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. 1157

State of California | September 28th, 2022

Socio-hydrological drought impacts on urban water affordability

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | January 19th, 2023

In water-stressed regions, droughts pose a critical challenge to urban water security for low-income households. Droughts reduce water availability, forcing water provide

In water-stressed regions, droughts pose a critical challenge to urban water security for low-income households. Droughts reduce water availability, forcing water providers to invest in additional supplies or enact expensive, short-term emergency measures. These costs are frequently passed on to households through increased rates and surcharges, driving up water bills for low-income households and altering patterns of water consumption. Here we have developed a socio-hydrological modelling approach that integrates hydrology, water infrastructure, utility decision-making and household behaviour to understand the impacts of droughts on household water affordability. We present here an application based on Santa Cruz, California and show that many drought resilience strategies raise water bills for low-income households and lower them for high-income households. We also found that low-income households are most vulnerable to both changing drought characteristics and infrastructure lock-in.

State Investments in Delta Levees

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | January 1st, 2015

This 43-page Issue Paper, authored by Dustin Jones, the Council's Integrated Regional Water Management Supervising Engineer, is entitled State Investments in Delta Levees

This 43-page Issue Paper, authored by Dustin Jones, the Council's Integrated Regional Water Management Supervising Engineer, is entitled State Investments in Delta Levees, Key Issues for Updating Priorities. The Delta Reform Act requires that the Delta Plan promote strategic levee investments that attempt to reduce risks to people, property, and state interests in the Delta (Water Code section 85305) and recommend priorities for state investment in levee operation, maintenance, and improvements in the Delta (Water Code section 85306). In addition, the Delta Plan may identify actions to be taken outside of the Delta, if those actions are determined to significantly reduce flood risks in the Delta and may include local plans of flood protection (Water Code section 85307(a-b)). This paper outlines 15 issues that will need to be considered as the Council updates the Delta Plan’s provisions regarding State investment in the Delta’s levees. It summarizes background information about these issues, provides references for further information, and highlights key points to be addressed through the development of the Delta Levees Investment Strategy.

Strawberry Case Study: What If Farmers Had to Pay for Water?

New York Times | December 29th, 2023

While American farmers elsewhere have watered their crops by freely pumping the groundwater beneath their land, growers in Pajaro must pay hefty fees for irrigation water

While American farmers elsewhere have watered their crops by freely pumping the groundwater beneath their land, growers in Pajaro must pay hefty fees for irrigation water — making it one of the most expensive places to grow food in the country, if not the world. The cost: Up to $400 per acre-foot, a standard measurement equal to water covering one acre, one foot deep. The fees bring in $12 million a year, which is used to recycle, restore and conserve the region’s groundwater.

Subsidized or subsidizing? Municipal drinking water service funds in California

Utilities Policy (Elsevier) | September 29th, 2022

In the longstanding debate over efficiency and effectiveness in drinking water provision between public versus privately governed systems, one of the main contention poin

In the longstanding debate over efficiency and effectiveness in drinking water provision between public versus privately governed systems, one of the main contention points is the reasons for different bill levels imposed by city-run as compared to privately owned water systems. In this study, we examine one potential explanation for disparities in bills: whether cities use their general funds to subsidize their drinking water fund operations or vice versa. Either practice goes against “user pays” principles, as pointed out by critics of municipal operation. However, the claims have not been tested empirically at scale. We extract and analyze city water enterprise fund financial data from the California State Controller Cities Raw Data of Financial Transaction Reports to empirically assess the extent to which and reasons why interfund transfers occur in California's 267 municipally owned water utilities. We find very little evidence that substantial interfund transfers, in either direction, occur between water enterprise funds and general funds within California cities, indicating that enterprise fund control measures are generally successful. These findings suggest that with proper regulation, the municipal fund subsidy debate is essentially a distraction from the real reasons why municipal and other water provider rates differ substantially.

Supporting sustainable groundwater management

California Agriculture (UCANR) | March 13th, 2018

Implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is on schedule. The first phase, completed in 2017, created a new layer of local government —

Implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is on schedule. The first phase, completed in 2017, created a new layer of local government — groundwater sustainability agencies. Now, these new agencies must prepare groundwater sustainability plans. These plans will lay out a basic reckoning for every overdrafted basin: without additional water to replace groundwater pumping or to recharge aquifers, there will be less available to produce food, supply homes and businesses, and ensure there is enough water for the environment.

Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | December 1st, 2009

Stormwater runoff is a leading contributor to water pollution in urban and developing areas in the United States. Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act

Stormwater runoff is a leading contributor to water pollution in urban and developing areas in the United States. Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)  requires agencies to protect water resources by reducing stormwater runoff from any federal development projects. In December 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 438 of that legislation establishes strict stormwater runoff requirements for federal development and redevelopment projects.  The provision reads as follows: “Storm water runoff requirements for federal development projects. The sponsor of any development or redevelopment project involving a Federal facility with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet shall use site planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow.” The intent of Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) is to require federal agencies to develop and redevelop applicable facilities in a manner that maintains or restores stormwater runoff to the maximum extent technically feasible. Until recently, stormwater programs established to address water quality objectives have been designed to control traditional pollutants that are commonly associated with municipal and industrial discharges, e.g., nutrients, sediment, and metals. Increases in runoff volume and peak discharge rates have been regulated through state and local flood control programs. Although these programs have merit, knowledge accumulated during the past 20 years has led stormwater experts to the conclusion that conventional approaches to control runoff are not fully adequate to protect the nation’s water resources (National Research Council, 2008). Implementation of Section 438 of the EISA can be achieved through the use of the green infrastructure/low impact development (GI/LID) infrastructure tools described in this guidance. The intention of the statute is to maintain or restore the pre-development site hydrology during the development or redevelopment process. To be more specific, this requirement is intended to ensure that receiving waters are not negatively impacted by changes in runoff temperature, volumes, durations and rates resulting from federal projects. It should also be noted that a performance-based approach was selected in lieu of a prescriptive requirement in order to provide site designers maximum flexibility in selecting control practices appropriate for the site.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Claims of Property Rights “Takings”

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | January 7th, 2013

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) has long been one of the major flash points in debates over government interference with property rights. This report outlines th

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) has long been one of the major flash points in debates over government interference with property rights. This report outlines the ESA provisions most relevant to the act’s impacts on private property and surveys the major ESA-relevant principles of Fifth Amendment takings law. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment promises “just compensation” when government actions “take” property. The report then summarizes the court decisions on whether particular government actions (or inaction) based on the ESA “take” private property under the Fifth Amendment. The cases to date address several kinds of ESA impacts on private property: (1) restrictions on land uses that might adversely affect species listed as endangered or threatened, and mitigation conditions to offset the impacts of development; (2) administrative delays; (3) reductions in water delivery or allowable water diversion to preserve lake levels or instream flows needed by listed fish (currently the most active area of ESA takings litigation); (4) restrictions on the defensive measures a property owner may take to protect his/her property from listed animals; and (5) restrictions on commercial dealings in listed species. To date, only one of the 18 ESA-based takings cases disclosed by research, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States, has found a taking. However, two cases, Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States and Klamath Irrigation District v. United States, have yet to be finally resolved and may or may not result in holdings that takings occurred.

The most important issue about water is not supply, but how it is used

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | December 14th, 2023