WaterWired

CRS InFocus Report: 'Water Resources Development Acts - Primer'

Nicole T. Carter and Anna E. Normand updated (14 March 2023) this CRS InFocus report: 'Water Resources Development Acts - Primer'.

Download CRS_InFocus_WRDA_Primer_14MARCH2023

Here you go - all you ever wanted to know about WRDAs - in two pages! Many other CRS reports are mentioned. I have highlighted them so you can read them. If I missed some or misreferenced some, search here.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is a Department of Defense agency that develops water resource projects, principally to improve navigable channels, reduce flood and storm damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. Congress often considers, on a biennial schedule, omnibus legislation to authorize USACE water resource activities. Congress regularly refers to this legislation as a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). WRDAs are distinguished from each other by the year of enactment (e.g., WRDA 1986). Authorization is generally a precondition for USACE activities to be eligible for federal appropriations.

WRDA provisions generally add to or amend existing USACE authorizations and provide congressional policy direction to the agency. Drivers for enactment of a new WRDA typically include nonfederal and congressional interest in new USACE studies and projects as well as adjustments to existing USACE projects, programmatic authorities, and policies. Events such as droughts and floods, along with congressional deliberations on infrastructure investments and other policy initiatives, may shape deliberations of USACE authorization legislation in the 118th Congress. 

Consideration and Enactment of WRDAs
Congress typically consolidates USACE authorization proposals into a WRDA bill rather than deliberating on multiple bills of smaller scope. Historically, most WRDA provisions have focused on USACE’s water resource activities; however, on some occasions, provisions have addressed the agency’s other responsibilities (such as its regulatory responsibilities).

WRDAs have been enacted as stand-alone bills (e.g., in 2000, 2007, and 2014) and as part of broader bills (e.g., in 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022). WRDA 2022 was enacted in December 2022 as Title LXXXI of Division H of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY2023 NDAA; P.L. 117-263). For more on WRDA 2022, see CRS Insight IN11965, Water Resources Development Act of 2022 (WRDA 2022).

USACE Activities and WRDA Authorizations
Although the three primary purposes of USACE studies and projects historically have been improving navigation, reducing flood risk, and restoring aquatic ecosystems, many USACE projects are multipurpose—that is, they might provide water supply storage, recreation, and hydropower, among other benefits, in addition to one or more of the three primary purposes. USACE is directly engaged in the planning and construction of water resource projects.

In WRDAs, Congress generally establishes a general framework and guidelines for implementing USACE water resource projects and activities (e.g., setting standard federal and nonfederal cost shares). WRDAs also authorize USACE to perform specific studies and projects. Most USACE water resource projects require two types of congressional authorization, which are provided at different points in time: (1) authority to study the feasibility of the project and (2) authority to construct (and operate and maintain, as applicable) the project. Authorizations for most USACE studies and projects are geographically specific (e.g., a flood risk reduction project for a specific community along a river or coast).

WRDAs also may adjust the required cost sharing for specific projects or activities, or they may authorize USACE to provide specific financial assistance. For example, in WRDAs since 1992, Congress has authorized USACE to assist with environmental infrastructure (e.g., design and construction assistance for municipal drinking water and wastewater infrastructure) in designated communities, counties, and states. For more on this assistance, see CRS Report R47162, Overview of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Infrastructure (EI) Assistance.

Authorization for a project or activity on its own is not sufficient for USACE to proceed; once Congress authorizes an activity in a WRDA, USACE must still receive funding for that activity (e.g., Investigation account funding to complete an authorized study). Congress provides appropriations for USACE through the annual Energy and Water Development appropriations process and, at times, through supplemental appropriations. Most USACE appropriations are directed toward specific USACE studies and projects authorized by Congress. For more on USACE funding, see CRS Report R46320,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Annual Appropriations Process, and CRS In Focus IF11945,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Supplemental Appropriations.

