WaterWired

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

An all-star cast for this important CRS report 16 September 2021): Charles V. Stern and Eva Lipiec, Coordinators; Lisa S. Benson, Nicole T. Carter, Elena H. Humphreys, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Megan Stubbs: 'Drought in the United States: Science, Policy, and Selected Federal Authorities'.

Download CRS_Report_R46911_Drought_in_US_16Sept2021

This report is not that long but it is loaded with information. Click on the graphics to enlarge them. Graphics are not placed where they occur in the report.

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 cause disruptions in 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 an August 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 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 (NOAA), plays a key role in researching and monitoring drought through the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) and the U.S. Drought Monitor. Other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), also research and monitor drought factors and conditions. The USDA provides the primary federal financial aid to lessen the impacts of drought and compensate for agricultural production loss after drought onset.

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 arid 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. Other federal programs, such as those supporting nonfederal efforts to develop water conservation, water reuse and recycling, rural water supplies, or other municipal and industrial water supplies, may prioritize projects that lessen the impacts of drought even when these programs do not focus exclusively on drought.

Severe drought in California from 2012 to 2016, as well as widespread drought in the western United States in 2021 and other recent events, has raised the profile of drought and led to increasing congressional and administrative proposals to prepare for and respond to its impacts. Congressional interest in drought 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 29 billion-dollar drought events since 1980, at an estimated total cost of over $267.9 billion. Although droughts are a component of climate variability and may be seasonal, multiyear, or multi-decadal in duration, variable precipitation and rising temperatures are intensifying droughts in some regions. Severe droughts in California from 2012 to 2016, as well as widespread drought in the western United States in 2021, 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) face difficult tradeoffs in operating federal water projects during drought; both agencies also have authorities and conduct activities to mitigate drought impacts. Various other federal agencies and emergency authorities also play a role in drought response and mitigation, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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 also discusses federal authorities related to drought planning and response, with a focus on selected water-related agricultural, environmental, and natural resource-related 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).

What Is Drought?
Droughts are a component of climate variability and may be seasonal, multiyear, or multi-decadal (sometimes called megadroughts) in duration. Drought may be defined in various ways; NOAA, for instance, defines it as “a deficiency of moisture that results in adverse impacts on people, animals, or vegetation over a sizeable area.” Although a lack of precipitation is often central to drought, high temperatures, high winds, lack of clouds, and low humidity also can contribute. Experts categorize definitions into four basic approaches to measuring drought: meteorological, hydrological, agricultural, and socioeconomic. However, no one definition applies to all circumstances.

 Meteorological drought typically is defined based on the degree of dryness in comparison to some “normal” or average amount and the duration of a dry period. Meteorological drought is region-specific, because atmospheric conditions creating precipitation deficiencies vary from region to region.

 Hydrological drought is defined by the effects that periods of shortfalls in precipitation (including snowfall) have on surface and subsurface water supply, such as streamflows, reservoir and lake levels, and groundwater. The frequency and severity of this type of drought are measured on a watershed or river basin scale.

 Agricultural drought links characteristics of meteorological or hydrological drought to agricultural impacts, with a focus on precipitation shortfalls, evapotranspiration differences, soil moisture deficits, reduced groundwater or reservoir levels, and other effects. The timing and severity of drought conditions and the types of plants involved may yield different agricultural impacts. Some experts use the term agricultural and ecological drought to capture not only the agricultural effects but also the ecological effects of drought, such as plant water stress that contributes to tree mortality.

 Socioeconomic drought associates the “supply and demand of some economic goods with elements of meteorological, hydrological, and agricultural drought.” A socioeconomic drought may occur when the demand for an economic good, such as water, food grains, fish, or hydroelectric power, exceeds supply due to a shortfall in water supply.

Scientists also have been studying a phenomenon referred to as hot drought. In contrast to precipitation-driven droughts, hot droughts are a result of high air temperatures, as warmer air absorbs more water than cooler air.

More to go....

Enjoy!

“If two wrongs don’t make a right, try three.” - Laurence J. Peter

Thursday Twofer! CRS Reports: 1) 'Wildfire Statistics'; 2) 'Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress'

Here are two CRS reports that are updated frequently. I have not updated (2) in quite a while.

Graphics can be enlarged by clicking on them.

1) Katie Hoover and Laura A. Hanson authored (updated 8 September 2021): 'Wildfire Statistics'.

