and increase reliance on limited groundwater reserves. How to deal with both
short and long-term drought in the context of the CVP are among the issues confronting
policymakers.
Due to the limited available water supplies, proposed changes to current water operations and
allocations associated with the CVP are controversial. Because of the relative scarcity of water in
the West and the importance of federal water infrastructure to the region, western water issues are
regularly of interest to many lawmakers. Legislation enacted in the 114th Congress (Title II of the
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation [WIIN] Act; P.L. 114-322) included several
CVP-related sections.3 These provisions directed pumping to “maximize” water supplies for the
CVP (including pumping or “exports” to CVP water users south of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers’ confluence with the San Francisco Bay, known as the Bay-Delta or Delta) in
accordance with applicable biological opinions (BiOps) for project operations.4 They also

1 For more information on drought in general, see CRS Report R46911, Drought in the United States: Science, Policy,
and Selected Federal Authorities, coordinated by Charles V. Stern and Eva Lipiec.
2 A water year is a hydrologic unit for measuring a 12-month total for which precipitation totals are measured. In
California, the water year typically is measured from October 1 of one year to September 30 of the following year.
3 For more information, see CRS Report R44986, Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act:
Bureau of Reclamation and California Water Provisions, by Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Nicole T. Carter.
4 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that a federal agency proposing an action that may have an effect on a
listed species consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (i.e., regulatory
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 9 link to page 21 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

allowed for increased pumping during certain storm events generating high flows, authorized
actions to facilitate water transfers, and established a new standard for measuring the effects of
water operations on species. In addition to operational provisions, the WIIN Act authorized
funding for construction of new federal and nonfederal water storage projects. CVP projects are
among the most likely recipients of this funding.
Due to increased precipitation and disagreements with the state, among other factors, the WIIN
Act’s operational authorities generally did not yield significant new water exports south of the
Delta in 2017-2020. Reclamation received funding for WIIN Act-authorized water storage project
design and construction in FY2017-FY2021, and the majority of this funding has gone to CVP-
related projects.
State and federal plans under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA),
respectively, would alter water allocation and operational criteria in markedly different ways and
have generated controversy. In mid-2018, the State of California proposed revisions to its Bay-
Delta Water Quality Control Plan (developed pursuant to the CWA [33 U.S.C. §§1251-138]).
These changes, which have yet to be implemented, would require that more flows from the San
Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers reach the California Bay-Delta for water quality and fish and
wildlife enhancement (and would thus further reduce water supplies for CVP and SWP users).
Actions pursuant to voluntary agreements with the state could alter and/or replace some of these
requirements. Separately, in February 2020, the Trump Administration finalized an associated
operations plan to increase water supplies for South-of-Delta CVP users after issuing a new
biological opinion (BiOp) under the ESA (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544). The BiOp was challenged in
court, and the operational changes have not been implemented. The Biden Administration
reviewed and revised the plan, and on September 30, 2021, Reclamation requested reinitiation of
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the ESA. In the meantime, Reclamation and California
implemented an interim operations plan for CVP and SWP operations during the 2022 water year.
Reclamation has proposed that this plan—which some oppose—be extended through December
2023 (i.e., through the 2023 water year).5
Background
California’s Central Valley encompasses almost 20,000 square miles in the center of the state
(Figure 1). It is bound by the Cascade Range to the north, the Sierra Nevada to the east, the
Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Coast Ranges and San Francisco Bay to the west. The
northern third of the valley is drained by the Sacramento River, and the southern two-thirds of the
valley are drained by the San Joaquin River. Historically, this area was home to significant fish
and wildlife populations.
The CVP was originally conceived as a state project; the state studied the project as early as 1921,
and the California state legislature formally authorized it for construction in 1933. After it became
clear that the state was unable to finance the project, the federal government (through the U.S.

agencies). The action agency will commonly complete a biological assessment on potential effects to the fish or its
habitat and submit it to the regulatory agency. The regulatory agency then renders a biological opinion, or BiOp, to the
action agency making the proposal. The intent of a BiOp is to ensure that the proposed action will not reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of an ESA-listed species. BiOps typically include conservation recommendations
intended to further recovery of the ESA-listed species. For more information, see CRS Report R46677, The
Endangered Species Act: Overview and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Erin H. Ward, and R. Eliot Crafton.
5 For more information, see below section, “Biological Opinion Consultation and Legal Activity.”
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 9 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE) assumed control of the CVP as a public works
construction project under authority provided under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935.6 The
Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration subsequently transferred the project to Reclamation.7
Construction on the first unit of the CVP (Contra Costa Canal) began in October 1937, with water
first delivered in 1940. Additional CVP units were completed over time, and some USACE-
constructed units have also been incorporated into the project.8 The New Melones Unit was the
last unit of the CVP to come online; it was completed in 1978 and began operations in 1979.
The CVP made significant changes to California’s natural hydrology to develop water supplies
for irrigated agriculture, municipalities, and hydropower, among other things. Most of the CVP’s
major units, however, predated major federal natural resources and environmental protection laws
such as ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.),
among others. Thus, much of the current debate surrounding the project revolves around how to
address the project’s changes to California’s hydrologic system that were not major
considerations when it was constructed.
Today, CVP water serves a variety of different purposes for both human uses and fish and wildlife
needs. The CVP provides a major source of support for California agriculture, which is first in the
nation in terms of farm receipts.9 CVP water supplies irrigate more than 3 million acres of land in
central California and support 7 of California’s top 10 agricultural counties. In addition, CVP
M&I water provides supplies for approximately 2.5 million people per year. CVP operations are
also critical for hydropower, recreation, and fish and wildlife protection. In addition to fisheries
habitat, CVP flows support wetlands, which provide habitat for migrating birds.
Overview of the CVP and California Water Infrastructure
California’s water infrastructure (Figure 1)—which includes an extensive interconnected
network of federal, state, local, and private facilities that move water over hundreds of miles
around the state—is one of the most complex systems of its kind in the world. Numerous entities
throughout the state, including major agricultural and urban economies, as well as a wide variety
of terrestrial and aquatic species, depend on the operational decisions underpinning these
facilities. As a result, water users and other organizations are often in conflict regarding the
decisions related to where and to whom water is delivered, when it is available, and in what
quantity. Short and long-term periods of water scarcity in the state exacerbate these conflicts,
many of which have been ongoing on for decades.
The CVP is the largest federal water project in the country. It encompasses 20 dams and
reservoirs, 11 power plants, and 500 miles of canals, as well as numerous other conduits, tunnels,

6 49 Stat. 1028.
7 Transfer of the project to Reclamation was pursuant to a presidential directive in 1935 and subsequent congressional
enactment of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 844, 850).
8 Although Reclamation constructed much of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and maintains control over its
operations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has also been involved in the project over the course of its
history. Some dams, such as Folsom Dam and New Melones Dam, initially were built by USACE but have been turned
over to Reclamation for operations and maintenance and incorporated into the CVP. Additionally, USACE constructed
and continues to operate several major dams in and around the Central Valley for flood control and other purposes,
including Terminus Dam, Isabella Dam, Pine Flat Dam, and Success Dam in the San Joaquin Valley. Since USACE
operates these dams for flood control, Reclamation administers contracts to use surplus water from these reservoirs for
irrigation.
9 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Cash Receipts by State, Commodity Ranking and Share
of U.S. Total, 2021, at https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17844.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 10 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

and storage and distribution facilities.10 In an average year, it delivers approximately 5 million
acre-feet (AF) of water to farms (including some of the nation’s most valuable farmland);
600,000 AF to M&I users; 410,000 AF to wildlife refuges; and 800,000 AF for other fish and
wildlife needs, among other purposes. A separate major project owned and operated by the State
of California, the State Water Project (SWP), draws water from many of the same sources as the
CVP and coordinates its operations with the CVP under several agreements. In contrast to the
CVP, the SWP delivers about 70% of its water to urban users (including water for approximately
25 million users in the San Francisco Bay, Central Valley, and Southern California); the
remaining 30% is used for irrigation.
At their confluence, the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers flow into the San Francisco Bay (the
Bay-Delta, or Delta). Operation of the CVP and SWP occurs through the storage, pumping, and
conveyance of significant volumes of water from both river basins (as well as trans-basin
diversions from the Trinity River Basin in Northern California) for delivery to users. Federal and
state pumping facilities in the Delta near Tracy, CA, export water from Northern California to
Central and Southern California and are a hub for CVP operations and related debates. In the
context of these controversies, north of Delta (NOD) and south of Delta (SOD) are important
categorical distinctions for water users.
CVP storage is spread throughout Northern and Central California. The largest CVP storage
facility is Shasta Dam and Reservoir in Northern California (Figure 2), which has a capacity of
4.5 million AF. Other major storage facilities, from north to south, include Trinity Dam and
Reservoir (2.4 million AF), Folsom Dam and Reservoir (977,000 AF), New Melones Dam and
Reservoir (2.4 million AF), Friant Dam and Reservoir (520,000 AF), and San Luis Dam and
Reservoir (1.8 million AF of storage, of which half is federal and half is nonfederal).
The CVP also includes numerous water conveyance facilities, the longest of which are the Delta-
Mendota Canal (which runs for 117 miles from the federally operated Bill Jones pumping plant in
the Bay-Delta to the San Joaquin River near Madera) and the Friant-Kern Canal (which runs 152
miles from Friant Dam to the Kern River near Bakersfield).
Non-CVP water storage and infrastructure is also spread throughout the Central Valley and in
some cases is integrated with CVP operations. Major non-CVP storage infrastructure in the
Central Valley includes multiple storage projects that are part of the SWP (the largest of which is
Oroville Dam and Reservoir in Northern California), as well as private storage facilities (e.g.,
Don Pedro and Exchequer Dams and Reservoirs) and local government-owned dams and
infrastructure (e.g., O’Shaughnessy Dam and Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir and Aqueduct, which are
owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission).
In addition to its importance for agricultural water supplies, California’s Central Valley also
provides valuable wetland habitat for migratory birds and other species. As such, it is home to
multiple state, federal, and private wildlife refuges north and south of the Delta. Nineteen of these
refuges (including 12 refuges within the National Wildlife Refuge system, 6 State Wildlife
Areas/Units, and 1 privately managed complex) provide managed wetland habitat that receives
water from the CVP and other sources. Five of these units are located in the Sacramento River
Basin (i.e., North of the Delta), 12 are in the San Joaquin River Basin, and the remaining 2 are in
the Tulare Lake Basin.11