Although most USACE authorizations do not expire, Congress has limited the duration of some WRDA provisions (e.g., a 10-year pilot program authorization). WRDA provisions may extend or remove the time limitations on these authorities. WRDA provisions also may rescind authority for (i.e., deauthorize) unconstructed projects or projects no longer serving their authorized purposes.

WRDA Development and Process to Propose Activities for Authorization
To develop WRDAs, the authorizing committees for USACE—the House Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works—typically hold hearings to receive testimony from stakeholders, review reports transmitted by the Administration, and solicit input from Members. In Section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA 2014; P.L. 113-121), Congress established a new process that may assist congressional authorizing committees in identifying USACE studies, projects, and project modifications for authorization. In Section 7001, as amended, Congress requires the Administration to transmit an annual report to the authorizing committees on publicly submitted USACE study and project proposals, along with USACE-developed project decision documents that require congressional authorization. WRDAs in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 drew upon Section 7001 reports as the basis for authorizing various geographically specific USACE activities. For more on the Section 7001 process, see CRS Insight IN11118, Army Corps of Engineers: Section 7001 Report on Future Studies and Projects.

Nonfederal Responsibilities
Although USACE projects authorized in WRDAs are federal projects, they often require nonfederal sponsors to share costs and assume other responsibilities. Nonfederal sponsors generally are required to provide land and other real estate interests needed for a project and to share study and construction costs. Most studies are cost shared 50% federal and 50% nonfederal. For various USACE project purposes, Congress has set standard cost shares for construction and for the nonfederal responsibilities following construction. For instance, Congress set the construction cost sharing for restoration projects at a fixed 65% federal and 35% nonfederal, unless otherwise specified. For most USACE flood control and restoration projects, nonfederal sponsors are 100% responsible for operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs.

Investing in USACE Backlogged Projects
Numerous activities authorized for construction in previous WRDAs remain unfunded. USACE has a construction backlog exceeding $100 billion, as well as numerous authorized but unfunded studies and operation and maintenance activities. Nonfederal sponsors often remain interested in pursuing these unfunded studies and construction activities. A challenge for federal policymakers is whether, and if so how, to advance these projects. One way is to expand opportunities for greater nonfederal roles in development, construction, and financing of backlogged projects. In WRRDA 2014, WRDA 2016 (Title I of P.L. 114-322, Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act [WIIN Act]), and WRDA 2018 (Title I of P.L. 115-270, America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 [AWIA 2018]), Congress expanded the opportunities for interested nonfederal entities, including private entities, to advance authorized studies and projects.

Another option to facilitate project construction is to expand project financing opportunities. In WRRDA 2014, Congress authorized the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA). WIFIA includes authority for both USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)to implement programs to provide credit assistance (i.e., direct loans or loan guarantees) for various types of water projects. For USACE, WIFIA authorizes the agency to financially assist a broad range of water resource projects, potentially including some projects in the USACE construction backlog. Since FY2021, when Congress created an account for USACE to initiate its WIFIA program―the Corps Water Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP)―Congress has limited CWIFP financial assistance to safety projects for nonfederally owned dams, a project type that is not part of the USACE construction backlog. For more on CWIFP, see CRS Insight IN12021,Corps Water Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP). Other approaches for Congress to address the project backlog include increasing federal funding for this infrastructure and deauthorizing unconstructed projects with older authorizations.

WRDA Oversight and Next WRDA Preparations
After a WRDA is enacted, Congress may oversee its implementation or provide additional implementation direction through the appropriations process. The 118th Congress may review USACE efforts to implement WRDA 2022, as well as authorities in earlier acts. Congress may be interested in the status of USACE guidance describing how the agency plans to implement selected WRDA 2022 and prior WRDA provisions. Congress also may seek information on specific authorized activities, such as agency actions addressing water resource projects for tribes and in economically disadvantaged and rural communities (e.g., §8115 of WRDA 2022; §118 and §165 of WRDA 2020 [Division AA of P.L. 116-260]).

Another potential subject of WRDA oversight may be agency activities related to small water storage projects, including for water supply and water conservation (§155 of WRDA 2020). Congress also may be interested in actions to implement aquifer recharge feasibility studies (§8108 of WRDA 2022) and other authorizations related to drought and western water resources (e.g., §8208 of WRDA 2022).

