WaterWired

CRS InFocus Report: Bureau of Reclamation - 'FY2024 Budget and Appropriations'

Charles V. Stern updates (30 March 2023) us on a CRS report: 'Bureau of Reclamation - FY2024 Budget and Appropriations'.

 Click on the graphics to enlarge them. 

Download CRS_InFocus_Report_USBR_FY2024_Budget_Approp_30March2023

Overview
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), part of the Department of the Interior, is responsible for the construction and operation of hundreds of large dams and water diversion structures in the 17 western reclamation states as designated in statute (43 U.S.C. §391). These projects provide water to approximately 10 million acres of farmland and 31 million people. Reclamation is the largest wholesale supplier of water in these 17 states and the second-largest hydroelectric power producer in the nation. Reclamation’s mission areas and geographic scope are narrower than those of the other principal federal water resource agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Reclamation has evolved since its creation in 1902; its focus has shifted from construction of new water storage projects to operation and maintenance (O&M) of existing projects. Reclamation also has expanded into new areas, such as funding water projects on tribal lands and in rural areas. Congress also has authorized new Reclamation grants for nonfederal projects, including those for water reuse and recycling, desalination, conservation and efficiency, and restoration, among other purposes.

Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources account funds most agency activities, including construction, O&M, dam safety, ecosystem restoration, Indian water rights settlements, and most programmatic and grant authorities. Reclamation typically also receives 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.

FY2024 Budget and Appropriations
The Administration budget request for Reclamation is usually for a lower amount than the final enacted total of annual appropriations. For FY2024, the President requested $1.45 billion in current budget authority (i.e., appropriations before offsets) for Reclamation. The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023 (Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, P.L. 117-328), provided $1.93 billion for Reclamation. Figure 1 shows recent Reclamation annual appropriations levels.

In addition to regular appropriations, Congress has provided Reclamation with supplemental appropriations that may factor into FY2024 appropriations considerations. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) included $8.30 billion in supplemental appropriations for various infrastructure-focused Reclamation expenditures. This funding is to be made available in equal installments from FY2022 to FY2026 (i.e., $1.66 billion per year). P.L. 117-169 (popularly known as the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA) provided an additional $4.59 billion for Reclamation, including $4.00 billion for western drought mitigation with priority given to actions in the Colorado River Basin. IIJA funding is “no year” funding, meaning it remains available until expended; IRA funding is to remain available until FY2026 or FY2031, depending on the provision. Reclamation has been gradually allocating IIJA funding in spend plans for each fiscal year and is releasing IRA funding on a rolling basis.

“Earmarks” and Reclamation
Most of Reclamation’s budget goes to projects rather than programs, and the Water and Related Resources account consists largely of individual project funding lines. During the 112th-116th Congresses, Reclamation appropriations were subject to general “earmark moratoriums” that restricted Congress from funding geographically specific project line items not requested by the Administration. Instead, Congress included “additional funding” amounts for selected categories of Reclamation projects, typically in five categories: Rural Water, Water Conservation and Delivery, Environmental Restoration and Compliance, Fish Passage/Fish Screens, and Facilities Maintenance and Rehabilitation. The Administration recommended allocations of these funds for specific projects in spend plans made available several months after enactment of the appropriations bills. (Spend plans are available at http://www.usbr.gov/budget/.)

In FY2022, Congress included the first Member-requested “earmarks” since the 111th Congress. These funds were categorized as community project funding (CPF) or congressionally directed spending (CDS) in the House and Senate, respectively. For FY2023, the explanatory statement for the enacted bill continued to include these funds in their recommendations for Reclamation, in addition to amounts designated as “Additional Funding.”Division D of P.L. 117-328 included $325 million in additional funding and $54 million in CPD/CDS (Figure 2). In FY2024, Senate and House Appropriations Committees are allowing CPF/CDS requests.

Reclamation Appropriations Issues

WIIN Act Section 4007 Funding
Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322) authorized a new process for Reclamation to study and construct federal and nonfederal water storage projects. For projects to receive funding under Section 4007, first Congress must appropriate funds under this authority. Then the Administration must recommend specific projects to fund and Congress must decide whether to approve the recommendations in enacted appropriations legislation.

From FY2017 through FY2023, Congress appropriated $854 million in regular appropriations for these projects. Reclamation has allocated and Congress has approved $511 million of this funding for 13 projects in three states: 10 in California, 2 in Washington, and 1 in Idaho. In FY2023 enacted appropriations for Reclamation, Congress included $134 million of Additional Funding amounts for future projects under Section 4007. No funding is requested for these projects in the Administration’s FY2024 budget.

WaterSMART Program

Reclamation combines funding for six subprograms (many of them awarded as grants) that promote water conservation into one program—the WaterSMART program. The largest subprograms are WaterSMART Grants (i.e., water and energy efficiency grants) and Title XVI projects (i.e., water recycling and reuse projects). FY2023 annual appropriations provided $191 million for WaterSMART. In the FY2024 Budget Request, the Biden Administration proposed $63 million for the WaterSMART program.