10 Bureau of Reclamation, “About the Central Valley Project,” at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/about-cvp.html.
11 Tulare Lake, a freshwater dry lake in the San Joaquin River Valley, historically was one of the largest freshwater
lakes west of the Great Lakes. Under most normal (nonflood) conditions, the lake was terminal, meaning it had no
Congressional Research Service

8

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Figure 1. Central Valley Project (CVP) and Related Facilities

Source: Prepared by CRS based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; California Spatial Information
Library; Census Bureau TIGER/Line data files; and ESRI Community Data, 2008.
Notes: Colored areas are based on water and irrigation district boundaries and do not correspond to the
amount of water delivered from the Central Valley Project or the State Water Project. For example, some large
areas have relatively small contracts for water compared with other, smaller areas.

outlet and did not drain downstream. Damming in the mid-20th century by the USACE of the Kaweah (Terminus Dam),
Kern (Isabella Dam), Kings (Pine Flat Dam), and Tule Rivers (Success Dam), coupled with development of the basin
for irrigated agriculture, dried up the lake bed under most conditions.
Congressional Research Service

9

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Figure 2. Shasta Dam and Reservoir

Source: Bureau of Reclamation.
Central Valley Project Water Contractors and Allocations
Historically, snowpack has accounted for approximately 30% of California’s water supplies and
is an important factor in determining CVP and SWP allocations. Water from snowpack typically
melts in the spring and early summer, and it is stored and made available to meet water needs
throughout the state in the summer and fall. By late winter, the state’s water supply outlook is
typically sufficient for Reclamation to issue the amount of water it expects to deliver to its
contractors.12 At that time, Reclamation announces estimated deliveries for its 250 CVP water
contractors in the upcoming water year.
More than 9.5 million AF of water per year is potentially available from the CVP for delivery
based on contracts between Reclamation and CVP contractors.13 However, most CVP water
contracts provide exceptions for Reclamation to reduce water deliveries due to hydrologic
conditions and other conditions outside Reclamation’s control.14 As a result of these stipulations,
Reclamation rarely delivers the full amount of contracted water to CVP users, and regularly
makes cutbacks to actual CVP water deliveries to contractors due to drought and other factors.

12 A water contractor, as described in this report, has a contract for specified water deliveries from conveyance
structures managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation typically estimates these deliveries as a
percentage of the total contract allocation to be made available for contractors within certain divisions, geographic
areas, and/or contractor types (e.g., south-of-Delta agricultural contractors).
13 Water service contracts charge users a per-acre-foot rate based on the amount of water delivered. In contrast,
repayment contracts (the most common type of Reclamation contract outside of the CVP) charge users based on the
amount of water storage allocated to a contractor, among other things.
14 See U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Final Form of Contract,4-19-2004, Articles 3b, 11, 12a, and
12b, at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/3404c/lt_contracts/index.html.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 9 link to page 12 link to page 25 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Since the early 1980s, an average of about 7 million AF of water has been made available to CVP
contractors annually (including 5 million AF to agricultural contractors). However, during
drought years deliveries may be significantly less. In the extremely dry water years of 2012-2015,
CVP annual deliveries averaged approximately 3.45 million AF.15
CVP contractors receive varying levels of priority for water deliveries based on their water rights
and other related factors, and some of the largest and most prominent water contractors have a
relatively low allocation priority. Major groups of CVP contractors include water rights
contractors (i.e., senior water rights holders such as the Sacramento River Settlement and San
Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, see box below), North and South of Delta water service
contractors, and Central Valley refuge water contractors. The relative locations for these groups
are shown in Figure 1.
Water Rights Contractors
California’s system of state water rights has a profound effect on who gets how much water and when, particularly
during times of drought or other restrictions on water supply. Because the waters of California are considered to
be “the property of the people of the State," anyone wishing to use those waters must acquire a right to do so.
California fol ows a dual system of water rights, recognizing both the riparian and prior appropriation doctrines.
Under the riparian doctrine, a person who owns land that borders a watercourse has the right to make
reasonable use of the water on that land (riparian rights). Riparian rights are reduced proportionally during times
of shortage. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, a person who diverts water from a watercourse (regardless
of his location relative thereto) and makes reasonable and beneficial use of the water acquires a right to that use
of the water (appropriated rights). Appropriated rights are fil ed in order of seniority during times of shortage.
Before exercising the right to use the water, appropriative users must obtain permission from the state through a
permit system run by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
Both the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State Water Project (SWP) acquired rights for water use from the
State of California, receiving several permits for water diversions at various points between 1927 and 1967. Since
the Bureau of Reclamation found it necessary to take the water rights of other users to construct the CVP, it
entered into settlement or exchange contracts with water users who had rights predating the CVP (and thus were
senior users in time and right). Many of these special contracts were entered into in areas where water users
were diverting water directly from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.
Sacramento River Settlement Contractors include the contractors (both individuals and districts) that diverted
natural flows from the Sacramento River prior to the CVP’s construction and executed a settlement agreement
with Reclamation that provided for negotiated allocation of water rights. San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors
are the irrigation districts that agreed to “exchange” exercising their water rights to divert water on the San
Joaquin and Kings Rivers for guaranteed water deliveries from the CVP (typically in the form of deliveries from the
Delta-Mendota Canal and waters north of the Delta). In contrast to water service contractors, water rights
contractors receive 100% of their contracted amounts in most water-year types. During water shortages (typically
designated as “critical years” based on inflows to Lake Shasta), their annual maximum entitlement may be reduced,
but not by more than 25%.
The largest contract holders of CVP water by percentage of total contracted amounts are
Sacramento River Settlement Contractors, located on the Sacramento River. The second-largest
group are SOD water service contractors (including Westlands Water District, the CVP’s largest
contractor), located in the area south of the Delta. Other major contractors include San Joaquin
River Exchange Contractors, located west of the San Joaquin River, and Friant Division
contractors, located on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. Central Valley refuges and several
smaller contractor groups (e.g., Eastside Contracts, In-Delta-Contra Costa Contracts, and SOD
Settlement Contracts) also factor into CVP water allocation discussions.16 Figure 3 depicts an
approximate division of maximum available CVP water deliveries pursuant to contracts with

15 CRS analysis of CVP contract water delivery information by the Bureau of Reclamation, October 3, 2018.
16 Central Valley Project refuges are discussed more in the below section, “Central Valley Project Improvement Act.”
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 34 link to page 35

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Reclamation. The largest contractor groups and their relative delivery priority are discussed in
more detail in the Appendix to this report.
Figure 3. Central Valley Project: Maximum Contract Amounts
(relative share of total maximum contracted CVP supplies)

Source: CRS, using Bureau of Reclamation contractor data as of 2018.
Notes: SOD = South-of-Delta; M&I = municipal and industrial water service contractors. Sacramento River
Settlement Contractors includes both “base” water rights supplies (18.6%) and additional CVP “project” supplies
(3.5%). For SOD Refuges, chart does not reflect “Level 4” supplies (for more information on Level 4 supplies,
see below section, “Central Valley Wildlife Refuges”).
CVP Allocations
Reclamation announced its initial allocations for the 2022 water year in February 2022 and made
updates to these allocations in April and July 2022.17 Reclamation noted that early season storms
in October and December 2021 were followed by the driest January and February on record.18
Based on forecasted inflow to Shasta Lake, Reclamation once again designated the 2022 water
year as a “Shasta Critical Year”;19 this was the second such year in a row. Table 1, below, shows

17 Estimated allocations may be revised throughout the spring, depending on hydrology.
18 Bureau of Reclamation, “Reclamation Outlines Initial 2022 Water Allocations for Central Valley Project
Contractors,” press release, February 23, 2022, at https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/#/news-release/4104. Hereinafter
“Reclamation Initial 2022 CVP Allocations.”
19 A “Shasta Critical Year” is defined as a year in which inflows into Lake Shasta are forecasted to be at or below 3.2
Congressional Research Service

12

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

recent CVP allocations. Because of the Shasta Critical Year designation, the most senior water
rights contractors and some refuges were allocated 75% of their maximum contract allocations in
2022. Reclamation allocated SOD and NOD agricultural water service contractors 0% of their
contracted supplies in 2022. These contractors have received their full contract allocations four
times since 1990: 1995, 1998, 2006, and 2017.20 In 2022, Reclamation allocated 30% for Friant
Class 1 contractor allocations and 0% for Class 2 allocations. For M&I contractors, during times
of shortage users receive allocations based on a percentage of their historical usage, or public
health and safety needs.

MAF.
20 Bureau of Reclamation, “Summary of Water Supply Allocations,” at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/vungvari/
water_allocations_historical.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 14
Table 1. Central Valley Project Contractor Water Allocations by Water Year, 2012-2022
(percentage of maximum contract allocation made available)

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
North-of-Delta

Users
Agricultural
100%
75%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
5%
0%
M&I
100%
100%
50%
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
25%
5%
Settlement
100%
100%
75%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
18%
Contractors
Refuges (Level 2)
100%
100%
75%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
18%
American River M&I
100%
75%
50%
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
55%
15%
In Delta- Contra
100%
75%
50%
25%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
55%
33%
Costa
South-of-Delta

Users
Agricultural
40%
20%
0%
0%
5%
100%
50%
75%
20%
0%
0%
M&I
75%
70%
50%
25%
55%
100%
75%
100%
70%
25%
33%
Exchange
100%
100%
65%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
75%
Contractors
Refuges (Level 2)
100%
100%
65%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
75%
Eastside Division
100%
100%
55%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
Friant Class I
50%
62%
0%
0%
65%
100%
88%
100%
65%
40%
30%
Friant Class 2
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
100%
9%
a
0%
0%
0%
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, CVP Historical Water Supply Allocations.
Notes: CVP = Central Valley Project. M&I = municipal and industrial water contractors. M&I contractor al ocations typically reference a percentage in terms of historic
use (or public health and safety needs, whichever is greater). Water years refer to the time period from October 1 to September 30.
a. “Uncontrol ed” Class 2 releases for Friant Contractors were available through June 30, 2019.

