WaterWired

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

Charles V. Stern produced this CRS InFocus report (15 September 2022): 'Bureau of Reclamation - FY2023 Budget and Appropriations'.

Download CRS_InFocus_Rpt_USBR_FY2023_Budget_Approp_15Sept2022

Click in the graphocs to enlarge them. The entire document is pasted below

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. H.R. 8294, Division C, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2023, as passed by the House on July 20, 2022, contained $1.89 billion for Reclamation. On July 28, 2022, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations released draft bill text and a draft accompanying explanatory statement with $1.92 billion contained for Reclamation. On the same day, this draft bill text was introduced as S. 4660. This In Focus continues to refer to the Senate Committee majority draft bill on which the draft explanatory statement is based. Figure 1 shows enacted appropriations levels for Reclamation’s accounts since FY2015.

In addition to regular appropriations, Congress has recently 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 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 or congressionally directed spending in the House and Senate, respectively. For FY2023, the House Appropriations Committee’s report and the Senate Appropriations Committee majority draft explanatory statement included these funds in their recommendations (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 category). Reclamation has allocated and Congress has approved $510 million of this funding for 13 projects in 3 states: 10 in California, 2 in Washington, and 1 in Idaho. For FY2023 appropriations under H.R. 8294, the House recommended $134 million of Additional Funding amounts for these projects. The draft Senate Appropriations Committee majority recommendation proposed the same amount.

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 (Figure 3). In H.R. 8294, the House recommended $189 million for WaterSMART programs, while the draft Senate Appropriations Committee majority recommendation included $157 million for WaterSMART.

 

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

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 Act.

CRS Report R44148, Indian Water Rights Settlements.

Enjoy!

"Learn from the mistakes of others. You can never live long enough to make them all yourself." - Groucho Marx

Lucy Martin Opines: 'Decommissioning the Four Lower Snake River Dams'

The latest issue of AWRA's excellent (Note: I am Editor-in-Chief) bimonthly magazine Water Resources IMPACT just hit the streets. Its theme: 'Dams: Past, Present and Future'. Guest Editor Lisa Beutler and I had fun with titling the issue ('Damnation', 'Give a Dam', etc.) but Managing Editor Heidi Fritschel wisely curbed my puerile instincts.

That's Hoover Dam on the cover with what's left of Lake Mead behind it...

I contributed a brief article on Ethiopia's massive Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) and the changes it's effecting in the Nile Basin. You can view the article here: My Ten Cents: 'GERD - Putting Ethiopia on the Dam Map'.

Lucy Martin, an undergraduate student of mine, submitted this piece: 

Download Decommissionimg Four Lower Snake River Dams Water Resources IMPACT May:June 2022

Lower Monumental Dam on the Snake River (from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) 

Here is the first section:

Before beginning my undergraduate degree, decommissioning of dams was an abstract topic about which I had only peripheral knowledge. As an outsider, I saw it as an issue that lawmakers and environmentally-minded people would discuss for a time and then drop.

Recently, though, I have learned that this is not necessarily the case. Public discussion surrounding dam removal has increased significantly and so has action. On Washington's Olympic Peninsula, the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams have been removed from the Elwha River. In Oregon and California, four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River are scheduled for removal in the coming year—a significant decision with many social, economic and environmental impacts.

Now under discussion is the removal of four U.S. Army Corps of Engineer dams on the lower Snake River in Washington State: Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite. This idea is highly controversial, but with the recent passage of the Biden administration’s infrastructure legislation, the idea of removing these dams has suddenly become more realistic.

Here is Lucy's entire article:

Download Decommissionimg Four Lower Snake River Dams Water Resources IMPACT May:June 2022

After the Lucy's article was published this news story hit the street:

From @ubnews: Power utilities are pouring cash into supporting Lower Snake River dams. https://tinyurl.com/2p9fywmw #PNWater

The article describes the amount of money being spent to oppose the removal of the dams and donors (not just utilities).  

