Selected Federal Water Activities: Agencies, Authorities, and Congressional Committees

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | ?

More than two centuries of federal water resource activity have resulted in a complex web of federal involvement in water resource development, management, protection, an

More than two centuries of federal water resource activity have resulted in a complex web of federal involvement in water resource development, management, protection, and use. As a result, Congress faces challenges related to overlap and gaps in federal water resource activities and in coordination and consistency among federal programs. Further, many federal authorities are discretionary or funded by discretionary appropriations. Consequently, there can be a significant difference between what federal agencies are authorized to do and what they are actually doing, and no one committee in Congress oversees this dichotomy. Although the responsibility for development, management, protection, and allocation of the nation’s water resources is spread among federal, state, local, tribal, and private interests, this report focuses on federal activities related to water and the congressional committees that authorize and oversee these activities. The report covers multiple topics and individual water-related subtopics ranging from water supply and water quality infrastructure to fisheries management and water rights. The report is not exhaustive; instead, the authors have attempted to cover the major federal activities authorized by Congress that affect water resource development, management, protection, and use in the United States. Similarly, the analysis does not cover every aspect of House and Senate committee jurisdiction affecting water issues. For definitive evaluation of committee jurisdictions related to water, the views of the House and Senate Parliamentarian Offices are official. The report covers four general areas, or themes: (1) “Water Resources Development, Management, and Use”; (2) “Water Quality, Protection, and Restoration”; (3) “Water Rights and Allocation”; and (4) “Research and Planning.” The sections addressing these themes are further divided into tables that list topic areas and individual water-related subtopics. For each subtopic, CRS has identified selected federal agencies and activities related to the subtopic, authorities for such activities, and relevant House and Senate committee jurisdictions, as specified in House and Senate rules. Appendixes address considerations in determining House and Senate committee jurisdictions and present the official language from House Rule X and Senate Rule XXV, respectively, which are indicators of congressional jurisdiction over water resources. The report also includes a glossary of abbreviations for federal agencies and House and Senate committees. The nine tables that make up the body of this report underscore the complexity of federal activities affecting water resource development, management, protection, and use in the United States. As apparent throughout these tables, numerous standing committees in the House and the Senate have jurisdiction over various components of federal water policy. The wide range of federal executive responsibilities for water resources reflects comparably complex congressional legislative responsibilities and directives.

Senate Bill No. 389, Chapter 486, An act to amend Section 1051 of the Water Code, relating to water

State of California Office of Legislative Counsel | October 8th, 2023

Click here for analysis by Legal Planet.

Click here for analysis by Legal Planet.

Show Me the Water Plan: Urban Water Management Plans and California’s Water Supply Adequacy Laws

Golden Gate University (GSU) | October 11th, 2010

In 2001, California adopted two landmark pieces of legislation – Senate Bills (SB) 221 and 610 – that require local land use authorities to demonstrate long-t

In 2001, California adopted two landmark pieces of legislation – Senate Bills (SB) 221 and 610 – that require local land use authorities to demonstrate long-term water supply availability before approving new, large development projects. The details of these bills, which quickly became known as the “show me the water” laws, are distinct: SB 610 requires a “water supply assessment” at the relatively early stage of environmental review and covers residential, commercial, and industrial projects (a “project” is typically a development of more than 500 residential units, or a similarly large commercial or industrial development), while SB 221 requires a final check on water availability (a “written verification”) for residential projects of this same size threshold at the later stage of subdivision map approval. Despite these differences, the intent behind both laws is similar: they aim to forge an often missing link in California’s local planning process. Under these laws, cities and counties generally cannot make the determination of adequate water supplies on their own, but must instead obtain this documentation from the local water utility that would be serving the project. SB 221 and 610 are part of a broader state effort to impose water supply planning safeguards on a highly decentralized planning system. The proximate targets were the state’s fifty-eight counties and more than 475 incorporated municipalities that have local land use authority – forcing them to coordinate with the local water utilities to ascertain whether adequate supplies are available to support new development.4However, California’s urban water supply is also highly decentralized, with hundreds of utilities serving these diverse communities. The effectiveness of SB 221 and 610 depends on the quality of the planning efforts of these utilities. State efforts to impose some planning norms on water utilities began with the passage of the Urban Water Management Planning Act in 1983. The Act required all large urban utilities (defined as those serving at least 3,000 retail connections or supplying at least 3,000 acre-feet of water per year) to develop long-term plans for water supply and demand in their service areas, to be updated at least every five years, in years ending in zeros and fives. The list of required elements in these Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) has been updated numerous times, reinforcing the core purpose: to provide an assessment of the extent to which current and future water supply sources will be adequate to meet water demand at an appropriate level of reliability in normal years as well as during single or multi-year droughts. By and large, SB 221 and 610 were crafted to be in sync with the law governing utility planning. Water supply adequacy to support new development needs to be demonstrated over a twenty-year horizon, the minimum planning horizon for a UWMP.8 A utility’s UWMP can be used to demonstrate water availability under both SB 221 and 610, as long as the plan accounts for the increased water demand associated with the proposed development project. In keeping with California’s strong “home rule” tradition, these planning laws rely largely on citizen enforcement rather than direct regulatory oversight by the state. Thus, the laws provide the opportunity for citizens to challenge the responsible local agencies in civil suits.10Courts can invalidate the planning documents (UWMPs, water supply assessments, or written verifications), thereby holding up development approvals. SB 610 also introduced financial incentives to water utilities to submit UWMPs. Since 2002, only agencies with “complete” plans are eligible for state financial support for local projects. This change gave the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) the mandate to assess the plans for completeness but not for quality. In sharp contrast to climate change policy, where the California Attorney General has pressured local governments to bring their plans into compliance with state laws aimed at limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, the state has not actively sought to enforce the water supply adequacy laws though the judicial process. This Article reviews the effectiveness of California’s strategy of using enabling legislation and passive enforcement to encourage more integrated local water and land use planning. To shed light on the effectiveness of the current policy framework, the Article begins with a critical overview of the Urban Water Management Planning process, drawing on a detailed analysis of plans submitted in the early 2000s.13 It then evaluates how water supply assessments are proceeding, with a particular emphasis on steps used to identify adequacy, drawing on telephone surveys of land use authorities and water utilities conducted by the author in 2004 and 2009. A concluding section highlights shortcomings in the current system and suggests steps that could improve California’s planning process.