CRS-14

link to page 15 link to page 17 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

State Water Project Allocations
The other major water project serving California, the SWP, is operated by California’s
Department of Water Resources (DWR). The SWP primarily provides water to M&I users and
some agricultural users, and it integrates its operations with the CVP. Similar to the CVP, the
SWP has more contracted entitlements than it typically makes available in its deliveries. SWP
contracted entitlements are 4.17 million AF, but annual deliveries are less than that amount,
considerably in some years.
SWP water deliveries were historically low in 2014 and 2015, before rebounding to significantly
higher levels in the wet year of 2017. Due to drought in 2021 and 2022, allocations again fell to
historically low levels.21 SWP water supply allocations for water years 2012-2022 are shown in
Table 2.
Table 2. California State Water Project Allocations by Water Year, 2012-2022
(percentage of maximum contract allocation)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
State Water
65%
35%
5%
20%
60%
85%
35%
75%
20%
5%
5%
Project
Source: California Department of Water Resources, “Notices to State Water Project Contractors,” at
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/Management/SWP-Water-Contractors.
Combined CVP/SWP Operations
The CVP and SWP are operated in conjunction under the 1986 Coordinated Operations
Agreement (COA), which was executed pursuant to P.L. 99-546.22 COA defines the rights and
responsibilities of the CVP and SWP with respect to in-basin water needs and provides a
mechanism to account for those rights and responsibilities. Several major changes to California
water supply allocations that occurred since 1986 (e.g., water delivery reductions pursuant to the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the Endangered Species Act requirements, and new
Delta Water Quality Standards, among other things) caused some to argue for renegotiation of the
agreement’s terms.23 Dating to 2015, Reclamation and DWR conducted a mutual review of COA
but did not agree on revisions. On August 17, 2018, Reclamation provided a Notice of
Negotiations to DWR.24 Following negotiations in fall 2018, Reclamation and DWR agreed to an
addendum to COA in December 2018.25 Whereas the original 1986 agreement included a fixed
ratio of 75% CVP/25% SWP for the sharing of regulatory requirements associated with storage

21 California Department of Water Resources, “State Water Project Historical Table A Allocations, 1996-2022,”
August 30, 2022, at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/State-Water-Project/
Management/SWP-Water-Contractors/Files/1996-2022-Allocation-Progression-083022b.pdf.
22 “Agreement Between the United States of America and the State of California for Coordinated Operation of the
Central Valley Project and the State Water Project,” No. 7-07-20-WO551. November 24, 1986.
23 For example, see Joint Letter to the Bureau of Reclamation from Placer County Water Agency, City of Folsom,
Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority et al., March 1, 2016, at http://www.ccwater.com/DocumentCenter/View/1854. For
more information on water delivery restrictions as they apply to the CVP, see “Constraints on CVP Deliveries.”
24 Letter from David G. Murillo, Regional Directory, Bureau of Reclamation, to Karla Nemeth, Director, California
Department of Water Resources, August 17, 2018.
25See Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Water Resources, Addendum to the Agreement Between the
United States of America and the Department of Water Resources of the State of California for Coordinated Operation
of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, December 12, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 16 link to page 17 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

withdrawals for Sacramento Valley in-basin uses (e.g., curtailments for water quality and species
uses), the revised addendum adjusted the ratio of sharing percentages based on water year types
(Table 3).
Table 3. Coordinated Operations Agreement (COA) Regulatory Requirements for
CVP/SWP In-basin Storage Withdrawals
(requirements pursuant to 1986 and 2018 agreements)
Water Year Type
1986 COA
COA with 2018 Addendum
All
75% CVP, 25% SWP
NA
Wet & Above Normal
NA
80% CVP, 20% SWP
Below Normal
NA
75% CVP, 25% SWP
Dry
NA
65% CVP, 35% SWP
Critically Dry
NA
60% CVP, 40% SWP
Source: Addendum to the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Department of Water Resources of
the State of California for Coordinated Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, December
12, 2018.
The 2018 addendum also adjusted the sharing of export capacity under constrained conditions.
Whereas under the 1986 COA, export capacity was shared evenly between the CVP and the SWP,
under the revised COA the split is to be 60% CVP/40% SWP during excess conditions, and 65%
CVP/35% SWP during balanced conditions.26 Finally, the state also agreed in the 2018 revisions
to transport up to 195,000 AF of CVP water through the SWP’s California Aqueduct during
certain conditions. Recent disagreements related to CVP and SWP operational changes by the
federal and state governments, in particular those operational changes to meet ESA requirements,
have called into question the future of coordinated operations under COA.
CVP/SWP Exports
“Exports” reflect trends over time in the transfer of water from north to south of the Bay-Delta by
the CVP and SWP, in particular through pumping. Combined CVP and SWP exports (i.e., water
transferred from north to south of the Delta) is of interest to many observers because exports are
important sources of water supply in central and southern CA. Exports of the CVP and SWP, as
well as total combined exports since 1978, have varied over time (Figure 4). Most recently,
combined exports dropped significantly during the 2012-2016 drought and rebounded in 2017-
2018, before once again dropping during the current drought. Prior to the 2012-2016 drought,
overall export levels had increased over time, having averaged more from 2001 to 2011 than over
any previous 10-year period. The 6.42 million AF of combined exports in 2017 was the second
most on record, behind 6.59 million AF in 2011.
Over time, CVP exports have decreased on average. Additionally, exports for agricultural
purposes have declined as a subset of total exports, in part due to those exports being made
available for other purposes (e.g., fish and wildlife).

26 “Balanced” conditions refer to those conditions under which reservoir releases and unregulated flows in the Delta are
equal to the water supply needed to meet Sacramento Valley in-basin uses plus exports. Excess conditions are periods
in which releases and unregulated flows exceed the aforementioned uses.
Congressional Research Service

16

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Figure 4. Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) Exports
(exports in millions of acre-feet, 1976-2021)

Source: CRS based on data provided by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, email
communication, October 27, 2021, Total Annual Pumping at Banks, Jones, and Contra Costa Pumping Plants 1976-
2021 (MAF).
Constraints on CVP Deliveries
Concerns over CVP water supply deliveries persist in part because even in years with higher
levels of precipitation and runoff, some contractors (in particular SOD water service contractors)
have regularly received allocations of less than 100% of their contract supplies. Allocations for
some users have declined over time; additional environmental requirements in recent decades
have reduced water deliveries for human uses. Those factors, coupled with reduced water
supplies available in drought years, have led some policymakers and stakeholders to increasingly
focus on what can be done to increase water supplies for users. At the same time, others that
depend on or advocate for the health of the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries, including
fishing and environmental groups and water users throughout Northern California, have argued
for maintaining or increasing existing environmental protections (the latter of which would likely
further constrain CVP exports).
Hydrology and state water rights are the two primary drivers of CVP allocations. However, at
least three other regulatory factors affect the timing and amount of water available for delivery to
CVP contractors and are regularly the subject of controversy:
 State water quality requirements pursuant to state and the federal water quality
laws (including the Clean Water Act [CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§1251-138])
Congressional Research Service

17

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

 Regulations and court orders pertaining to implementation of the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA, 87 Stat. 884. 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544)27
 Implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA; P.L.
102-575)28
Each of these factors is discussed in more detail below.
Water Quality Requirements: Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan
California sets water quality standards and issues permits for the discharge of pollutants in
compliance with the federal CWA, enacted in 1972.29 Through the Porter-Cologne Act (a state
law), California implements federal CWA requirements and authorizes the State Water Resources
Control Board (State Water Board) to adopt water quality control plans, or basin plans.30 The
CVP and the SWP affect water quality in the Bay-Delta depending on how much freshwater the
projects release into the area as “unimpaired flows” (thereby affecting area salinity levels).
The first Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta (Bay-Delta Plan) was issued by the State
Water Board in 1978. Since then, there have been three substantive updates to the plan—in 1991,
1995, and 2006. The plans have generally required the SWP and CVP to meet certain water
quality and flow objectives in the Delta to maintain desired salinity levels for in-Delta diversions
(e.g., water quality levels for in-Delta water supplies) and fish and wildlife, among other things.
These objectives often affect the amount and timing of water available to be pumped, or exported,
from the Delta and thus at times result in reduced Delta exports to CVP and SWP water users
south of the Delta.31 The Bay-Delta Plan is currently implemented through the State Water
Board’s Decision 1641 (or D-1641), which was issued in 1999 and placed responsibility for plan
implementation on the state’s largest two water rights holders, Reclamation and the California
DWR.32
Pumping restrictions to meet state-set water quality levels—particularly increases in salinity
levels—can sometimes be significant. However, the relative magnitude of these effects varies
depending on hydrology. For instance, Reclamation estimated that in 2014, water quality

27 Requirements of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) currently are being satisfied through
implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) due to a California state determination that project
operations under the federal biological opinions are consistent with requirements under CESA. Presumably, if
protections afforded to threatened and endangered species under the federal ESA were no longer in place, the State of
California could invoke protections under CESA.
28 P.L. 102-575, Title 34, 106 Stat. 4706.
29 The CWA requires the states to implement water quality standards that designate water uses to be protected and
adopt water quality criteria that protect the designated uses. For application to California, see United States v. State
Water Resources Control Board (Racanelli), 182 Cal. App. 3d 82, 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).
30 See Cal. Water Code §13160.
31 Inability to reach agreement on water quality objectives through deliberation and litigation nearly shut down Delta
pumping in the early 1990s and was a significant factor in the creation of the Bay-Delta Accord—a partnership
between federal and state agencies with projects, responsibilities, and activities affecting the Delta. Habitat protection
commitments in the accord were incorporated into the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan, as were actions called for
under the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program, and were included by the State Water Board in D-1641. (See U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Long-Term Central Valley Project
Operations Criteria and Plan, Sacramento, CA, May 22, 2008, pp. 2-6.)
32 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, “Revised Water Right Decision
1641,” March 15, 2000, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/decisions/
d1600_d1649/wrd1641_1999dec29.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

