Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources

Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources

link to page 1 link to page 2 link to page 1 link to page 2

Updated April 24, 2024
Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for
Federal Investments in Water Resources
The Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for
Moving from 1983 P&G to PR&G
federal water resource investments largely replaced the
Table 1 summarizes the update process, which spanned the
Principles and Guidelines (P&G) for federal water project
George W. Bush and Obama Administrations. In 2009, the
evaluations on June 15, 2015, following years in
Obama Administration announced that it was updating the
development (see Table 1). The PR&G direct how federal
P&G government-wide, rather than only for USACE.
agencies plan and evaluate federal water resource
During the PR&G development, the focus shifted from
investments, including studies of both new projects and
federal water project studies to federal water investments.
reinvestment in existing facilities and grant and funding
Eight Cabinet secretaries were convened as the WRC
programs. The PR&G themselves are not regulations; they
(which has been without appropriations since 1983) for the
are guidance internal to the executive branch. The PR&G
purpose of approving PR&G documents.
do not supersede requirements established in law.
Table 2 compares the PR&G and the 1983 P&G. The
PR&G apply to a wider set of federal agencies and actions.
Agencies subject to the PR&G (see Table 2) are
The PR&G also provide more flexibility to agencies to
responsible for developing agency-specific procedures
develop, and to decisionmakers to select, alternatives with
(ASPs) for implementation and documenting whether
trade-offs among economic, environmental, and social
existing processes are “equivalent pathways” to the PR&G.
goals. Also under the PR&G, the level of analyses adjusts
Some agencies developed internal documents, such as the
to be commensurate with the scale, impacts, costs, scientific
2018 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
complexities, uncertainties, risks, and other sensitivities
instruction, 2017 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
involved in potential decisions. A standard analysis, which
departmental manual, and the 2015 U.S. Department of the
is the full application of the PR&G, is meant to evaluate all
Interior (DOI) departmental handbook. The U.S. Army
relevant benefits and costs. A scaled analysis may include
Corps of Engineers (USACE) initiated a rulemaking for its
fewer alternatives and use a more streamlined formulation
ASP in February 2024. The Army chose to pursue
process and justification process, while adhering to the
rulemaking in order to “provide codified direction for the
PR&G.
[USACE] project planning process.” At issue is whether the
PR&G and the ASPs reflect how Congress wants agencies
Public comments on the PR&G varied. Favorable
to develop and evaluate federal water resource investments.
comments included support for the combined economic and
environmental federal objective; more holistic and flexible
Origins of the PR&G
federal agency responses; consideration of nonmonetary
Congress and the Administration guide federal water
costs and benefits; and greater attention to local priorities
resource investments. Congressional direction often is
and nonstructural or environmentally focused alternatives.
related to specific agencies or projects. One exception was
Common critical comments were overreach in the inclusion
the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-80),
of additional federal entities and activities; concerns with
which attempted coordinated planning of water resources
the clarity of the federal investment selection criteria;
activities. The act created a Water Resources Council
impact of the broadened selection discretion on
(WRC) tasked with establishing principles, standards, and
decisionmaking and project timelines; and dilution of
procedures for evaluations of federal water resource
federal funds through selection of alternatives less focused
projects (42 U.S.C. §1962a-2). After a controversial effort
on economic development and infrastructure investment.
to have the WRC’s initial guidance (known as the 1973
“Principles and Standards”
Table 1. Milestones in PR&G Development
) become enforceable rules, the
WRC under the Reagan Administration issued the P&G in
Date
Milestone
1983 as nonbinding guidelines.
09/12/08 Federal Register (FR) notice of USACE draft Principles
From 1983 until 2015, the P&G provided the framework for
evaluating federal water resource projects. Congress in the
FR notice that the Obama Administration was
07/01/09
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114)
considering government-wide planning standards
directed an update of the 1983 P&G for use by the USACE.
12/09/09 FR notice of the draft Principles and Standards
The act required that the update address advancements in
economic and analytic techniques; public safety; low-
FR notice of the reframed and final Principles and
income communities; nonstructural solutions; and
03/27/13 Requirements for federal investments and draft
integrated, adaptive, and watershed approaches.
Interagency Guidelines
12/24/14 FR notice of final Interagency Guidelines
Source: CRS.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources
Table 2. Comparison of Selected Aspects of 1983 P&G and PR&G