In addition to oversight, topics that may shape WRDA deliberations in the 118th Congress include how USACE activities interact with broader policy concerns, such as climate change mitigation and adaptation, economic and environmental justice efforts, the role of USACE navigation projects in supply chains, and federal infrastructure spending deliberations (e.g., effectiveness and efficiency of federal funding, federal priorities for flood risk reduction activities). Another consideration may be WRDA provisions’ effects on discretionary spending and mandatory receipts. Other factors shaping WRDA deliberations in the 118th Congress may include the status and authorization of specific studies, projects, and activities. For a primer and resources on USACE authorizations and appropriations, see CRS Insight IN11810, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works: Primer and Resources.

Enjoy!

"A generous person will be enriched and one who gives water will get water."
- Proverbs 11:25

CRS Report: 'Central Valley Project - Issues and Legislation'

Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Erin H. Ward updated (16 March 2023) this CRS report: 'Central Valley Project - Issues and Legislation' . 

Download CRS_Report_CVP_Issues_Legislation_16March2023

I won't go through this in any detail - just post the summary and a few other items. This report gets updated frequently. Click on the graphics to enlarge them. Enjoy!

Summary
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 CVP covers approximately 400 miles in California, from Redding to Bakersfield, and draws from two large river basins: the Sacramento and the San Joaquin. It is composed of 20 dams and 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, municipalities, and fish and wildlife needs, among other purposes. About 75% of CVP water is used for agricultural irrigation, including 7 of California’s top 10 agricultural counties. The CVP is operated jointly with the State Water Project (SWP), which provides much of its water to municipal users in Southern California.

CVP water is delivered to users that have contracts with Reclamation, which is part of the 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 have led to significant curtailments of contracted water supplies in recent years. 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. Wet conditions in the winter of 2022-2023 have temporarily alleviated some of these trends.

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. Some of these operational and construction-related provisions have expired. Legislators may conduct oversight on the CVP and may consider legislation that aims to alter CVP water exports compared with current baselines (including extension of previously expired WIIN Act provisions), as well as whether to approve funding for new water storage projects.

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 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.94 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.

Just a bit more...

Enjoy!

"I have little need to remind you that water has become one of our major national concerns." - Ezra Taft Benson, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
- (Opening sentence of the Foreword of the 1955 Yearbook of Agriculture - dedicated entirely to water)

CRS InFocus Report: 'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2023 Appropriations'

Angela C. Jones penned this CRS InFocus report (16 March 2023): 'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FY2023 Appropriations'.

Download CRS_InFocus_EPA_FY2023_Appropriations_16March2023_IF12349

Click on the graphics to enlarge them. 

Enacted on December 29, 2022, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) provided funding for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, including funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). P.L. 117-328, Division G, Title II provided a total of $10.14 billion in appropriations for EPA, including rescissions. In addition, Division N, Title VII, of P.L. 117-328 provided $1.67 billion in supplemental appropriations for EPA for FY2023 in 2 of EPA’s 10 appropriations accounts. Division J, Title VI of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58), enacted on November 15, 2021, provided an additional $11.21 billion for EPA in advanced appropriations for FY2023. Together, P.L. 117-328 and P.L. 117-58 provided a total of $23.01 billion for EPA for FY2023. Figure 1. shows the breakdown of FY2023 EPA regular, supplemental, and advanced appropriations.

EPA’s FY2023 regular annual appropriations of $10.14 billion, including rescissions, are $1.74 billion (14.7%) less than the President’s FY2023 request for EPA of $11.88 billion and $575.9 million (6.0%) more than FY2022 regular enacted appropriations of $9.56 billion. Total EPA FY2023 enacted appropriations of $23.01 billion (including supplemental and IIJA advanced appropriations) were $605.8 million (2.6%) less than total FY2022 enacted appropriations of $23.62 billion (including IIJA supplemental appropriations). Note: for the purposes of comparisons in this report, FY2022 enacted amounts do not include $41.46 billion in mandatory appropriations provided to EPA for FY2022 in P.L. 117-169, the measure commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Trends in requested and enacted appropriations for EPA since FY2014 are shown in Figure 2.