18

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

restrictions accounted for 176,300 AF, which was roughly 10% of the long-term pumping average
for CVP exports.33
Bay-Delta Plan Update
Updates to the 2006 Bay Delta Plan (i.e., the Bay-Delta Plan Update) are being carried out in two
separate processes: one for the San Joaquin River and Southern Delta, and the other for the
Sacramento River and tributaries north of the Delta.34 In December 2018, the State Water Board
adopted amendments to the 2006 Bay Delta Plan establishing flow objectives and revised salinity
objectives for the Lower San Joaquin River and Southern Delta.35 The San Joaquin portion of the
Bay-Delta Plan Update requires additional flows to the ocean (generally referred to as unimpaired
flows) from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries (i.e., the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced
Rivers). Under the proposal, the unimpaired flow requirement for the San Joaquin River is
approximately 40% (within a range of 30%-50%); average unimpaired flows currently range from
21% to 40%.36 The state estimates that the updated version of the plan would reduce water
available for human use from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries by between 7% and 23%,
on average, depending on the water year type, but it could reduce these water supplies by as much
as 38% during critically dry years.37 The state also is updating flow requirements on the
Sacramento River and its tributaries, but a detailed plan has yet to be finalized.38 The conditions
in the Bay-Delta Plan Update would be implemented through water rights conditions imposed by
the State Water Board; originally, these conditions were to be implemented no later than 2022, but
they have been delayed by litigation (see below for additional discussion).
According to the state, the Bay Delta Plan Update establishes a “starting point” for increased river
flows but also makes allowances for reduced flow requirements on tributaries where stakeholders
have reached so-called voluntary agreements (see box below) to pursue both flow and “non-flow”
measures, such as habitat restoration projects and funding.39 Negotiations to finalize these
agreements have been ongoing since prior to the passage of the first plan update amendments, and
the negotiations involve the state and federal governments as well as numerous stakeholders.
According to the State Water Board, if water users do not enter into voluntary agreements to

33 Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, October 15, 2015.
34 For more information, see the State Water Resources Control Board Bay Delta Plan update website at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/.
35 See California State Water Board, Adoption of Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary and Final Substitute Environmental Document, Resolution No. 2018-
0059, December 12, 2018.
36 California Water Boards, “State Water Board Seeks Public Comment on Final Draft Bay-Delta Plan Update for the
Lower San Joaquin River and Southern Delta,” July 6, 2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/
water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/Bay-Delta_Plan_Update_Press_Release.pdf.
37 California Water Boards, “Summary of Proposed Amendments to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan,” July 6,
2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/sed/
lsjr_sdwq_summary_070618.pdf. “Critically dry” years refers to a classification that is part of a broader index of water
year types for the San Joaquin River; it is calculated based on runoff from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. A
similar index characterizes Sacramento River runoff.
38 A preliminary framework released by the state in July 2018 proposed a potential requirement of 55% unimpaired
flows from the Sacramento River (within a range of 45% to 65%). See California Water Boards, “July 2018 Framework
for the Sacramento/Delta Update to the Bay-Delta Plan,” July 6, 2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/
water_issues/programs/bay_delta/docs/sed/sac_delta_framework_070618%20.pdf. Hereinafter California Water
Boards, “July 2018 Framework.”
39 California Water Boards, “State Water Board Adopts Bay-Delta Plan Update,” press release, December 12, 2018, at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2018/pr121218_bay-delta_plan_update.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

19

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

implement the plan update, the board could eventually take actions to require their
implementation, such as promulgation of regulations and conditioning of water rights.40
Voluntary Agreements
Voluntary agreements are proposed agreements between the State of California and water users that would aim to
improve conditions for native fish with new flows for the environment, habitat restoration, and new funding for
environmental improvements and science. These agreements, if finalized, would apply in lieu of flow-only measures
in the State Water Resources Control Board’s update to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan. The state has
created a framework for the agreements, which it expects would be monitored, enforceable, and in place for 15
years. Preliminary estimated costs for implementing the agreements by the state indicate they wil cost
approximately $5.2 bil ion over 15 years. Of this amount, the federal government is assumed to contribute $740
mil ion, the state government would contribute $2.2 bil ion, and water users would contribute $2.3 bil ion.
Sources: California State Water Resource Control Board, Proposals for Voluntary Agreements to Update and
Implement the Bay-Delta Plan, May 5, 2022, https://waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/
bay_delta/proposed_voluntary_agreements.html
Reclamation and its contractors would likely play key roles in implementing any update to the
Bay-Delta Plan, as they do in implementing the current Bay Delta Plan under D-1641. Pursuant to
Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902,41 Reclamation generally defers to state water law in
carrying out its authorities, but the proposed Bay Delta Plan Update has generated controversy. In
a July 2018 letter to the State Water Board, the Commissioner of Reclamation opposed the
proposed standards for the San Joaquin River, arguing that meeting them would necessitate
decreased water in storage at New Melones Reservoir of approximately 315,000 AF per year (a
higher amount than estimated by the State Water Board). At the time, Reclamation asserted that
such a change would be contrary to the CVP prioritization scheme as established by Congress.42
On March 28, 2019, the Department of Justice and DOI filed civil actions in federal and state
court against the State Water Board for failing to comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).43 On June 8, 2021, the United States requested that the court stay the case
after newly appointed officials in Reclamation decided to pursue other means of resolving the
dispute, such as a voluntary agreement.44 Settlement discussions, however, were not fruitful, and
the federal court is presently allowing the parties to brief certain claims.45 Meanwhile, parallel
claims are proceeding in state court, where the case is being coordinated with 11 other cases
challenging the Bay Delta Plan Update.46

40 California Water Boards, “July 2018 Framework.”
41 43 U.S.C. §383.
42 Letter from Brenda Burman, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, DOI, to Felicia Marcus, Chair, State Water
Resources Control Board, July 27, 2018, at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/
bay_delta/docs/comments_lsjr_finalsed/Brenda_Burman_BOR.pdf. Hereinafter “Letter from Brenda Burman to Felicia
Marcus.”
43 Department of Justice, “United States Files Lawsuit Against California State Water Resources Control Board for
Failure to Comply With California Environmental Quality Act,” press release, March 28, 2019, at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-lawsuit-against-california-state-water-resources-control-board-
failure; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., No. 2:19-cv-
00547 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019); Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Under the California Environmental Quality
Act, United States v. State Water Res. Control Bd., No. 34-2019-80003111 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 28, 2019).
44 Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Case for 120 Days, United States v. State Water Resources Control Board,
No. 2:19-cv-00547 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2021).
45 Minute Order, Joint Status Report at 3-4, United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, No. 2:19-cv-00547
(E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2022).
46 Order Granting Petition for Coordination of Add-On Case, State Water Board Cases, JCCP No. 5013 (Dec. 13, 2019
Congressional Research Service

20

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Endangered Species Act
Several species listed under the ESA are affected by the operations of the CVP and the SWP.47
For example, the Delta smelt, a small pelagic fish that was listed as threatened under the ESA in
1993, can be trapped and killed (i.e., “entrained”) in CVP and SWP pumps in the Delta. No Delta
smelt were found in the annual September midwater trawl survey in 2021, marking four years in a
row with no smelt found in the September survey.48
These results for ESA-listed fish raised concerns for many stakeholders, because a low Delta
smelt population could result in greater restrictions on water flowing to users. The survey result
also raises larger concerns among stakeholders about the overall health and resilience of the Bay-
Delta ecosystem. In addition to Delta smelt, multiple anadromous salmonid species found in the
Bay-Delta ecosystem have been listed under the ESA since 1991. These species include the
endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, the threatened Central Valley spring-
run Chinook salmon, the threatened Central Valley steelhead, threatened Southern
Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon, and the threatened Central California Coast
steelhead.49 Certain runs of chinook salmon also are faced with population declines in the Bay-
Delta; scientists estimate that 2% of winter-run juvenile chinook salmon survived the summer of
2021, largely due to drought and warming temperatures.50 The number of salmon returning to
spawn, however, has varied significantly in the last 10 years.51
Biological Opinion Consultation and Legal Activity
Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies generally must consult with FWS in DOI or NMFS
in the Department of Commerce (DOC) to determine whether a federal agency action (e.g.,
project) is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species listed under the ESA or
adversely modify critical habitat.52 If an adverse effect is possible, the agency initiates formal
consultation with the applicable service, which generally concludes with FWS or NMFS issuing a
BiOp on the potential harm the project poses to the species and critical habitat—specifically,
whether the action is likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat, as
proposed.53 If the action is likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitat,
FWS or NMFS suggests any reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to the action that may

Cal. Sup. Ct.) (granting petition to coordinate United States v. State Water Resources Control Board, No. 34-2019-
80003111, with coordinated cases in State Water Board Cases, JCCP No. 5013).
47 Act of December 28, 1973, P.L. 93-205; 87 Stat. 884, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq. This report assumes a
basic knowledge of the act; an overview of the ESA and its major provisions may be found in CRS Report R46677, The
Endangered Species Act: Overview and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh, Erin H. Ward, and R. Eliot Crafton.
48 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Monthly Abundance Index for Delta Smelt, October 2021, at
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/fmwt/indices.asp.
49 Anadromous fish are born in freshwater, spend the majority of life in saltwater, and return to freshwater to spawn.
Examples include salmon and some species of sturgeon. Winter-run Chinook salmon, listed in 1991, were the first
anadromous species listed from the Central Valley. Other species were listed subsequently.
50 Nick Cahill, “Data Confirms Salmon Slaughter on California’s Main River,” Courthouse News Service, November 4,
2021, at https://www.courthousenews.com/data-confirms-salmon-slaughter-on-californias-main-river/.
51 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CDFW Fisheries Branch Anadromous Resources Assessment - Chinook
Salmon, June 30, 2021, at https://www.calfish.org/ProgramsData/Species/CDFWAnadromousResourceAssessment/
tabid/415/Agg1270_SelectTab/2/Default.aspx.
52 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2).
53 16 U.S.C. §1536(b); 50 C.F.R. §402.14.
Congressional Research Service

21

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

avoid such harm.54 If the action is not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify
critical habitat, or if there are RPAs to the action, the service specifies, as necessary and
appropriate, reasonable and prudent measures to reduce the harm.55 The BiOp also includes an
incidental take statement (ITS), which authorizes the incidental take of listed species from the
agency’s action, provided the agency complies with the terms and conditions of the ITS that
implement the reasonable and prudent measures.56 As conditions or plans change, the project
agency may be required to reinitiate consultation and give FWS and NMFS another opportunity
to assess the project’s effects on species and habitat.
BiOps and the consultation process often have resulted in the modification of CVP and SWP
operations. In some cases, the CVP and SWP have developed operations plans in ways that would
allow a finding that those operations will not jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify
critical habitat. In other cases, FWS and NMFS have identified RPAs that they considered
necessary to allow such a finding. Those BiOps are subject to judicial review based on claims that
they underestimate the potential harm to species and habitat (and thus should impose more
stringent RPAs), as well as claims that they overestimate harm to species and habitat (and thus
proposed RPAs are unnecessary).
CVP and SWP BiOps have been challenged in court and revised by FWS and NMFS over time.
Until 2004, a 1993 winter-run Chinook salmon BiOp and a 1995 Delta smelt BiOp (as amended)
governed CVP and SWP operations, including Delta exports, for federal ESA purposes. In 2004, a
new BiOp examined a proposed change in SWP and CVP operations known as OCAP
(Operations Criteria and Plan). Environmental groups challenged the services’ 2004 BiOps. As a
result, FWS and NMFS developed new BiOps in 2008 and 2009, respectively.57 These BiOps
both concluded that the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and SWP, as proposed in
Reclamation’s 2008 biological assessment (BA), was likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of listed species and to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Accordingly, both
BiOps included RPAs designed to allow the CVP and the SWP to continue operating without
jeopardizing listed species or destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat. The
RPAs placed additional restrictions on the amount of water exported via SWP and CVP Delta
pumps and other limitations on pumping and release of stored water.58 Reclamation accepted the
BiOps and began project operations consistent with the FWS and NMFS RPAs.
FWS and NMFS issued new BiOps examining CVP and SWP operations in 2019, and those
BiOps are currently in effect. As the rest of this section explains, however, those BiOps have been
subject to litigation since they were issued. Reclamation has been operating the CVP pursuant to
an interim operations plan that modifies some of the operations in the 2020 ROD while the Biden
Administration reconsiders the BiOps.

54 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(3).
55 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4).
56 16 U.S.C. §1536(b)(4).
57 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Proposed Coordinated
Operations of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), December 15, 2008, at
https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/Documents/SWP-CVP_OPs_BO_12-15_final_OCR.pdf; National Marine Fisheries
Service, Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and
State Water Project, June 4, 2009, at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/biological-opinion-and-
conference-opinion-long-term-operations-central-valley.
58 Among other things, the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service BiOp requires temperature considerations for the
benefit of species in the Sacramento River and in the Bay-Delta.
Congressional Research Service

22

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

In August 2016, Reclamation and DWR requested reinitiation of consultation on long-term,
system-wide operations of the CVP and the SWP based on new information related to multiple
years of drought, species decline, and related data.59 Reclamation issued a new BA on January 31,
2019, discussing the operational changes proposed by Reclamation and mitigation factors to
address listed species.60 The BA proposed various operational measures that, according to
Reclamation, would benefit listed species, including a shift to pumping based on real-time
monitoring rather than calendar-based targets, updated science and monitoring information, and a
revised plan for cold-water management and releases at Shasta Dam. Non-operational activities to
augment and bolster listed fish populations would include habitat restoration and the introduction
of hatchery-bred Delta smelt, among other things.
FWS and NOAA simultaneously issued BiOps for Reclamation’s proposed changes to CVP
operations on October 21, 2019.61 In contrast to the 2008 and 2009 BiOps, the services concluded
that Reclamation’s proposed operations would not jeopardize threatened or endangered species or
adversely modify their designated critical habitat. In reaching these conclusions, FWS and NMFS
reported that they worked with Reclamation during the consultation process to modify the
proposed action to reduce potential threats to the listed species and their critical habitat and to
increase mitigation measures, such as habitat restoration, to support listed species. The final
action was modified to include performance metrics for real-time monitoring, cold-water
management in Lake Shasta, increased habitat restoration, and a process for independent
scientific review, among other things.62 After issuing the BiOps, Reclamation completed its
review of environmental impacts of the proposed action under NEPA,63 and Reclamation’s
proposed changes were finalized in a record of decision (ROD) on February 20, 2020.64
California and a group of nongovernmental organizations immediately sued the federal
government, claiming the 2019 BiOps and the 2020 ROD violated the ESA, NEPA, and
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).65 All of those plaintiffs asked the court to permanently

59 Letter from David Murillo, Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, and Mark W. Cowin, Director, Department of
Water Resources, to Ren Lohoefener, Pacific Southwest Regional Director, August 2, 2016, at https://www.fws.gov/
sfbaydelta/documents/08-02-2016_BOR-DWR_Reinitiation_Letter.pdf.
60 Bureau of Reclamation, Updates to the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the CVP and SWP and Related
Facilities, January 2019, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/bdo/lto.html.
61 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated
Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, Service File No. 08FBTD00-2019-F-0164, October
21, 2019, at https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/CVP-SWP/documents/10182019_ROC_BO_final.pdf; and National
Marine Fisheries Service, Biological Opinion on Long-term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water
Project, WCRO-2016-00069, October 21, 2019, at https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/CVP-SWP/documents/
10182019_ROC_BO_final.pdf.
62 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated
Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, Summary, October 21, 2019, at
https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/CVP-SWP/documents/Overall_Summary.pdf.
63 After issuing the BiOps, Reclamation completed its review of environmental impacts of the proposed action under
NEPA. Reclamation concluded its NEPA review by issuing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on December 19,
2019, regarding the anticipated environmental effects of the action. Bureau of Reclamation, Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Modified Operations of the Central
Valley Project and State Water Project, December 2019, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_project_details.php?
Project_ID=39181. Herinafter, “Final 2019 EIS.”
64 Bureau of Reclamation, Record of Decision, Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Modified
Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, February 2020, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/
nepa_project_details.php?Project_ID=39181.
65 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 3:20-cv-01299 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
20, 2020).
Congressional Research Service

23

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

enjoin the approved operational changes, and also to temporarily stay those operations while the
litigation was pending.66 The court granted a temporary stay from May 11 to May 31, 2020, but
declined to extend it further.67 Therefore, the 2019 BiOps and the 2020 ROD went into effect,
although the litigation challenging those decisions continued.
Following the change in administration in January 2021, Executive Order 13990 required
Reclamation, FWS, and NMFS to reconsider the 2019 BiOps.68 In response, the court granted a
request to stay the litigation on August 19, 2021.69
On September 30, 2021, Reclamation and California DWR submitted a request for reinitiation of
consultation to FWS and NMFS.70 In the letter, Reclamation stated that reinitiation was warranted
due to anticipated changes to the proposed action (i.e., CVP operations) that may affect the
species or critical habitat in ways the services had not analyzed in the 2019 BiOps.71 Reclamation
stated that its goals in revising CVP operations were “to support species viability, protect life
history diversity, support operational flexibility, provide regulatory certainty, support science and
monitoring, and to create a single feasible adaptable cooperated operation for the CVP and
SWP.”72
When it requested additional consultation, Reclamation stated that it would continue to operate
the CVP pursuant to the 2019 BiOps and 2020 ROD, but it noted that such operations might be
modified by interim measures “as required by ongoing drought conditions or as ordered in
conjunction with any ongoing litigation.”73 It incorporated those measures into a revised interim
operations plan (IOP) for the October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022, water year. Although
multiple parties contended that the IOP did not comply with various statutory obligations, the
court ultimately issued an injunction for the federal defendants to operate the CVP consistent with
the proposed IOP.74 The court allowed the 2019 BiOps and 2020 ROD to remain in place while
the agencies reconsidered them, and it stayed the court challenges to those decisions.

66 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 36, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 3:20-cv-01299 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 20, 2020); Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Ross, No.
3:19-cv-07897 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2020); Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross,
No. 1:20-cv-00426 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020).
67 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part as Moot Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Holding Certain Issues in
Abeyance, Cal. Nat. Res. Agency v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00426, & Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No.
1:20-cv-00431, at 4 (E.D. Cal. May 11, 2020); Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Preliminary Injunction as
to Shasta Operations, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Ross, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 4 (E.D. Cal. June 24,
2020).
68 86 Federal Register 7037, January 25, 2021.
69 Order Granting Motion to Stay Until September 30, 2021, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No.
1:20-cv-00431, at 6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021).
70 Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021.
71 Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021. The services’ regulations
include four scenarios that require reinitiation of consultation, including “if the identified action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the
biological opinion or written concurrence.” 50 C.F.R. §402.16(a)(3).
72 Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021, p. 1.
73 Letter from Reclamation to FWS and NMFS, Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation for the Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP), September 30, 2021.
74 Order re Motions to Remand Without Vacatur, Stay, and Impose Interim Injunctive Relief, Pac. Coast Fed’n of
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 34 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Meanwhile, the IOP has been governing CVP operations under the court’s order. On September
30, 2022, the parties requested that the court extend the litigation stay until December 31, 2023,
and order implementation in the meantime of a modified version of the IOP, referred to by the
parties as the IOP Extension.75 The IOP Extension would extend the timeframe for the IOP, adjust
certain provisions of the IOP to clarify points of confusion, update provisions to reflect how the
IOP was operating in practice, and address concerns raised by the court in its March 2022 order.76
The court is expected to issue its decision sometime after December 12, 2022.77
Central Valley Project Improvement Act
In an effort to mitigate many of the environmental effects of the CVP, in 1992, Congress passed
the CVPIA as Title 34 of P.L. 102-575. The act made major changes to the management of the
CVP. Among other things, it formally established fish and wildlife purposes as an official project
purpose of the CVP and called for a number of actions to protect, restore, and enhance these
resources. Overall, the CVPIA’s provisions resulted in a combination of decreased water
availability and increased costs for agricultural and M&I contractors, along with new water and
funding sources to restore fish and wildlife. Thus, the law remains a source of tension, and some
would prefer to see it repealed in part or in full.
Some of the CVPIA’s most prominent changes to the CVP included directives to
 double certain anadromous fish populations by 2002 (which did occur);78
 allocate 800,000 AF of “(b)(2)” CVP yield (600,000 AF in drought years) to fish
and wildlife purposes;79
 provide water supplies (in the form of “Level 2” and “Level 4” supplies) for 19
designated Central Valley wildlife refuges;80 and
 establish a fund, the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF), to be
financed by water and power users for habitat restoration and land and water
acquisitions.
Pursuant to court rulings since enactment of the legislation, CVPIA (b)(2) allocations may be
used to meet other state and federal requirements that reduce exports or require an increase from
baseline reservoir releases. Thus, in a given year, the aforementioned export reductions due to
state water quality and federal ESA restrictions are counted and reported on annually as (b)(2)
water, and in some cases overlap with other stated purposes of CVPIA (e.g., anadromous fish

Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431, at 112-113 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2022).
75 Federal Defendants’ and State Plaintiffs’ September 2022 Joint Status Report at 3-18, Pac. Coast Fed’n of
Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431 (E.D. Ca. Sept. 30, 2022).
76 Federal Defendants’ and State Plaintiffs’ September 2022 Joint Status Report at 5-8, ex. 1, ex. 2, Pac. Coast Fed’n of
Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431 (E.D. Ca. Sept. 30, 2022).
77 Scheduling Order, Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Raimondo, No. 1:20-cv-00431 (E.D. Ca. Oct. 5, 2022).
78 CVPIA’s “fish doubling” goal was established on a baseline of average population levels during the period of 1967-
1991.
79 The term “(b)(2) water” references the provision in CVPIA that required these allocations.
80 Authorized refuge water supply under CVPIA is divided into two categories: Level 2 and Level 4 supplies. Level 2
supplies (422,251 AF, except in critically dry years, when the allocation is reduced to 75%) are the historical average of
water deliveries to the refuges prior to enactment of CVPIA. Reclamation is obligated to acquire and deliver this water
under CVPIA, and costs are 100% reimbursable by CVP contractors through the Central Valley Project Restoration
Fund. For more information, see Appendix.
Congressional Research Service

25

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

restoration). The exact makeup of (b)(2) water in a given year typically varies. For example, in
2014 (a critically dry year), out of a total of 402,000 AF of (b)(2) water, 176,300 AF (44%) was
attributed to export reductions for Bay-Delta Plan water quality requirements.81 Remaining (b)(2)
water was composed of a combination of reservoir releases classified as CVPIA anadromous fish
restoration and NMFS BiOp compliance purposes (163,500 AF) and export reductions under the
2009 salmonid BiOp (62,200 AF).82 In 2016 (a wet year), 793,000 AF of (b)(2) water included
528,000 AF (66%) of export pumping reductions under FWS and NMFS BiOps and 114,500 AF
(14%) for Bay-Delta Plan requirements. The remaining water was accounted for as reservoir
releases for the anadromous fish restoration programs, the NMFS BiOp, and the Bay-Delta
Plan.83
Ecosystem Restoration Efforts
Development of the CVP made significant changes to California’s natural hydrology. In addition
to the aforementioned CVPIA efforts to address some of these impacts, three ongoing,
congressionally authorized restoration initiatives administered by Reclamation also factor into
federal activities associated with the CVP:
 The Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP), attempts to mitigate impacts and
restore fisheries impacted by construction of the Trinity River Division of the
CVP.
 The San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) is an ongoing effort to
implement a congressionally enacted settlement to restore fisheries in the San
Joaquin River.
 The California Bay-Delta Restoration Program aims to restore and protect areas
within the Bay-Delta that are affected by the CVP and other activities.
In addition to their habitat restoration activities, both the TRRP and the SJRRP involve the
maintenance of instream flow levels that use water that was at one time diverted for other uses.
Each effort is discussed briefly below.
Trinity River Restoration Program
TRRP aims to mitigate impacts of the Trinity Division of the CVP and restore fisheries to their
levels prior to the Bureau of Reclamation’s construction of this division in 1955. The Trinity
Division primarily consists of two dams (Trinity and Lewiston Dams), related power facilities,
and a series of tunnels (including the 10.7-mile Clear Creek Tunnel) that divert water from the
Trinity River Basin to the Sacramento River Basin and Whiskeytown Reservoir. Diversion of
Trinity River water resulted in the near drying of the Trinity River in some years, thereby
damaging spawning habitat and severely depleting salmon stocks.
Efforts to mitigate the effects of the Trinity Division date back to the early 1980s, when DOI
initiated efforts to study the issue and increase Trinity River flows for fisheries. Congress

81 Bureau of Reclamation, Water Year 2014 CVPIA Section 3406(b)(2) Operations and Accounting, January 28, 2015,
at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/data/FINAL_WY14_b2_presentation.pdf.
82 Bureau of Reclamation, Water Year 2014 CVPIA Section 3406(b)(2) Operations and Accounting, January 28, 2015,
at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/data/FINAL_WY14_b2_presentation.pdf.
83 Bureau of Reclamation, Water Year 2016 CVIPA §3406(b)(2) Accounting, at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvo/
vungvari/FINAL_wy16_b2_800TAF_table_20170930.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

26

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

authorized legislation in 1984 (P.L. 98-541) and in 1992 (P.L. 102-575) providing for restoration
activities and construction of a fish hatchery, and directed that 340,000 AF per year be reserved
for Trinity River flows (a significant increase from the original amount). Congress also mandated
completion of a flow evaluation study, which was formalized in a 2000 ROD that called for
additional water for instream flows,84 river channel restoration, and watershed rehabilitation.85
The 2000 ROD forms the basis for TRRP. The flow releases outlined in that document have in
some years been supplemented to protect fish health in the river, and these increases have been
controversial among some water users.
San Joaquin River Restoration Program
Historically, the San Joaquin River supported large Chinook salmon populations. After the
Bureau of Reclamation completed Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River in the late 1940s, much
of the river’s water was diverted for agricultural uses and approximately 60 miles of the river
became dry in most years. These conditions made it impossible to support Chinook salmon
populations upstream of the Merced River confluence.
In 1988, a coalition of environmental, conservation, and fishing groups advocating for river
restoration to support Chinook salmon recovery sued the Bureau of Reclamation. A U.S. District
Court judge eventually ruled that operation of Friant Dam was violating state law because of its
destruction of downstream fisheries.86 Faced with mounting legal fees, considerable uncertainty,
and the possibility of dramatic cuts to water diversions, the parties agreed to negotiate a
settlement instead of proceeding to trial on a remedy regarding the court’s ruling. This settlement
was agreed to in 2006 and implementing legislation was enacted by Congress in 2010 (Title X of
P.L. 111-11).
The settlement agreement and its implementing legislation form the basis for the SJRRP, which
requires new releases of CVP water from Friant Dam to restore fisheries (including salmon
fisheries) in the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam (which forms Millerton Lake) to the
confluence with the Merced River, a distance of 60 miles. The SJRRP also requires efforts to
mitigate water supply delivery losses due to these releases, among other things. In combination
with the new releases, the settlement’s goals are to be achieved through a combination of channel
and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River and the reintroduction of Chinook
salmon. These activities are funded in part by federal discretionary appropriations and in part by
repayment and surcharges paid by CVP Friant water users that are redirected toward the SJRRP
as required by P.L. 111-11.
Because increased water flows for restoring fisheries (known as restoration flows) would reduce
CVP diversions of water for off-stream purposes, such as irrigation, hydropower, and M&I uses,
the settlement and its implementation have been controversial. The quantity of water used for
restoration flows and the quantity by which water deliveries would be reduced are related, but the
relationship is not necessarily one-for-one, due to flood flows in some years and other mitigating
factors. Under the settlement agreement, no water would be released for restoration purposes in
the driest of years; thus, the agreement would not reduce deliveries to Friant contractors in those

84 The additional flows outlined in the 2000 record of decision are based on water-year type and range from 369,000
AF in critically dry years to 815,000 AF in extremely wet years. A greater proportion of Trinity River water goes to the
river in dry years, and a greater proportion of the water goes to CVP contractors in wet years.
85 DOI, Record of Decision for Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report, December 2000, at http://www.restoresjr.net/?wpfb_dl=2163.
86 NRDC v. Patterson, 333 F. Supp. 2d 906, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
Congressional Research Service

27

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

years. Additionally, in some years, the restoration flows released in late winter and early spring
may free up space for additional runoff storage in Millerton Lake, potentially minimizing
reductions in deliveries later in the year—assuming Millerton Lake storage is replenished.
Consequently, how deliveries to Friant water contractors may be reduced in any given year is
likely to depend on many factors. Regardless of the specifics of how much water may be released
for fisheries restoration vis-à-vis diverted for off-stream purposes, the SJRRP will impact existing
surface and groundwater supplies in and around the Friant Division service area and affect local
economies. SJRRP construction activities are in the early stages, but planning efforts have
targeted a completion date of 2024 for the first stage of construction efforts.87
California Bay-Delta Restoration Program
The California Bay-Delta Restoration Program (also sometimes referred to as the “CALFED”
Bay-Delta Restoration Program) is a collaborative effort involving state and federal agencies and
representatives of California’s urban, agricultural, and environmental communities. The goals of
the program are to improve fish and wildlife habitat, water supply reliability, water quality, and
levee integrity in the Bay-Delta.
The CALFED program began administratively in 1996, and the CALFED Bay-Delta Restoration
Act (P.L. 108-361), enacted in 2004, supplemented those actions with new and expanded federal
authorities for seven agencies implementing the existing program. These authorities have been
extended on multiple occasions. The current action plan for the Bay-Delta Restoration Program
has four objectives: a renewed federal-state partnership, smarter water supply and use, habitat
restoration, and drought and floodplain management.88
A summary of agency activities under CALFED is generally included as a “crosscut budget” in
the Analytical Perspectives section of the Administration’s budget request. In FY2020, the
Administration reported appropriations of $651.49 million for CALFED Bay-Delta-related
activities, with Reclamation funding accounting for $361.21 million (55%) of this total.89
Reclamation typically spends the majority of this funding on habitat restoration projects to
address the degraded Bay-Delta ecosystem.90 Other agencies also receive funding to carry out
authorities under this program, including DOI’s FWS and U.S. Geological Survey; the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service; the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; NOAA; and the Environmental Protection Agency. Similar to Reclamation, these
agencies report on expenditures for the CALFED/Bay-Delta program that involve a combination
of activities under “base” authorities, and new authorities that Congress enacted in the
aforementioned CALFED authorizing legislation
New Storage and Conveyance
Reductions in available water deliveries due to hydrological and regulatory factors have caused
some stakeholders, legislators, and state and federal government officials to look at other methods