Download CRS_InFocus_Wildfire_Statistics_8Sept2021

Summary
Wildfires are unplanned and unwanted fires, including lightning-caused fires, unauthorized human-caused fires, and escaped prescribed fire projects. States are responsible for responding to wildfires that begin on nonfederal (state, local, and private) lands, except for lands protected by federal agencies under cooperative agreements. The federal government is responsible for responding to wildfires that begin on federal lands. The Forest Service (FS)—within the U.S. Department of Agriculture—carries out wildfire management and response across the 193 million acres of the National Forest System (NFS). The Department of the Interior (DOI) manages wildfire response for more than 400 million acres of national parks, wildlife refuges and preserves, other public lands, and Indian reservations. 

Wildfire statistics help to illustrate past U.S. wildfire activity. Nationwide data compiled by the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) indicate that the number of annual wildfires is variable but has decreased slightly over the last 30 years and the number of acres affected annually, while also variable, generally has increased (see Figure 1). Since 2000, an annual average of 70,600 wildfires has burned an annual average of 7.0 million acres. This figure is more than double the average annual acreage burned in the 1990s (3.3 million acres), although a greater number of fires occurred annually in the 1990s (78,600 average).

Cutting to the chase:

Issues for Congress
Issues for Congress include the strategies and resources used for wildfire prevention, mitigation, and management, and the impact of wildfires on both the quality of life and the economies of communities surrounding wildfire activity. Other issues relate to post-wildfire recovery and site restoration. Congress also considers the total federalcost of wildfire management, including the cost of suppression operations; these costs vary annually and are difficult to predict.

For more information, see
 CRS In Focus IF10732, Federal Assistance for Wildfire
Response and Recovery;

 CRS Insight IN11716, 2021 Wildfire Season: Brief Overview of FEMA Programs and Resources; and

 CRS Report R46583, Federal Wildfire Management: Ten-Year Funding Trends and Issues (FY2011-FY2020).

Next:

2) Ronald O'Rourke (Coordinator), LauraB. Comay, Peter Folger, John Frittelli, Marc Humphries, Jane A. Leggett, JonathanL.Ramseur, and Pervaze A. Sheikh were the authors behind this mammoth (139 pages) report (update 7 September 2021): Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress.

Why is this such a big deal? Read on!

Download CRS_Report_Changes_Arctic_Issues_Congress_7Sept2021

Summary
The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region’s future. The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial interests in the region. The seven other Arctic states are Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark (by virtue of Greenland), and Russia.

The Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) of 1984 (Title I of P.L. 98-373 of July 31, 1984) “provide[s] for a comprehensive national policy dealing with national research needs and objectives in the Arctic.” The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the lead federal agency for implementing Arctic research policy. The Arctic Council, created in 1996, is the leading international forum for addressing issues relating to the Arctic. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) sets forth a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans, including the Arctic Ocean. The United States is not a party to UNCLOS.

Record low extents of Arctic sea ice over the past decade have focused scientific and policy attention on links to global climate change and projected ice-free seasons in the Arctic within decades. These changes have potential consequences for weather in the United States, access to mineral and biological resources in the Arctic, the economies and cultures of peoples in the region, and national security.

The geopolitical environment for the Arctic has been substantially affected by the renewal of great power competition. Although there continues to be significant international cooperation on Arctic issues, the Arctic is increasingly viewed as an arena for geopolitical competition among the United States, Russia, and China.

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Coast Guard are devoting increased attention to the Arctic in their planning and operations. Whether DOD and the Coast Guard are devoting sufficient resources to the Arctic and taking sufficient actions for defending U.S. interests in the region has emerged as a topic of congressional oversight. The Coast Guard has two operational polar icebreakers and has received funding for the procurement of two of at least three planned new polar icebreakers.

The diminishment of Arctic ice could lead in coming years to increased commercial shipping on two trans-Arctic sea routes—the Northern Sea Route close to Russia, and the Northwest Passage close to Alaska and through the Canadian archipelago—though the rate of increase in the use of these routes might not be as great as sometimes anticipated in press accounts. International guidelines for ships operating in Arctic waters have been recently updated.

Changes to the Arctic brought about by warming temperatures will likely allow more exploration for oil, gas, and minerals. Warming that causes permafrost to melt could pose challenges to onshore exploration activities. Increased oil and gas exploration and tourism (cruise ships) in the Arctic increase the risk of pollution in the region. Cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters will be more difficult than in other areas, primarily because effective strategies for cleaning up oil spills in ice-covered waters have yet to be developed.