From the beginning of FY2023 to the enactment of P.L. 117-328, EPA (and other federal departments and agencies) operated under the terms and conditions of a series of three continuing resolutions, generally at FY2022 regular enacted levels.

EPA Appropriations Accounts
Funding for discretionary spending is annually appropriated to EPA among 10 statutory accounts established by Congress over time. These include State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG), Environmental Programs and Management (EPM), Hazardous Substance Superfund (“Superfund”), Science and Technology (S&T), Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program, Buildings and Facilities, Office of Inspector General, Inland Oil Spill Program, Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund, and Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program accounts.

As indicated in Figure 3, the proportional distribution of funding among these accounts has remained similar for more than a decade, except for FY2022 with IIJA supplemental appropriations. Historically, the STAG and EPM accounts have received the largest share of funding, followed by the Superfund and S&T accounts. The STAG account funds grants for water infrastructure, brownfields site assessment and remediation, diesel emissions reduction, targeted airsheds, and “categorical” grants to delegated states and tribes for implementing pollution control programs. The EPM account funds additional grants and many cross-cutting agency activities. The Superfund account supports the environmental remediation of priority sites on non-federal lands designated for federal attention in coordination with the states in which the sites are located. The S&T account funds research that supports agency regulatory decisions.

FY2023 total appropriations in P.L. 117-328 and P.L. 117- 169 funded increases in 7 of the 10 EPA appropriations accounts and a decrease in 1 account compared with the FY2022 enacted appropriations. For example, total FY2023 appropriations were $16.97 billion for the STAG account, including rescissions and $10.82 billion in IIJA advanced appropriations. This is a $2.48 billion (17.1%) increase compared with FY2022 total enacted appropriations of $14.50 billion for the STAG account.

Total FY2023 appropriations were $3.67 billion for the EPM account (including $386.8 million in IIJA advanced appropriations). This is a $297.3 million (8.8%) increase compared with FY2022 total enacted appropriations of $3.38 billion for the EPM account. FY2023 appropriations were $1.28 billion for the Superfund account. This is a $3.45 billion (72.9%) decrease compared with FY2022 enacted appropriations of $4.73 billion for the Superfund account (which included $3.50 billion in supplemental IIJA appropriations).

Selected EPA Funding Issues
In recent years, a variety of EPA funding issues have been the subject of congressional debate during the annual appropriations process. These issues are likely to continue to be the subject of discussion in the 118th Congress.

Assistance to States and Other Entities
Congress appropriates funds to EPA to support the agency’s primary responsibilities under multiple federal environmental pollution control statutes in coordination with states and tribes. The adequacy of funding for this support has been a perennial issue. EPA awards categorical grants to states and tribes (and local governments under certain statutes) with delegated authority to implement and enforce federal pollution control requirements. Typically, Congress allocates the largest categorical grant amounts for EPA assistance to states and territories for two state revolving funds for water infrastructure: the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. For FY2023, Congress appropriated $2.76 billion total for these funds and appropriated $1.16 billion for other categorical grants in the STAG account. EPA also awards competitive grants for a range of programs and purposes. Entities eligible for assistance and other eligibility requirements vary among the competitive grants.

Air Quality and Climate Change
Congress also appropriates funds to EPA for addressing air pollution and climate change, including assistance to states, local governments, and tribes. Air quality and climate change have been a subject of congressional appropriations discussions in recent years. For FY2023, P.L. 117-328 provided $556.8 million within the S&T and EPM accounts for clean air and climate, a $36.7 million (7.1%) increase compared with FY2022 appropriations of $520.0 million. This funding supports programs for climate change research and adaptation, air monitoring networks, federal support for air quality management, renewable fuel standards, greenhouse gas monitoring, and wildfire smoke research, among others. In addition, in the Explanatory Statement accompanying P.L. 117-328, Congress directed specific funding within the STAG account to air-related grants, such as the diesel emissions reduction, wildfire smoke preparedness, and categorical grants specifically related to air quality.