“If we do nothing while temperatures rise in our rivers, and the ocean becomes more hostile to our anadromous fish species, we will face extinctions for our fisheries. “ - Jeremy Takala, Yakama Nation council member (from the above article) 

"The opera isn't over till the fat lady sings." - Various sources

Submit an Article for September-October 2022 Water Resources IMPACT Theme Issue: 'Pacific Northwest Water'

Write an article for Water Resources IMPACT!

We are soliciting 8-10 articles (~800 - 1300 words) on the general topic of 'Pacific Northwest Water'. We are choosing this topic to 'promote' our 2022 annual conference in the Seattle area, 7-9 November.

So what is the 'Pacific Northwest'? Certainly Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia. But how about Northern California? SE Alaska? Here is what Wikipedia says, Contact me for clarification (Email: aguadoc@live.com; 541-602-4085)

Here is a description of Water Resources IMPACT from the website:

Consistently chosen by members as one of AWRA's top benefits, Water Resources IMPACT magazine is a practical, solution-oriented digital magazine containing diverse and timely articles written for water resources management professionals at all levels of their career. Designed to coincide with specialty conferences and other AWRA activities, IMPACT is a bi-monthly collection of themed articles gathered by Guest Editors and based on the editorial calendar chosen by its Advisory Board.

You do not need to be an AWRA member or attending the Seattle conference
to submit an article. There are no page charges. 

Author instructions:

Download IMPACT Author Instructions_May_2022

I emphasize that these are not journal articles and should not be written like one. We are more interested in reading a story. See the articles in our March-April 2022 issue below. 

Here is a 'flipping book' version of the March-April version: The Lakes Sampler,

And a PDF: Download 168619 AWRA MarApr Impact v2 

And: Download IMPACT Author Instructions

The instructions may seem onerous but they aren't really - I am looking for articles (not journal articles). I want something on the order of 800-1300 words, with some figures/graphics and conversational/storytelling style. 

Topics

So what kinds of topics would be appropriate? Anything related to water in the PNW. 

Some examples:

1) Transboundary/transnational boundary issues; compacts & treaties

2) Education and training; workforce needs

3) Agriculture

4) Water quality and 'forever' chemicals'; waste disposal; Hanford site

5) IWRM

6) Endangered/threatened aquatic species

7) Dam removal

8) Ensuring sustainabiity

9) Diversity, equity and inclusion; underserved populations/communities

10) Personhood for water resources and the environment/ecosystems

11) Water resources planning, management, ethics, policy, and governance 

12) Are projects appropriate, necessary and desirable? Who decides?

13) Monitoring and evaluation; measuring success.

14) Climate change and adaptation, CO2 sequestration

15) Hydrology, hydrogeology and hydraulics

16) Aquifer storage and recovery, managed aquifer recharge (MAR)

17) Water supply and reuse mega-projects

18) Conflict, cooperation, collaboration 

19) Just about everything else!

The fuse is short - I need your finished article by 15 August. Send me a synopsis of 100 words or so ASAP but by 11 July 2022. Email: aguadoc@live.com. 
We want to avoid any duplication, 

Thanks!

“You could not remove a single grain of sand from its place without thereby … changing something throughout all parts of the immeasurable whole.” — Fichte, The Vocation of Man (1800)

My Ten Cents: Oregon's Groundwater - Been There, Done That or Déjà-Vu All Over Again

It's St. Patrick's Day, and the color most associated with today is green - also the color of money in the USA. Water, too. 

Yesterday I stumbled upon another Oregon groundwater tale of woe, this time proffered by Oregon Public Broadcasting: Race to the bottom: How big business took over Oregon’s first protected aquifer by Emily Cureton Cook. I started reading but my mind drifted back to 2016 when The Oregonian published an excellent tome entitled Draining Oregon by Kelly House and Mark Graves. The latter is more comprehensive than the Cook report but both are excellent and pull no punches. House and Graves go in depth (no pun intended) in such a way that only a major newspaper can.  

