WaterWired

CRS InFocus Report: 'Drought Response and Preparedness - Policy and Legislation'

Charles V. Stern, Nicole T. Carter, Megan Stubbs and Eva Lipiec assembled this extremely relevant CRS two-pager report (updated: 4 June 2021): 'Drought Response and Preparedness: Policy and Legislation'. 

Download CRS_InFocus_Drought_Response_Preparedness_Policy_Legislation_4June2021

Introduction
In recent years, large areas of the United States have been subject to drought. In addition to estimates of average annual losses from drought of $9 billion for agriculture, the effects have included dwindling water supplies for rural households and water use restrictions in urban areas. As of mid-2021, the western United States is in the midst of its most severe drought since the early 2000s (see Figure 1), with some areas facing their driest years on record. Some experts have raised concerns about the availability of water supplies and the drought’s impacts on forests and other flora and fauna. Congress and other policymakers are confronted with how to prepare for and monitor droughts, how to mitigate drought-related consequences, and who should bear responsibility for these actions. Historically, drought response and preparedness have been shaped by state and local actions, federal drought assistance, and federal dam operations, among other factors.

State and Local Drought Preparedness
The federal government generally defers to state primacy in surface and groundwater allocation. States and local entities also typically lead efforts to prepare for drought. Most states have drought plans in some form, and some of these plans incorporate efforts to reduce drought vulnerabilities. Some states and communities have invested in reducing water demand and expanding drought-resilient supplies (e.g., wastewater reuse/recycling, desalination, and groundwater recharge and management) or have facilitated water banks and markets for water transfers. Community-level drought plans are less widespread than state plans, except in states that require or support this planning.

Cutting to the chase...

Drought Policy: Next Steps
The need for and benefits of drought preparedness may be growing. The 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment indicated that rising air temperatures and hydrologic changes are intensifying droughts in some regions, such as California, the Colorado River Basin, and the Rio Grande. The assessment also noted that groundwater depletion in many U.S. regions is exacerbating drought risk, including in the Southwest and Southern Great Plains.

Broadly at issue are the overall federal role and the adequacy of current federal efforts to mitigate drought. Some in Congress may question federal programs’ effectiveness in addressing drought, as well as the drought preparedness of federal facilities and emergency-response entities. Other potential areas of focus include the adequacy of—and accountability for—state and local drought planning and resilience efforts. Federal assistance in augmenting water supplies and constructing new water storage projects (including groundwater recharge) also may be of interest. Finally, the specter of multiyear or multi-decadal disruptive droughts (i.e., megadroughts), or of a change in drought frequency or intensity, raises specific considerations about how to use limited federal resources to prepare for and respond to drought. These considerations may include the question of what congressional authorities and funding are necessary to support contingency planning and emergency simulation efforts for drought preparedness by state, local, and federal governments and whether broader federal infrastructure initiatives should prioritize drought resilience and related considerations.

Further Reading
CRS Insight IN11684, Federal Agricultural Recovery Resources for Drought-Related Losses; CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water, and Water Supply Infrastructure; CRS Report R45259, The Federal Role in Groundwater Supply; CRS Report R45546, Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role; CRS Report R45342, Central Valley Project: Issues and Legislation. CRS Insight IN11187, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance; CRS Insight IN11515, FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation: The Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program.

Enjoy!

"The initials ‘LOTR’ mean ‘Letter of Tenure Recommendation,’ not ‘Lord of the Rings.’ Besides, if we used literature as metaphor for our processes, we’d pick ‘Lord of the Flies.’" - @ass_deans

Reclamation's 2021 Water SECURE Report for the Rio Grande

OMG! What? No Colorado River? Let's take a break.

Two of the states in the RGB are also in the CRB: Colorado and New Mexico (via the San Juan River). 

Read all about it! Lots of good information from Reclamation....