Indian Water Rights Settlements
The FY2024 President’s Budget proposed changes in how Reclamation funds Indian water rights settlements. For the first time in decades, the budget proposed no discretionary funding for construction of projects for these settlements, noting funding needs could be met by mandatory funding available from the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund and the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund. The Administration also proposed two new mandatory funds. The first would provide $2.5 billion to support additional funding for new and amended settlements. The other fund would provide $340 million over 10 years to address ongoing operation, maintenance, and repairs associated with existing Indian water rights settlements. Both funds would require congressional authorization.

Additional Reading
CRS Report CRS Report R47032, Bureau of Reclamation Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act(P.L. 117-58).

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

CRS Report R44148, Indian Water Rights Settlements.

Enjoy!

"We think of our land and water and human resources not as static and sterile possessions but as life giving assets to be directed by wise provisions for future days."- Franklin D. Roosevelt

CRS Report: 'Columbia River Treaty Review' - Updated 15 February 2023 Déjà Vu All Over Again?

I posted this in mid-December 2022 but CRS author Charles V. Stern has updated it. (15 February 2023): 'Columbia River Treaty Review'

Download CRS_Report_Columbia_River_Treaty_Review_15Feb2023

Forgive my quote from Yogi Berra in the title - one of his classics, The CRS does not update its report for no good reason. Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Summary
The Columbia River Treaty (CRT or Treaty) is an international agreement between the United States and Canada for the cooperative development and operation of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin to provide for flood control and electric power. The Treaty was the result of more than 20 years of negotiations between the two countries and was ratified in 1961. Implementation began in 1964.

The Treaty provided for the construction and operation of three dams in Canada and one dam in the United States whose reservoir extends into Canada. Together, these dams more than doubled the amount of reservoir storage available in the basin and provided significant flood protection benefits. In exchange for these benefits, the United States agreed to provide Canada with lump-sum cash payments and a portion of downstream hydropower benefits that are attributable to Canadian operations under the CRT, known as the Canadian Entitlement. Some have estimated the Canadian Entitlement to be worth as much as $335 million annually.

The CRT has no specific end date. Currently, either the United States or Canada can terminate most provisions of the CRT with a minimum of 10 years’ written notice. If the CRT is not terminated or modified, most of its provisions would continue indefinitely without actions by the United States or Canada. The only exception is the CRT’s flood control provisions, which are scheduled to transition automatically to “called-upon” operations at that time, meaning the United States would request and compensate Canada for flood control operations as necessary.

To date, neither country has given notice of termination, but, following internal government Treaty reviews, both countries indicated interest in its modification. Perspectives on the CRT vary. Some believe the Treaty should include stronger provisions related to tribal resources and flows for fisheries that are not in the Treaty; others disagree and focus on the perceived need to adjust the Canadian Entitlement to reflect actual hydropower benefits. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bonneville Power Administration, in their joint role as the U.S. Entity overseeing the Treaty, undertook a review of the CRT from 2009 to 2013. Based on studies and stakeholder input, they provided a Regional Recommendation to the State Department in December 2013. They recommended continuing the Treaty with certain modifications, including rebalancing the CRT’s hydropower provisions, further delineating called-upon flood control operations after 2024, and incorporating into the Treaty flows to benefit Columbia River fisheries. For its part, the Canadian Entity (the Province of British Columbia) released in March 2013 a recommendation to continue the CRT with modifications “within the Treaty framework.” It disputed several assumptions in the U.S. Entity’s review process.

Following a two-year federal interagency review of the U.S. Regional Recommendation, the U.S. State Department finalized its negotiating parameters and authorized talks with Canada in October 2016. Between 2018 and 2022, U.S. and Canadian negotiating teams held 15 rounds of negotiations. As of the date of this report, these negotiations remain ongoing.

Past Congresses have held oversight hearings and weighed in on CRT-related activities through their oversight roles, and the 117th Congress enacted new authority for the Corps to carry out post-2024 called-upon flood control operations. If the executive branch comes to an agreement with Canadian officials regarding modification of the CRT, any changes to the CRT’s text would require the Senate’s advice and consent. If notice of Treaty termination is given, it is unclear whether such a notice would be reversible within the 10-year window and how Congress might inform such a decision.

Cutting to the last section:

The Role of Congress in Treaty Review
The President, through the National Security Council, determines the negotiating position on the CRT, and the State Department is responsible for conducting negotiations related to the Treaty. However, Congress is also involved in this process. The Constitution entrusts the Senate with the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch.51 The Senate does not ratify treaties; instead it takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate may formally provide its advice and consent on the ratification process. The Senate is not required to provide an up or down vote on a resolution of ratification, nor are treaties required to be resubmitted after each Congress.