Environmental Justice
Funding levels for EPA environmental justice-related programs and activities have been a long-standing issue in appropriations discussions. Two executive orders (E.O. 12898 and E.O.14008) generally direct EPA and other agencies to integrate environmental justice into their respective missions to “the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.” Congress has recently increased specific allocations for environmental justice activities at EPA. For FY2022, enacted EPA appropriations for environmental justice were $100.0 million, an $88.2 million increase from FY2021 enacted appropriations for the program area. For FY2023, P.L. 117-328 provided EPA with $108.0 million for environmental justice within the EPM and Superfund accounts, an increase of $8.0 million (8.0%) above FY2022 appropriations.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Legislation has been enacted and other bills have been considered in recent Congresses to address potential risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Multiple departments and agencies, including EPA, are involved in responding to the potential risks associated with PFAS. The Explanatory Statement accompanying P.L. 117-328 (Congressional Record, December 20, 2022, pp. S8655-S859) allocated $8.0 million within the S&T account for EPA to conduct “research that will help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities manage PFAS impacts in agricultural settings and communities.” The Explanatory Statement also allocated $12.0 million in EPA Public Water System Supervision categorical grants to address PFAS and other contaminants of emerging concern. EPA may also use funds from other appropriations accounts for eligible activities related to addressing PFAS in the environment.

Enjoy!

"Man is a complex being; he makes deserts bloom and lakes die."
- Gil Stern

CRS Report: 'Drought in the United States: Science, Policy, and Selected Federal Authorities'

This updated (9 March 2023) CRS report comes to us from Charles V. Stern and Eva Lipiec: 'Drought in the United States: Science, Policy, and Selected Federal Authorities'. Read on...

Click on the graphics to enlarge them. I've left a lot out - plenty to read and absorb.

Download CRS_Report_Drought_in USA_Science_Policy_Auth_9March2023pdf

Summary
Drought―a deficiency of moisture that results in adverse effects―occurs to some extent almost every year in areas of the United States. Droughts can simultaneously reduce available water supplies and increase demands for water. Drought has the potential to affect economic and environmental conditions on local, regional, and national scales, as well as to disrupt water supplies for households and communities.

Droughts are a component of climate variability and may be seasonal, multiyear, or multi-decadal in duration. According to a 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the physical science of climate change, variable precipitation and rising temperatures are intensifying droughts in some U.S. regions. According to the report, certain types of droughts—such as those causing agricultural impacts—are expected to be more likely in the western and central regions of the United States in the future.

The federal government generally defers to state primacy in surface and groundwater allocation, and states and local entities typically lead efforts to prepare for drought. Multiple federal agencies contribute to these efforts to predict, plan for, and respond to drought. The federal government, and in particular the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, plays a key role in researching and monitoring drought through the National Integrated Drought Information System and the U.S. Drought Monitor. Other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Geological Survey, also research and monitor drought factors and conditions.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides the primary federal financial aid to lessen the impacts of drought and compensate for agricultural production loss after drought onset. Other federal programs may assist with drought in their support of other water investments. For example, Congress authorized programs supporting nonfederal and tribal efforts to develop water conservation, water reuse and recycling, rural water supplies, or other municipal and industrial water supplies. Some of these programs may prioritize projects that lessen the impacts of drought even if these programs do not focus exclusively on drought.

Congress has authorized federal assistance for other aspects of drought, but these programs generally are limited in scope. In localities or watersheds with major projects managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, which operates exclusively in the 17 western states) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, which operates nationwide), the federal role in water management is more direct and can be especially controversial during times of drought, when multiple users compete for water. Congress has directed both Reclamation and USACE to plan for future droughts at federally authorized projects.