Download 2021 SECURE Report-Reclamation

About
This basin report is part of the 2021 Science and Engineering to Comprehensively Understand and Responsibly Enhance (SECURE) Water Act Report to Congress, prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation in accordance with Section 9503(c) of the SECURE Water Act of 2009, Public Law 111-11. The 2021 SECURE Water Act Report follows and builds upon the first two SECURE Water Act Reports, submitted to Congress in 2011 and 2016. The report characterizes the impacts of warmer temperatures, changes to precipitation and snowpack, and changes to the timing and quantity of streamflow runoff across the West. The 17 Western States form one of the fastest growing regions in the Nation, with much of the growth occurring in the driest areas. The report provides information to help water managers address risks associated with changes to water supply, quality, and operations; hydropower; groundwater resources; flood control; recreation; and fish, wildlife, and other ecological resources in the West.

To see all documents included in the 2021 SECURE Water Act Report to Congress, go to: https://www.usbr.gov/climate/secure/

“The Rio Grande offers the best example of how climate change induced flow decline might sink a major system into permanent drought.” - @mdettinger et al. https://bit.ly/33Wkxx1 (2015)

Enjoy!

"Overall, water supplies are marginal, hydrological variability in the Rio Grande Basin is high, and water shortages occur frequently." -  U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2021 SECURE Water Act  Report to Congress, page 1

CRS InFocus Report: 'Wildfire Statistics'

Katie Hoover and Laura A. Hanson wrote this important CRS InFocus report (4 May 2021): 'Wildfire Statistics'.

I'm hearing that the Western USA wildfire season may be the worst.

Download CRS_Report_Wildfire_Statistics_4May2021

Click on the graphics/tables to enlarge them. 

Introduction
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 that the number of acres impacted annually, while also variable, generally has increased (see Figure 1). Since 2000, an annual average of 70,600 wildfires 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). 

From 2011 to 2020, there were an average of 62,805 wildfires annually and an average of 7.5 million acres impacted annually.

According to NICC, 58,950 wildfires burned 10.1 million acres in 2020, the second-most acreage impacted in a year (see Figure 2) since 1960; nearly 40% of these acres were in California. Nearly half of the acres impacted were on NFS lands. These official figures from NICC reflect downward revisions from earlier reported data for 2020.

Cutting to the chase...

Wildfire Damages
Although wildfires may have a beneficial impact on ecological resources, wildfires also may have devastating impacts, especially for communities affected by wildfire activity. Therefore, statistics showing the level of destruction a wildfire causes can provide useful metrics, such as acres burned or impacted, lives lost (firefighters and civilians), and structures (residential, commercial, and other) destroyed. Table 2 provides some of these data. In 2020, more than 17,000 structures were burned in wildfires, the majority of which occurred in California.

To the finish...

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 federal cost 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 IN11487, 2020 Wildfire Season: Brief Overview of FEMA Programs and Resources; and

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

Enjoy!

"Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." -Richard Feynman

Paper: 'Stormwater Capture in the Arid Southwest - Flood Protection v. Water Supply'

Bruce M. Thomson, a former colleague of mine at the University of New Mexico who succeeded me as Director of the University's Water Resources Program is quite the Renaissance Man - environmental engineer extraordinaire, musician (fiddle, etc.), pilot, exceptional teacher, and so on, just published this paper in an ASCE journal: Stormwater Capture in the Arid Southwest- Flood Protection versus Water Supply. It deals with an important issue - what's the bigger need in the desert: flood protection or water supply? With much interest in Flood-MAR (Managed Aquifer Recharge), the question looms large. 

Download Stormwater Capture Thomson

Click on the graphics to enlarge them or display them. I pasted half the 'Introduction' and the entire 'Conclusions' sections below. 

Introduction
Communities in the arid southwestern US are especially vulnerable to water shortages due to the limited supply of available water. These problems are exacerbated by the inherent uncertainties of desert hydrology in which long dry periods are interspersed by brief but intense precipitation events. The water supply challenges for these communities are compounded by increased demand to meet the needs of growing communities and diminishing water resources resulting from climate change. These factors have increased awareness of the impacts of limited water supplies and is generating a search for new supplies to meet future demands.