The Senate would take up a new resolution of ratification for the CRT only if the United States and Canada agreed to Treaty modifications and the executive branch submitted the modification to the Senate for review. If the United States and Canada continued the Treaty without modification or if either entity provided a notice of termination, there would be no apparent advice and consent role for the Senate. In case of a termination by either country, the Treaty does not address whether such a notice could be reversed (i.e., by a different Administration) prior to the termination date. 

In the past, the House and Senate both have weighed in on Treaty review with oversight hearings. Some Members of Congress also have weighed in on Treaty discussions through other avenues, including letters to the Obama and Trump Administrations expressing concern over the slow pace of negotiations.55 On June 29, 2021, a bicameral group of Pacific Northwest lawmakers wrote to President Biden urging prompt negotiation of a modernized CRT, noting among other things the need for a strategy and funding requests for called-upon flood control operations beginning in 2024 (i.e., as early as FY2023).

Congress also has considered resolutions and authorizing provisions related to the CRT. The 117th Congress enacted provisions related to called-upon flood control operations in the Columbia River Basin under Division H, Section 8309, of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (P.L. 117-263). That section authorized the Secretary of the Army to expend funds for called-upon Canadian flood control operations in the Columbia River Basin, but only when such funds are appropriated by Congress for these purposes. Congress in that section also required reporting on the expenditure of these funds and authorized the Corps to study options for U.S.-based flood control projects with the potential to reduce the need for Canadian calls.

Enjoy! And remember:

"It ain’t over till it’s over. - Yogi Berra

My Ten Cents: Hydrogeology of Oregon - Now with Zoom Audio/Video!

Hi, folks.

Today I had the pleasure of presenting a webinar on The Hydrogeology of Oregon. It was sponsored by NGWA, Bill Alley, the NGWA Science & Technology Director, asked me.

My presentation is below. Unfortunately I do not have the audio - 45 minutes of me and about 15 minutes of Q&A. I put the PDF and PPT up so you can access material by clicking on the links. You may have to paste the links into your browser.
I checked them  and they were working fine. 

Recording https://tinyurl.com/2r64bxt5

Passcode:$%hdw0^l

The links in the PPT/PDF are the correct ones.

PPT: Download NGWA_Oregon_GW_Campana_22Feb2023

PDF: Download NGWA_Oregon_GW_Campana_22Feb2023

Click here for the MAR Water Resource IMPACT magazine. 

Click here for the The Source magazine article.

Let me know if anything is missing or a link is broken. Comments are welcomed. 

Thanks for attending! And thanks to Todd Jarvis for his wonderful cross-sections!

“There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are hydrologists’ reports." - Texas legislative hearing, 2 February 2016 (thanks to Robert Mace)

CRS InFocus Report: 'Bureau of Reclamation - FY2023 Budget and Appropriations'

Charles V. Stern authored the updated (15 February 2023) CRS InFocus report: 'Bureau of Reclamation - FY2023 Budget and Appropriations'.

Download CRS_InFocus_Report_USBR_Budget_App_FY2023_15Feb2023 IF12127

Click on the graphics to enlarge them. 

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

Reclamation has evolved since its creation in 1902; its focus has shifted from construction of new water storage projects to operation and maintenance of existing projects. Reclamation also has expanded into new areas, such as funding for water projects on tribal lands and in rural areas. Congress also has authorized new Reclamation grants for nonfederal projects, including those for water reuse and recycling, desalination, conservation and efficiency, and restoration, among other purposes.

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 receives 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.

FY2023 Budget and Appropriations
The Administration request is usually less than the final enacted total for Reclamation. For FY2023, President Biden requested $1.41 billion in gross current budget authority (i.e., appropriations before offsets) for Reclamation. The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023 (Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023; P.L. 117-328), provided $1.93 billion for Reclamation. Figure 1 shows enacted appropriations levels for Reclamation’s accounts since FY2015.

In addition to regular appropriations, Congress has provided Reclamation with supplemental appropriations that may factor into FY2023 appropriations considerations. First, in September 2021, Congress included $210 million in supplemental funding for Reclamation in the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117- 43, Division B); these funds were provided to combat western drought and wildfire. Then, in October 2021 under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), Congress enacted $8.30 billion in supplemental appropriations for various infrastructure-focused Reclamation expenditures. This funding is to be made available in equal installments from FY2022 to FY2026 (i.e., $1.66 billion per year). Finally, in P.L. 117-169 (popularly known as the Inflation Reduction Act), enacted in August 2022, Congress approved an additional $4.00 billion for Reclamation for western drought mitigation, with priority given to actions in the Colorado River Basin. All of this funding is “no year” funding, meaning it remains available until expended.