87 For more information, see San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP), Funding Constrained Framework for
Implementation, May 2018.
88 Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta, December 22, 2009, at http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/
upload/CAWaterWorkPlan.pdf.
89 Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives: CALFED Bay-Delta Federal Budget Crosscut Report,
Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Request.
90 In addition to funding under its CALFED authorities and through its CALFED Account, Reclamation counts funding
under its other CVP restoration authorities (e.g., CVPIA, SJRRP) as CALFED activities in its annual reporting.
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 30 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

of augmenting water supplies. In particular, proposals to build new or augmented CVP and/or
SWP water storage projects have been of interest to some policymakers. Additionally, the State of
California is pursuing a major water conveyance project, the California WaterFix, with a nexus to
CVP operations.
New and Augmented Water Storage Projects
In recent years, new and augmented water storage projects have been proposed throughout the
Central Valley, as well as in other areas of California. While it is unclear whether any of these
projects will be completed and/or incorporated into the CVP itself, their status has ramifications
for the water supply questions related to the CVP. In the past, construction recommendations for
new Reclamation projects have been subject to congressional approval. Section 4007 of the WIIN
Act authorized Reclamation financial support for new or expanded federal and nonfederal water
storage projects. It also provided that these projects could be deemed authorized, subject to a
finding by the Administration that individual projects met certain criteria and were recommended
by name in an enacted appropriations act.91 Table 4 shows recent funding for these projects,
including regular appropriations and FY2022 funding that was allocated from the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). Most of the projects recommended by current and prior
Administrations under this authority have been approved by Congress in enacted appropriations
legislation. The only exception was funding that the Trump Administration proposed for the
Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project in 2019 and 2020, which was not agreed to by
Congress.

91 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10626, Reclamation Water Storage Projects: Section 4007 of the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, by Charles V. Stern.
Congressional Research Service

29

Table 4. Allocations for WIIN Act Section 4007 Water Storage Projects in California
($ in millions)
Project (State)
Jan. 2018 List
Feb. 2019 List
June 2020 List
Dec. 2020 List July 2021 List
Oct 2022 IIJA Allocations
Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement
$20.00
—
—
—
—
—
Project (CA)
Sites Reservoir Storage Project (CA)
$4.35
$6.00
$4.00
$9.70
$80.00
$30.00
Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage
$1.50
—
—
—
—
—
Investigation (CA)
Friant-Kern Canal Subsidence Challenges
$2.20
$2.35
$71.00
$135.00
—
—
Project (CA)
Boise River Basin Feasibility Study (ID)
$0.75
$1.75
$2.88
$10.00
—
—
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement
$2.00
$4.00
$1.00
$2.00
—
—
Project—Cle Elum Pool Raise (WA)
Upper Yakima System Storage Feasibility
$2.50
—
—
—
—
—
Study (WA)
Del Puerto Water District Feasibility
—
$1.50
$1.50
—
$15.00
—
Study (CA)
Los Vaqueros Reservoir Phase 2
—
$2.16
$7.85
$4.10
$50.00
$82.00
Expansion (CA)
Delta Mendota Canal Subsidence
—
—
$3.00
—
—
—
Correction (CA)
San Luis Low Point Improvement Project
—
—
$1.70
—
—
—
(CA)
Sacramento Regional Water Bank (CA)
—
—
$0.87
—
—
—
B.F. Sisk Dam Raise and Reservoir
—
—
—
—
$60.00
$25.00
Expansion (CA)
Total
$33.30
$17.76
$93.80
$160.80
$205.00
$137.00
Sources: Bureau of Reclamation Reports to House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, January 2018, February 2019, June 2020, and December 2020; enacted appropriations
legislation for FY2018 (P.L. 115-141), FY2020 (P.L. 116-94), FY2021 (P.L. 116-260), and FY2022 (P.L. 117-43).
Notes: In its proposed project al ocations to Congress for 2019 and 2020, Reclamation recommended a total of $172 mil ion for the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project.
Congress did not agree to these al ocations. IIJA= Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58). Pursuant to that legislation, IIJA al ocations are not subject to congressional approval.
CRS-30

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Delta Conveyance Project
In addition to water storage, some have advocated for a more flexible water conveyance system
for CVP and SWP water. In spring 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom introduced a plan
for conveying water through the Delta, known as the Delta Conveyance Project.
The Delta Conveyance Project is expected to involve the construction of a single tunnel to convey
water from two intakes on the Sacramento River to the existing pumps in the Bay-Delta. DWR’s
stated reasons for supporting this approach are to protect water supplies from sea-level rise,
saltwater intrusion, and earthquakes.92 The Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority,
a joint powers authority created by public water agencies to oversee the design and construction
of the new conveyance system, is leading the project.93 DWR is overseeing the planning effort for
the project; the estimated $15.9 billion cost is expected to be paid largely by public water
agencies.94 The federal government’s role in the project beyond evaluating permit applications
and maintaining related CVP operations has not been defined.95 Regardless of federal
participation, the operations of a new Delta Conveyance Project could have implications for
combined state/federal pumping operations in the Bay-Delta.96 The State of California released its
draft environmental impact report for the project in July 2022.97
Some stakeholders support the initiative because it might result in lower fish mortality at the
pumps, more consistent water supplies for users, and greater protection against earthquakes and
levee failures. Others assert that the project’s cost might not be worth the benefits and that the
effort might not benefit water users without assurances of water supplies.
Congressional Interest
Congress plays a role in CVP water management and has attempted to make available additional
water supplies in the region by facilitating efforts such as water banking, water transfers, and the
construction of new and augmented storage. In 2016, Congress enacted provisions aiming to
benefit the CVP and the SWP, including major operational changes in the WIIN Act and
additional appropriations for western drought response and new water storage that have benefited
(or are expected to benefit) the CVP. Congress also continues to consider legislation that would

92 California Department of Water Resources, “State Withdraws WaterFix Approvals, Initiates Planning and Permitting
for a Smaller Single Tunnel,” press release, May 2, 2019, at https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2019/May/
State-Withdraws-WaterFix-Approvals. Hereinafter “DWR May 2019 Press Release.”
93 California Department of Water Resources, Modernizing Delta Conveyance Infrastructure Q&A, California
Department of Water Resources, at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Delta-
Conveyance/Delta-Conveyance-QA.pdf?la=en&hash=373E0DBCD7AD988C9987A3197304E55D9115F798.
94 California Department of Water Resources, Frequently Asked Questions Related to the Delta Conveyance Project,
August 2021, at https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Delta-Conveyance/Public-
Information/DCP_FAQ_Final_August_2021.pdf. Hereafter, California Department of Water Resources, Frequently
Asked Questions.
95 California Department of Water Resources, Frequently Asked Questions.
96 The State of California notes that Section 7 consultation under the ESA is anticipated for the project. The lead federal
action agency for consultation under ESA is expected to be the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
97 California Department of Water Resources, “DWR Releases Draft Environmental Impact Report for Delta
Conveyance Project,” press release, July 27, 2022, https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2022/July-22/DWR-
Releases-Draft-Environmental-Impact-Report-for-Delta-Conveyance-Project.
Congressional Research Service

31

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

further alter CVP operational authorities and responsibilities related to individual project units.
The below section discusses some CVP-related issues that may receive congressional attention.
CVP Operations Under the WIIN Act and Other Authorities98
While the WIIN Act provided Reclamation with new CVP operational authorities and directives,
Reclamation has reported limited implementation of some provisions prior to their expiration in
2021. For instance, Reclamation reported that, pursuant to the WIIN Act, communication and
transparency between Reclamation and other agencies increased for some operational decisions,
allowing for reduced or rescheduled pumping restrictions.99 Additionally, in the spring of 2018,
WIIN Act allowances of relaxed restrictions on inflow-to-export ratios were used to effect a
transfer resulting in additional exports of 50,000-60,000 AF of water.100 Reclamation noted that
hydrology during 2017 and 2018 affected the agency’s ability to implement some of the act’s
provisions. In some cases, Reclamation proposed other federal operational changes pursuant to
the WIIN Act that reportedly were deemed incompatible with state requirements.101
Most of the WIIN Act’s operational provisions expired at the end of 2021 (five years after the
bill’s enactment). However, the Trump Administration’s revised 2020 BiOps cited congressional
direction to maximize water supplies in Section 4001 of the WIIN Act. During the Trump
Administration, Reclamation also reported that the general principles in Sections 4002-4003 of
the WIIN Act had been incorporated into its operational changes.102 Thus, some of the WIIN Act
CVP directives could continue to be incorporated into CVP operations insofar as the 2019 BiOps
continue to be implemented.
Congress may be interested in oversight of CVP operational questions, including the status of the
BiOps and the process underpinning any alterations to operations. Some also may propose
extension of the WIIN Act operational provisions, thereby extending legislatively mandated
requirements and authorities on CVP operations. In the 117th Congress, H.R. 9084, would among
other things amend and extend the WIIN Act CVP operational authorities, and require that
Reclamation operate the project pursuant to the 2019 BiOps.
In debating CVP operations issues, stakeholders likely will focus on the extent to which the
changes provide for increased water deliveries relative to pre-reconsultation baselines for CVP
and SWP contractors and any related effects on species and water quality. Congress also may be
interested in disagreements between state and federal project operators related to proposed
operating procedures and species protections, including how these disagreements may affect the
historical norms of coordinated project operations and what this might mean for water deliveries.
Proposed voluntary agreements under the Bay Delta Water Quality Plan also may receive
congressional attention in this context.