The options that are usually considered for meeting future demand include: (1) conservation, (2) interbasin transfer, (3) brackish water desalination, (4) wastewater reuse, and (5) rain or stormwater capture. Each has its own challenges and/or limitations. In recent years considerable attention has been given to water conservation with remarkable success. For example, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, voluntary conservation programs have reduced the per capita daily (pcd) water demand from greater than 950 Lpcd (250 gpcd) in 1995 to less than 500 Lpcd (130 gpcd) in 2019 (ABCWUA 2019). This has caused a 25% decrease in the community’s total water demand even though the population served has increased by more than 50% over this period.

Interbasin transfers have public appeal as there is the common misconception that neighboring basins have excess water that can be acquired and diverted to a neighboring basin experiencing chronic shortages. While this may have been true decades ago, it is certainly not the case at present where water resources in virtually all basins in the western US are overallocated, meaning the rights to divert water exceed the actual supply of wet water. Fleck (2016) and Kuhn and Fleck (2019) have recently summarized the conflicts associated with interbasin transfers in the Colorado River basin and the resulting social, political, economic, and environmental consequences. Though it’s a bit dated, the US Bureau of Reclamation published a study of potential regional water shortages in the western US (BOR 2005), which found that water conflicts are occurring or are likely to occur in every western metropolitan area south of the 42nd parallel (i.e., the Oregon–California border).

Cutting to the chase...

Conclusions
This paper suggests that there are five major constraints that limit the ability to capture urban stormwater and use it to augment a community’s water supply in arid regions: (1) acquiring water rights to allow capture, retention, and use of stormwater; (2) the hydrology of arid regions result in infrequent but intense runoff events that provide a limited volume of water compared to a large urban utility’s demand; (3) capturing and storing urban runoff requires additional storage volume beyond that used for flood control and dams would require rebuilding to allow long-term stormwater retention and control release; current dry dams cannot serve either function; (4) urban stormwater in arid regions is of very poor quality and would require treatment to remove large amounts of sediment, debris, and dissolved organic and inorganic pollutants; and (5) the cost of infrastructure to capture, convey, store, and treat urban runoff to address the previous four constraints will be very expensive. This paper did not consider the economics of stormwater retention and reuse because the uniqueness of every such project would be entirely location-dependent and generalized cost estimates cannot be developed.

These challenges were discussed in the context of the water laws, hydrology, watershed characteristics, and stormwater quality of Albuquerque, New Mexico, but they would also apply to almost every inland municipality located in the arid southwest. 

Instead of community-scale stormwater retention and reuse, onsite retention and reuse may be a more realistic strategy for urban stormwater capture. In addition to recovering the value of water and reducing the demand on the community’s water supply, it would allow a reduction in the size of stormwater management systems. However, there are negative aspects as well. They require significant land area for on-site ponds or an investment in water tanks; land owners must maintain the retention system; and there is potential mosquito growth in standing water. If it can be successfully implemented, on-site retention will decrease the volume of water returned to the river, which may impact downstream water supplies and/or have environmental consequences by diminishing in-stream flows.

Perhaps the most important conclusion of this discussion is that it draws awareness to the multiple regulatory, hydrologic, infrastructure, and environmental factors associated with stormwater management. The discussion shows that though large-scale stormwater capture and reuse concept has public appeal, the regulatory and infrastructure challenges are so great that a project to recover the comparatively small volume of water available is not likely to be feasible. As communities seek to address the conflicting challenges of water supply shortages and need for flood protection, a holistic evaluation of all constraints is needed to develop best management practice.

Enjoy!

CRS Report: 'Water Resource Issues in the 117th Congress'

This is the kind of CRS report (12 March 2021) that will likely be updated a few times over the next 18 months or so. It's got the Natural Resources A-team here: Charles V. Stern, Nicole T. Carter, Pervaze A. Sheikh, Anna E. Normand, Eva Lipiec, and Peter Folger: Water Resource Issues in the 117th Congress.