Small Populations in Jeopardy: A Delta Smelt Case Study

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | February 21st, 2021

Under §7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are “not likely to jeopardize the continue

Under §7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, federal agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species.” For species with low and declining populations, applying this standard is legally and scientifically difficult. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) faced this problem in its recent biological opinion (BiOp) analyzing impacts to threatened Delta smelt from water project operations in the California Delta. FWS concluded the “species’ recent abundance trends strongly suggest it is in the midst of demographic collapse,” and most recent surveys to locate smelt have failed to find them. Nevertheless, FWS approved agency actions that will likely increase extinction risk for Delta smelt. This Comment illustrates, through a case study of the Delta smelt BiOp, the difficulties in making ESA jeopardy determinations for species on the brink of extinction. We conclude that the myriad challenges inherent in conservation of some small and declining populations make reasoned §7 analysis difficult, bordering on impossible.

Statement of Findings regarding the Determination of Inadequate Status of the San Joaquin Valley – Delta-Mendota Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | March 2nd, 2023

Statutory Water Rights Law And Related California Code Sections (As amended, including Statutes 2016)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | March 30th, 2017

The State Water Resources Control Board publishes this collection of California statutes pertaining to the law of water rights as part of its public information program.

The State Water Resources Control Board publishes this collection of California statutes pertaining to the law of water rights as part of its public information program. This booklet contains sections from the California Constitution, the California Water Code, and other related codes which affect water rights decisions. This booklet is provided as a public service. It contains only excerpts of the Water Code. While every effort is made to assure accuracy, persons should consult the official version of the California Code when making legal decisions. The California Legislative Counsel maintains the official code, which is accessible on the Internet at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml. In addition to the statutes contained in this booklet, decisions of the State Water Resources Control Board are guided by case law. A listing of major recent decisions is included. In general, the statutes contained in this booklet govern the acquisition and exercise of rights to reasonable and beneficial use of surface waters (and of groundwater flowing in known and definite channels) by priority of appropriation initiated on or after December 19, 1914. That is the effective date of the Water Commission Act, which is the origin of many of the water right provisions of today’s Water Code.

Stipulated Agreement: Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles vs. Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo et al

Superior Court of California, County of Inyo | October 21st, 1991

Summary of the Proposed Northeastern Arizona Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement for Public Discussion Purposes

Navajo Nation Water Rights Commission | May 22nd, 2024

Supreme Court Declines to Review Ninth Circuit Decision Applying Federal Reserved Water Rights Doctrine to Groundwater

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | December 21st, 2017

The 2012-2016 drought in California and parts of other western states may have ended, but availability of water will continue to present issues for Cong

The 2012-2016 drought in California and parts of other western states may have ended, but availability of water will continue to present issues for Congress to consider. While state, rather than federal , law typically governs allocations of water resources within a state , there are exceptions where federal law does affect water allocation. Thefederal reserved water rights doctrine, for example, holds that when the federal government reserves federal lands for a particular purpose (such as for a tribal reservation or national monument ) , it impliedly reserves a right to water necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the reservation was created . Si nce 1908, when the Supreme Court established the doctrine in Winters v. United States, courts have applied it to surface waters; a March 2017 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) held, apparently for the first time, that the doctrine can encompass groundwater as well. On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court declined to review this decision, which thus, for now, sets a potentially important precedent within the Ninth Circuit for other groundwater resource issues and disputes. The case Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District originated w hen a tribe sued local water agencies in 2013 in federal district court in California, alleging that the water agencies were adversely affecting the quantity and quality of water available to them by over-drafting an aquifer. Among other claims, the tribe sought a declaration that it had a federally reserved right to the groundwater underlying the reservation , which was established in the 1870s. The United States intervened to defend its ownership, tribal trust, and sovereign interests in the water rights and the tribe’s reservation. In 2015, t he district court ruled in favor of the tribe and the United States on the threshold claim that the government impliedly reserved appurtenant water sources — including underlying groundwater — when it created the tribe’ s reservation . (Subsequent phases of the Agua Caliente Band case are still being litigated. They involve whether the tribe owns the “pore space” or “storage space” of the groundwater basin.

Targeting Public Trust Suits

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) | February 22nd, 2021

The California public trust doctrine empowers private individuals and interest groups to protect the public trust and to enforce state laws that protect the public trust.

The California public trust doctrine empowers private individuals and interest groups to protect the public trust and to enforce state laws that protect the public trust. California has long led the development of the doctrine in the United States, becoming the first state to allow citizen suits to protect the public trust in 1971. A number of other states have followed California’s lead, resulting in a significant expansion in environmental standing. This broadened standing seems to be settled law. In contrast, two California Court of Appeal decisions create some uncertainty about appropriate defendants in public trust lawsuits. These decisions counsel some caution as private parties pick their targets for public trust litigation.