Large commercial fisheries exist in the Arctic. The United States is working with other countries regarding the management of Arctic fish stocks. Changes in the Arctic could affect threatened and endangered species, and could result in migration of fish stocks to new waters. Under the Endangered Species Act, the polar bear was listed as threatened on May 15, 2008. Arctic climate change is also expected to affect the economies, health, and cultures of Arctic indigenous peoples.

Issues for Congress

Climate Change and Loss of Arctic Sea Ice
Record low extents of Arctic sea ice in 2012 and 2007 have focused scientific and policy attention on climate changes in the high north, and on the implications of projected ice-free40 seasons in the Arctic within decades. The Arctic has been projected by several scientists to be ice-free in most late summers as soon as the 2030s.41 This opens opportunities for transport through the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, extraction of potential oil and gas resources, and expanded fishing and tourism (Figure 3).

More broadly, physical changes in the Arctic include warming ocean, soil, and air temperatures; melting permafrost; shifting vegetation and animal abundances; and altered characteristics of Arctic cyclones. All these changes are expected to affect traditional livelihoods and cultures in the region and survival of polar bear and other animal populations, and raise risks of pollution, food supply, safety, cultural losses, and national security. Moreover, linkages (“teleconnections”) between warming Arctic conditions and extreme events in the mid-latitude continents are increasingly evident, identified in such extreme events as the heat waves and fires in Russia in 2010; severe winters in the eastern United States and Europe in 2009/2010 and in Europe in 2011/2012;42 and Indian summer monsoons and droughts. Hence, changing climate in the Arctic suggests important implications both locally and across the Hemisphere.

Lots more reading left!

Enjoy!

"May you live in interesting times." - Unknown

CRS Report: 'Bureau of Reclamation - FY2022 Appropriations' Updated: 3 September 2021

From Charles V. Stern comes this updated (3 September 2021) CRS InFocus report: 'Bureau of Reclamation - FY2022 Appropriations'.

Download CRS_InFocus_USBR_FY2022_Appropriations_3Sept2021

Click on the graphics to enlarge them. They are not placed in the same places as in the report.

Overview
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), part of the Department of the Interior, is responsible for construction and operation of hundreds of large dams and water diversion structures in the 17 coterminous western states. These projects provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people. Reclamation is the largest wholesale supplier of water in 17 western states and the second-largest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. Reclamation’s mission areas and geographic scope are narrower than the other principal federal water resource agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Reclamation’s role has evolved, and its focus gradually has shifted from construction of new water storage projects to operation and maintenance of existing projects. Reclamation also has expanded into new areas, including funding for water supply projects on tribal lands and in rural areas under congressionally authorized Indian water rights settlements and rural water supply projects, respectively. In addition, Congress has authorized Reclamation grants to nonfederal projects, including those for water reuse and recycling, conservation and efficiency, and desalination.

Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources account funds most agency activities, including construction, operation and maintenance, dam safety, ecosystem restoration, Indian water rights settlements, and most programmatic and grant authorities. Reclamation typically also requests funding for three smaller accounts: California Bay-Delta Restoration, the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund (which is offset by customer receipts), and Policy and Administration.

Let's cut to the last two sections...

Western Drought
Much of the western United States is facing extraordinary drought conditions, and several Reclamation programs address drought. For FY2022, both H.R. 4502 and S. 2605 would add funds for drought response, with $8.5 million in addition to the Administration’s budget request for the Drought Response Program. H.R. 4502 also stipulated that $50 million in additional funding for Water Conservation and Delivery (see previous section, “Earmarks and Reclamation”) was for implementation of the Lower Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, while S. 2605 stipulated that $40 million was for the same purpose.

Additional Reading
CRS Report R46303, Bureau of Reclamation: History, Authorities, and Issues for Congress.

CRS In Focus IF10626, Reclamation Water Storage Projects: Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act.

CRS Report R44148, Indian Water Rights Settlements.

CRS Report R46308, Bureau of Reclamation Rural Water Projects.

CRS Report R45546, Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role.

Enjoy!

“Reason is the first casualty in a drought.” - Marc Reisner (in Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water (from Goodreads)

CRS Report: 'Management of the Colorado River - Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role' Updated: 16 August 2021

Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh have updated (16 August 2021) their excellent CRS report: 'Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role'.

The graphics are not placed where they occur in the report. Click on a graphic to enlarge it. Click here for an updated map of the basin.

Download CRS_Report_Mgmt_CO_River_Water_Allo_Drought_Fed_Role_16Aug2021

Overview
The Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles in seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior) manages much of the basin’s water supplies. Colorado River water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses; it is also important for hydropower production, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses.

