Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN)

Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN)

Updated January 6, 2017
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN)
The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act
Financing Provisions in S. 2848 and WIIN, by Claudia
(WIIN or WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322) authorized a broad
Copeland.)
range of water resource and water quality activities when it
was signed into law on December 16, 2016. The 115th
WIIN Debate
Congress is anticipated to debate funding for activities
Some WIIN provisions had broad support; others were
authorized in WIIN, participate in congressional oversight
related to controversial issues and legislation. Some water
of WIIN implementation, and to address water resource and
stakeholders viewed WIIN as a compromise; others
water quality issues not addressed in WIIN.
remained opposed to language included in WIIN. WIIN
topics that were controversial during the 114th Congress
WIIN: Structure and Background
included federal Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-
WIIN combined provisions typically found in a Water
205) implementation associated with California water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) with provisions
infrastructure operations; assistance for lead contamination
addressing other water issues, such as California drought,
in Flint, Michigan; and requirements for federally supported
drinking water infrastructure and emergencies, and water-
drinking water projects to use U.S. iron and steel.
related waste and spills concerns. These activities
historically had been authorized in separate legislation and
Corps Water Resource Projects
managed by multiple congressional committees. WIIN
Title I of WIIN contains 140 provisions related to Corps
compiled relatively independent water-related titles:
projects and activities (the short title for WIIN Title I is
WRDA 2016). WIIN, like H.R. 5303 and S. 2848,
 Title I authorized Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
authorized new Corps water resources studies and projects
water resource projects and activities;
and modifications to ongoing construction projects. Each of
the new project construction authorizations was based on a
 Title II addressed drinking water emergencies,
completed report by the Corps’ Chief of Engineers. WIIN
infrastructure, and coal combustion residuals (CCR,
authorized 30 new construction projects at a federal cost of
commonly known as coal ash);
more than $10 billion. Various Corps provisions in WIIN
related to how nonfederal sponsors participate in the
 Title III addressed selected Department of the Interior
financing of water infrastructure activities. For example,
water issues, including water project management in
Section 1111 increased the federal construction cost share
California and Indian water; and
for harbor deepening that occurs between 45 feet and 50
feet, at an estimated federal cost increase of $430 million
 Title IV included miscellaneous water matters, including over the FY2017-FY2026 period. Other sections, such as
aquatic restoration and spill protections and recovery.
Sections 1127, 1166, and 1171, changed authorities for
crediting and reimbursing nonfederal entities for project-
WIIN and Other Bills from the 114th Congress
related expenditures. Section 1120 required a review of
Corps tribal consultation policies for projects and permits.
Many WIIN provisions were drawn in whole or in part from
For more information, see CRS Insight IN10608, Army
other legislation in the 114th Congress. Many provisions
Corps Projects and Tribal Consultation: Requirements,
addressed subjects contained in, or had similar content to,
Policies, and Controversy, by Nicole T. Carter.
the House or Senate versions of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2016—H.R. 5303 and S. 2848 of the
Lead and Drinking Water Emergencies
114th Congress. Unlike H.R. 5303 and S. 2848, WIIN
Title II, Subtitle B, authorized disaster relief and
included provisions associated with operations of federal
infrastructure assistance to address lead contamination of
and state water projects in California (Title III, Subtitle J).
drinking water but included no mandatory funding. For
states subject to a presidential emergency declaration
While WIIN’s breadth reached beyond the activities of the
concerning lead in drinking water, Section 2201 authorized
Corps (which was the sole focus of H.R. 5303), WIIN did
appropriations of $100 million for grants to assist an
not share all elements of S. 2848 (which also was broader in
affected public water system; the grants are to be provided
focus than just the Corps). For example, S. 2848 included
through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
provisions on water quality infrastructure under the Clean
(DWSRF) program administered by the U.S. Environmental
Water Act (CWA). Most of S. 2848’s CWA provisions
Protection Agency (EPA). Section 2203 authorized
were not included in WIIN. Similarly, WIIN did not include
appropriations of $20 million for the Department of Health
numerous other water quality infrastructure financing
and Human Services to establish (1) a voluntary lead-
provisions from S. 2848 that were not related to the CWA.
exposure registry for a city exposed to lead contamination
(See CRS In Focus IF10471, WRDA Legislation in the
in the water system and (2) an advisory committee on lead
114th Congress: Clean Water Act and Infrastructure
programs and research. Another $30 million in funding was
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN)
authorized to fund childhood lead poisoning prevention and
for WIIN noted, “... I interpret and understand Subtitle J to
childhood health programs. Section 2202 included a sense
require continued application and implementation of the
of Congress supporting an initial appropriation of $20
Endangered Species Act.” (See CRS Report RL33667,