Although Cook's article uses the Cow Valley 'water rights grab' by a San Francisco-based hedge fund and subsequent takeover of Oregon's first protected aquifer as a focal point, both articles take the Oregon Water Resources Department to the woodshed, deservedly so. OWRD has some really good, conscientious people but the leadership is lacking. I was saddened to learn that Harmony Burright, who worked on an OWRD-funded project in the Harney Basin, has left to work for Rep. Mark Owens (R- Crane) She is a keeper and Rep. Owens is lucky to have her. 

So I will simply repeat the takeaways from my blog post (7 is new) of 2016:

Here we go:

1) Err on the side of caution when issuing permits.

2) Utilize graduate/undergraduate students from Oregon and other universities to do thesis work in the affected areas and elsewhere. Yes, it will cost money but OWRD will get more bang for the buck.

3) Charge each of the 17,000 irrigation and other large-capacity (municipal and industrial) wells $150 per year and put this money towards groundwater work. Owners of the so-called ‘exempt wells’ - those not requiring a water right and limited to 15,000 gallons per day (about 16 acre-feet per year) - would pay $20 per year. There are about 150,000 of these wells so their effects can be locally significant. No one really knows how much these wells use – they are not metered.

4) Meter all large-capacity (irrigation, M&I, etc.) wells.

5) Refuse to permit wells drilled in anticipation of receiving permits.

6) Enlist the support of the state's 'movers and shakers' (or 'shovers and makers') to initiate a statewide study of Oregon's groundwater resources. 

7) Avoid the accumulation of groundwater rights by entities whose motives (hoarding, etc.) are suspect. 

A Modest Proposal
I will offer to teach a 3 to 4 hour 'Groundwater 101' course in Salem for legislators at the start of the 2017 session. No charge. I'll let some people in Salem know about my offer.

This offer conflates nicely with the Groundwater Visibility Initiative and Oregon State University's land-grant university status. 

This course will not solve the problems so cogently described by The Oregonian but will help our state's lawmakers better understand groundwater so they can make better decisions and choices. 

No one took me up on the teaching offer. I did the lecture for a group of locals in Burns and I helped out on the OWRD-sponsored Harney Basin groundwater planning project. The 10-hour RT from Corvallis took its toll after a while.

If I'm still around in 2028 I suspect I can use this post again. I am skeptical that the groundwater situation will change for the better.

Kudos to Emily Cureton Cook, Kelly House and Mark Graves. Thank heavens for journalists like them. 

Enjoy.

"Cry me a river, build a bridge, then get over it." - Unknown

CRS Insight Report: 'Drought in the Klamath River Basin'

Back to the Klamath River Basin with Charles V. Stern and Pervaze A. Sheikh! They wrote this brief CRS Insight report (updated 2 March 2022): 'Drought in the Klamath River Basin'. The Insight reports have hot links in the online versions.

Download CRS_Insight_Report_Drought_Klamath_River_Basin_2March2022

As with yesterday's CRS report, Klamath River Dam Removal and Restoration, I have pasted the entire report below and uploaded a PDF immediately above this sentence. The online report (accessed in the first paragraph) has the online links preserved as does the PDF; the pasted version below does not. Click on the graphics to enlarge them. 

Introduction
Historic drought conditions in the Klamath River Basin (Figure 1) have received national attention and have led to increased conflicts among water users and other stakeholders. The basin includes the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project, which delivers irrigation water to approximately 230,000 acres in Southern Oregon and Northern California. The Klamath Basin has a history of controversies related to water allocation and species protection. In the past, these issues have generated conflict among farmers, Indian tribes, fishermen, water project and wildlife refuge managers, environmental groups, hydropower facility operators, and state and local governments.