Download CRS_Report_WR_Issues_117Congress_12March2021

Whenever I post these CRS reports, which are truly 'hidden' treasures, I rarely comment on them and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I will make some comments on this one.

Lots of important issues are in the report: Great Lakes (increasing water levels, water quality, cooperation with Canada); Western drought; Columbia River Treaty (cooperation with Canada); Indian Water Rights SettlementsSettlements; Cooperation with Mexico - Rio Grande and Colorado River; Water Resource Science at the USGS; Protecting and Restoring the Environment (Everglades, Gulf Coast, etc.); nature-based solutions; and more.

I was especially pleased to see that groundwater and recharge were there. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was specifically mentioned and acknowledged that it was a State of California effort, not one of Reclamation's. 

Water quality was not listed separately as an issue. It was mentioned as part of the Great Lakes. But there was nothing about the 'forever chemicals' (PFAS), drinking water (SDWA was mentioned in some of the copious footnotes. But it should be given more visibility - a separate heading would be very good.

The graphic is not from the report (click here). Click on it to enlarge it. Here we go...

Summary
Congress engages in authorization and appropriations for water resource projects and activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as well as involvement in water resource activities by other agencies. USACE constructs projects nationwide, primarily to improve navigation, reduce flood damage, and res tore aquatic ecosystems. Reclamation constructs projects as authorized in the 17 arid and semiarid states west of the Mississippi River; these projects primarily provide water supply benefits, often to agricultural irrigation users. The 117th Congress may conduct oversight and may deliberate on authorization and funding of water resource development, management, and protection. The 117th Congress, like earlier Congresses, also may consider authorization of new or amended Indian water rights settlements and may evaluate the focus of and funding for the water resource science activities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

Development pressures, droughts and floods, and concerns about land-use change and climate change, among other issues, have given rise to interest in federal financial and technical assistance for water resource science and projects. Stakeholders are interested in a range of water resource issues, including 

 new water resource infrastructure (e.g., storm surge gates, water storage) and new kinds of water resource projects (e.g., groundwater recharge, nature-based flood risk reduction); 

 reinvestment in aging water resource infrastructure and use of hydrologic science and real-time monitoring and forecasting to improve infrastructure operations; 

 funding and financing of projects, including whether and how to shift from federally led projects to federal partnerships with state and/or local entities; and 

 activities to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems and enhance flood resilience (including the use of nature-based approaches). 

Some topics largely relate to specific agencies. USACE-related topics that may be considered include efforts to update the agency’s authorities to incorporate new mission areas and address the agency’s aging infrastructure. Congress also may address Reclamation drought mitigation activities in the Colorado River Basin and other areas. In addition, Congress may explore ongoing issues associated with Reclamation’s project operations in Ca lifornia and other areas; Congress may address how these issues affect water deliveries to irrigation districts and municipalities and how they impact threatened and endangered species, among others. 

In addition to domestic water resource issues, some topics are international in character. Regarding freshwater bodies shared with Canada, potential topics for the 117th Congress include federal funding for activities supporting Great Lakes restoration and negotiations (and any resulting agreements) with Canada to modify the Columbia River Treaty. Potential topics related to Mexico include oversight of a binational agreement on water sharing during dry conditions in the Colorado River Basin and Mexico’s deliveries to the United States in the Rio Grande Basin. 

Crosscutting topics (i.e., topics relevant to multiple agencies and programs) also are part of congressional water resource deliberations. For example, Congress may consider the status and priority of new and ongoing federal efforts to restore large - scale aquatic ecosystems that have been altered or impaired by changes to their natural conditions (e.g., Florida Everglades and the Chesapeake Bay). Congress may be interested in the funding and performance of existing restoration efforts, including what changes, if any, may be necessary to improve project delivery and evaluation. In addition, Congress may consider its guidance to multiple federal agencies on how to respond to flood hazards, including efforts related to enhancing the resilience of infrastructure and communities to flooding. Many have expressed interest in developing and evaluating approaches that protect natural elements that reduce flood risk (e.g., natural dunes) or are “nature-based” in comprehensive flood risk management (e.g., constructed dunes). Congress also may consider legislation and oversight on USACE supplemental appropriations for response to and recovery from floods. 

