Freshwater Supply
States' View of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages Gao ID: GAO-03-514 July 9, 2003The widespread drought conditions of 2002 focused attention on a critical national challenge: ensuring a sufficient freshwater supply to sustain quality of life and economic growth. States have primary responsibility for managing the allocation and use of water resources, but multiple federal agencies also play a role. For example, Interior's Bureau of Reclamation operates numerous water storage facilities, and the U.S. Geological Survey collects important surface and ground-water information. GAO was asked to determine the current conditions and future trends for U.S. water availability and use, the likelihood of shortages and their potential consequences, and states' views on how federal activities could better support state water management efforts to meet future demands. For this review, GAO conducted a web-based survey of water managers in the 50 states and received responses from 47 states; California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate.
National water availability and use has not been comprehensively assessed in 25 years, but current trends indicate that demands on the nation's supplies are growing. In particular, the nation's capacity for storing surface-water is limited and ground-water is being depleted. At the same time, growing population and pressures to keep water instream for fisheries and the environment place new demands on the freshwater supply. The potential effects of climate change also create uncertainty about future water availability and use. State water managers expect freshwater shortages in the near future, and the consequences may be severe. Even under normal conditions, water managers in 36 states anticipate shortages in localities, regions, or statewide in the next 10 years. Drought conditions will exacerbate shortage impacts. When water shortages occur, economic impacts to sectors such as agriculture can be in the billions of dollars. Water shortages also harm the environment. For example, diminished flows reduced the Florida Everglades to half its original size. Finally, water shortages cause social discord when users compete for limited supplies. State water managers ranked federal actions that could best help states meet their water resource needs. They preferred: (1) financial assistance to increase storage and distribution capacity; (2) water data from more locations; (3) more flexibility in complying with or administering federal environmental laws; (4) better coordinated federal participation in water-management agreements; and (5) more consultation with states on federal or tribal use of water rights. Federal officials identified agency activities that support state preferences. While not making recommendations, GAO encourages federal officials to review the results of our state survey and consider opportunities to better support state water management efforts. We provided copies of this report to the seven departments and agencies discussed within. They concurred with our findings and provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
GAO-03-514, Freshwater Supply: States' View of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-514
entitled 'Freshwater Supply: States' View of How Federal Agencies Could
Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages' which was released
on July 08, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
July 2003:
FRESHWATER SUPPLY:
States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the
Challenges of Expected Shortages:
GAO-03-514:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-514, a report to Congressional Requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The widespread drought conditions of 2002 focused attention on a
critical national challenge: ensuring a sufficient freshwater supply
to sustain quality of life and economic growth. States have primary
responsibility for managing the allocation and use of water resources,
but multiple federal agencies also play a role. For example,
Interior‘s Bureau of Reclamation operates numerous water storage
facilities, and the U.S. Geological Survey collects important surface
and ground-water information.
GAO was asked to determine the current conditions and future trends
for U.S. water availability and use, the likelihood of shortages and
their potential consequences, and states‘ views on how federal
activities could better support state water management efforts to meet
future demands.
For this review, GAO conducted a web-based survey of water managers in
the 50 states and received responses from 47 states; California,
Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate.
What GAO Found:
National water availability and use has not been comprehensively
assessed in 25 years, but current trends indicate that demands on the
nation‘s supplies are growing. In particular, the nation‘s capacity
for storing surface-water is limited and ground-water is being
depleted. At the same time, growing population and pressures to keep
water instream for fisheries and the environment place new demands on
the freshwater supply. The potential effects of climate change also
create uncertainty about future water availability and use.
State water managers expect freshwater shortages in the near future,
and the consequences may be severe. Even under normal conditions,
water managers in 36 states anticipate shortages in localities,
regions, or statewide in the next 10 years. Drought conditions will
exacerbate shortage impacts. When water shortages occur, economic
impacts to sectors such as agriculture can be in the billions of
dollars. Water shortages also harm the environment. For example,
diminished flows reduced the Florida Everglades to half its original
size. Finally, water shortages cause social discord when users compete
for limited supplies.
State water managers ranked federal actions that could best help
states meet their water resource needs. They preferred: (1) financial
assistance to increase storage and distribution capacity; (2) water
data from more locations; (3) more flexibility in complying with or
administering federal environmental laws; (4) better coordinated
federal participation in water-management agreements; and (5) more
consultation with states on federal or tribal use of water rights.
Federal officials identified agency activities that support state
preferences.
While not making recommendations, GAO encourages federal officials to
review the results of our state survey and consider opportunities to
better support state water management efforts. We provided copies of
this report to the seven departments and agencies discussed within.
They concurred with our findings and provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-514.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barry Hill at (202) 512-
9775 or hillb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Transmittal Letter:
Executive Summary:
Purpose:
Background:
Results in Brief:
Principal Findings:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Chapter 1: Introduction:
Water Is an Abundant and Renewable Resource but Not Always
Readily Available:
The Federal Government Has Authority to Manage Water Resources
but Recognizes State Authorities:
State Laws Governing Water Allocation and Use Generally Follow Two
Basic Doctrines:
Multiple Federal Agencies Have Water Management Responsibilities:
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Chapter 2: Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast,
but Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs:
National Water Availability and Use Has Not Been Assessed in Decades:
Trends in Water Availability and Use Raise Concerns about the Nation's
Ability to Meet Future Needs:
Chapter 3: Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities:
State Water Managers Expect Shortages within 10 Years:
Freshwater Shortages Have Severe Economic, Environmental, and
Social Consequences:
Chapter 4: Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water
Management Efforts:
Conclusions:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal
Activities on State Water Availability, Management, and Use:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Water Sources, Volumes, and Percentages of Total Water:
Figure 2: The Hydrologic Cycle:
Figure 3: Percent Time in Severe and Extreme Drought Nationwide, 1895
to 1995:
Figure 4: Drought Conditions across the Nation as of July 23, 2002:
Figure 5: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface-Water Allocation:
Figure 6: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Ground-Water Allocation:
Figure 7: Overview of Federal Activities:
Figure 8: Reclamation‘s Hoover Dam and the Corps‘ Eufaula Lake Water
Storage Facilities:
Figure 9: USGS‘ Nationwide Streamgage Network:
Figure 10: Number of Listed Threatened and Endangered Species by
State, as of March 2003:
Figure 11: Colorado River Basin Crosses Seven State Borders:
Figure 12: Federal and Tribal Lands in the United States:
Figure 13: Trends in Water Withdrawals by Use Category, 1950-1995:
Figure 14: Projections of United States Water Use for 2000:
Figure 15: Number and Capacity of Large Reservoirs Completed by Decade:
Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Population Using Ground-Water
as Drinking Water in 1995 by State:
Figure 17: Changes in Ground-Water Levels in the High Plains Aquifer
from before Irrigation Pumping to 1999:
Figure 18: Sinkhole in West-Central Florida Caused by Development
of a New Irrigation Well:
Figure 19: Land Subsidence in South-Central Arizona:
Figure 20: States‘ Population Growth from 1995 to 2025:
Figure 21: Total Freshwater Withdrawals by County, 1995:
Figure 22: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade
under Average Water Conditions:
Figure 23: The Everglades”Past and Present:
Figure 24: Competition for Water in the Klamath Basin:
Transmittal Letter July 9, 2003:
The Honorable Pete V. Domenici
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate:
The Honorable James M. Jeffords
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate:
The Honorable Mike Crapo
Chairman
The Honorable Bob Graham
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate:
In response to your requests, this report identifies current conditions
and future trends for U.S. water availability and use, the likelihood
of shortages and their potential consequences, and state views on how
federal activities could better support state water management efforts
to meet future needs. While we are not making a specific
recommendation, we encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland
Security, Interior, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency
officials to review the results of our state survey and consider
modifications to their plans, policies, or activities as appropriate to
better support state efforts to meet their future water needs.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and Interior; the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. We will also send copies to the states
that participated in our review. This report will also be available on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III.
Barry T. Hill
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Signed by Barry T. Hill:
[End of section]
Executive Summary:
Purpose:
The widespread drought conditions of 2002 focused attention on a
critical challenge for the United States--ensuring a sufficient
freshwater supply to sustain quality of life and economic growth. Yet
droughts are only one element of this complex issue. Water availability
and use depend on many factors, such as the ability to store and
distribute water, demographics, and social values. Across the nation,
there is increasing competition to meet the freshwater needs of growing
cities and suburbs, farms, industries, recreation and wildlife.
States are primarily responsible for managing the allocation and use of
freshwater supplies. However, federal laws provide for control over the
use of water in specific cases, such as on federal lands or in
interstate commerce. Many federal agencies engage in activities, such
as operating large water storage facilities and administering federal
environmental protection laws, that influence state decisions. Federal
agencies generally coordinate their activities with the states and
complement state efforts to manage water supplies. On occasion,
however, these activities conflict with state or other user objectives,
such as when the need to leave water in a river to protect fish under
federal environmental laws affects the delivery of irrigation water
to farmers.
To assist congressional understanding of the range and complexity of
freshwater supply issues, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, the Ranking Member of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Chairman and Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works asked GAO to identify
(1) current conditions and future trends for U.S. water availability
and use, (2) the likelihood of shortages and their potential
consequences, and (3) state views on how federal activities could
better support state water management efforts to meet future demands.
To conduct this review, we focused on water supply and generally
assumed a continuation of existing quantity allocations and current
pricing conditions. Among other things, GAO conducted a Web-based 50-
state survey of state water managers and obtained responses from
47 states; California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate.
GAO also met with state water managers in seven geographically
dispersed states--Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and Washington. GAO's complete scope and methodology is
described in chapter 1.
Background:
Freshwater flows abundantly in the nation's lakes, rivers, streams, and
underground aquifers. However, because of climatic conditions and other
factors, water is not always available when and where it is needed or
in the amount desired. Users with different interests and objectives,
such as agricultural irrigation or municipal water supply, must share
the available water, and users may not always get the amount of water
they need or want, particularly in times of shortage. Competition for
water and the potential for conflict grow as the number of users
increases and/or the amount of available water decreases, and conflicts
can extend across state or national borders.
Federal, state, local, tribal, and private interests share
responsibility for developing and managing the nation's water resources
within a complex web of federal and state laws, regulations and
contractual obligations. State laws predominantly govern the allocation
and use of water. The federal government has recognized the primacy
of states' laws regarding water allocation and use in numerous acts,
such as the Reclamation Act and the Clean Water Act, and the Supreme
Court has ruled that states' laws govern the control, appropriation,
use, and distribution of federal reclamation project water.
Federal agencies engage in five basic categories of activities that
influence state water resource management decisions:
* Constructing, operating and maintaining water storage infrastructure,
primarily through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Department of the Interior's (Interior) Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation).
* Collecting and disseminating data on water availability and use,
primarily through Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
* Administering clean water and wildlife protection laws, primarily
through agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Commerce's (Commerce) National Marine Fisheries Service,
and Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
* Assisting in the development and implementation of water management
compacts and treaties, often involving multiple federal agencies.
* Managing water resources on federal lands by, for example, Interior's
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Forest Service, and protecting tribal water rights by Interior's
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Results in Brief:
The last comprehensive national water availability and use assessment,
completed 25 years ago, identified critical problems, such as shortages
and conflicts among users. Future water availability and use is
difficult to predict. For example, while USDA's 1999 forecast of future
water use--not availability--projects a rise in total withdrawals of
only 7 percent by 2040, it also warns of the tenuous nature of such
projections. If the most important and uncertain assumptions used in
USDA's projection, such as a decrease in irrigated acreage, fail to
materialize, water use may be substantially above the estimate. Current
trends indicate that demands on the nation's water resources are
growing. While the nation's capacity for storing surface-water is
limited and ground-water is being depleted, demands for freshwater are
growing as the population increases, and pressures increase to keep
water instream for fisheries, wildlife habitat, recreation, and scenic
enjoyment. For example, ground-water supplies have been significantly
depleted in many parts of the country, most notably in the High Plains
aquifer underlying eight western states, which in some areas now holds
less than half of the water held prior to commencement of ground-water
pumping. Meanwhile, according to Bureau of the Census projections, the
southwestern states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and
Nevada, states that are already taxing their current water supplies,
are each expected to see their population increase by more than
50 percent from 1995 to 2025. Furthermore, the potential effects of
climate change create additional uncertainty about future water
availability and use. For example, less snow pack as a result of
climate change could harm states that rely extensively on melted snow
runoff for their freshwater supply.
State water managers expect freshwater shortages in the near future,
and their consequences could be severe. According to the results of
GAO's survey, even under normal water conditions, water managers in
36 states anticipate water shortages in localities, regions, or
statewide within the next 10 years. Under drought conditions, 46
managers expect shortages in the next 10 years. Such shortages may be
accompanied by severe economic, environmental, and social impacts.
While no studies have measured the total economic impact of shortages,
recent shortages have resulted in damages to specific segments of the
economy. For example, in the summer of 1998, a drought that ranged from
Texas to the Carolinas resulted in an estimated $6 to $9 billion in
losses to the agriculture and ranching sectors. Water shortages can
also result in environmental losses: damages to plant and animal
species, wildlife habitat, and water quality. For example, diminished
flows into the Florida Everglades have resulted in significantly
reduced habitat for the wildlife population and a 90 percent reduction
in the population of wading birds. Water shortages can also raise
social concerns, such as conflicts between water users, reduced quality
of life, and give rise to the perception of inequities in the
distribution of disaster relief assistance. Many of these impacts are
evident in the federally-operated Klamath Project--dams, reservoirs,
and associated facilities--that sits on the California-Oregon border.
Here, under drought conditions, several federal agencies--including
Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service--are trying to balance the water needs of, among
others, irrigators, who receive water from the project, and endangered
fish, which must have sufficient water to survive. In 2002, thousands
of fish died while water was delivered for agricultural irrigation; the
prior year, farmers experienced crop losses while water was used to
maintain stream flows for fish.
In responding to our Web-based survey, state water managers identified
the potential federal actions that would most help them meet
their states' water needs. Water managers from 47 states ranked their
preferences within each of the five basic categories of federal
activities. First, state water managers favored more federal financial
assistance to plan and construct additional state water storage and
distribution capacity and also favored more consultation with
the states regarding the operation of federal storage facilities.
Second, state managers favored having federal agencies collect water
data in more locations to help them determine how much water is
available. Third, state managers favored federal efforts to provide
flexibility in how they comply with or administer federal environmental
laws as well as consultation on these laws' development, revision, and
implementation. Fourth, state managers favored improving coordination
of federal agencies' participation with the states in water management
agreements and increasing technical assistance to states in developing
and implementing them. Finally, state managers favored more
consultation with states on how federal agencies or tribal governments
use their water rights, and increased financial and technical
assistance to determine the amount of federal water rights. Federal
officials identified current activities within each of these areas that
support state efforts and explained that while some state preferences,
such as funding for storage construction, would require congressional
authorization, others can be addressed through ongoing efforts to
enhance communication and cooperation. Appendix I contains the results
of the survey.
Principal Findings:
Water Availability and Use Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting
Future Needs:
The U.S. Water Resources Council completed the most recent,
comprehensive, national water availability and use assessment in
1978.[Footnote 1] That assessment found that parts of the nation had
inadequate water supplies and growing demand, resulting in water
shortages and conflicts among users. The most recent forecast of future
water use--but not availability--is USDA's 1999 estimate for 2040. This
forecast projects a rise in total withdrawals of only 7 percent despite
a 41-percent increase in the nation's population. Yet the forecast also
warns of the tenuous nature of such projections. For example, if the
most important and uncertain assumptions used in USDA's projection,
such as irrigated acreage, fail to decrease as assumed, water use may
be substantially above the estimate.
Current trends--such as declining ground-water levels and increasing
population--indicate that the freshwater supply is reaching its limits
in some locations while freshwater demand is increasing. Specifically,
the building of new, large reservoir projects has tapered off, limiting
the amount of surface-water storage, and the storage that exists is
threatened by age and sedimentation. Significant ground-water depletion
has already occurred in many areas of the country; in some cases the
depletion has permanently reduced an aquifer's storage capacity or
allowed saltwater to intrude into freshwater sources. Tremendous
population growth, driving increases in the use of the public water
supply, is anticipated in the Western and Southern states, areas that
are already taxing existing supplies. Demand to leave water in streams
for environmental, recreational and water quality purposes add to
supply concerns. Finally, some experts expect that climate change will
affect water supply conditions in all regions of the country, either
through increased demands associated with higher temperatures or
changes in supply because of new precipitation or runoff patterns.
State Water Managers Expect Freshwater Shortages in the Near Future,
Which May Have Severe Consequences:
Under normal water conditions, state water managers in 36 states
anticipate water shortages locally, regionally, or statewide within the
next 10 years, according to GAO's survey. Under drought conditions, the
number grows to 46. Water managers expect these shortages because of
depleted ground-water, inadequate access to surface-water, and growing
populations, among other conditions, and despite ongoing actions to
address their current and future water needs, such as: planning to
prepare for and respond to droughts; assessing and monitoring water
availability and withdrawals; and implementing water management
strategies, such as joint management of surface and ground-water
resources. In addition, water managers are reducing or reallocating
water use, and developing or enhancing supplies by increasing water
storage capacity, or less conventionally, seeding clouds to increase
winter precipitation and developing saltwater desalination operations
to produce freshwater.
If the anticipated water shortages actually occur, they could have
severe economic, environmental and social impacts. The nationwide
economic costs of water shortages are not known because the costs of
shortages are difficult to measure. However, Commerce's National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has identified eight water
shortages from drought or heat waves, each resulting in $1 billion or
more in monetary losses over the past 20 years. For example, the
largest shortage resulted in an estimated $40 billion in damages to the
economies of the Central and Eastern United States in the summer of
1988. Water shortages can also have environmental impacts, damaging
plant and animal species, wildlife habitat, and water quality. The
Florida Everglades experience illustrates how dramatically reduced
water flows can alter an ecological system. In 1948, following a major
drought and heavy flooding, the Congress authorized the Central and
Southern Florida Project--an extensive system of over 1,700 miles of
canals and levees and 16 major pump stations--to prevent flooding,
provide drainage, and supply water to South Florida residents. This re-
engineering of the natural hydrologic environment reduced the
Everglades to about half its original size and resulted in losses of
native wildlife species and their critical habitat. In social terms,
water shortages can create conflicts between water users, reduce
quality of life, and create perceptions of inequities in the
distribution of impacts and disaster relief. Federal experiences in
operating the Klamath Project on the California-Oregon border,
illustrate the conflicts that can arise when shortages occur. Farmers
who rely on irrigation water from the project claim that Reclamation's
attempts in 2001 to manage water for fish survival resulted in crop
losses, while environmentalist, fishermen, and tribal representatives
claim that subsequent actions by Reclamation in 2002 to provide water
for farmers resulted in low river flows, contributing to the death of
more than 30,000 fish. As a result, litigation over river flows is
ongoing, and federal and state legislation has been enacted to address
the financial damages of the various parties.
State Water Managers Identified Potential Federal Actions to Help Them
Meet Future Challenges:
To identify potential federal actions to help states address their
water challenges, GAO sought the views and suggestions of state water
managers. Water managers from 47 states ranked actions federal agencies
could take within five basic categories of federal activities:
* Planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining water storage and
distribution facilities. State water managers reported their highest
priority was more federal financial assistance to plan and construct
their state's freshwater storage and distribution systems and also
favored having more input in federal facilities operations.
For example, over the next 10 years, 26 states are likely to add
storage capacity, and 18 are likely to add distribution capacity.
Consequently, water managers in 22 states said that more federal
financial assistance would be most useful in helping their state meet
its water storage and distribution needs. Reclamation and Corps
officials understand the states' need for financial assistance for
storage and distribution projects, and provide financial assistance on
a project-by-project basis, as Congress authorizes and appropriates
funds.
* Collecting and sharing water data. According to 37 states, federal
agencies' data are important to their ability to determine the amount
of available water. Managers in 39 states ranked expanding the number
of federal data collection points, such as streamgage sites, as the
most useful federal action to help their state meet its water
information needs. Officials at USGS, USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and Commerce's National Weather Service have
ongoing efforts and/or plans to expand or improve their data collection
programs.
* Administering federal environmental protection laws. According to
23 state water managers, more flexibility in how they comply with or
administer federal environmental laws would help states meet their
obligations under the laws while also meeting their water management
goals. The managers cited instances in which they believed that federal
environmental laws had restricted the state's ability to develop new
storage capacity, distribute water, or meet the needs of offstream
users. Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service said they
try to accommodate state concerns about federal environmental laws, but
were obligated to ensure that the laws are complied with and
administered as Congress intended. However, they also stated that
their agencies use the flexibility they have under current law to help
the states administer or comply with federal environmental laws.
* Participating in water-management agreements. In the 29 states that
participate in an interstate or international water-management
agreement, state water managers ranked better coordination of federal
agencies' participation in the agreements as the most useful among
potential federal actions to help states develop, enforce, and
implement such agreements. Seven of these managers said that federal
agencies had not fulfilled their responsibilities under interstate or
international agreements during the last 5 years. In these cases, the
managers pointed out that lack of coordinated federal actions--such as
the failure to establish federal priorities in a river basin--have
created uncertainty for state participants in water-management
agreements. Reclamation and Corps officials stated that in most cases
they have fulfilled their responsibilities under water-management
agreements, but occasionally circumstances outside their control, such
as funding, prevent them from carrying out these responsibilities.
Nevertheless, these officials stated, their participation in water-
management agreements could be improved through their ongoing efforts
to enhance coordination and communication with states and other water
resource stakeholders, thus assisting in the implementation of water-
management agreements.
* Managing water rights for federal and tribal lands. Of the 31 state
managers reporting that federal agencies or tribal governments claim or
hold water rights (either state granted or federal reserved) in their
state, 12 reported that the most helpful potential federal action would
be to consult more with the states on federal or tribal use of these
rights, and 16 indicated that their state had experienced a conflict
within the last 5 years between a federal agency's use of its water
rights and the state's water management goals. For example, a federal
agency had challenged the state over ground-water rights the state had
issued to users because the withdrawals threatened federal surface-
water rights. Disputes related to a federal agency's use of state-
granted rights are typically heard in state water courts, where the
federal agency receives no preference over any other water right
holder.
While states have principal authority for water management, federal
activities and laws affect or influence virtually every water
management activity undertaken by states. Although the state managers
value the many contributions of federal agencies to their efforts to
ensure adequate water supplies, they also indicate that federal
activities could better support their efforts in a number of areas. The
information we collected from state water managers should be useful to
the federal agencies in determining how their activities affect states
and how they can be more supportive of state efforts to meet their
future water needs. While we are not making a specific recommendation,
we encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security,
Interior, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency officials to
review the results of our state survey and consider modifications to
their plans, policies, or activities as appropriate to better support
state efforts to meet their future water needs.
Appendix I contains the full survey results.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Interior; the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Department of the Interior concurred with our findings and provided
technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Interior's complete letter is in appendix II. The other departments and
agencies concurred with our findings and provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. They did not
provide formal, written comments.
[End of section]
Chapter 1: Introduction:
Freshwater flows abundantly through the nation's lakes, rivers, streams
and underground aquifers. Nature regularly renews this precious
resource, but users do not always have access to freshwater when and
where they need it, and in the amount they need. To make more water
available and usable throughout the United States, federal agencies
have built massive water storage projects and engage in other water
development, management, and regulatory activities. Federal agencies
have control over water use in some cases, such as on federal lands or
in interstate commerce, but state laws predominantly govern water
allocation and use.
Water Is an Abundant and Renewable Resource but Not Always
Readily Available:
Water is one of the earth's most abundant resources--covering about
70 percent of the earth's surface. However, accessible freshwater makes
up less than 1 percent of the earth's water. As shown in figure 1,
about 97 percent of the water on the planet is in the oceans and too
salty to drink or to use to grow crops. Another 2 percent is locked
away in glaciers and icecaps, virtually inaccessible for human use.
Figure 1: Water Sources, Volumes, and Percentages of Total Water:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Water is also a renewable resource--the water that was here a million
years ago is still here today, continuously moving back and forth
between the earth's surface and atmosphere through the hydrologic
cycle, as figure 2 shows. In this cycle, evaporation occurs when the
sun heats water in rivers, lakes, or the oceans, turning it into vapor
or steam that enters the atmosphere and forms clouds. The evaporative
process removes salts and other impurities that may be picked up either
naturally or as a result of human use. When the water returns to earth
as rain, it runs into streams, rivers, lakes, and finally the ocean.
Some of the rain soaks below the earth's surface into aquifers composed
of water-saturated permeable material such as sand, gravel, and soil,
where it is stored as ground-water. When water returns to earth from
the atmosphere as snow, it usually remains atop the ground until it
melts, and then it follows the same path as rain. Some snow may turn
into ice and glaciers, which can hold the water for hundreds of years
before melting. The replenishment rates for these sources vary
considerably--water in rivers is completely renewed every 16 days on
average, but the renewal periods for glaciers, ground-water, and the
largest lakes can run to hundreds or thousands of years.
Figure 2: The Hydrologic Cycle:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The United States has plentiful water resources. Rainfall averages
nearly 30 inches annually, or 4,200 billion gallons per day throughout
the continental 48 states. Two-thirds of the rainfall rapidly
evaporates back to the atmosphere, but the remaining one-third flows
into the nation's lakes, rivers, aquifers, and eventually to the ocean.
These flows provide a potential renewable supply of about 1,400 billion
gallons per day, or about 14 times the U. S. Geological Survey's (USGS)
most recent estimate of daily consumptive use--the amount of water
withdrawn from, but not immediately returned to, a usable water
source.[Footnote 2] Much larger quantities of freshwater are stored in
the nation's surface and ground-water reservoirs. Reservoirs created by
the damming of rivers can store about 280,000 billion gallons of water,
lakes can hold larger quantities, and aquifers within 2,500 feet of the
earth's surface hold water estimated to be at least 100 times reservoir
capacity.
Despite the abundance and renewability of the water supply, variability
in the hydrologic cycle creates uncertainty in the timing, location and
reliability of supplies. For example, while rainfall averages 30 inches
annually nationwide, the average for specific areas of the country
generally increases from west to east, from less than 1 inch in some
desert areas in the Southwest to more than 60 inches in parts of the
Southeast. Drought and flood are a normal, recurring part of the
hydrologic cycle. Meteorological droughts, identified by a lack of
measured precipitation, are difficult to predict and can
last months, years, or decades.[Footnote 3] As shown in figure 3, at
least some part of the United States has experienced severe or extreme
drought conditions every year since 1896. Therefore, regions will
encounter periods when supplies are relatively plentiful, or even
excessive, as well as periods of shortage or extreme drought.
Figure 3: Percent Time in Severe and Extreme Drought Nationwide,
1895 to 1995:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The variability in water availability was evident during 2002, when the
United States had warmer than normal temperatures and below-average
precipitation, which led to persistent or worsening drought throughout
much of the nation. As the year began, moderate to extreme drought
covered one-third of the nation and expanded to cover more than half of
the nation during the summer, as shown in figure 4. Subsequently, heavy
rainfall during July in Texas alleviated some of the drought conditions
but led to widespread flooding. In addition, above average rainfall
from September through November brought significant drought relief to
the Southeast, where more than 4 years of drought had affected much of
the region from Georgia to Virginia. However, severe drought conditions
persisted over most of the interior Western states and the central and
northern plains, with abnormal dryness across the Midwest through the
end of the year.
Figure 4: Drought Conditions across the Nation as of July 23, 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Water resource issues tend to be local or regional. Water flows
naturally within river basins. USGS recognizes 352 river-basins in the
United States that typically encompass 5,000 to 20,000 square miles.
However, even within river basins, the availability of water resources
varies. Sharing the water within basins is usually possible, but poses
challenges because water ignores jurisdictional boundaries and these
jurisdictions may have competing interests. Therefore, distributing
water from where it is to where it is needed may require the
coordination of local, regional, state, federal, and even
foreign interests.
Transferring water from one basin to another is even more complicated,
since water generally cannot be moved between basins unless transfer
facilities (i.e., canals, pipelines, and pumps) are constructed.
Moreover, in most cases, river basin boundaries do not coincide with
those of major underground aquifer systems. For this reason, numerous
entities are involved in the many aspects of water resource planning,
management, regulation, and development, and solutions to water-
management problems are often not easily found.
The Federal Government Has Authority to Manage Water Resources
but Recognizes State Authorities:
The federal government has authority to manage water resources, but it
recognizes the states' authority to allocate and use water within their
jurisdictions. Federal authority is derived from several constitutional
sources, among them the Commerce Clause[Footnote 4] and the Property
Clause.[Footnote 5] The Commerce Clause permits federal regulation of
water that may be involved in or may affect interstate
commerce,[Footnote 6] including efforts to preserve the navigability of
waterways.[Footnote 7] The Property Clause permits federal regulation
of water as necessary for the beneficial use of federal
property.[Footnote 8] In addition,
under the Compact Clause of the Constitution, states cannot enter into
agreements, or compacts, with each other--including those for the
management of interstate waters--without the consent
of Congress.[Footnote 9]
Federal laws often require federal agencies engaged in water resource
management activities to defer to state laws or cooperate with state
officials in implementing federal laws. For example, under the
Reclamation Act, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), within the
Department of the Interior, must defer to and comply with state laws
governing the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water
unless applying the state's law would be inconsistent with an explicit
congressional directive regarding the project.[Footnote 10] Similarly,
the Water Supply Act of 1958 recognizes nonfederal interests in water
supply development. The act states:
"It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the
primary responsibilities of the States and local interests in
developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and
other purposes and that the Federal Government should participate and
cooperate with States and local interests in developing such water
supplies in connection with—Federal navigation, flood control,
irrigation, or multiple purpose projects."[Footnote 11]
Other federal laws have affirmed this recognition.[Footnote 12]
Consequently, federal agencies have traditionally followed a policy of
deferring to the states for managing and allocating water resources.
Officials of federal agencies involved in water resources management
recently reiterated that their role is providing assistance while
recognizing state primacy for water allocation. For example, in
November 2001 testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
stated:
"I want to emphasize that Corps involvement in water supply is founded
in deference to state water rights. During the enactment of the Flood
Control Act of 1944, Congress made clear that we do not own the water
stored in our projects—Our policy is to continue our commitment to
consistency with state water law—we must respect the primacy of state
water law.":
The Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation echoed this approach
in his testimony at the same hearing, stating that it is important to
emphasize the primary responsibility of local water users in developing
and financing water projects, with Reclamation playing the important
roles of maintaining infrastructure and applying expertise to help
locals meet water needs. Specifically addressing Western water
challenges in August 2002, he stated:
"As in the past, Reclamation will continue to honor State water
rights—working with the states, our partners and all water users to
leverage resources, to work at collaborative problem solving and to
develop long-term solutions.":
State Laws Governing Water Allocation and Use Generally Follow Two
Basic Doctrines:
The variety of state water laws relating to the allocation and use of
water can generally be traced to two basic doctrines: the riparian
doctrine and the prior appropriation doctrine. Under the riparian
doctrine, water rights are linked to land ownership--owners of land
bordering a waterway have a right to use the water that flows past the
land for any reasonable purpose. Landowners may, at any time, use water
flowing past the land even if they have never done so before; all
landowners have an equal right to use the water and no one gains a
greater right through prior use. In contrast, the prior appropriation
doctrine does not link water rights with land ownership. Water rights
are instead linked to priority and beneficial water use--parties who
obtain water rights first generally have seniority for the use of water
over those who obtain rights later, and rights holders must put the
water to beneficial use or abandon their right to use the water. Simply
put, "first in time, first in right" and "use it or lose it." When
there is a water shortage, under the riparian doctrine all water users
share the shortage in proportion to their rights, while under the prior
appropriation doctrine, shortages fall on those who last obtained a
legal right to use the water.
For managing surface-water allocation and use, Eastern states generally
adhere to riparian doctrine principles and Western states generally
adhere to prior appropriation doctrine principles. We obtained
information on the water management doctrines of 47 states from our 50-
state Web-based survey of state water managers. As shown in figure 5,
16 states follow either common-law riparian or regulated riparian
(state permitted) doctrine, 15 states follow prior appropriation
doctrine, 13 states follow other doctrines, and 2 states do not
regulate surface-water allocation.[Footnote 13]
Figure 5: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface-Water Allocation:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Special rules apply to allocating ground-water rights, but most state
approaches reflect the principals of prior appropriation or riparian
doctrines, with some modifications that recognize the unique nature of
ground-water. As shown in figure 6, 18 states follow the riparian-
derived doctrine of reasonable use; 12 states follow the prior
appropriation doctrine; 13 states follow other approaches, such as
granting rights to water beneath property to the landowners (absolute
ownership) or dividing rights among landowners based on acreage
(correlative rights); and 3 states do not regulate ground-water
allocation.[Footnote 14]
Figure 6: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Ground-Water Allocation:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Multiple Federal Agencies Have Water Management Responsibilities:
Many federal agencies play a role in managing the nation's freshwater
resources, as shown in figure 7. They build, operate and maintain large
storage and distribution facilities; collect and share water
availability and use data; administer clean water and environmental
protection laws; assist in developing and implementing water-management
agreements and treaties; and act as trustees for federal and tribal
water rights. In performing these activities, each federal agency
attempts to coordinate with other federal agencies and state water
managers and users.
Figure 7: Overview of Federal Activities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers Manage Large Water
Storage Facilities:
Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers construct, operate, and maintain
large facilities to store and manage untreated water, such as
Reclamation's Hoover Dam in Arizona and the Corps' Eufaula Lake in
Oklahoma (see fig. 8).[Footnote 15] While federal facilities compose
only about 5 percent of the estimated 80,000 dams in the nation, they
include many of the largest storage facilities, holding huge quantities
of water for a wide variety of purposes, such as irrigation, industrial
and municipal uses.[Footnote 16] Reclamation's water delivery
quantities are usually specified under long-term contracts at
subsidized prices, while the Corps provides water storage space in
reservoirs under long-term contracts.
Figure 8: Reclamation's Hoover Dam and the Corps' Eufaula Lake Water
Storage Facilities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Reclamation has constructed irrigation, water storage, and distribution
facilities throughout the 17 Western states. Today, these facilities
serve many additional purposes, including municipal and industrial
water supplies, power generation, recreation, and flood control.
Reclamation manages about 348 reservoirs, with a total storage capacity
of 245 million acre-feet of water, and approximately 250 diversion dams
that provide water to approximately 9 million acres of farmland and
nearly 31 million people.[Footnote 17] Reclamation also manages about
18,000 miles of water delivery facilities and operates a variety of
additional facilities, such as pumps and structures for fish passage,
to meet the needs of water users.
Reclamation no longer operates and maintains all of the facilities that
it has built. It has transferred operation and maintenance
responsibilities for many of the facilities it owns--primarily to
irrigation districts.[Footnote 18] Typically, Reclamation has retained
operation and maintenance responsibilities for water facilities that
are large, serve multiple purposes, or control water diversions across
state or international boundaries. Reclamation currently has only one
ongoing water storage or distribution construction project: the Animas-
La Plata project in Southwest Colorado and Northwest New Mexico, which
will store and deliver water to two Indian tribes and others for
irrigation, municipal and industrial uses.[Footnote 19] Congress has
authorized but not funded additional Reclamation water resources
projects, such as the Dixie Project in Utah, which was originally
authorized in 1964.
Through its Civil Works Program, the Corps constructed and now operates
and maintains water storage facilities across the nation.[Footnote 20]
Corps projects originally were intended to control floods and provide
for navigation, but Congress has since expanded the agency's mandate to
store water for some municipal, industrial, irrigation, recreation,
and/or hydropower uses. Today, the Corps manages 541 reservoirs with a
total storage capacity of 330 million acre-feet, of which about
15 percent is jointly used for irrigation and other purposes, and
another 3 percent for municipal and industrial uses. Although
municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply storage is a small
portion of total storage capacity, the Corps estimates that the
facilities supply water to nearly 10 million people in 115 cities. The
Corps has rarely undertaken construction of new water storage
facilities since the 1980s. In accordance with the 1986 Water Resources
Development Act, the Corps has transferred to non-federal interests the
operation and maintenance responsibilities for the one storage facility
it has constructed since 1986.
In addition to Reclamation and the Corps, federal agencies responsible
for managing natural resources--such as USDA's Forest Service, and
Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
National Park Service--also construct water facilities on their lands
to support their agencies' objectives, and authorize the construction
of facilities by other parties on their lands.[Footnote 21] Interior's
Bureau of Indian Affairs, acting as trustee for tribal interests,
authorizes similar facilities on tribal lands. The dams on these
federal or tribal lands are typically much smaller than those operated
by Reclamation and the Corps; many are not inventoried unless they meet
certain size or hazard criteria. More specifically:
* Forest Service lands contain about 2,350 inventoried dams to provide
water for many purposes such as fire suppression, livestock,
recreation, and fish habitat;
* Bureau of Land Management lands contain about 1,160 dams, primarily
providing water for livestock and wildlife;
* the Fish and Wildlife Service has an estimated 15,000 water storage
and distribution facilities, primarily to provide water for fisheries
as well as for waterfowl and migratory bird habitat;
* the National Park Service has 451 dams within its boundaries to
manage water for habitat, fire suppression, flood control and
recreation; and:
* the Bureau of Indian Affairs owns an estimated 500 to 1,000 dams that
control flood and erosion and manage water for irrigation, flood
control, stockwater, and recreation.
Several Agencies Collect and Share Water Data:
Several federal agencies collect and distribute information on water
availability and use including surface-water, ground-water, rainfall,
and snowpack. Interior's USGS is primarily responsible for collecting,
analyzing, and sharing data on water availability and use. It collects,
analyzes, and shares information on surface-water availability,
ground-water availability, and water use through four programs:
* The National Streamflow Information Program collects surface-water
availability data through its national streamgage network, which
continuously measures the level and flow of rivers and streams at
7,000 stations nationwide, as shown in figure 9, for distribution on
the Internet.
* The Ground-Water Resources Program collects information from about
600 continuous ground-water-monitoring stations in 39 states and
Puerto Rico for distribution on the Internet. In addition, the agency
manually collects ground-water data intermittently in thousands of
locations; compiling and reporting this data can take months.
* The National Water Use Information Program compiles extensive
national water use data collected from states every 5 years for the
purpose of establishing long-term water use trends.
* The Cooperative Water Program is a collaborative program with states
and other entities to collect and share surface and ground-water data.
Figure 9: USGS' Nationwide Streamgage Network:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Commerce's National Weather Service and USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service combine their data, together with USGS streamgage
data, to forecast water supplies and floods. They post water supply
forecasts twice a month on the Internet, and they provide daily, and
sometimes hourly, flood forecast information to water storage facility
management agencies and other interested parties through arranged
communication channels. The National Weather Service measures rainfall
with over 10,000 gages nationwide, providing data for weather and
climate forecasts; it also collects snowfall data in cities and rural
areas. The Natural Resources Conservation Service operates 670
automated, high-elevation snow and climate measurement sites in
12 states; these sites use advanced radio technology to report data on
the Internet about once each day. The agency also periodically conducts
manual surveys at about 1,000 other stations; it supplies data from
these sites to federal and non-federal water managers who request it.
Federal agencies often collect water data or conduct water resources
research in support of their own responsibilities. For example, both
the National Park Service and the Forest Service collect streamflow
data to supplement USGS' streamgage information; the Bureau of Indian
Affairs conducts some research on water availability on tribal lands as
a part of the agency's trust responsibilities to tribes; Reclamation
and the Corps collect data on reservoir levels and water flows through
their facilities; and Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service conduct and
fund water quantity and quality research.
Several Agencies Administer Clean Water and Environmental
Protection Laws:
Several federal agencies administer clean water and environmental
protection laws that affect water resource management. The
Environmental Protection Agency administers the Clean Water Act, as
amended--the nation's principal federal law regulating surface-water
quality. States and localities play a significant role in its
implementation. Under the act, among other things, municipal or
industrial parties that discharge pollutants must meet the regulatory
requirements for pollution control.[Footnote 22] The Environmental
Protection Agency administers a permit system that requires control of
discharges to meet technology and/or water quality based requirements.
In addition, the act requires parties that dispose of dredge or fill
material in the nation's waters, including wetlands, to obtain a permit
from the Corps.[Footnote 23] Furthermore, the act requires states to
develop and implement programs to control non-point sources of
pollution, which include run off from chemicals used in agriculture and
from urban areas.[Footnote 24] The Clean Water Act can affect available
water supplies, for example, by reducing offstream use or return flows
to address water quality concerns.
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service are responsible for administering the Endangered
Species Act. This act requires federal agencies to ensure that any
action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any listed species of plant or animal or
adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.[Footnote 25]
The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for administering the act
for land and freshwater species, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service is responsible for marine species, including Pacific salmon,
which spend part of their lifespans in freshwater. To implement the
act, the agencies identify endangered or threatened species and their
critical habitats, develop and implement recovery plans for those
species, and consult with other federal agencies on the impact that
their proposed activities may have on those species. If the Fish and
Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service finds that an
agency's proposed activity will jeopardize an endangered or threatened
species, then a "reasonable and prudent alternative" must be identified
to ensure the species is not jeopardized.[Footnote 26] Numerous
endangered species rely on the nation's waters, as shown in figure 10.
The Endangered Species Act can affect water management activities, for
example, by necessitating certain stream flow levels to avoid
jeopardizing listed species or critical habitat.
Figure 10: Number of Listed Threatened and Endangered Species by State,
as of March 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Agencies Help Develop and Implement Water-Management Agreements:
States enter into agreements--interstate compacts--to address water
allocation, quality, and other issues on rivers and lakes that cross
state borders. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, at least
26 interstate compacts address river water allocation between two or
more states; 7 address water pollution issues; and 7 address general
water resource issues, including flood control. Federal agencies may
assist in developing and implementing these compacts, provide technical
assistance, participate in and consult with oversight bodies, develop
river operating plans, act as stewards of tribal and public natural
resources, and enforce compacts. For example, the Supreme Court
appointed the Secretary of Interior as the River Master responsible for
implementing the water allocation formula of the 1922 Colorado River
Compact. Under the compact, the states of the Upper Colorado River
Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), as shown in figure 11,
are required to deliver to the states of the Lower Basin (Arizona,
California, and Nevada) a minimum of 75 million acre-feet of water over
10-year periods.
Figure 11: Colorado River Basin Crosses Seven State Borders:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Through international treaties with Canada and Mexico, the
United States can coordinate activities such as water allocation, flood
control, water quality, and power generation activities, as well as
resolve water related disputes along the nations' international
borders. The 1909 Boundary Water Treaty established the International
Joint Commission of the United States and Canada, and the 1944 Water
Treaty with Mexico provided the International Boundary and Water
Commission with the authority to carry out the treaty. These bi-
national commissions help the member nations coordinate water
management activities, monitor water resources, and resolve disputes.
For example, the International Boundary Water Commission recently
facilitated an agreement between Mexico and the United States regarding
Mexico's water debt under the treaty.
Agencies Are Responsible for Federal and Tribal Water Rights:
Numerous federal natural resources management agencies and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs are trustees for the water rights of federal and
tribal lands. The states grant the great majority of water rights to
these agencies, but the agencies also have federal reserved rights. The
federal government has reserved water rights to fulfill the purposes of
federal lands such as national forests, national parks, and wildlife
refuges and for tribal lands. Federal lands account for 655 million
acres, or 29 percent, of U.S. lands, primarily in the Western states as
shown in figure 12.
Figure 12: Federal and Tribal Lands in the United States:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The exact number and amount of federal reserved rights are not known.
However, Bureau of Land Management officials estimate that 20 percent
of the agency's water rights are federally reserved, largely for
underground springs. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that it
has very few federally reserved rights: almost all water rights for
their activities are state granted. A Forest Service official estimated
that half of the service's water rights are federally reserved. The
National Park Service relies on both federal reserved and state granted
rights, depending on the specific park circumstances.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs, as trustee for tribal resources in the
United States, has the primary statutory responsibility for protecting
tribal water rights. The Supreme Court has found that water rights in a
quantity sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the reservations are
implied when the United States establishes reservation lands for a
tribe.[Footnote 27] Tribes typically use water rights to ensure water
is available for irrigation, hydropower, domestic use, stockwatering,
industrial development and the maintenance of instream flows for
rivers.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To assist congressional deliberations on freshwater supply issues, we
identified (1) the current conditions and future trends for U.S. water
availability and use, (2) the likelihood of shortages and their
potential consequences, and (3) state views on how federal activities
could better support state water management efforts to meet
future demands.
To identify the current conditions and future trends for U.S. water
availability and use, we met with federal officials and collected and
analyzed documentation from Reclamation, USGS, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish
and Wildlife Services within the Department of the Interior; the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, Rural Utilities
Service, Agriculture Research Service, Economic Research Service, and
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service within
the Department of Agriculture; the National Weather Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service within the Department of Commerce;
the Army Corps of Engineers within the Department of Defense; the
Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland
Security; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. Although rising demands and environmental
pressures have encouraged discussions of market based solutions, we
assumed a continuation of current pricing and quantity allocation
practices in our discussion of supply and demand trends and
water shortages.
We analyzed the reports of past federal water commissions, including
the U.S. Water Resources Council, National Water Commission, and the
Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, and nonfederal
organizations, such as the Western States Water Council and American
Water Works Association. We also analyzed National Research Council,
Congressional Research Service, and our own reports.
To determine the likelihood of shortages and their potential
consequences, we analyzed water shortage impact information from the
National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Climatic Data Center, and from the states. We did not assess the
accuracy of the various estimates of the economic impacts of water
shortages. We obtained information from Congressional Research Service
reports, our own reports, and analyzed media accounts of water
shortages. We obtained the views of state water managers regarding the
likelihood of water shortages using a Web-based survey of managers in
the 50 states.
To obtain states' views on how federal activities could better support
state water management efforts to meet future demands, we conducted a
Web-based survey of state water managers in the 50 states. We developed
the survey questions by reviewing documents and by talking with
officials from the federal agencies listed above and the state water
managers in three state offices--Arizona, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
The questionnaire contained 56 questions that asked about state water
management; collection and dissemination of state water quantity data
by federal agencies; federal water storage and conveyance within their
state; the effects of federal environmental laws on state water
management; the effects of interstate compacts and international
treaties on state water management; and the effects of federal and
tribal rights to water on state water management.
We pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with state
water managers in Georgia, Florida, Virginia, and Washington. During
the pretest we asked the state managers questions to determine whether
(1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise,
(3) the questionnaire placed an undue burden on the respondents,
and (4) the questions were unbiased. We also assessed the usability of
the Web-based format. We made changes to the content and format of the
final questionnaire based on pretest results.
We posted the questionnaire on GAO's survey Web site. State water
managers were notified of the survey with an E-mail message sent before
the survey was available. When the survey was activated, an E-mail
message informed the state water managers of its availability and
provided a link that respondents could click on to access the survey.
This E-mail message also contained a unique user name and password that
allowed each respondent to log on and fill out their own questionnaire.
To maximize our response rate we sent reminder E-mails, contacted
non-respondents by telephone, and mailed follow-up letters
to non-respondents.
Questionnaires were completed by state water officials in 47 states
(California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate) for a
response rate of 94 percent. We performed analyses to identify
inconsistencies and potential errors in the data and contacted
respondents via telephone and E-mail to resolve these discrepancies. We
did not conduct in-depth assessments of the state water official's
responses. A technical specialist reviewed all computer programs for
analyses of the survey data. Aggregated responses of the survey are in
appendix I.
We conducted our work from March 2002 through May 2003 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Chapter 2: Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast,
but Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs:
No federal entity has comprehensively assessed the availability and use
of freshwater to meet the nation's needs in 25 years. While forecasting
water use is notoriously difficult, numerous signs indicate that our
freshwater supply is reaching its limits. Surface-water storage
capacity is strained and ground-water is being depleted as demands for
freshwater increase because of population growth and pressures to keep
water instream for environmental protection purposes. The potential
effects of climate change create additional uncertainty about the
future availability and use of water.
National Water Availability and Use Has Not Been Assessed in Decades:
National water availability and use was last comprehensively assessed
in 1978.[Footnote 28] The U.S. Water Resources Council, established by
the Water Resources Planning Act in 1965,[Footnote 29] assessed the
status of the nation's water resources--both surface-water and ground-
water--and reported in 1968 and 1978 on their adequacy to meet present
and future water requirements. The 1978 assessment described how the
nation's freshwater resources were extensively developed to satisfy a
wide variety of users and how competition for water had created
critical problems, such as shortages resulting from poorly distributed
supplies and conflicts among users. The Council has not been funded
since 1983.
While water availability shortages have occurred as expected, total
water use actually declined nearly 9 percent between 1980 and 1995,
according to USGS. [Footnote 30] As figure 13 shows, after continual
increases in use from 1960 to 1980, total use began declining in 1980.
Figure 13: Trends in Water Withdrawals by Use Category, 1950-1995:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The reasons for the decrease in actual use illustrate why forecasting
water use is so difficult. According to USGS, most of the increase from
1950 to 1980 was due to expanded irrigation and hydropower generation.
In the 1980s, more efficient irrigation techniques, coupled with new
technologies that lowered industrial use, helped ease demand more than
anticipated and returned more water to the nation's waterways and
aquifers. Water use also declined because of enhanced public awareness
and many states' conservation programs. Only public supply and rural
use, driven by population growth and livestock needs, respectively,
continued to grow after 1980. Accordingly, a 1999 USDA study found that
past water use projections for 2000 show consistently large differences
among the forecasts and large discrepancies between projected and
actual water use (fig. 14).[Footnote 31] Key factors influencing some
of the excessive projections include overestimating population
increases, not accounting for technological advances, not anticipating
the introduction of environmental laws, and underestimating the impact
of conservation efforts.[Footnote 32]
Figure 14: Projections of United States Water Use for 2000:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The most recent water use--but not availability--forecast is the USDA's
1999 projection for 2040, which identifies a rise in total water use of
only 7 percent despite a 41-percent increase in the nation's
population. However, the agency includes a warning about the tenuous
nature of such projections. For example, irrigated acreage is one of
the most important yet uncertain assumptions in the projection. If
irrigated acreage does not drop in most Western river basins as
assumed, use may be substantially above the estimate. As such, there
are compelling reasons for concern regarding the future availability of
freshwater to meet the nation's growing demands.
Trends in Water Availability and Use Raise Concerns about the Nation's
Ability to Meet Future Needs:
While the nation does not have a current assessment of water
availability and use, current trends raise concerns about the nation's
ability to meet future needs. Numerous signs point to the danger that
our freshwater supply is reaching its limits. These indicators include
constraints on surface storage capacity and depletion of ground-water
resources at the same time as demands for freshwater are on the rise.
Increased demand comes from a growing population and pressures to keep
water instream for fisheries, wildlife habitat, recreation, and scenic
enjoyment. The potential effects of climate change create additional
uncertainty about future water availability and use.
Surface Storage Construction and Maintenance Is Declining:
The construction of large reservoirs in the United States has slowed
markedly since peaking during the 1960s, as shown in figure 15.
Reclamation has only one large water storage project underway--Animas-
La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico; the Corps has none. Furthermore,
because of the high cost and ecological impact of reservoirs and dams,
researchers and agency officials generally agree that it is unlikely
that the construction of such large-scale projects will be at the
forefront in meeting future water needs.
Figure 15: Number and Capacity of Large Reservoirs Completed by Decade:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Available evidence also indicates that existing reservoirs may not able
to continue storing water at current levels. Many of the federal and
nonfederal dams that support storage reservoirs are aging and in need
of repair. The American Society of Engineers has rated over 2,000 dams
as unsafe, and nearly 10,000 as having high hazard potential, according
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's fiscal year 2001-2002
report to Congress on the National Dam Safety Program. According to
Reclamation officials, approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams
were built before 1950, and many of these before the development of
current engineering standards. Reclamation recognizes that upgrading
and maintaining existing infrastructure is vital to ensuring dependable
supplies of water, and anticipates that future costs to rehabilitate
Reclamation's infrastructure will be substantial. The Corps estimates
it has a critical maintenance backlog of $884 million, largely for
dredging waterways and repairing structures such as locks, dams, and
breakwaters. While the direct impact on water supply is not clear,
extensive maintenance and repair will be needed in future years to
ensure the continued viability of the water management infrastructure.
Moreover, the amount of water available for use from these reservoirs
is continually being reduced by sedimentation--the flow of soil, rock
and other natural materials into reservoirs. Over time, sedimentation
can significantly reduce reservoir water storage capacities. According
to a 1995 Resources for the Future report,[Footnote 33] the total
reduction resulting from the buildup of sediment is estimated at about
1.5 million acre-feet per year. For example, USGS' reservoir
sedimentation studies in Kansas found that decreases in water-storage
capacity from sedimentation ranged from less than 5 percent to about
50 percent at various locations.
Ground-Water Is Being Depleted:
As shown in figure 16, ground-water is a major source of drinking water
in every state. It provides about 40 percent of the nation's public
water supply, and more than 40 million people--including 97 percent of
the rural population--supply their own drinking water from domestic
wells. Ground-water is also the source of about 37 percent of the water
used for irrigation and livestock, is a major contributor to flow in
many streams and rivers, and has a strong influence on river and
wetland habitats for plants and animals.
Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Population Using Ground-Water as
Drinking Water in 1995 by State:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Ground-water depletion is occurring across the nation. According to
USGS, ground-water depletion may be related to the slowed construction
of surface reservoirs in recent years--as surface-water resources
become fully developed and allocated, ground-water commonly offers the
only available source for new development. USGS has documented
significant ground-water depletion in particular areas of the
Southwest; the Sparta aquifer of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi;
the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer of the Chicago-Milwaukee area; and the
High Plains aquifer (consisting largely of the Ogallala aquifer). The
High Plains aquifer underlies a 174,000-square-mile region including
parts of eight states (Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming) and supplies about
30 percent of all ground-water used nationwide for irrigation.
Ongoing water-level monitoring in the High Plains aquifer provides a
well-documented example of the long-term depletion of ground-water
resources. Ongoing monitoring, initiated in 1988, found that the
intense use of ground-water has caused major declines in the water
level and reduced the ground-water remaining in storage in some areas
to a level that makes the aquifer no longer economical to use. As shown
in figure 17, the changes are particularly evident in the central and
southern High Plains, where more than half of the ground-water that was
available before pumping started has been depleted. Through 1999, an
estimated 220 million acre-feet have been removed from storage in the
aquifer--or more than half the volume of water in Lake Erie. Water
levels continue to decline in many areas of the aquifer, but the rate
of decline has slowed during the past 2 decades in some areas. The
decline is attributed to decreases in irrigated acreage, improvements
in irrigation and cultivation practices, and above-normal precipitation
and groundwater recharge during the period.
Figure 17: Changes in Ground-Water Levels in the High Plains Aquifer
from before Irrigation Pumping to 1999:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Ground-water depletion has, in some cases, resulted in land subsidence
and a permanent reduction of an aquifer's water storage capacity.
According to USGS, many areas across the United States have experienced
subsidence, a decline in land-surface elevation caused by the removal
of subsurface support through the withdrawal of ground-water.
Subsidence can severely damage structures such as wells, buildings, and
highways, and creates problems in the design and operation of
facilities for drainage, flood protection, and water distribution.
Furthermore, the compaction of aquifer materials that causes subsidence
can result in a permanent reduction of 10 to 30 percent of the storage
capacity of some aquifer systems. In the arid Southwest, subsidence
shows as deep fissures or "cracks" in the earth's surface, while in the
humid East, subsidence is evidenced by "sinkholes." Figure 18 shows a
sinkhole in west-central Florida caused by drilling for a new
irrigation well.
Figure 18: Sinkhole in West-Central Florida Caused by Development of a
New Irrigation Well:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
USGS has extensively examined land subsidence in south-central Arizona.
Ground-water pumping for agriculture in the aquifers serving the basins
of south-central Arizona began in the late 1800s, and by the 1940s many
of the basins had undergone intensive ground-water pumping. Ground-
water depletion has been widespread over these basins, as shown in
figure 19, and some water-level declines have exceeded 300 feet. These
declines have resulted in regional subsidence, exceeding 10 feet in
some areas.
Figure 19: Land Subsidence in South-Central Arizona:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Depleting aquifers in many coastal areas may also result in saltwater
intrusion, making the water unusable for drinking, irrigation, and
other purposes requiring freshwater. According to USGS, incidences of
saltwater intrusion have been documented in almost all coastal states,
especially along the Atlantic coast--affecting areas from Miami,
Florida, to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. In particular, saltwater intrusion
is occurring in:
* Florida, in the Jacksonville, Tampa, and Miami areas;
* Georgia and South Carolina, in the Brunswick and Savannah areas, and
on Hilton Head Island, respectively; and:
* New Jersey, in parts of Atlantic, Gloucester, Monmouth, Cape May,
Ocean, and Salem Counties.
The threat of saltwater intrusion is also present in much of the
interior of the country, where deep saline water underlies the
freshwater. For example, ground-water withdrawals from the alluvial
aquifer for irrigation near Brinkley, Arkansas, have caused upward
movement of saline water from the underlying Sparta aquifer into the
alluvial aquifer.
Projected Population Growth Will Increase Freshwater Demands:
The U.S. Bureau of the Census projects substantial population growth
by 2025 in areas of the nation where demand is already stressing the
water supply. This growth could threaten the water supply even further.
According to USGS, population growth drives increases in the use of the
public water supply.[Footnote 34] Indeed, public use increased by
4 percent while population increased by 7 percent from 1990 to 1995.
The difference in rates indicates the success of conservation in
lowering per-capita use, from 184 gallons per day in 1990 to 179
gallons per day 1995. Whether conservation will continue to lower per
capita use and at what rate is unknown.
According to the Bureau of the Census' 1997 projections, net population
change through 2025 will be most evident in three states--California,
Texas, and Florida--each of which is projected to gain more than
6 million persons.[Footnote 35] These three states will account for
45 percent of the net population change in the United States.
California, the most populous state, with 12 percent of the nation's
population in 1995, is expected to have 15 percent of the nation's
population by 2025. As shown in figure 20, Western and Southern states
will not only have the largest net growth but will also grow at the
fastest rates. California is expected to grow faster than any other
state after 2000, with an estimated 56-percent growth rate between 1995
and 2025.
Figure 20: States' Population Growth from 1995 to 2025:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Many of the states that are growing the most or at the fastest rates
are also those that are currently stressing freshwater supplies.
Figure 21 shows total freshwater use in the United States in 1995, by
county, in million gallons used per day, and illustrates that many of
the states that are expected to grow the most or the fastest--
California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and Texas--also
include significant areas that are already using water at among the
greatest daily rates in the nation. In some of these same areas of high
water use, the consumptive use of water nears or exceeds the renewable
water supply, indicating that all or most of the water that is
available is used. For example, according to USGS, in the Lower
Colorado River basin, covering most of Arizona and significant parts of
Nevada and New Mexico, the population consumed 10.6 billion gallons per
day, but the renewable supply is only 10.3 billion gallons per day.
Figure 21: Total Freshwater Withdrawals by County, 1995:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Western states are already experiencing the effects of this anticipated
growth. For example, due to ongoing population growth and the effects
of recent drought, several Colorado River basin states, such as New
Mexico and Arizona, are demanding that California, one of the biggest
users of Colorado River water, adhere to the 1922 Colorado River
Compact. For many years Southern California had been using Colorado
River water that was not used by the other states, and had come to rely
on this water to meet the demands of its users. After prolonged
negotiations, the California users, such as irrigation and municipal
water districts, could not agree on a plan to reduce their Colorado
River water use. As a result, Reclamation has begun limiting California
to its legal entitlement of 4.4 million acre feet of Colorado River
water annually. State users are continuing to discuss a potential
water-sharing agreement, and stored water is expected to prevent
immediate severe impacts. However, Southern California water users have
begun considering alternative supplies, such as obtaining water from
Northern California water right holders, storing water in surface
reservoirs and underground aquifers, and building desalination
facilities to turn ocean water into freshwater.
Based on recent media reports, many metropolitan areas in other parts
of the nation are also experiencing the impact of population growth on
water supply. For example:
* Atlanta, Georgia, the fourth fastest growing metropolitan area in the
United States from 1990 to 2000, is recovering from a prolonged
drought and is exploring ways to meet increased demand due to
population growth.
* Chicago, Illinois, the seventh fastest growing metropolitan area
between 1990 and 2000, has experienced significant ground-water
depletion.
* Tampa, Florida, another area experiencing high population
growth, began operating a new desalination plant in early 2003 to
produce 25 million gallons of drinking water daily. This technology is
seldom used in the United States owing to the relatively high cost of
desalting water.
* Denver, Colorado, officials have proposed strict water conservation
measures for 2003 because of anticipated water shortages; measures
include limits on landscape watering and the amount of grass that can
be planted at new homes.
* New York City's water supply reached its most worrisome levels in
more than 30 years during 2002, resulting in a drought emergency
declaration for the city and four upstate counties. More than 9 million
residents experienced water restrictions. The states of New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Maine, and New Hampshire also enacted water
restrictions.
Growing Demand to Leave Water Instream Affects Offstream Availability:
Over the past 30 years, the nation has increasingly emphasized
protecting the environment. Among other things, the public places
higher value on leaving water instream for endangered species,
recreation, and scenic enjoyment, which may limit the use of existing
water supplies and the development of new supplies. Federal laws such
as the Endangered Species Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
reflect these environmental values. However, when water is left
instream to protect wetlands, fisheries, and endangered species or to
preserve the wild and scenic status of a river, it cannot be
simultaneously available for traditional offstream uses such as
irrigation and municipal and industrial supply.
Under the Endangered Species Act, plants and animals may be listed as
threatened or endangered, depending on the risk of extinction. Once a
species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to help the
species recover and to protect its habitat. Implementation of the
Endangered Species Act resulted in immediate challenges for water
resource managers. For example, the Tellico Dam, on the Little
Tennessee River was already under construction when Congress enacted
the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Construction of the dam, which
provides flood control, hydropower and water supply, was challenged
under the act to prevent jeopardizing the endangered snail darter--a
species of fish. In 1979, Congress specifically exempted the project
from the Endangered Species Act, allowing the project to be
completed.[Footnote 36] Subsequently, the snail darter was found in
other locations and reclassified as threatened.
More recently, in the Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon
border, Reclamation's actions to comply with the Endangered Species Act
by leaving water instream resulted in losses to traditional offstream
users. After consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service about the operation of the Klamath
Project in 2001, an acute drought year, Reclamation allocated nearly
all the project water to the protection of endangered species in the
Klamath River (Coho salmon) and the reservoir (two species of sucker
fish). While this action met Reclamation's obligations under the
Endangered Species Act not to jeopardize any endangered species,
Reclamation could not then meet its contractual water delivery
obligations to irrigators, who consequently experienced crop losses.
The potential for future conflicts over the implementation of the
Endangered Species Act is strong as competition grows between instream
and offstream water demands.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides protection for a designated
river or segment by limiting the future licensing of dams, reservoirs
and other water projects on, or adversely affecting, protected
segments.[Footnote 37] Conflict can arise over how much water should
remain in rivers to maintain their wild and scenic values and over whom
should decide the proper amount of water. Environmentalists and boaters
may prefer high, strong flows in wild and scenic stretches, while
others stress the need for water to be available above and below wild
and scenic segments for farming and other economic development,
potentially reducing flows. For example, in August 2002, addressing the
issue of water in the Salmon River, the Idaho Supreme Court ordered
federal and state officials to participate in formal mediation, with
consultation from environmental, industry and local government
representatives, to determine the quantities of water to be legally
reserved for all six wild and scenic rivers in Idaho. The court ordered
the state and the Forest Service to reach a compromise on water
allocation; if they do not, the case will be returned to state water
court.
Climate Change Makes Future Supply and Demand Conditions Uncertain:
Uncertainties regarding potential reductions in water availability also
result from the natural variations of the hydrologic cycle and the
possibility that greenhouse gasses, such as man-made concentrations of
carbon dioxide and other gasses in the atmosphere, might warm the earth
and thereby alter the cycle. According to the U.S. Global Change
Research Program, composed of federal and nonfederal representatives,
water supply conditions in all regions of the United States are likely
to be affected by climate change in the future, either through
increased demands associated with higher temperatures or changes in
supply because of changes in precipitation and runoff patterns.
A 2002 federal interagency report summarized climate and precipitation
changes for the contiguous United States during the past century and
expected changes over the next century.[Footnote 38] The report noted
that for the past century, warming amounted to about 1 degree
Fahrenheit, and that total annual precipitation increased by an
estimated 5 to 10 percent. While most regions experienced greater
precipitation, parts of the upper Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains
had less precipitation. For the next century, the report noted the
following likely changes--average temperature increases of 3 to 9
degrees Fahrenheit across the nation, increased precipitation and
evaporation, and more frequent occurrences of unusual warmth and
extreme wet and dry conditions.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates federal
agencies' climate research activities, concludes that climate change
will pose many challenges to water supply management in future years.
Program research indicates that changes in the amount, timing, and
distribution of rain, snowfall and runoff are probable, leading to
changes in water availability as well as in competition for water
resources. Precipitation is very likely to continue to increase on
average, especially in the nation's middle and northern areas, with
much of the increase coming in the form of heavy downpours, which are
not as easily absorbed for storage in underground aquifers. Snowpack,
which serves as natural water storage in mountainous regions and
northern portions of the United States, gradually releases its water in
spring and summer; however, snowpack is very likely to decrease as the
climate warms, despite increasing precipitation. It is very likely that
more precipitation will fall as rain, and that snowpack will develop
later and melt earlier. As a result, peak stream flows will very likely
come earlier in the spring, and summer flows will be reduced. Potential
impacts of these changes include an increased possibility of flooding
in winter and early spring and more shortages in the summer.
[End of section]
Chapter 3: Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities:
Freshwater shortages are likely in the near future and their impact on
the economy, environment, and communities may be severe.[Footnote 39]
Under normal water conditions, state water managers in 36 states
anticipate water shortages in localities, regions, or statewide within
the next 10 years. Under drought conditions, 46 state water managers
expect shortages. While no studies have measured the total economic
impacts of shortages, recent shortages have resulted in billions of
dollars in damages to specific segments of the economy, such as
agriculture. Water shortages can also damage plant and animal species,
wildlife habitat, and water quality. Moreover, water shortages can harm
the nation's social fabric, for example, by creating conflicts between
water users, reducing the quality of life, and creating perceptions of
inequitable treatment among communities due to varying levels of water
availability or relief for water shortage impacts.
State Water Managers Expect Shortages within 10 Years:
Consistent with the water availability and use trends, state water
managers expect water shortages in the near future. According to our
survey of state water managers, 36 of 47 states expect some portion of
their state to experience shortages under average water conditions
within the next 10 years.[Footnote 40] As shown in figure 22, 18 state
managers expect shortages to occur in one or more localized areas,
while 18 state managers expect regional or statewide shortages. Water
managers indicated that their states are vulnerable to shortages
because they do not always have the infrastructure to store and
distribute water where and when it is needed, they rely on diminishing
ground-water resources, or because population growth has outpaced
existing storage capacity in some regions of the state.
Figure 22: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under
Average Water Conditions:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The probability of shortages increases and the effects broaden under
drought conditions. According to 46 of the 47 water managers,
their states are likely to experience shortages within the next
10 years under drought conditions. Water managers in 6 states predict
the shortages to occur in one or more localized areas within their
state, 29 managers predict shortages in one or more regions in their
state, and 11 managers predict statewide shortages.
States expect these shortages despite their efforts to prepare.
Recognizing the challenges ahead, state water managers reported that
state, regional, and/or local authorities are planning for their
current and future water needs:
* Drought preparedness and response planning. Twenty-three states have
a drought preparedness plan to reduce drought vulnerability, and
41 states have a drought response plan to provide assistance to those
affected by drought.
* Assessing and monitoring water availability and use.
Forty-four states are monitoring water availability and use by, for
example, measuring streamflows or water withdrawals.
* Implementing water management strategies. Thirty-eight states are
coordinating the management of surface and ground-water resources to
help meet their current and future water needs.
* Reducing or reallocating water use. Forty states are taking actions
to conserve water, and 15 states are allowing voluntary water transfers
among users, allowing water to be bought and sold or leased.
* Developing or enhancing supplies. Some states are undertaking
scientific or technological approaches--eight western states are using
cloud seeding to increase precipitation within the state, and nine
coastal states are developing saltwater desalination operations to
make freshwater.
Freshwater Shortages Have Severe Economic, Environmental, and
Social Consequences:
Shortages of freshwater may harm not only a local area, but also
multiple regions and sectors of the economy for many years. Water
shortages can also damage the environment and create conflicts between
water users.
Water Shortages Can Cause Billions of Dollars in Economic Damages:
No estimates are available on the total economic costs of water
shortages to the nation. However, adequate supplies of water must be
available to produce goods and provide services, and shortages can
create both direct and indirect problems. For example, shortages reduce
crop, rangeland, and forest productivity; increase fire hazards;
increase mortality rates for livestock and wildlife; and damage
wildlife and fish habitat. In 2003, alone, Congress provided an
additional $3.1 billion in appropriations to offset agricultural
losses. Water shortages also have indirect impacts. For example,
reductions in crop, rangeland, and forest productivity reduces income
for farmers and agribusiness, increases prices for food, contributes to
higher unemployment, increases foreclosures on banks loans to farmers
and businesses, and requires more spending for disaster relief.
While national estimates are not available, regional and state
estimates provide some insight into the severity of water shortages.
According to a 2000 report on extreme weather events from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,[Footnote 41] eight water
shortages from drought or heat waves had each resulted in $1 billion or
more in monetary losses over the past 20 years in various states. The
more significant of the economic impacts included were:
* $6 to $9 billion in losses for the agriculture and ranching sectors
of Texas/Oklahoma and eastward to the Carolinas in the summer of 1998,
* $5 billion in economic damages in Texas and Oklahoma from fall 1995
to summer 1996,
* $40 billion in damages to the economies of the Central and Eastern
United States in summer 1988, and:
* $20 billion in economic damages to the Central and Eastern
United States from June to September 1980.
River basin commissions and states also reported recent drought-related
economic losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, the
Susquehanna River Basin Commission,[Footnote 42] reported that, as a
result of the 1999 drought, 34 counties in New York State declared an
agricultural disaster with losses of about $2.5 billion, and it
estimated Pennsylvania crop losses at $500 million, with some farmers
losing as much as 70 to 100 percent of their crops. The Commission also
reported that other water-dependent industries, such as nurseries,
suffered significant losses and electrical power plants had trouble
getting sufficient water supplies to meet operational needs because of
low stream flows. Similarly, in December 2001, the Washington State
Department of Ecology estimated that the 2001 drought cost between
$270 million to $400 million in damages to agricultural production, a
loss of 4,600 to 7,500 agricultural jobs, and placed at risk an
additional 950 to 1,400 jobs in the food processing, wholesaling,
trucking, warehousing, and transportation services sectors. Finally,
persistent drought conditions could also put at risk another 4,500 to
6,000 jobs in the construction, retail, and service sectors,
among others.
In addition to lost economic productivity, droughts also increase
federal and state government expenditures. For example, Washington
State paid almost $8 million in drought related expenditures to obtain
water for several irrigation districts, maintain stream flow in
critical fish-bearing streams, and to monitor stream flows. In
addition, the state paid $1 million to the Bonneville Power
Administration, which markets electrical power in the Pacific
Northwest, to offset losses in power-generating revenues.
While the most commonly estimated economic impacts of water shortages
occur in agriculture and related sectors, less obvious sectors of the
economy are also affected.
* In March 2002, New Jersey declared a state of water emergency
(rainfall in 35 of the past 49 months had been below normal, with 8 of
the last 12 significantly below normal). Among other things, the state
suspended the distribution of water for construction or use by any new
building, dwelling, or structure in three south New Jersey townships.
The pace of development in these townships threatened to damage the
ecological and water supply capability of the local aquifer system. The
monetary losses resulting from this suspension are difficult to
quantify, but, at a minimum, building suppliers and other construction-
related sectors lost revenues, and local municipalities lost tax
revenues.
* In February 2003, the Southern Nevada Water Authority approved a plan
to restrict water use in the Las Vegas Valley during an ongoing
drought. Residents and businesses, such as golf courses, will be
required to curtail water use. For example, golf courses will be
required to use no more than 7 acre-feet of water per year. According
to an operator of three golf courses, he will have to remove 90 acres
of grass at an estimated cost of $500,000.
Some organizations are developing estimates of the economic impacts of
droughts. For example:
* University of Georgia researchers have developed an economic model to
measure the potential economic impacts of a drought for the 20-county
regional economy in southwest Georgia. Using this model, the
researchers estimated that each $1 million decline in agricultural
production results in an additional $700,000 decline in other economic
segments, for a total loss of $1.7 million. In addition, for each job
lost in agriculture, 1.4 jobs are lost in other economic sectors, for a
total of 2.4 jobs lost.
* Texas requires regional water planning groups to evaluate the social
and economic impacts of not meeting regional needs for water supply.
For example, a regional group for Northeastern Texas projected that by
2010 unmet regional water needs would result in 93,000 fewer jobs,
199,000 fewer people, and about a 13 percent loss in personal income.
Based on these regional reports, in 2002, the Texas Water Development
Board reported that if the state does not ensure it has enough water to
meet projected needs, it will have 7.4 million fewer jobs, 13.8 million
fewer people, and 38 percent less income within the state by 2050.
Water Shortages Damage the Environment:
Water shortages can result in environmental losses--damages to plant
and animal species, wildlife habitat and air and water quality.
Following a water shortage, some conditions quickly return to normal,
while other effects may linger or change conditions permanently. The
Florida Everglades experience illustrates the effects that reduced
water flows can have on an ecological system.
Following periods of major drought in the 1930s and 1940s and heavy
flooding in 1947, Congress authorized in 1948 the Central and Southern
Florida Project--an extensive system of over 1,700 miles of canals and
levees and 16 major pump stations--to prevent flooding and saltwater
intrusion into the aquifer underlying the wetlands, as well as to
provide drainage and supply water to the residents of South Florida.
Some drained areas became farmland, while others became heavily
urbanized. These engineering changes, coupled with agricultural and
industrial activities and urbanization, have reduced the Everglades to
about half its original size, as shown in figure 23, and damaged the
environment. For example, the population of wading birds once numbered
in the millions, has fallen by 90 percent in recent decades. Moreover,
some scientists believe that the reduced flow of freshwater into
Florida Bay may be hastening its environmental decline. An effort to
restore the Everglades is currently underway involving numerous
federal, state, tribal and local entities. The current estimated costs,
which are shared equally by federal agencies and the state, for
activities in the South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative--
including the three goals of getting the water right, restoring,
preserving and protecting natural habitats, and fostering the
compatibility of the built and natural systems--are $14.8 billion.
Figure 23: The Everglades--Past and Present:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[A] Other smaller natural areas are dispersed throughout South Florida,
such as national wildlife refuges and state, local, or privately owned
lands, but are not shown in the figure.
Water Shortages Can Cause Social Discord:
Water shortages can raise a number of concerns for communities,
such as:
* Conflicts arising between various water users, managers, and
government entities due to competition for scarce water resources;
* Threats to the lifestyles of individuals whose livelihoods depend on
water, such as farmers and commercial fishermen; and:
* Feelings of undue burden from a shortage, such as feelings of unfair
treatment in the amount or timing of relief efforts by government
entities.
The experiences in the Klamath River Basin, on the California-Oregon
border, illustrate how these concerns can play out. In 2001, severe
drought in the Klamath River Basin exacerbated conflicts among numerous
interests: farmers who rely on water for irrigation, commercial
fishermen who rely on salmon spawned in the river for their livelihood,
environmental groups interested in protecting endangered species, and
Native American tribes with long-standing cultural, fishing and water
rights interests. In April 2001, Reclamation announced that it would
not be able to supply water to farmers in the majority of the basin so
that the limited supplies could be used to protect endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 43] Many
farmers claimed to have suffered crop losses as a result of restricted
water deliveries and protested the decision in public demonstrations;
some individuals unlawfully opened water control gates. Farmers viewed
the diversion of water as breaking the federal government's long-
standing promise to provide water and land for farming and as harming
the agriculture based culture that had developed in the area since the
project was initiated in the early 1900s.
Subsequent to the National Academy of Sciences' February 2002 review
of the scientific support for minimum lake and river flows, Reclamation
developed a 10-year operating plan to comply with the requirements of
the Endangered Species Act while also allowing water deliveries to
irrigators. However, in September 2002 as many as 30,000 adult salmon
and steelhead died while returning to the Klamath and Trinity Rivers to
spawn. California State Department of Fish and Game officials and
others argue that low river flows and high water temperature may have
stressed the salmon and made them more susceptible to disease.
Consequently, according to local media accounts, the environmentalists,
Indian tribal leaders, and commercial fishermen now claim that the
government is catering to farmers and ignoring their concerns (see
fig. 24). The result has been on going litigation over river flows and
legislation to address the financial damages of the various parties.
Although the Klamath water supply issues were made more acute by the
severe drought, the conflicts over who gets water will continue because
demands are greater than current supplies.
Figure 24: Competition for Water in the Klamath Basin:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The competition for water is by no means unique to the Klamath Basin.
Similar conflicts are brewing in other areas, such as the Columbia and
Snake River System in the Northwest, the San Joaquin and Sacramento
Basins in California, the Missouri River System in the Northern
Plains states, the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico, and the Florida
Everglades. Recognizing the potential for conflict due to water
shortages, in May 2003, Interior proposed concentrating federal
financial and technical assistance in key western watersheds and in
critical research and development such as conservation and desalination
to help predict, prevent, and alleviate future water supply
conflicts.[Footnote 44]
[End of section]
Chapter 4: Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water
Management Efforts:
To identify potential federal actions to help states address their
water management challenges, we sought the views and suggestions of
state water managers. We also asked federal officials to identify their
current activities in each of these categories and the extent to which
they can support state preferences for assistance. Water managers from
47 states ranked actions federal agencies could take within five basic
categories of activities:[Footnote 45]
* Planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining water storage and
distribution facilities. The most helpful potential federal action was
to provide more federal financial assistance to plan and construct
additional state water storage and distribution capacity; states also
favored more consultation on the operation of federal water storage and
distribution systems.
* Collecting and sharing water data. Collecting water data at more
locations would be most useful, compared with actions to improve the
accuracy, timeliness, access, format, or analyses of the data.
* Administering federal environmental protection laws. The most
beneficial potential federal actions were (1) more state flexibility in
how they comply with or administer federal environmental laws and
(2) more consultation with the states on these laws' development,
revision, and implementation.
* Participating in water-management agreements. The highest preferences
were increasing federal agencies' coordination with, and technical
assistance to, the states in developing and implementing
these agreements.
* Managing water rights for federal and tribal lands. The most helpful
potential actions were (1) more consultation with states on how federal
agencies or tribal governments use their water rights, (2) increased
financial and technical assistance to determine how much water federal
agencies and tribes are entitled to, and (3) better coordinated
participation among federal agencies and tribes in the establishment
and use of their water rights.
Appendix I contains the detailed results of the survey.
States Preferred More Financial Assistance to Increase Water Storage
and Distribution Capacity and Consultation on Federal
Storage Operations:
In terms of water storage and distribution capacity, state water
managers reported their highest priority was more federal financial
assistance to plan and construct the state's freshwater storage and
distribution systems. According to our survey, over the next 10 years,
26 states are likely to add storage capacity, and 18 are likely to add
distribution capacity. The additional storage and distribution capacity
will be used to meet a variety of needs, such as augmenting local
supplies, connecting water systems, and developing ground-water
storage. Consequently, water managers in 22 states said that more
federal financial assistance would be most useful in helping their
state meet its water storage and distribution needs. For example, of
the 26 states that are likely to add storage capacity, 16 plan to seek
federal assistance, as do 14 of the 18 states that are likely to add
distribution capacity. Estimated costs to add this storage and
conveyance capacity could be in the billions of dollars for each state
if built as planned. For example, Texas estimated in its 2002 State
Water Plan the capital costs of water supply projects over the next
50 years, including the addition of 8 major reservoirs, to be
$17.9 billion.
Reclamation and Corps officials understand the states' need for
financial assistance for storage and distribution projects, and provide
financial assistance on a project-by-project basis, as the Congress
authorizes and appropriates funds. Current authorized and funded water
projects include Reclamation's Animas-La Plata project in southwest
Colorado and northwest New Mexico for storing and distributing water in
these states at a cost of about $700 million, and the Corps' and the
state of Florida's participation in the estimated $14.8 billion effort
to restore the Florida Everglades. Reclamation and Corps officials were
not aware of any state requests directly to them to provide financial
assistance to plan or construct new state storage or distribution
projects, with the exception of projects under the ongoing
CALFED program.[Footnote 46]
State water managers also favored more consultation on the operation of
federal water storage facilities. While federal agencies develop plans
to govern the operations of each facility, changes in water
availability, such as a drought, and new or changing demands for water,
such as a new endangered species listing or residential development,
can alter the state's water management goals in a river basin. State
managers sometimes pursue a change in the operations of a federal water
storage facility to better help the state meet its multiple water
management goals. State water managers in 29 states said they had
worked with federal water project managers within the last 5 years to
obtain changes in federal operations to better meet their state's water
management goals. The state managers requested changes in federal
operations to help balance instream water uses---that is,
environmental, recreation, hydropower production, and navigation uses-
--with offstream water uses, such as municipal water supply and
irrigation. For example, one western state asked Reclamation to modify
facility operations to benefit fish spawning, while several states
requested changes to Corps facility operations to support the states'
water management goals--for example, to improve water quality,
recreation, and minimize flooding impacts.
Reclamation and Corps officials told us their agencies currently work
with state water managers on a daily basis to meet the needs of water
users affected by their facilities. Furthermore, they are making
efforts to consult more with the states and thereby prevent future
conflicts related to their operations. According to a Reclamation
official, operators at the agency's facilities annually share
operations plans with state water managers and other stakeholders to
review the previous year's operations and solicit their views on the
need for changes to meet new or increased demands. Furthermore,
Reclamation plans to identify river basins with the greatest potential
for future conflict between water users and environmental needs and to
develop future operating plans with input from all users. Officials
said they are trying to prevent water management crises on the scale of
those that have occurred in the Klamath, Columbia, Middle Rio Grande,
and Colorado River basins and avoid costly litigation. A Corps'
official stated that the Portland, Oregon, district office holds a
daily public briefing in its reservoir control room to describe
conditions in the entire Columbia Basin, and the Corps shares its
operating plans annually with the states.
While Reclamation and Corps officials welcome state water managers'
views on operations, the agencies are not always able to accommodate
state requests when the request would prevent or limit the agency's
ability to meet its obligations under laws or contracts. For example,
Reclamation officials said they must consider the authorized purpose of
the facility, the agency's contractual obligations for water delivery,
environmental regulations, and the requirements of state law when
considering a state request. In addition, federal officials said they
could not honor some requests because modifying facility operations to
meet the needs of one water user may adversely affect water
availability for other water users. For example, Reclamation received a
request from one state to change facility operations to increase water
flows for downstream rafting in the spring; however, another state said
the additional release would decrease the quality of recreational
fishing. Once the states agreed on a compromise, Reclamation modified
its releases to meet the water needs of both users. Corps officials
shared similar experiences. For example, a state requested that the
Corps store more water in a flood control reservoir. The Corps asked
the state if it was willing to accept responsibility for the
environmental impacts of flooding more area behind the reservoir. The
state agreed and the Corps adjusted the annual operating plan.
States Believe They Would Benefit from Federal Data Collection in More
Locations:
State water managers placed a high value on data collected under
federal programs to support the states' ability to complete specific
water management activities. For example:
* 37 states reported that federal agencies' data are important to their
ability to determine the amount of available surface-water,
* 22 states reported that the federal data are important to their
planning for environmental mitigation or restoration activities, and:
* 14 of the 29 states that participate in interstate or international
water-management agreements reported that federal data are important to
monitoring the terms of the agreements.