Recent severe droughts, including widespread drought conditions in some areas of the western United States, have raised the profile of drought and led to congressional and administrative proposals to prepare for and respond to its impacts. The 117th Congress enacted funding for drought activities in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) and in P.L. 117- 169 (commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022). Congressional interest in drought during the 118th Congress may include new and amended authorities for drought planning and response; emergency appropriations to alleviate drought impacts and enhance related activities; and oversight of ongoing federal drought science, preparedness, and management efforts.

Introduction
Drought―a deficiency of moisture that results in adverse impacts―occurs to some extent almost every year in areas of the United States. Drought has the potential to create economic and environmental impacts on local, regional, and national scales, as well as disruptions in water supplies for households and communities. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates the United States has experienced 30 billion-dollar drought events since 1980, at an estimated total cost of over $309.4 billion. Although droughts are generally a common component of climate variability that may be seasonal, multiyear, or multi- decadal in duration, variable precipitation and rising temperatures are intensifying droughts in the western United States in 2021 and 2022, have raised the profile of drought and led to increasing congressional and administrative proposals to prepare for and respond to its impacts.

Multiple federal agencies contribute to efforts to predict, plan for, and respond to drought. NOAA plays a key role in monitoring drought through the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) and the U.S. Drought Monitor (through a partnership with the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]). USDA provides the primary federal financial aid to lessen drought’s impacts and compensate for agricultural production loss after its onset. Federal water resource agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may face difficult tradeoffs in operating federal water projects during drought; both agencies also have the authority to and conduct activities to mitigate drought impacts. Various other federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and emergency authorities also have a role in drought response and mitigation.

This report provides an overview of drought in the United States, including information on drought science, monitoring, and forecasts and on drought types and intensity classifications. It discusses federal authorities related to drought planning and response, with a focus on selected water-related agricultural, environmental, and natural resource authorities with explicit ties to drought. It does not discuss broader disaster-related authorities and their potential nexus to drought, such as the programs and authorities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and interactions between drought and other hazards and concerns (e.g., wildfire, dust, and public health).

Cutting to the chase...

More...

Still more...




Enjoy!

"Water is the mother of the vine, the nurse and fountain of fecundity, the adorner and refresher of the world." - Charles Mackay (See http://gmd4.org/WaterQuotes.html)

CRS InFocus Report: 'Limiting Lead in Public Water Supplies - An Overview of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Regulatory Actions'

From Elena H. Humphreys comes this CRS InFocus report (8 March 2023): 'Limiting Lead in Public Water Supplies - An Overview of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Regulatory Actions'.

Download CRS_InFocus_Limiting_Lead_Public_Water_Supplies_8March2023

Introduction
Exposure to lead can be harmful to human health, particularly children’s health, even at low levels. Lead’s adverse health effects have resulted in continued efforts to reduce exposure to lead including through drinking water. Lead primarily enters drinking water after the treated water leaves the plant, when lead can leach into drinking water from certain plumbing materials or pipes. A 2008 study funded by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Research Foundation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated the contribution of potential sources of lead in drinking water. Under laboratory conditions, lead pipes or service lines (LSL) were the major contributor to lead levels in water, contributing an average of 50%-75% of the lead measured. Thus, controlling corrosion of pipes or LSLs continues to be the primary method to keep lead from entering water.

Congress has used several approaches under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to limit exposure to lead through drinking water. These include limiting the lead content of plumbing materials and fixtures, and authorizing EPA to regulate contaminants, such as lead, in public water supplies. Further, SDWA directed EPA to establish public notification and education requirements for lead and a number of grant programs with various objectives, such as lead reduction projects, lead testing in water at schools and childcare programs, and removing lead-lined drinking water coolers from schools. Also, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provides $3.0 billion for each of FY2022-FY2026 for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) for LSL replacement projects and related activities.

This In Focus provides a timeline of EPA’s actions (including planned actions) to establish and update a drinking water regulation for lead. For a broader discussion, see CRS Report R46794, Addressing Lead in Drinking Water: The Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR).