Introduction
Demands on available water supplies have heightened local and regional water-use conflicts throughout the United States, particularly in the West and the Southeast. Development pressures, droughts, floods, and concerns about land-use change and climate change, among other issues, have increased stakeholder interest in federal financial and technical assistance for water resource projects. Many have expressed interest in constructing new water resource infrastructure (e.g., storm surge gates, water storage) at various locations, as well as in new types of projects (e.g., groundwater recharge, nature-based flood risk reduction). In addition, some stakeholders and Members of Congress have expressed interest in reinvestment in aging water resource infrastructure and in improved management of available water supplies through water science, monitoring, and operational changes. Water resource policy questions that the 117th Congress may consider include the following:

•   What should be the federal role in maintaining the performance and safety of existing water resource infrastructure?

•   Under what conditions and how should the federal government be involved in planning and constructing water resource projects?

  How should water resource science, observation, and monitoring inform water resource management, project design, and operation?

Congress plays a role in water resources through authorization of, and appropriations for, projects and activities. Some of these projects are for facilitating navigation and expanding water supplies for irrigation and other uses. Other projects aim to achieve goals such as reducing flood and/or drought losses or restoring aquatic ecosystems.

Congress principally directs either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the Department of Defense or the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) to plan, construct, operate, and maintain the majority of federally owned water resource projects. Reclamation projects generally are located in the 17 arid and semiarid states west of the Mississippi River; these projects are designed principally to provide reliable supplies of water for irrigation and some municipal and industrial uses. USACE constructs projects nationwide primarily to improve navigation, reduce flood damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. In recent years, USACE generally has constructed more new projects than Reclamation, although both agencies have continued to construct new facilities. Congress also authorizes and funds selected water resource science and monitoring activities at multiple federal agencies. DOI’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a prominent role in federal water resource science and observation (e.g., streamgages, groundwater information). The water-related programs and activities of federal agencies other than USACE, Reclamation, and USGS are largely outside the scope of this report, which focuses on water resources issues. This report also does not address federal support for municipal water systems; municipal wastewater infrastructure; or environmental protections, such as water quality and wetlands regulations.

This report covers broad categories of water resource topics that the 117th Congress may consider—projects and activities of USACE and Reclamation, as well as related issues such as Indian water rights settlements, international waters shared with Canada and Mexico, and water resource science at USGS. It also provides information on crosscutting topics, including support for aging and new water resource projects, protection and restoration of the environment, efforts to facilitate flood resilience and natural and nature-based infrastructure, and groundwater recharge.

Cutting to the chase...

Conclusion
Many factors shape water resource issues that the 117th Congress may consider. These factors include demand for reliable water supplies; hydrologic conditions, such as droughts, floods, and effects of climate change; issues regarding safety and performance of existing infrastructure; and interests and concerns about alternative financing and public-private partnerships.

The 117th Congress may consider some measures proposed but not enacted in the 116th Congress, as well as new legislative proposals. In the water resource area, legislative activity often has been specific to the federal water resource management agencies or to water use by particular sectors, including energy, agriculture, navigation, recreation, and municipal and industrial use. Occasionally, Congress takes up broader water resource policy issues, such as coordination of federal water resource activities, programs, science, and research.

Congress and other decisionmakers often make water resource decisions within a complicated context. These decisions may involve existing federal infrastructure and its beneficiaries, multiple or conflicting objectives, various legal decisions, multiple environmental and natural resource statutes, and long-established institutional mechanisms (e.g., water rights and contractual obligations). These decisions also occur within a federalist framework in which water resource responsibilities are shared with state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.

Enjoy!

"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them." - Joseph Brodsky (quoted in @ParadeMagazine via @TheWeek)