1983 P&G
PR&G
Affected
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); Tennessee
USACE; TVA; DOI (all bureaus and offices making federal
Federal
Valley Authority (TVA); Bureau of Reclamation of the
investments in water resources, according to 2015
Entities
Department of the Interior (DOI); Natural Resources
departmental handbook); USDA (NRCS, Farm Service
Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department
Agency, Forest Service, and Rural Utilities Service, according
of Agriculture (USDA).
to 2017 departmental manual); Department of Commerce;
Environmental Protection Agency; Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Scope of
Studies: Planning and evaluation of alternative plans by Investments: Water resource investments, including
Application
four federal agencies in the formulation and evaluation
projects, plans, and programs that the federal government
of water and related land resources implementation
undertakes whose purposes either directly or indirectly alter
studies. (Regulatory, research, monitoring, and
water quantity, quality, ecosystems, or related land
emergency actions were not covered by the P&G.)
management. (Regulatory, research, monitoring, and
emergency actions are outside the scope of the PR&G.)
Activity
Project Evaluations: Implementation studies that are Projects: New, existing facility modifications or replacement,
Types and
pre- or post-authorization project formulation or
or changed operations. <$10 mil ion (M) are excluded; from
Suggested
evaluation studies undertaken or assisted by four
$10M to $20M have scaled analyses; >$20M have standard
Threshold
federal agencies. P&G generally are applicable to
analyses.
Criteria for
eligible implementation studies, with no explicit cutoffs
Plans: Studies or plans for potential new actions,
Analysis
or exclusions provided. (All projects are subject to the
management plans, and operational plans for existing federal
same evaluation/level of analysis; no formal option for
water resource infrastructure.
a scaled analysis.)
<$10M are excluded; from $10M to $50M have scaled
analyses; >$50M have standard analyses.
Programs: Grant programs typically would use tiered
programmatic analyses (i.e., analysis of typical projects within a
program to understand how they perform with respect to
the PR&G). Funding programs (e.g., state revolving funds)
would use retrospective analyses (i.e., periodic reviews of a
col ection of funded projects to assess their performance
with respect to the PR&G). <$50M are excluded; from $50M
to $100M have scaled analyses; >$100M have standard
analyses.
Federal
The objective is to contribute to national economic
Federal investment should strive to maximize public benefits,
Objective
development (NED) consistent with protecting the
with appropriate cost considerations. Public benefits
nation’s environment. Contributions to NED are
encompass environmental, economic, and social goals and
increases in the net value of the national output of
include monetary and nonmonetary effects and quantified and
goods and services, expressed in monetary units.
unquantified measures. No hierarchy exists among these
Contributions to NED include net value of goods and
three goals and, as a result, trade-offs among alternatives are
services that are marketed and also those that are not
assessed.
marketed. (Environmental, regional, and social effects
that may inform trade-offs and alternative plans are
documented in accounts other than the NED account.)
Decision
Plan with greatest net economic benefit consistent
Agencies should strive to maximize public benefits relative to
Criteria
with protecting the environment (the NED plan) is
public costs, using applicable selection criteria. Selection
selected unless the secretary of a department or head
criteria are to be identified in agency-specific procedures,
of an independent agency grants an exception. Plan
reflect agency-specific legal requirements (in statutes or
selection is made by the agency decisionmaker for
regulations), and conform with the PR&G. The PR&G do not
federal and federally assisted plans.
specify the decisionmaker for selecting the preferred federal
investment alternative.
Source: CRS.

Charles V. Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
IF10221

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal Investments in Water Resources

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10221 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED