WaterWired

CRS Report: 'U.S. Support for International Conservation'

Pervaze A. Sheikh, Nick M. Brown, Emily M. Morgenstern, Katarina C. O'Regan and , Richard K. Lattanzio produced this excellent CRS report (26 August 2020): 'U.S. Support for International Conservation'.

Great report - listing of the U.S. agencies and departments that support foreign conservation efforts. Very informative.

Download CRS_Report_US_Intl_Conservation_26Aug2020

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Summary
The United States supports international conservation efforts through foreign assistance programs, diplomatic engagement, and other tools. Members of Congress have supported such efforts on a bipartisan basis and have debated the level, scope, prioritization, and potential unintended consequences of U.S. international conservation activities. International conservation efforts focus on protecting species, restoring habitats, and recovering forests, among other things. Multiple federal departments and agencies administer and implement these initiatives, and Congress appropriates funding for them via several annual appropriations laws. Congress has shaped U.S. policy on international conservation through its authorization and appropriation of foreign assistance in part, as well as through its oversight activities.

Congressional interest in international conservation issues stems from a range of factors, including concerns about human-caused threats to global biodiversity; constituent engagement; interest in global biodiversity and protected areas; potential connections between conservation and U.S. national security; and concerns about conservationists’ respect for human rights. Reports of global biodiversity loss due to human interactions and recent focus on zoonotic diseases in the context of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have amplified these concerns for some Members.

Congress might consider several issues as it authorizes, appropriates funding for, and continues oversight of U.S. international conservation activities. Members may debate how much foreign assistance, if any, to provide for international conservation programs; the goals and objectives of international conservation programs; interagency coordination of international conservation programs; whether assistance is aligned with host countries’ priorities; and the implications of international conservation spending for human rights and indigenous peoples.

Enjoy!

"If you wish to be understood, seek first to understand." - Stephen Covey

CRS InFocus Report: 'Proposed Extension of the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund'

Charles V. Stern authored this CRS 2-page InFocus report (9 July 2020): Proposed Extension of the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund.

Download CRS_InFocus_Proposed_Extension_RWSF_9July2020

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Summary
Since 1978, the federal government has entered into 36 water rights
settlements with individual Indian tribes. These Indian water rights settlements are a means of resolving ongoing disputes related to Indian water rights among tribes, federal and state governments,and other parties (e.g., water rights holders). Some settlements have been approved by Congress in authorizing legislation that also provides funding for projects that allow tribes to access and develop their water resources. (For more information on these settlements in general, see CRS Report R44148, Indian Water Rights Settlements.)

Historically, federal funding for Indian water rights settlements has been provided through discretionary appropriations. In recent years, however, Congress also has approved mandatory funding for some settlements. Congress created the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund (RWSF) in 2009 as a dedicated source of additional funding for existing and future Indian water rights settlements. The fund is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, a water resources management agency within the Department of the Interior) and is authorized to receive $120 million per year in mandatory funding from FY2020 through FY2029.

Some Members of Congress have been interested both in the annual allocation and prioritization of projects within the RWSF and in proposals for its extension. However, none of the extensions proposed in the 115th and 116th Congresses have been enacted.

Enjoy!

“When the fox preaches, turn to the geese.”- German proverb

Racism Report Redux: 'The Flint Water Crisis - Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint'

I originally posted this report a few years ago and promptly forgot about it. The times dictate that I repost it with an addition and ask you to read it. It's by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission: The Flint Water Crisis: Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint'.

Thanks to friend and colleague Lisa Beutler for calling it to my attention. I will give it another platform.

Download The Flint Water Crisis- Systemic Racism Through the Lens of Flint'

The opening comments...

February 17, 2017

Dear Reader,

On January 25, 2016, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission unanimously passed a resolution to hold a series of hearings to determine if any civil rights had been abridged by the contamination of the Flint water distribution system.

At all three hearings, we heard of the many challenges and hardships faced by residents unable to access clean drinking water. We also toured several Flint neighborhoods, meeting with residents and hearing how their lives had been affected and changed immeasurably. The July 14th and September 8th hearings included expert testimony focusing on the history of Flint’s economy and housing, environmental justice, and the application of the current emergency manager law.

Reviewing the historical governmental actions impacting the living and health conditions of Flint residents, i.e., the legacy of Flint, was sobering and left a deep impression. We must come to terms with the ongoing effects of "systemic racism" that repeatedly led to disparate racial outcomes as exemplified by the Flint Water Crisis. This can no longer be ignored.

We also offer recommendations intended to ensure that “another Flint” does not happen again – in Flint or anywhere in Michigan. We urge those with authority to carefully consider and act upon these recommendations.

On behalf of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and Michigan Department of Civil Rights, we wish to thank everyone who testified and submitted written testimony, as well as those who provided additional insight and information for inclusion in this report.

Sincerely,
Michigan Civil Rights Commission

Rasha Demashkieh, Co-Chair
Mumtaz Haque
Deloris Hunt
Linda Lee Tarver
Laura Reyes Kopack JD, Co-Chair
Arthur M. Horwitz
Ricardo Resio
Bradley Voss

Let me add this June 2020 open letter (thanks Lisa Beutler) from current Flint mayor Sheldon A. Neeley:

Flint has throughout its history been a guiding force for our country. It is again.

As the world watches our peaceful protests, they are seeing the Flint we know and love. Flint is a city of champions, not because of the actions of any one of us — but because of the collective spirit we embody. We are descendants of innovators and great business minds, factory workers who sat down for what was right and single-handedly built the American Middle Class, the women who built tanks to lead us to victory in WWII, and the masses who selected a black man mayor in 1966 and by popular vote became the first city in the nation to adopt a fair housing ordinance.

We know when we protest that it is about the past and the future. We know that protest is about building, not tearing down.

We are devastated by the death of George Floyd. The gross injustice cuts to the core of this community that has long defined itself as social justice leaders.

When the people rightfully began gathering to protest in response to Mr. Floyd’s death, I too relied on those lessons I learned growing up in Flint: The only appropriate response to protesters is to listen and the only appropriate answer is action.

I personally met with protest organizers as did Flint Police Chief Phil Hart and other key members of my staff. Those discussions led to development of a six-point action plan for the City of Flint to start our work — including development of a Black Lives Matter Advisory Council to continue our work for the long term.

To elected leaders across the country, I say: As we continue to see violent protests in our state and in our country, I urge you to please just stop and listen. We have work that needs to be done.

Work with the protesters. Work with each other. Together, we will make this country a better place.

And, to the protesters, I say: Thank you.

A majority of us living in Flint today also are the descendants of slaves, the descendants of someone who survived shackles, the descendants of someone who despite all odds saw the country take its first somewhat reluctant steps toward equality. In your protests on the lawn at Flint City Hall and around the world, we have seen every shade of skin join in a universal fight for humanity. Thank you.

Thank you for fighting for justice. Thank you for sparking a national conversation. We need to keep talking — and to keep voting — until those in positions of power are willing to listen.

Together, let’s build the tomorrow we deserve today.

For the love of our community,

Sheldon A. Neeley

Mayor of the City of Flint

Important reading...

Enjoy!

"While we almost universally recognize that racial discrimination is wrong, this consensus has not translated into decision-making or policies that reflect those values." - from the report, p. 3

CRS Insight Report: 'U.S. Funding to the World Health Organization (WHO)'

I missed this important CRS Insight 4-pager report (30 April 2020) by Luisa Blanchfield and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther: 'U.S. Funding to the World Health Organization (WHO)'. 

The online version (click on the title) may have some hot links that the PDF does not have.