Apportioned Colorado River water is widely acknowledged to be in excess of the river’s natural flows, and consumptive use of these waters typically exceeds natural flows. This causes an imbalance in the basin’s available water supply and demand. Stress on basin water supplies is exacerbated by a long-term drought dating to 2000. In the future, observers expect ongoing strain on the basin’s limited water supplies, which will be further stressed by climate change.

River Management
The Law of the River is the commonly used shorthand for the multiple laws, court decisions, and other documents governing Colorado River operations; its foundational document is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Pursuant to the compact, the basin states established a framework to apportion water supplies between the river’s Upper and Lower Basins, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ. Each basin was allocated 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) annually under the compact, and an additional 1.5 MAF in annual flows was made available to Mexico under a 1944 treaty. Further agreements and court decisions addressed other issues (e.g., intrastate allocations of flows), and subsequent federal legislation provided authority and funding for federal facilities that allowed users to develop their allocations. A 1963 Supreme Court ruling confirmed that Congress designated the Secretary of the Interior as the water master for the Lower Basin, a role in which the federal government manages the delivery of all water below Hoover Dam.

Reclamation and basin stakeholders closely track the status of two large reservoirs—Lake Powell in the Upper Basin and Lake Mead in the Lower Basin—as an indicator of basin storage conditions. Under criteria agreed upon by basin states, dam releases from these facilities are tied to specific water storage levels. On August 16, 2021, Reclamation declared the first-ever Tier One shortage condition in the Lower Basin beginning in 2022, which reduces deliveries to water contractors in Arizona and Nevada, as well as to Mexico. Reclamation also projected a high likelihood of Lake Powell’s 2022 surface water elevation falling below target levels established to protect hydropower infrastructure at Glen Canyon Dam.

Operational Changes and Drought Contingency Plans
The federal government has led multiple efforts attempting to improve the basin’s water supply outlook, resulting in previous collaborative agreements in 2003 and 2007. After several years of negotiations, in 2019 Reclamation and the basin states agreed on a new set of plans to alleviate the strain on basin water supplies. Congress authorized these drought contingency plans (DCPs) for the Upper and Lower Basins in 2019 in the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act (P.L. 116-14). Among other things, the DCPs required reductions beyond previous curtailment plans based on Lake Mead storage levels, committed Reclamation to additional water conservation efforts, and put in place plans to coordinate Upper Basin operations to enhance Lake Powell storage levels and hydropower generation. Although the DCPs were widely lauded for their consensus-based development, many remain concerned about the basin’s long-term water supply imbalance and the related potential for a compact call (a “call” on water rights between the Lower and Upper Basins). A central question facing decisionmakers is whether to renew interim agreements (including the DCPs) prior to their expiration in 2026, along with what (if any) additional changes might be necessary to prevent future shortages.

Congressional Role
Congress plays a multifaceted role in federal management of the Colorado River Basin. Congress funds and oversees management of basin facilities and has held oversight hearings on drought in the basin and elsewhere. Congress also has enacted legislation involving allocation of Colorado River waters (e.g., authorization of Indian water rights settlements; new water storage facilities) and authorities to mitigate water shortages (i.e., the DCPs and other related efforts). In the future, Congress may be asked to amend or extend these authorities to combat long-term water shortages.

Cutting to the chase...

Issues for Congress

Funding and Oversight of Existing Facilities and Programs
The principal role of Congress as it relates to storage facilities on the Colorado River is funding and oversight of facility operations, construction, and programs to protect and restore endangered species (e.g., Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Program). In the Upper Basin, Colorado River facilities include the 17 active participating units in the Colorado River Storage Projects, as well as the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project. In the Lower Basin, major facilities include the Salt River Project and Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Hoover Dam and All-American Canal, Yuma and Gila Projects, Parker-Davis Project, Central Arizona Project, and Robert B. Griffith Project (now Southern Nevada Water System).

Congressional appropriations in support of Colorado River projects and programs typically account for a portion of overall project budgets. For example, for the most recent year available (FY2018), the Lower Colorado Region’s operating budget was $559.5 million; $134.8 million of this total was provided by discretionary appropriations, and the remainder of funding came from power revenues (which are made available without further appropriation) and nonfederal partners. In recent years, Congress has also authorized and appropriated funding that hastargeted the Colorado River Basin in general (e.g., the Pilot System Conservation Plan). Congress may choose to extend or amend these and other authorities specific to the basin.

While discretionary appropriations for the Colorado River are of regular interest to Congress, Congress may also be asked to weigh in on Colorado River funding that is not subject to regular appropriations. For instance, in the coming years, the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund is projected to face a decrease in revenues and may thus have less funding available for congressionally established funding priorities for the Development Fund.

Indian Water Rights Settlements
Congress has previously approved Indian water rights settlements associated with more than 2 MAF of tribal diversion rights on the Colorado River. Only a portion of this water has been developed. Congress likely will face ongoing decisions regarding whether to fund development of previously authorized infrastructure associated with Indian water rights settlements in the Colorado River Basin. For example, the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project is being built to serve the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Navajo Nation, and the City of Gallup, New Mexico.105 Congress may also be asked to consider new settlements that may result in tribal rights to more Colorado River water.

Plans for New and Augmented Water Storage, Conveyance
Some states in the Upper Basin have indicated their intent to further develop their Colorado River water entitlements. For example, in the 115th Congress, Section 4310 of America’s Water Infrastructure Act (P.L. 115-270) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State of Wyoming whereby the state would fund a project to add erosion control to Fontenelle Reservoir in the Upper Basin. The project would allow the state to potentially utilize an additional 80,000 acre-feet of water storage on the Green River, a tributary of the Colorado River.

Another project that would develop Upper Basin waters is the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP), which would direct approximately 86,000 acre-feet of Utah’s Upper Basin Colorado River Basin apportionment from Lake Powell to Washington County, UT (i.e., the St. George, UT, area, which is technically located within the Lower Basin drainage area). The pipeline would begin near Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona and would run through Arizona and Utah to Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, UT. Reclamation has been designated the lead agency for the project under NEPA and is coordinating an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the most recently proposed version of the project. Supporters in Utah argue that the pipeline is needed to provide a second primary water source for the St. George area, in addition to the Virgin River. Some environmental groups have argued that the proposed development and diversion of additional Upper Basin waters is ill-advised in light of climate change and the basin’s issues with over-allocation. These groups have argued for major changes to the scope of the EIS. The six other Colorado River Basin states have raised concerns related to the proposed LPP’s “legal and operational issues,” and they have raised concerns with the LPP NEPA process as the de facto forum for resolving a conflict among basin states. The six states have requested that Reclamation refrain from issuing a final EIS until these issues can be resolved on a consensus basis.

Drought Contingency Plan Implementation and Future Basin AgreementsCongress is likely to remain interested in the status of drought in the basin in general, as well as in the implementation of the DCPs and other related agreements and their success or failure at stemming further delivery curtailments and adding water to the basin’s storage reservoirs. Similarly, Congress may be interested in the overall hydrologic status of the Colorado River Basin, including new and existing efforts to plan for increased demand in the basin and stretch limited basin water supplies.

Federally led efforts to extend the 2007 Interim Guidelines (including the DCPs), which expire at the end of 2026, look to be the next major hurdle in the consensus-based management of the Colorado River. These reconsultation efforts, including any major alterations to the existing agreements, are key to managing the basin’s future water resources. Insofar as these agreements involve new federal authorities, Congress may be asked to play a part in their approval.

Enjoy!

"The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity." - Dorothy Parker (quoted in @CountryLiving via @TheWeek)

UNFCCC Latin America & Caribbean CASTT - Adaptation Academy. Apply by 30 August 2021!

If you have not heard of UNFCCC's CASTT Adaptation Academy and wish to learn more before applying, read here.

'CASTT' is an acronym for 'Climate Action and Support Transparency Training'.

A brief description:

The UNFCCC secretariat, in collaboration with five research and educational institutions, has initiated the “Climate Action and Support Transparency Training (CASTT) Adaptation Academy”. Designed to provide a multi-week training programme on the Paris Agreement with a focus on the adaptation reporting aspects of the enhanced transparency framework, the Adaptation Academy will aim to enhance technical capacity for adaptation assessments, planning, policy frameworks and coordination across ministries and governance levels to act on climate change.

LAC UNFCCC CASTT Schedule:

• Application period:
  1 - 30 Aug 2021
• Training period:
  27 Sep - 1 Oct 2021
  for 3-hours each day (total of 15 hours in the programme)
• Please apply here

If you have not heard of the CASTT Adaptation Academy and with to learn nore before applying, read hereor contact tisu@unfccc.int

Hope to see you at one of the training sessions!

Enjoy!

"The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking at it with sticks." - Wally Broecker (c. 1991, talk at U. of New Mexico)