Safe Drinking Water Act
Enacted in 1974, SDWA authorizes EPA to regulate contaminants in public water supplies (42 U.S.C. §300g-1). SDWA regulations apply to public water systems, which can be owned and operated by public entities (e.g., municipalities and local governments) or private entities (e.g., homeowner associations and investor-owned utilities). SDWA requires EPA to review and revise, as appropriate, each drinking water regulation every six years, and requires that any revisions maintain or provide for increased public health protection (42 U.S.C. §300g-1(b)(9)).

SDWA authorizes states and tribes to assume primary responsibility (primacy) for oversight and enforcement of public water system compliance with drinking water regulations (42 U.S.C. §300g-2). All states (except Wyoming and the District of Columbia) and U.S. territories, and the Navajo Nation have primacy. EPA directly oversees public water systems in nonprimacy areas and retains oversight of primacy states. Primacy states or tribes are required to adopt and enforce regulations at least as stringent as EPA rules, provide technical assistance to public water systems, conduct inspections of systems, and maintain records and compliance data, among other duties.

1991 Lead and Copper Rule
Among its actions to limit lead in drinking water, in 1991 EPA issued the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). (Outlined here are water system requirements for lead, only.) The LCR replaced a drinking water standard for lead of 50 parts per billion (ppb) measured at the water treatment plant. As discussed above, lead primarily enters water after it leaves the plant. Accordingly, the rule required community water systems (CWSs) to perform an initial survey of the materials that comprised their distribution systems. This information enabled CWSs to target tap-water monitoring at homes and other locations expected to be at higher risk of lead contamination. The LCR established an action level at 15 ppb for lead. If more than 10% of tap water samples exceed the rule’s action level, then a CWS has a system- wide action level exceedance, and the CWS is required to take treatment technique actions. These actions include optimizing corrosion control; public education; water quality parameter monitoring; source water treatment; and, in some cases, LSL replacement.

The 1991 LCR did not require full LSL replacement. It required CWSs that have optimized corrosion control and still exceeded the action level to replace at least 7% of their LSLs annually until the action level is not exceeded for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods. Under the 1991 rule, CWSs could use sample results from the next monitoring period to “test out” of the 7% requirement if the system-wide action level was not exceeded.

EPA reports that drinking water exposures to lead declined significantly following the implementation of the 1991 LCR, “resulting in major improvements to public health.” Though the agency noted that “there is a compelling need to modernize and improve the rule by strengthening its public health protections and clarifying its implementation requirements to make it more effective and more readily enforceable” (86 Federal Register (FR) 4198-4200).

2007 Short-Term Revisions to the LCR
EPA initiated a comprehensive review of the 1991 LCR in 2004, after detection of widespread elevated lead levels in tap water in Washington, DC, raised concerns over the LCR’s effectiveness and implementation. Some widely recognized issues associated with the LCR included (1) variability of tap-water monitoring protocols; (2) clarity and effectiveness of corrosion control requirements to prevent lead from leaching into water; (3) adequacy of public notification and reporting requirements; (4) LSL replacement requirements, practices, and costs; and (5) overall complexity of the rule, which may affect its implementation and enforcement. After the detections in Washington, DC, EPA undertook a national review of the LCR, and determined that certain short-term regulatory revisions were needed. In 2007, EPA issued short-term and intermediate clarifications to address source water or treatment changes, monitoring, customer awareness, and LSL replacement (72 FR 57781-57820).

EPA worked with states, water utilities, and others to develop comprehensive “long-term” LCR revisions. In 2013, Congress requested that the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) make recommendations to EPA for LCR revisions (42 U.S.C. §300g-6 note). NDWAC is required to advise, consult, and make recommendations to EPA on SDWA activities and policies (42 U.S.C. §300j- 5). Around the same time, elevated lead levels detected in tap water in Flint, MI, raised concerns about the LCR’s implementation and effectiveness. In 2015, NDWAC urged EPA to revise the rule to: establish a proactive LSL replacement program and encourage CWSs to include such costs in their capital improvement programs; strengthen public education requirements; strengthen corrosion control requirements to include a requirement that water systems review updated EPA guidance; modify monitoring requirements to provide for consumer requested samples and to use samples to inform consumer actions, inform health agencies, and review corrosion control; establish a health-based household action level that triggers a report to the consumer and local health agency; increase water quality parameter monitoring; and establish additional compliance and enforcement mechanisms.