98 For more information on these provisions, see CRS Report R44986, Water Infrastructure Improvements for the
Nation (WIIN) Act: Bureau of Reclamation and California Water Provisions, by Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh,
and Nicole T. Carter.
99 Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, May 30, 2018.
100 This provision of the WIIN Act generally lessened existing restrictions on the amount of water that could be
exported for water transfers. Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, May 30, 2018.
101 Personal communication with the Bureau of Reclamation, May 30, 2018.
102 Bureau of Reclamation, Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley
Project and State Water Project, Final Biological Assessment, October 2019, pp. 1-6.
Congressional Research Service

32

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

New Water Storage Projects
As noted, Reclamation and the State of California have funded the study of new water storage
projects in recent years. Congress may opt to provide additional direction for these and other
efforts to develop new water supplies for the CVP in future appropriations acts and reports. In
addition, Congress may consider oversight, authorization, and/or funding for these projects. Some
projects, such as the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project, could augment CVP water
supplies but have generated controversy for their potential to conflict with the intent of certain
state laws.103 Although Reclamation under the Trump Administration previously indicated its
interest in pursuing the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project, the state has consistently
opposed the project because it violates the state’s Wild and Scenic Rivers law. It is unclear how
such a project might proceed absent state regulatory approvals and financial support.
Apart from the Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project, Congress has recently approved
Reclamation-recommended study funding for other projects that could add flexibility to CVP
operations, including the Sites Reservoir Project, the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Phase 2 Project, and
the Friant-Kern Canal Subsidence Challenges Project, among others. Overall, from FY2017 to
FY2021, Congress appropriated a total of $603 million to Reclamation for new and augmented
water storage projects authorized under Section 4007 of the WIIN Act. The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58 ), enacted in November 2021, appropriated an additional
$1.05 billion for these projects. A significant share of this funding is likely to be allocated for
projects that benefit the CVP and other areas in California.104
In the 117th Congress, H.R. 737 would reauthorize the WIIN Act’s storage authorities through the
end of 2031 (most of these authorities expire in late 2021).
Concluding Observations
The CVP is one of the largest, most complex water storage and conveyance projects in the world.
Congress has regularly expressed interest in CVP operations and allocations, in particular
pumping in the Bay-Delta. In addition to ongoing oversight of project operations and previously
enacted authorities, a number of developing issues and proposals related to the CVP may be of
interest to congressional decisionmakers. These issues include study and approval of new water
storage and conveyance projects, updates to the state’s Bay-Delta Water Quality Plan, and the
status of efforts to make available more water for CVP water contractors, in particular those south
of the Delta. Continued drought or other stressors on California water supplies are likely to
magnify these issues.

103 In particular, Section 5093.542 of the California State Public Resources Code prevents participation (other than
technical or economic feasibility studies of the Shasta Dam raise project) by state departments or agencies in facilities
that would have an adverse effect on the free-flowing condition of the McCloud River. In previous documents,
Reclamation indicated this requirement could limit some state agency participation in the project.
104 Reclamation announced its first funding allocation for these projects, for $210 million, on October 17, 2022. Of this
funding, $137 million will go toward projects in California. See Bureau of Reclamation, “Biden-Harris Administration
Announces $210 million for Drought Resilience Projects in the West,” Press Release, October 17, 2022,
https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/news-release/4356.
Congressional Research Service

33

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

Appendix. CVP Water Contractors
The below sections provide a brief discussion some of the major contractor groups and individual
contractors served by the CVP.
Sacramento River Settlement Contractors and San Joaquin River
Exchange Contractors (Water Rights Contractors)
Reclamation first makes CVP water available for delivery to contractors north and south of the
Delta with water rights that predate construction of the CVP. The two largest of these groups are
the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors.
(These contractors are sometimes referred to collectively as water rights contractors.)
Sacramento River Settlement Contractors include the 145 contractors (both individuals and
districts) that diverted natural flows from the Sacramento River prior to the CVP’s construction
and executed a settlement agreement with Reclamation that provided for negotiated allocation of
water rights. Reclamation entered into this agreement in exchange for these contractors
withdrawing their protests related to Reclamation’s application for water rights for the CVP. As a
result of their settlement, Sacramento River Settlement Contractors receive most of their supplies
(“base supplies”) free of charge, while additional “project supplies” also are delivered to these
contractors based on reclamation law and pricing requirements.105 These contractors typically
receive 100% of their contracted amounts in most water-year types. During “critical” years,
Reclamation may reduce total deliveries to these contractors by a maximum of 25%.106
The San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors include four irrigation districts that agreed to
“exchange” exercising their water rights to divert water on the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers for
guaranteed water deliveries from the CVP (typically in the form of deliveries from the Delta-
Mendota Canal and waters north of the Delta). During all years except for when critical
conditions are declared, Reclamation is responsible for delivering 840,000 acre-feet (AF) of
“substitute” water to these users (i.e., water from north of the Delta as a substitute for San Joaquin
River water). In Critical years, this substitute water is reduced to 650,000 AF. In the event
Reclamation is unable to make its contracted deliveries, these contractors have the right to divert
water directly from the San Joaquin River, which may in turn reduce water available for other San
Joaquin River water service contactors.
Friant Division Contractors
CVP’s Friant Division contractors receive water stored behind Friant Dam (completed in 1944) in
Millerton Lake. This water is delivered through the Friant-Kern and Madera Canals. The 32
Friant Division contractors, who irrigate roughly 1 million acres on the San Joaquin River, are
contracted to receive two “classes” of water: Class 1 water is the first 800,000 AF available for
delivery;107 Class 2 water is the next 1.4 million AF available for delivery. Some districts receive

105 The total amount of base supply is 1,775,509 acre-feet and the total amount of project water is 340,111 acre-feet.
106 Critical years are years in which either (1) the forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the current water
year is equal to or less than 3.2 million acre-feet or (2) the total accumulated actual deficiencies below 4 million acre-
feet in the immediately prior water year, together with the forecasted efficiency for the current water year, exceed
800,000 acre-feet.
107 This water typically is provided for municipal and industrial use or for districts without access to groundwater.
Congressional Research Service

34

link to page 12 link to page 27 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

water from both classes. Generally, Class 2 waters are released as “uncontrolled flows” (i.e., for
flood control concerns), and may not necessarily be scheduled at a contractor’s convenience.
Deliveries to the Friant Division are affected by a 2009 congressionally enacted settlement
stemming from Friant Dam’s effects on the San Joaquin River.108 The settlement requires
reductions in deliveries to Friant users for protection of fish and wildlife purposes. In some years,
some of these “restorations flows” have been made available to contractors for delivery as Class 2
water.
Unlike most other CVP contractors, Friant Division contractors have converted their water
service contracts to repayment contracts and have repaid their capital obligation to the federal
government for the development of their facilities. In years in which Reclamation is unable to
make contracted deliveries to Exchange Contractors, these contractors can make a “call” on water
in the San Joaquin River, thereby requiring releases from Friant Dam that otherwise would go to
Friant contractors.
South-of-Delta (SOD) Water Service Contractors:
Westlands Water District
As shown in Figure 3, SOD water service contractors account for a large amount (2.09 million
AF, or 22.1%) of the CVP’s contracted water. The largest of these contractors is Westlands Water
District, which consists of 700 farms covering more than 600,000 acres in Fresno and Kings
Counties. In geographic terms, Westlands is the largest agricultural water district in the United
States; its lands are valuable and productive, producing more than $1 billion of food and fiber
annually.109 Westlands’ maximum contracted CVP water is in excess of 1.2 million AF, an amount
that makes up more than half of the total amount of SOD CVP water service contracts and
significantly exceeds any other individual CVP contactor.110 Due to a number of factors,
Westlands often receives considerably less water on average than it did historically.
Westlands has been prominently involved in a number of policy debates, including proposals to
alter environmental requirements to increase pumping south of the Delta. Westlands is also
involved in a major proposed settlement with Reclamation, the San Luis Drainage Settlement.
The settlement would, among other things, forgive Westlands’ share of federal CVP repayment
responsibilities in exchange for relieving the federal government of its responsibility to construct
drainage facilities to deal with toxic runoff associated with naturally occurring metals in area
soils.
Central Valley Wildlife Refuges
The 20,000 square mile California Central Valley provides valuable wetland habitat for migratory
birds and other species. As such, it is the home to multiple state and federally designated wildlife

108 When constructed, Friant Dam impounded the entire flow of the San Joaquin River, except for releases to manage
flooding and provide water for some riparian water rights holders immediately below the dam. For more information,
see the section “San Joaquin River Restoration Program.”
109 Westlands Water District, “Who We Are,” at https://wwd.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/wwd-who-we-
are.pdf.
110 CRS analysis of data from Bureau of Reclamation, “Central Valley Project Water Contractors,” March 30, 2016, at
https://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp-water/docs/latest-water-contractors.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

35

link to page 25 link to page 25 Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

refuges north and south of the Delta. These refuges provide managed wetland habitat that
receives water from the CVP and other sources.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA; P.L. 102-575),111 enacted in 1992, sought
to improve conditions for fish and wildlife in these areas by providing them coequal priority with
other project purposes. CVPIA also authorized a Refuge Water Supply Program to acquire
approximately 555,000 AF annually in water supplies for 19 Central Valley refuges administered
by three managing agencies: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Grassland Water District (a private landowner). Pursuant to CVPIA, Reclamation
entered into long-term water supply contracts with the managing agencies to provide these
supplies.
Authorized refuge water supply under CVPIA is divided into two categories: Level 2 and Level 4
supplies. Level 2 supplies (approximately 422,251 AF, except in critically dry years, when the
allocation is reduced to 75%) are the historical average of water deliveries to the refuges prior to
enactment of CVPIA.112 Reclamation is obligated to acquire and deliver this water under CVPIA,
and costs are 100% reimbursable by CVP contractors through a fund established by the act, the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (CVPRF; see previous section, “Central Valley Project
Improvement Act”). Level 4 supplies (approximately 133,264 AF) are the additional increment of
water beyond Level 2 supplies for optimal wetland habitat development. This water must be
acquired by Reclamation through voluntary measures and is funded as a 75% federal cost
(through the CVPRF) and 25% state cost.
In most cases, the Level 2 requirement is met; however, Level 4 supplies have not always been
provided in full for a number of reasons, including a dearth of supplies due to costs in excess of
available CVPRF funding and a lack of willing sellers. In recent years, costs for the Refuge Water
Supply Program (i.e., the costs for both Level 2 and Level 4 water) have ranged from $11 million
to $20 million.

Author Information

Charles V. Stern
Erin H. Ward
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Legislative Attorney

Pervaze A. Sheikh

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

111 P.L. 102-575, Title 34, 106 Stat. 4706.
112 Prior to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA; P.L. 102-575), refuges only had a legal entitlement to
121,700 acre-feet (AF).
Congressional Research Service

36

Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation

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.

Congressional Research Service
R45342 · VERSION 31 · UPDATED
37