million under the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) of 2014 to be used for eligible
Institutional Implications, by Todd Garvey.) Other WIIN
projects including those that address lead in drinking water.
provisions related to authorities to proceed with water
P.L. 114-254, Continuing and Security Assistance
projects under certain circumstances, including water
Appropriations Act of 2017, provided $170 million in
storage in western states (Section 4007), also garnered
appropriations for WIIN, Title II, Subtitle B activities.
some controversy.
Drinking Water Infrastructure
Title III also authorized additional support for Indian water
Title II, Subtitle A, included numerous amendments to the
projects. Specifically, Subtitle A of Title III established a
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The provisions reflected
program and fund for improving dam safety at Indian dams,
some, but not all, of the SDWA provisions included in S.
and Subtitle B created a fund for repair, replacement, and
2848. Similar provisions were not in the Corps-focused
maintenance of certain Indian irrigation projects, among
H.R. 5303. (See CRS In Focus IF10474, WRDA 2016:
other things. Subtitles D and G authorized two Indian water
Infrastructure, Lead, and Other Safe Drinking Water Act
rights settlements that received hearings in the 114th
Provisions in H.R. 5303 and S. 2848, by Mary Tiemann.)
Congress: the Penchanga Water Rights Settlement and the
Subtitle A revised the DWSRF program—the key federal
Blackfeet Water Rights Settlement, respectively. (See CRS
drinking water infrastructure assistance program. Section
Report R44148, Indian Water Rights Settlements, by
2113 generally prohibited the use of DWSRF funds during
Charles V. Stern.)
FY2017, unless all iron and steel products to be used in the
project are produced in the United States. In contrast, S.
Waste and Spills
2848 had not limited this provision to FY2017.
WIIN contained provisions affecting the protection of
waters from wastes and recovery from spills. In recent
Subtitle A established grant programs for (1) projects and
years, these topics received considerable public interest and
activities to help small or disadvantaged water systems
congressional scrutiny. Section 5004 addressed payment of
comply with SDWA requirements (appropriations were
claims for response costs for the August 2015 Gold King
authorized at $60 million per year for FY2017-FY2021);
Mine incident. It also authorized long-term water quality
(2) lead reduction projects, including grants to low-income
monitoring downstream of the mine. Section 2031 created a
homeowners to replace lead service lines (appropriations
mechanism to allow EPA to approve state programs
were authorized at $60 million per year for FY2017-
regulating coal combustion residuals and allows EPA to
FY2021); and (3) a voluntary program for testing for lead in
regulate CCR in states that choose not to do so. (See CRS
drinking water at schools and daycare centers (with
Insight IN10585, State Programs for “Coal Ash” Disposal
appropriations authorized at $20 million per year for
in the WIIN Act, by Linda Luther.) Section 5011 modified
FY2017-FY2021). Paralleling House-passed H.R. 4470,
the applicability of EPA’s Spill Prevention, Control, and
Subtitle A included a requirement for public notification of
Countermeasure regulations for farms by excluding specific
lead action level exceedances and expanded EPA
oil-storage containers from regulation. (See CRS Report
notification authorities.
R44536, Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Regulations: Background and Issues for Congress,
California Drought and Indian Water
by Jonathan L. Ramseur.)
Title III contained provisions related to diverse water
responsibilities of the Department of the Interior. Title III,
Ecosystem Restoration and Basin Efforts
Subtitle J (titled “California Water”), received particular
WIIN authorized or expanded existing authorizations for
attention; it addressed the drought in California by adjusting
several ecosystem restoration initiatives. Section 5005
the authorization and management of federal and state
authorized the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, an
water projects, increasing the support for new and existing
interagency initiative coordinated by the EPA, at $300
drought-related programs, and altering related fish and
million annually from FY2017 to FY2021. WIIN also
wildlife management. While some Title III WIIN
authorized restoration activities in the Missouri River Basin
provisions had widespread support, controversy persisted
(Section 1179), Salton Sea (Section 1181), and Chesapeake
over how WIIN approached ESA implementation,
Bay (Section 1180). Sections 5010 and 3603 authorized
particularly water management under federal biological
restoration initiatives for the Columbia River basin and
opinions (BiOps) designed to protect threatened Delta
Lake Tahoe, respectively. Title III, Subtitle E, authorized a
smelt, endangered salmon, and other species. Supporters of
restoration program for the Delaware River Basin.
these provisions argued that WIIN’s changes would make
additional water available to users facing curtailed
Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
allocations, without violating the ESA. Opponents
Mary Tiemann, Specialist in Environmental Policy
contended that the changes harm listed species and their
Charles V. Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
habitat in the short and long terms and could set a precedent
Pervaze A. Sheikh, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
for implementing the ESA elsewhere. (See CRS Report
R44456, Central Valley Project Operations: Background
IF10536
and Legislation, by Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh,
and Betsy A. Cody.) President’s Obama’s signing statement
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN)

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 | IF10536 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED