WaterWired

CRS InFocus Report: 'Reclamation Water Storage Projects - Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act'

This sounds like a Charles V. Stern CRS report! It is and it's been updated 7 September 2021: 'Reclamation Water Storage Projects: Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act'.

Download CRS_InFocus_USBR_Water_Stotage_Projects_Section4007_7Sept2021

Summary
Congress created a new authority for the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, part of the Department of the Interior) to build new water storage projects in Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act; P.L. 114-322). The authority provides federal support for the construction of new and augmented surface water storage projects in the 17 arid reclamation states. As of August 2021, Congress had appropriated $603 million for these projects, and Reclamation had allocated (and Congress had approved) more than half of these funds to 12 projects in 3 states. Allocation of remaining appropriations is subject to further congressional action.

Background
Traditionally, Reclamation’s role in water project development had been limited to geographically specific projects authorized in federal statutes (federal law that applies to reclamation projects generally is referred to as reclamation law). Congress provided full, up-front funding for the construction costs of these facilities through discretionary appropriations to Reclamation. Project beneficiaries (i.e., irrigators, municipal water suppliers, and hydropower contractors) would then repay their portion of “reimbursable” project construction or development costs over a 40-50 year term. The amount of the up-front investment recouped by the federal government typically depends on several factors, including the portion of project benefits that are classified as fully or partially nonreimbursable (e.g., fish and wildlife enhancements, flood control, recreation) and adjustments for irrigators’ ability to pay.

Section 4007 of the WIIN Act
Congress enacted a new authority for Reclamation to support water storage projects under Section 4007 of the WIIN Act. The act authorized a total of $335 million in discretionary appropriations for new and improved water storage projects, and it used a different approach than under traditional reclamation law.

Funding for water storage projects under Section 4007 is available for two primary project types. Federally owned storage projects (surface water or groundwater storage projects to which the United States holds title and which were authorized to be constructed pursuant to reclamation law and regulations) may be no more than 50% federally funded. State-led storage projects (surface water or groundwater storage projects constructed, operated, and maintained by states or political subdivisions) may be no more than 25% federally funded. Prior to the WIIN Act, Congress had not authorized Reclamation to fund state-led water storage projects. [Click on the table to enlarge it.]

Before projects can be constructed under the authority, several milestones must be met. The Secretary of the Interior must find that the project is feasible and provides benefits proportionate to the federal government’s cost share, and project sponsors must agree to pay their portion of project costs up front. Appropriations under the Section 4007 authority are available only after the Secretary transmits a list of recommended projects and funding levels to Congress, and Congress designates those projects by name in an enacted appropriations act.

Any project that meets the WIIN Act criteria initially is eligible for funding allocations. However, Congress also stipulated that in order to move forward, the Secretary must find projects feasible by January 1, 2021, and projects must initiate construction by December 17, 2021.

Cutting to the chase...

Issues for Congress
The Biden Administration may continue proposing project-level allocations for remaining Section 4007 appropriations. Similar to prior lists, these allocations would requirecongressional approval in appropriations legislation. Significantly more future appropriations would be required to complete ongoing WIIN Act projects under Section 4007.

Enjoy!

"No, you can’t ‘binge lecture’ your whole course in 36 hours." - @ass_deans

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

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

Download CRS_InFocus_USBR_FY2022_Appropriations_3Sept2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CRS Report R44148, Indian Water Rights Settlements.

CRS Report R46308, Bureau of Reclamation Rural Water Projects.

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

Enjoy!

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

Paper: 'Assessing the New NRCS Water Supply Forecast Model for the American West - A Challenging Test of Explainable, Automated, Ensemble AI'

Sean Fleming sent this around. Looks very good. Give it a read!

Assessing the new Natural Resources Conservation Service water supply forecast model for the American West: A challenging test of explainable, automated, ensemble artificial intelligence by Sean W. Fleming, David C. Garen, Angus G. Goodbody, Cara S. McCarthy, Lexi C. Landers. Journal of Hydrology, Volume 602, November 2021.

PDF: Download FlemingEtAl_JournalOfHydrology_2021_M4Testing

Highlights

1) Seasonal water supply forecasts (WSFs) are crucial to water management in the US West.

2) NRCS is the largest WSF service delivery organization and recently built a new model.

3) This prototype, M⁴, is based on explainable, ensemble, automated machine learning.

4) Here, we tested M⁴ against challenging multi-faceted criteria for NRCS adoption.

5) The result sets a precedent for transitioning AI research into hydrologic operations.

Abstract
Western US water management is underpinned by spring-summer water supply forecasts (WSFs) from hydrologic models forced primarily by winter mountain snowpack data. The US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) operates the largest such system regionally. NRCS recently developed a next-generation WSF prototype, the multi-model machine-learning metasystem (M4). Here, we test this ensemble artificial intelligence (AI)-based prototype against challenging theoretical and practical criteria for accepting a new operational WSF model. In 20 hindcasting test-cases spanning diverse environments across the western US and Alaska, on average out-of-sample R2 and RPSS improved over 50% and RMSE improved 13% relative to current benchmarks. The M4 ensemble mean forecast also performed more consistently than any of its diverse constituent models and in several cases outperformed all of them. Live operational testing at a subset of sites during the 2020 forecast season additionally demonstrated logistical feasibility of workflows, as well as geophysical explainability of results in terms of known hydrologic processes, belying the black-box reputation of machine learning and enabling relatable forecast storylines for clients. This was accomplished using WSF-focused pragmatic solutions, like “popular votes” for different candidate predictors among the constituent forecast systems, and graphical visualization of reduced-dimension, AI-extracted nonlinear feature-target relationships. We also found that certain M4 technical design elements, including autonomous machine learning (AutoML), hyperparameter pre-calibration, and theory-guided data science, collectively permitted automated (“over-the-loop”) training and operation. Overall, the analyses confirmed M4 meets requirements for NRCS operational adoption. This finding signals that, despite negligible operational-community uptake of machine learning so far, suitably purpose-designed novel AI systems have capacity to transition into large-scale practical applications with service-delivery organizations; it appears M4 will be the largest AI migration into operational river forecasting to date. It may ultimately provide a broader integration platform for harnessing multiple data and model types.

Enjoy!

"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom." - Isaac Asimov

Paper by E.A. Koebele: 'When Multiple Streams Make a River: Analyzing Collaborative Policymaking Institutions Using the Multiple Streams Framework'

John Fleck - 'Mr. Colorado River' himself - turned me on to this paper by Elizabeth A. Koebele of the Political Science Department, University of Nevada, Reno NV, USA: When multiple streams make a river: analyzing collaborative policymaking institutions using the multiple streams framework, Policy Sciences 54, pages 609–628 (2021).

PDF: Download Koebele2021_Article_WhenMultipleStreamsMakeARiver

Professor Koebele is an NSF CAREER Award winner. She will research collaborative water sustainability policymaking as part of the award.

Here's what John said in his Tweet:

Super helpful @EAKoebelepaper helping make sense of the apparent chaos of #ColoradoRiver management and decision making. (Important - not as chaotic as it might look.)

Amen!

Below are the Abstract, Introduction and Discussion and conclusion. The CRB map is from USBR. There is a better version from the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy.  Download it here: Download Crb_map_web

 

Abstract
Although the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is frequently used to explain agenda setting and decision making across a variety of policy domains, it has been criticized for failing to contribute to theoretically rigorous and empirically falsifiable policy scholarship. This study argues that by explicitly attending to the institutional context in which a policy process occurs—a previously under-articulated aspect of the MSF—scholars can better develop and test theory about the framework’s components under delimited conditions. This approach is demonstrated through the development and analysis of a case study of transnational policymaking in the Colorado River Delta. By attending to how key MSF variables interact with features of the process’s collaborative institutional context, this study identifies case-specific drivers of policy change and develops broader theory about the mechanisms by which these factors may influence policymaking in similar institutional settings.

Introduction
The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is a well-known and relatively intuitive policy process framework that traditionally has been used to explain agenda-setting in the US federal context. Fundamentally, the MSF hypothesizes that a policy problem is more likely to gain decision-makers’ attention when it is “coupled” with a policy solution in the context of a supportive political environment. The convergence of these three aspects, or “streams” in MSF terminology, increases the probability that an issue will rise on the political agenda (Herweg et al., 2018). Applying this metaphor empirically can help scholars explain shifts in decisionmakers’ attention (Cairney & Jones, 2016), especially during “situational moments of contingency where policymaking processes may end up heading in unexpected and unpredictable directions” (Ackrill et al., 2013, 882). Because the MSF is both fairly abstract and conceptually simple, it has been used to understand agenda setting—and more recently, decision-making (Herweg et al., 2015)—across diverse policy domains (Jones et al., 2016), at scales from the local (Henstra, 2010) to the transnational (Ackrill et al., 2013), and in non-governmental contexts (Novotný & Polášek, 2016).

Due in part to this breadth of application, criticism has been mounted against the MSF’s ability to contribute to theoretically rigorous and empirically falsifiable policy scholarship (Cairney & Jones, 2016; Jones et al., 2016; Weible & Schlager, 2016; Zohlnhöfer et al., 2015), prompting scholars to call for more intentional theory development around MSF components. In this vein, van der Heijden et al. (2019) suggest that the MSF is particularly suitable for theoretical development through the identification of causal mechanisms that lead to certain outcomes, particularly given its extant focus on factors that may open “policy windows.” Additionally, a persistent critique of the MSF concerns its lack of explicit attention to the role of political institutions, broadly defined as the formal and informal rules that structure agenda setting, decision-making, and other aspects of a policy process in a given setting (March & Olsen, 1989; Ostrom, 2005). While the MSF literature recognizes that institutions impact how issues are perceived, what communities form around them, and who has authority over policy change (Herweg et al., 2018), the framework’s failure to clearly articulate the role of institutions limits its ability to robustly explain or predict policymaking and performance in different political systems (Zahariadis, 2016). This study weaves together these two strands of critique, arguing that by explicitly attending to institutional context, MSF scholars can more rigorously develop and test theory pertaining to key framework concepts under delimited conditions.

To demonstrate this approach, this study develops an empirical, interpretive case study (Vennesson, 2008) of a policymaking process concerning the management of the overallocated Colorado River, located in the western US and northern Mexico. Despite a history of policy stagnation and long-standing conflict among the actors involved in Colorado River governance, this process resulted in landmark policy change (King et al., 2014; Wilder et al., 2019). Critically, this outcome is often credited to the collaborative institutional context of the process, which encouraged deliberation, trust-building, and consensus among diverse stakeholders with different goals and values (Gerlak, 2015; Gerlak, Zamora-Arroyo, et al., 2013; Pitt et al., 2017). Using an minimalist process tracing approach (Beach, 2017), this case study elucidates how key variables in each of the MSF’s three streams interact with features of the institutional context in order to achieve two goals: (1) detect case-specific factors that drove the somewhat unexpected policy change (a case-centric goal); and (2) conceptualize of these factors in terms of the MSF in order to begin to unpacking causal mechanisms that may influence agenda-setting and decision-making processes in collaborative institutional contexts (a theory-building goal) (Kay & Baker, 2015). While only a first step, this study provides a model for the type of “more systematic theory development” (p. 31) called for by Jones et al. (2016) and others that can improve the MSF’s ability to contribute to rigorous analyses of policy processes.

Discussion and conclusion
Through the development of an empirical, interpretive case study of the Minute 319 process, this analysis sought to achieve two goals: (1) use the MSF to identify case-specific factors that drove policy change; and (2) develop theory about the mechanisms by which these factors may influence policy processes within similar institutional settings. As illustrated in the case study above, variables from all three of the MSF streams contribute to our understanding of how and why Minute 319 was developed. Considering the ways in which their influence was mediated by the collaborative institutional context of the Minute 319 process allows us to begin unpacking the how and why of their importance, which provides insight for developing MSF theory more broadly.

For instance, in the problem stream, issues tangential to the Delta rapidly rose on the IBWC/CILA’s agenda following a focusing event (the 2010 earthquake), largely because they could be coupled with a pre-designed policy alternative: allowing Mexico to temporarily store their water allocations in US reservoirs. This is not an unusual finding for MSF studies, which often seek to identify examples of agenda coupling at key moments. However, the collaborative institutional context of the Minute 319 process certainly shaped how the focusing event was perceived and fostered the selection of a policy alternative proposed by regional NGOs that was previously deemed “too controversial.” Moreover, the selection of this alternative reinforced the power and potential of a newly formalized collaborative policymaking process between the USA and Mexico, which created a supportive political environment in which the two countries could engage in dialogue and experiment with mutually beneficial policy solutions despite negative national moods and previous policy stagnation.

In addition to MSF elements traditionally associated with agenda setting (e.g., focusing events), other MSF variables related to decision coupling (Herweg et al., 2015; Zohlnhöfer et al., 2016) help explain the continuation and growth of the collaborative process and the development of Minute 319 as its eventual policy output. For example, although formal decision-making authority was centralized in the IBWC/CILA, the collaborative institution’s consensus-oriented norms created a de facto decentralized context that emphasized lengthy deliberations and broad agreement among all stakeholders. Within this context, the binational coalition was positioned to act as a policy entrepreneur that could help sustain attention to Delta issues during a prolonged policy window—similar to the role that coherent coalitions and interest groups may play in other decentralized decision-making institutions that require overcoming multiple veto points (Rozbicka & Spohr, 2016; Saurugger & Terpan, 2016). This process eventually led to the development of a package deal-type policy that gained broad support, in part because some stakeholders were willing to make significant concessions over details like the policy’s applicable timeframe (Herweg et al., 2018), and in part because each stakeholder group could frame at least one of its provisions as a particularly good “win” for their own constituency (Ackrill et al., 2013). Thus, by impacting how decision-making authority was actually dispersed among policy actors and what kind of solution was likely to be most feasible, the collaborative institutional context moderated the influence of generic MSF variables on the policy process and output.

A number of broad, theoretical lessons arise from these findings that must be further developed and empirically tested in other cases. First, applications of the MSF in collaborative institutional contexts should explore variables associated with both the agenda-setting and decision-making phases simultaneously rather than separating the phases. This may be the case particularly when significant authority over components of policy design is devolved to sub-groups focused on technical, rather than political aspects, as these groups will likely be identifying problems and solutions and negotiating their scope at the same time. Second, even in processes where decision-making authority is formally centralized, collaborative institutions may serve to informally decentralize power as a result of long-term deliberative processes and the use of consensus norms. Consequently, tradeoffs and concessions made during policy development, as well as during formal negotiations, must be considered in order to understand why certain policy outputs are developed. Third, collaborative process norms may also influence the feasibility or acceptability of certain policy solutions that would otherwise be discounted in the absence of established trust among diverse actors and precedents to share information and resources.

Although this study was largely exploratory and inductive in nature, it is a first step toward “more systematic theory development” within the MSF (Jones et al., 2016, 31). As such, various practical lessons for other scholars seeking to advance MSF theory were also learned. For instance, this study characterized the collaborative nature of the institutional context using academic and gray literature, as well as insight from stakeholders via interviews, but it did not formally define the rules for collaboration among the various participants. Future studies could leverage insights from other theories, such as the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework’s rule typology (Heikkila & Gerlak, 2018) and institutional grammar tool (Siddiki et al., 2019), to formally analyze rules around membership, interactions, information flow, and other activities, in order to better characterize the institutional context. This may be particularly important when comparing mechanisms across different institutions of the same general type. In addition, in line with a recent study that used the MSF to examine governance innovations (Huber-Stearns et al., 2019), this study obviated the need to consider institutions not as static, but instead to track how they change and influence policymaking differently over longer periods time, as has been suggested as best practice in other theories of the policy process (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018). This case demonstrates the long-term impact of a coalition of policy actors, who initially coalesced around largely-ignored indicator changes, on policy change that happened decades later. Had the analysis focused only on the interactions within the formalized collaborative process during a shorter time period, it would have overlooked key influences on agenda setting and decision making.

In order to more systematically delineate institutional influences on a policy process from idiosyncrasies associated with a specific policy issue (Kay & Baker, 2015), scholars should conduct comparative studies of policy processes and their outcomes across multiple institutions with similar structures or contexts (e.g., Karambelkar & Gerlak, 2020). While the interpretivist case study approach used here provides useful insight into influential MSF variables under specific conditions, it fails to weigh their importance or make direct causal claims (Vennesson, 2008), as might be done through comparative analyses further separated from a specific empirical context. Systematically applying the MSF in diverse institutional settings beyond those that are collaborative can also help to better differentiate institution-specific mechanisms in the absence of clear counterfactuals, in turn advancing theory within the MSF and about the role of institutions in policymaking processes more broadly.

Enjoy!

 

“Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion.” - Edward Abbey

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

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

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

Download CRS_Report_Mgmt_CO_River_Water_Allo_Drought_Fed_Role_16Aug2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cutting to the chase...

Issues for Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy!

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