2021 LCR Revisions (LCRR)
In November 2019, EPA proposed comprehensive LCR revisions based on the NDWAC recommendations, and solicited comment (84 FR 61684-61774). EPA finalized the LCR revisions (LCRR) on January 15, 2021, with an effective date of March 16, 2021 (86 FR 4198-4312).

Also in January 2021, the Biden Administration issued a memorandum directing executive agencies and departments to consider postponing for 60 days from January 20, 2021, the effective date of rules published in the Federal Register that had yet to enter into effect, to allow the Administration to review such rules. On June 16, 2021, EPA announced that the agency would extend the effective date of the LCRR to December 16, 2021, and require CWSs to be in compliance by October 16, 2024 (86 FR 31939-31948).

In the LCRR, EPA retained the LCR’s treatment technique, and revised several of the rule’s requirements. The LCRR does not require full LSL replacement, but revises the LSL replacement rate and procedures for CWSs with optimized corrosion control that have a system-wide action level exceedance. Among other changes, the LCRR includes a trigger level at 10 ppb that would require water systems to take treatment, monitoring, and public notification actions when the trigger level is exceeded; clarifies tap sampling procedures and adjusts prioritized monitoring sites; requires water systems to include elementary schools and child care facilities in tap monitoring plans; adds requirements for water systems to inventory LSLs, and develop plans to replace LSLs; and implements provisions added by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act (P.L. 114-322) by requiring public notification within 24 hours of a system-wide lead action level exceedance.

Upcoming Changes to the LCRR
On December 17, 2021, EPA announced its intent to propose a new rule called the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) to further revise the LCRR (86 FR 71574-71582). EPA outlines several objectives for LCRI. Citing the IIJA appropriations for LSL replacement, EPA states that an objective of its proposal is the replacement of all LSLs as quickly as feasible. In addition, EPA stated that the agency intends to strengthen tap sampling procedures in the LCRI. In addition, EPA stated that it is reevaluating the action and trigger levels, and considering how to prioritizeprotections for “historically disadvantaged communities.”

Timeframes and Other Considerations
SDWA regulations generally take effect three years after promulgation. The LCRR requires water systems to be in compliance by October 16, 2024. Regarding the LCRI, EPA stated its intent to propose and finalize these revisions before the LCRR’s compliance deadline of October 16, 2024 (86 FR 71578). As outlined by EPA, the LCRI intends to revise specific requirements of the LCRR.

As the October 2024 compliance deadline approaches, uncertainty exists for some water systems and primacy states given EPA’s intent to revise some LCRR requirements in the LCRI. In acknowledgment, EPA states that it would revise deadlines for the portions of the LCRR that would be significantly changed in the LCRI. EPA states that such requirements would include developing a LSL replacement plan and a tap sampling plan. However, the agency states that the October 16, 2024, deadline will remain for particular portions of LCRR, including the requirement to develop a LSL inventory.

Revisions to the LCRR may affect compliance costs for water systems. Under both the 1991 LCR and the 2021 LCRR, LSL replacement is required under specific circumstances. EPA notes that one LCRI objective is to replace LSLs as quickly as feasible. IIJA appropriations dedicated to LSL replacement projects may help offset LSL replacement costs. EPA’s timelines for the LCRI indicate that any changes to LSL replacement requirements would be finalized after the initial two fiscal years of IIJA appropriations. Over this time, CWSs would likely be taking actions required to comply with the LCRR, but may have to wait to see what changes EPA finalizes in the LCRI.

Enjoy!

"We remind all program directors to carefully proofread their job advertisements. The Plant Genetics program has over 500 apps from Tudor history scholars. HR is asking them to review all those files and consider them in defining the diversity of the applicant pool." - @ass_deans