Download CRS_Insight_US_Funding_WHO_30April2020

Introduction
On April 14, 2020, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would suspend funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), pending a 60- to 90-day review, because of WHO’s “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.” The United States, the largest government contributor to WHO, is currently assessed 22% of the organization’s core budget (an estimated $112.6 million for FY2020). The United States also provides voluntary funding to WHO, with amounts varying per year depending on U.S. priorities and global health needs. U.S. voluntary contributions from FY2012 to FY2018 averaged $254 million per year. Congressional views on the Administration decision to suspend funding are mixed. Some Members share the President’s concerns regarding WHO and support the decision, while others oppose the action and have urged the Administration to fully fund WHO and its ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) efforts.

Background 
Established in 1948, WHO is a United Nations (U.N.) specialized agency that directs and coordinates health efforts within the U.N. system, including engaging international partners on global health issues, shaping the international health research agenda, and establishing health-related norms and standards. The United States has historically supported WHO’s mandate and activities. It played a key role in the organization’s establishment and is a member of WHO’s plenary body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), and the 34-member WHO Executive Board. U.S. officials are also seconded to the organization and serve in a number of advisory capacities, including a committee related to COVID-19.

WHO is funded through assessed and voluntary contributions from governments and other donors. Assessed contributions are required dues a government agrees to pay when it becomes a member. Voluntary contributions fluctuate annually and are often earmarked for specific projects. WHO’s total proposed program budget for 2020-2021 is $4.84 billion. Voluntary contributions represent more than 80% of the budget. Top assessed contributors in 2020-2021 are the United States (22%), China (12%), and Japan (8.5%). Governments providing the largest voluntary contributions in 2019 were the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany.

In February 2020, WHO released and updated a $675 million Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan to address COVID-19. The plan aims to provide international coordination and operational support; bolster country readiness and response capacity, particularly in low-resource countries; and accelerate research and innovation. As of April 29, private donors and over 20 countries had contributed $405.7 million to the plan, including $30.3 million from the United States.

Skipping a bit...

Selected Congressional Issues
Members of Congress might consider the following issues:

•   Executive branch allocation of WHO funding. Because Congress does not appropriate funding specifically for WHO in appropriations acts, the executive branch has some flexibility to decide how and if funds are allocated to the organization. Some Members of Congress might support proceeding with the status quo, while others may consider legislative options such as directing how appropriations for WHO are allocated by agencies and Administrations.

•   Treaty obligations and possible loss of voting rights. Some policymakers are concerned that suspending funding may violate U.S. obligations under the WHOconstitution. Some also debate the potential impact of the United States accumulating arrears and the possible loss of voting privileges. Congress might consider how such implications could affect U.S. efforts to advance its priorities and global health commitments in WHO fora.

•   Possible impact of funding suspension on WHO. The impact of the suspension on WHO operations, including its efforts to address COVID-19 and other health issues, remains to be seen. The level and extent of the impact will likely depend on the type of funds being withheld (assessed or voluntary) and the duration of the funding suspension.

•   U.S. role and influence. Some observers are concerned that the funding suspension could affect U.S. influence and leadership in WHO fora. Specifically, some have raisedconcerns that such actions might enable other countries, such as China, to gain greater influence in the organization. Supporters of the funding suspension counter that the United States is using its role as the WHO’s largest financial contributor to express its concerns regarding the organization’s handling of COVID-19, while at the same time funding other U.S. global health priorities. Some also suggest that the funding suspension might improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the organization and lead to substantive reform supported by the United States.

Don't cut WHO funding.

 

Enjoy!

 

"I think the people in this country have had enough of experts..." - Michael Gove, UK politician

CRS Report: Indian Water Rights Settlements (Updated: 26 December 2019)

From Charles V. Stern comes this updated CRS report: 'Indian Water Rights Settlements'.

Great topic!

Download CRS_Report_Indian_Water_Rights_Settlements_26Dec2019

Summary
In the second half of the 19th century, the federal government pursued a policy of confining Indian tribes to reservations. These reservations were either a portion of a tribe’s aboriginal land or an area of land taken out of the public domain and set aside for a tribe. The federal statutes and treaties reserving such land for Indian reservations typically did not address the water needs of these reservations, a fact that has given rise to questions and disputes regarding Indian reserved water rights. Dating to a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally have held that many tribes have a reserved right to water sufficient to fulfill the purpose of their reservations and that this right took effect on the date the reservations were established. This means that, in the context of a state water law system of prior appropriations, which is common in many U.S. western states, many tribes have water rights senior to those of non-Indian users with water rights and access established subsequent to the Indian reservations’ creation. Although many Indian tribes hold senior water rights through their reservations, the quantification of these rights is undetermined in many cases.

Tribes have pursued quantification of their water rights through both litigation and negotiated settlements. The settlements involve negotiation among tribes, the federal government, states, water districts, and private water users, and others. They aim to resolve conflict between rights holders and allow the parties to determine specific terms of water allocation and use with certainty. Over the last 50 years, negotiated settlements have been the preferred course for most tribes because they are often less lengthy and costly than litigation. Additionally, many stakeholders have noted that these negotiated agreements are more likely to allow tribes not only to quantify their water rights on paper but also to procure access to these resources in the form of infrastructure and other related expenses, at least in some cases.

After being negotiated, approval and implementation of Indian water rights settlements require federal action. As of 2019, 36 Indian water rights settlements had been federally approved, with total estimated costs in excess of $5.8 billion. Of these, 32 settlements were approved and enacted by Congress and 4 were administratively approved by the U.S. Departments of Justice and the Interior. After being congressionally authorized, federal projects associated with approved Indian water rights settlements generally have been implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Bureau of Indian Affairs (both within the Department of the Interior), pursuant to congressional directions. Congress has appropriated discretionary and mandatory funding (and, in some cases, both) for these activities, including in recent appropriations bills. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 1904 proposes to extend in perpetuity the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, which is currently scheduled to provide $120 million per year in mandatory funds for these settlements through FY2029.

Several individual Indian water rights settlements have recently been considered and approved by Congress, including three that were enacted during the 114th Congress. In addition to opposition to some proposed settlements, one of the primary challenges facing new settlements is the availability of federal funds and the related question of cost-shares among federal, state, local, and tribal interests.

At issue is under what circumstances (if any) Congress should approve new Indian water rights settlements and whether Congress should fund (and in some cases amend) existing settlements. Some argue that resolution of Indian water rights settlements is a mutually beneficial means to resolve long-standing legal issues, provide certainty of water deliveries, and reduce the federal government’s liability. Others argue against authorization and funding of new settlements, either on general principle or with regard to specific individual settlements and activities.

How about a conclusion?

Conclusion
Long-standing disputes over water rights and use involving Indian tribes continue to be negotiated and settled by the executive branch and are thus likely to be an ongoing issue for Congress. This matter includes implementation of ongoing Indian water rights settlements, negotiation of new settlements, and consideration of these settlements for potential enactment and subsequent funding. As of the end of the 115th Congress, 32 settlements had been enacted since 1978, and four settlements had been approved administratively. Additional funding for ongoing settlements and authorization of and appropriations for new settlements are likely to be requested in the future. In considering Indian water rights settlements, primary issues for Congress may include the cost, contents, and sufficiency of federally authorized efforts to settle tribal water rights claims, as well as the circumstances under which these settlements are considered andapproved by authorizing committees and others (i.e., whether the settlements are accompanied by formal statements of Administration support, cost estimates). In addition, the preferred extent of federal involvement in implementing settlements, including the question of whether the federal government or tribes should take the lead in developing and constructing projects, may be a central question under consideration in future settlements under consideration by Congress.

Enjoy!

“Like a man who has been dying for many days, a man in your city is numb to the stench.” - Chief Seattle