Background
Water supplies from both the federal Klamath Project and other off-project sources of water support irrigated agriculture, which is a driver of economic activity in the Klamath Basin. Other major users of Klamath Project water include six national wildlife refuges that sustain migratory bird habitat and several Native American tribes that rely on basin fish species. Currently, two species of upper basin fish (Lost River and shortnose sucker) are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93- 205), and one species of lower basin fish (coho salmon) is listed as threatened under the ESA. The basin also contains seven dams on the Klamath River and its tributaries, built between 1918 and 1962. PacifiCorp, a regulated utility, owns six of these dams (known as the Klamath Hydroelectric Project). The original Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license to operate these dams expired in 2006; FERC has since extended operations in multiple temporary annual licenses.

The Klamath Project has a history of conflicts associated with water deliveries. In 2001, Reclamation, at the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), significantly curtailed water deliveries to the Klamath Project to provide more water for endangered fish. Irrigators protested these actions. In 2002, irrigators received significantly more water than in the previous year, but thousands of Chinook salmon died on the lower part of the Klamath River, largely due to poor water conditions and fish health in that part of the basin.

In response to earlier conflicts, the federal government facilitated formal negotiations in the basin between 2006 and 2010. The resulting agreements—the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA)—aimed to resolve long-standing issues in the basin. The KBRA proposed actions to restore Klamath fisheries and support tribes, and it provided assurances for water deliveries to wildlife refuges and project irrigators. The KHSA outlined a process to remove four of PacifiCorp’s dams on the Klamath River. These agreements were proposed but not enacted in prior Congresses. The process for removing the four PacifiCorp dams has gone forward, with the federal government no longer directly involved in dam removal. At the same time, Reclamation continues to operate the Klamath Project under recent biological opinions (BiOps) under the ESA for listed species.

Previously, Congress has provided additional appropriations in response to issues in the basin, including the following:

•   $20 million in the 2001 farm bill (P.L. 107-20) and $50 million in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), for water conservation and drought relief efforts in the basin

•   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funds for fishery disaster determinations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2007 ($60 million), 2016 ($3.86 million), 2016-2017 ($8.96 million), and 2018 ($2.23 million)

•   $17.57 million to Reclamation and other agencies in 2008-2011 for the Klamath Dam Removal Determination studies

•   $62 million to Reclamation in 2001-2015 for the Klamath Water Bank and successor agreements

•   $26 million to Reclamation from 2016-2020 for BiOp reconsultation and funding for other Klamath drought relief and water conservation efforts

  Recent Drought and Federal Response
  Recently, the Klamath Basin has faced some of its driest years in decades. Inflows in 2021 were at historically low levels, and Reclamation allocated only 33,000 acre-feet for irrigators (Figure 2). In May 2021, Reclamation announced the closure of the Klamath Project “A” canal, a major source of project releases. The agency also said it would not implement Klamath River surface flushing flows for salmon (an action it normally conducts pursuant to the ESA) during the current water year. Per terms in the BiOps, Reclamation created a Temporary Operations Plan (TOP) to manage water to address competing needs.

In response to the aforementioned 2021 drought conditions, the federal government provided additional aid in the basin, including the following:

•   $15 million in Reclamation funding for the Klamath Drought Response Agency (DRA), which was announced in April 2021, plus $3 million in trial technical assistance for ecosystem activities

•   $15 million for a U.S. Department of Agriculture block grant under the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) to fund DRA producer payments to reduce irrigation demand.

•   $10 million for Reclamation drought response in the FY2022 continuing resolution (P.L. 117-43)

•   $162 million for ecosystem restoration on FWS-leased lands in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58)

  Conditions in the basin are again below average in 2022 (Figure 3). Reclamation’s Klamath Project allocations are expected in April 2022 and may lead to stakeholder calls for additional federal aid and other actions.

Enjoy!

"Being right half the time beats being half-right all the time." - Malcolm Forbes