“Earmarks” and Reclamation
Most of Reclamation’s budget goes to projects rather than programs, and the Water and Related Resources account consists largely of individual project funding lines. During the 112th-116th Congresses, Reclamation appropriations were subject to general “earmark moratoriums” that restricted Congress from funding geographically specific project line items not requested by the Administration. Instead, Congress included “additional funding” amounts for selected categories of Reclamation projects, typically in five categories: Rural Water, Water Conservation and Delivery, Environmental Restoration and Compliance, Fish Passage/Fish Screens, and Facilities Maintenance and Rehabilitation. The Administration recommended allocations of these funds for specific projects in spend plans made available several months after enactment of the appropriations bills. (Spend plans are available at http://www.usbr.gov/budget/.)

In FY2022, Congress included the first Member-requested “earmarks” since the 111th Congress. These funds were categorized as community project funding (CPF) or congressionally directed spending (CDS) in the House and Senate, respectively. For FY2023, the explanatory statement for the enacted bill continued to include these funds in their recommendations, in addition to amounts designated as additional funding. The final FY2023 enacted bill included $325 million in additional funding and $54 million in CPD/CDS (Figure 2).

Reclamation Appropriations Issues

WIIN Act Section 4007 Funding
Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322) authorized a new process for Reclamation to study and construct federal and nonfederal water storage projects. For projects to receive funding, first Congress must appropriate funds under this authority. Then the Administration must recommend specific projects for funding and Congress must decide whether to approve the recommendations in enacted appropriations legislation.

From FY2017 through FY2022, Congress appropriated $720 million in regular appropriations for these projects  (including $117 million in FY2022 under the aforementioned additional funding categories). Reclamation has allocated and Congress has approved $510 million of this funding for 13 projects in three states: 10 in California, 2 in Washington, and 1 in Idaho. FY2023 enacted appropriations for Reclamation included $134 million of Additional Funding amounts for future projects under Section 4007.

WaterSMART Program

Reclamation combines funding for six subprograms (many of them awarded as grants) that promote water conservation into one program—the WaterSMART program. The largest subprograms are WaterSMART Grants (i.e., water and energy efficiency grants) and Title XVI projects (i.e., water recycling and reuse projects). For FY2023, the Biden Administration requested $62 million for the WaterSMART program, and Congress enacted $186 million for WaterSMART.

Additional Reading

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

CRS Report R47032, Bureau of Reclamation Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58).

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

Enjoy!

NAWAPA Comments Redux - Numbers 1 - 5

I have probably made more posts on NAWAPA than any other subject - the North American Water and Power Alliance. Here is my first NAWAPA post. 

Here's more information on NAWAPA.

Comments by various readers are below. Your comments are welcomed. Each comment is numbered. More may be coming.

1) I am pleased to see that there are at least some positive comments re NAWAPA. I didn't know those positive views existed. All I have heard about NAWAPA is how horrible it is and how BAD for the environment it would be. But hardly ever a balanced view. If NAWAPA had been built when it was first proposed we would benefit from it today as it would have been completed in the 90s. One might criticise China in many areas but they would have pushed through such a project and made themselves more prosperous in the process.

2) What the hell is everyone going on about> There are literally hundreds of thousands of people living in towns and cities in the Rocky Mountain trench. You can't just evict and destroy/flood hundreds of thousands of peoples' homes, farms and history. America can build reservoirs on its own land. A lot of the water already flows down there anyway. Just build your reservoirs and dams south of the border.

3) North Americas depleted water resource extends from a criminal occupation of lands belonging to Americans, forcefully taken by Caucasians for Empire. This ongoing criminality makes efficient management of adjustment to unfortunate outcomes for all humans virtually impossible. Central and southern stable and saturated aquifers are now below 5,000 feet under surface (not able to provide surface uptake, desert lands without irrigation). Northern Shield has 70 years of water remaining at present consumption levels. When that goes, Empire goes. We are left with a 10,000 year wait for the aquifers to refill at historical intake levels... however, history no longer applies: its all been turned to desert. NAWAPA was never gone: Keystone is a crude piggyback of water channels. WAY 2 GO EMPIRE! Goodbye. Don't come back.

4) As a Canadian you wonder what the right thing to do is. Canada has the largest supply of water and we won't run out of it any time soon. We can help people and make money to support our system. It seems like a win-win situation to me although many would disagree.

5) My understanding of the NAWAPA plan isn't to suck Canada dry of its fresh water sources; instead much water would be diverted from Alaska. Yes there are ecological implications of building aqueducts throughout the continent. However, I'm betting that the ecological cost of the hydroelectric energy gained and overall water supply boost for all 3 countries involved would be much less harmful than the oil sands projects currently operating in Canada.

Enjoy!

 

"Ralph Parsons looked at the map of North America and said, ‘The water’s in the wrong spot. So how can we move the water to the right spot?’" - Virginia Grebbien