To supplement the data collected under federal programs, some states
also collect their own water data. However, in some circumstances,
data collected under federal programs may be more credible and
consistent than the state data, according to state water managers.
For example, one state water manager said his state participates in the
USGS Cooperative Program because other states with which it manages
shared waters consider USGS-collected information more credible than
the state-collected information. Another state manager said that
consistent, long-term, federal data collection is extremely valuable
and cannot be replicated by the state. Furthermore, according to USGS
and state officials, state and locally collected data is not always
comparable because collection practices are not standardized.
Water managers in 39 states ranked expanding the number of data
collection points for federal agencies as the most useful action to
help their state meet its water information needs. Specifically, state
managers reported that the addition of more monitoring stations to
measure stream flow, aquifer levels, and snow pack depths would
help states decide, for example, whether to allow additional water
withdrawals from particular sources. State managers suggested more
monitoring locations are particularly needed in rural areas, where
water is shared among multiple states, or areas needing increased water
flows to meet environmental protection needs. For example, one state
manager said more monitoring stations are needed on the smaller
tributaries, where the needs of endangered or threatened fish are in
conflict with traditional offstream uses.
Officials at the USGS, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and
the National Weather Service, each have ongoing efforts and/or plans to
improve their data collection programs. However, they need to do so
within current funding levels. USGS--the agency primarily responsible
for water data collection and analysis--officials said the agency
continually examines how to allocate its resources to meet its national
responsibilities while also helping states. According to agency
officials, USGS and the states generally agree on which water sources
to monitor; however, the agency and the states sometimes differ on how
many locations to monitor for a particular source. Disagreement occurs
because USGS' monitoring stations are widely distributed to meet its
nationwide responsibilities, rather than concentrated to benefit a
particular state.
To meet demand for more data and more sophisticated water supply
forecasts, Natural Resources Conservation Service officials say they
need to double the current number of snow pack monitoring stations and
water supply forecasting activities. Specifically, the agency has
identified the need to automate and expand reporting on snow pack data
in the Great Lakes and the Northeast, as it does for the West. Finally,
officials at the National Weather Service said they plan to automate
rainfall data reporting, which will make these data more readily
accessible, but they have no plans to expand data collection locations.
According to USGS, Natural Resources Conservation Service and National
Weather Service officials, obtaining additional funding is their
primary barrier to expanding or automating data collection. To address
funding limitations, they have developed collaborative relationships to
accept data from other entities, including states and universities, and
make these data available to users on their web sites. Because data
quality is a concern under this process, the federal agencies must
verify that the entities' data collection practices meet federal
standards before accepting the data. To help ensure quality, the
agencies participate in interagency work groups that set standards for
federal water data collection and dissemination, such as the Advisory
Committee on Water Information.
States Favor More Flexibility in How They Comply with or Administer
Federal Environmental Laws and More Opportunities for Comment:
Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water
Act provide important protections to the nation's wildlife and natural
resources. The Endangered Species Act provides protection and assists
the recovery of threatened or endangered plant and animal species and
their critical habitat, and the Clean Water Act requires improvements
to water quality and the prevention of discharges of pollutants into
our nation's waters.
The implementation of these laws can also affect state water management
goals and objectives. For example, the Endangered Species Act can
create a demand to leave water instream to ensure that species or
critical habitat are not jeopardized, thus competing with traditional
offstream water demands, such as irrigation, municipal, and industrial
uses. When demand is high among traditional users or supplies are
limited, fulfilling the demands created by federal environmental laws
can be challenging for some state managers.
According to our survey, the impacts of federal environmental
protection laws on state water managers vary, depending on the
particular water demands and uses within each state. For example, while
25 state water managers reported that the Clean Water Act increased
water availability for instream purposes, managers offered diverse
views of the law's effects on offstream availability. Managers in
11 states reported that the Clean Water Act's water quality impacts
increased water availability for offstream uses, such as drinking
water, while managers in 18 states reported that the law decreased
offstream water availability, for example, because of the need to leave
water instream to maintain water quality standards. Similarly, 26 state
managers reported that the Endangered Species Act tended to decrease
the amount of water available for offstream uses, but managers were
more evenly divided on whether the law has made more water available
for instream uses. For example, managers in 16 states reported that the
Endangered Species Act has helped increase water availability for
instream uses, such as maintaining fish habitat, while 9 managers
reported decreased availability because the law limited water
availability for hydropower production, another instream water use.
Overall, 23 state water managers ranked having more flexibility in how
they comply with or administer federal environmental laws as the most
useful among potential actions that would help states meet the
requirements of federal environmental protection laws while also
meeting water management goals. Because the effects of the laws are so
varied, we did not identify a consensus regarding the specific elements
of compliance or administration of these laws that required more
flexibility. However, state water managers described instances in which
they believed that federal environmental laws restricted the state's
ability to develop new water storage capacity, distribute water, or
meet the needs of offstream users.
Federal officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, agreed
that while they try to accommodate state concerns about federal
environmental laws, the amount of flexibility they can provide is
limited by their obligation to ensure that the laws are complied with
and administered as Congress intended. However, officials cited
examples of current and planned efforts to use the flexibility they
have under current law to help the states comply with or administer
federal environmental laws likes the Clean Water Act and Endangered
Species Act. For example, Environmental Protection Agency officials
said they are assessing ways to make their water quality programs more
efficient and effective, which may result in more flexibility for
the states. National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife
Service officials said they already have considerable flexibility under
the Endangered Species Act to accommodate state-developed water
management plans that also meet the needs of listed threatened or
endangered species. Officials of both the services said they
encourage states to work cooperatively with them to develop water
management plans.
In 17 states, water managers also said they would like federal agencies
to seek more state advice on developing, revising, and implementing
federal environmental laws. Specifically, three state managers made the
following suggestions:
* Congress and federal agencies should seek states' input when
reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 47]
* Federal agencies should recognize and support states' species
recovery plans; this could help agencies to develop federal recovery
plans that are better coordinated with state activities.
* States should peer review federal agencies' science and decisions,
thus better balancing state and federal viewpoints.
Regarding federal actions to seek more state advice, federal agency
officials cited several examples of ongoing and planned efforts to
enhance their working relationships and reduce conflicts with state
agencies and other stakeholders. The Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service have existing joint policies to use
the expertise and solicit the participation of states in the recovery
planning process, and to solicit peer review of draft recovery plans.
Agency officials commonly cited the use of river basin-wide agreements
as an example of efforts to formally bring together state, federal, and
other stakeholders to address important issues, such as providing
certainty in water supplies while protecting wildlife habitats and
preventing additional threatened or endangered species listings or
protecting water quality. Officials of several agencies cited examples
of successful cooperative agreements used in the California Bay-Delta,
Upper Colorado River Basin, Snake River Basin, and in the Lemhi and
Upper Salmon River Basins. According to a Fish and Wildlife Service
official, such agreements signal enhanced efforts at developing
relationships, sharing information, and getting advice from the states.
According to officials, the Environmental Protection Agency hopes to
facilitate cooperative relationships, for example, by awarding grants
to states to explore comprehensive solutions at the watershed level.
Reclamation officials cited planned actions to prevent federal/state
conflicts regarding environmental issues. For example, the agency plans
to provide more staff training on the purpose, processes, and
requirements of the Endangered Species Act in order to ensure clarity
regarding the act's requirements and the agency's responsibilities.
State Managers Would Gain from Improved Coordination of Federal
Participation in Interstate or International Water-Management
Agreements:
State water managers in the 29 of 47 states that participate in an
interstate or international water-management agreement ranked better
coordination of federal agency participation with the state in the
agreements as most useful among potential federal actions to
help states in the development, enforcement, and implementation of such
agreements. While many states said that federal agencies had fulfilled
their responsibilities under interstate or international agreements
during the last 5 years, seven state managers said that one or more
agencies had not. These seven managers, and others, described instances
in which they believe that federal agencies have not met their
responsibilities under water-management agreements, such as:
* Ignoring obligations under participation agreements, such as the
Corps not paying its river basin commission membership dues.
* Mismanaging existing river management facilities and failing to
construct needed water storage facilities, such as projects for storing
Colorado River water.
* Inadequately enforcing the water allocation terms of
international treaties by not vigorously enforcing the terms of
the U.S. water-management treaty with Mexico.
* Not resolving federal river basin priorities, thus creating
uncertainty for state compact participants regarding federal actions.
Officials from Reclamation and the Corps stated that in most cases they
have fulfilled their responsibilities under water-management
agreements, but occasionally circumstances outside their control
prevent them from carrying out their responsibilities. For example, in
the case of the Corps not paying its river basin commission dues, Corps
officials indicated that congressional appropriations language
specifies that the federal government should no longer contribute
financially to the annual expenses of these commissions. A Corps
official stated that the agency has little funding available for
efforts to coordinate activities under compacts, and moreover, other
federal agencies have not approached the Corps to engage in
coordination efforts. A Reclamation official acknowledged that he had
encountered barriers to coordination with other federal agencies--for
example, federal agency officials are sometimes unwilling to sacrifice
relationships they have developed with stakeholders in the interest of
improving coordination among all parties.
Nevertheless, Reclamation and Corps officials stated that their
participation in water-management agreements could be improved through
their ongoing efforts to enhance coordination and communication
with states and other water resource stakeholders. For example,
Reclamation plans to facilitate meetings and assist water management
projects in basins where the greatest potential for conflict exists
among water users and environmental uses, thus laying the groundwork
for the development of future water-management agreements. These
efforts are similar to those officials described to assist the states
and other stakeholders to allow more input into the operation of
federal storage facilities.
States also ranked as important increased technical assistance to
develop or implement water-management agreements. Of the 29 states in
our survey that already participate in water-management agreements,
11 said they plan to propose, negotiate, or participate in a new water-
management agreement within the next 5 years. For example, one state
manager suggested federal assistance would be helpful in establishing a
compact for managing water from an underground aquifer with another
state. Another state water manager suggested that the state would
benefit from assistance in the form of federal studies on water
availability, use, and demand on sources shared between the
United States and Canada.
Water management agencies do not have specific programs or funds
to assist states in developing or implementing water-management
agreements, according to agency officials. However, Reclamation and
Corps officials pointed out that the federal agencies do assist in
implementing agreements through the ongoing operation of federal
water projects within the compact river basins, helping to ensure that
the agreement terms are met. For example, Corps officials pointed to
efforts by 10 federal agencies to assist in implementing agreements in
the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
river basins located in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Furthermore, to
help implement the water management treaty with Mexico, a National
Weather Service official said the agency provides forecasting tools to
Mexico to help facilitate accurate water supply forecasting on both
sides of the border.
States Favored Having More Influence on the Use of Federal and Tribal
Water Rights as Well as Greater Federal Efforts to Define These Rights:
Of the 31 state managers reporting that federal agencies or tribal
governments claim or hold water rights (either state granted or federal
reserved) in their state, 12 reported that the most helpful potential
federal action would be to consult more with the states on federal or
tribal use of these rights. Sixteen of these water managers indicated
that their state had experienced a conflict within the last 5 years
between how a federal agency used its water rights and the state's
water management goals. State water managers reported conflicts with 13
different agencies, such as Reclamation, the Forest Service, the Park
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. State managers also
described instances of federal agencies challenging state decisions to
grant water rights to others. For example:
* In one state, Reclamation challenged the state over ground-water
rights it had issued to users because the withdrawals threatened
federal surface-water rights.
* Similarly, a tribe sued the same state to stop issuance of ground-
water rights potentially impacting water availability for tribal lands.
According to state officials, both cases were settled by agreement.
* Another manager reported that the state and a federal agency
disagreed on whether a federal lands leaseholder or the federal agency
should hold the water right for water held in small storage facilities
on federal lands. The court awarded the right to the leaseholder,
despite federal concerns over future use of the water on its lands.
According to officials from the federal resource management agencies
and Reclamation, the agencies exercise their state-granted water rights
in accordance with state water laws and the agencies try to coordinate
with the states over their use of water under federal reserved rights.
National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service
officials said their agencies typically seek state-granted water rights
for offstream uses of water on their lands, such as camp and picnic
grounds or livestock watering. Typically, disputes related to federal
agency use of state-granted rights are heard in state water courts
where the federal agencies receive no preference over any other water
right holder. Officials provided several examples of how their agencies
work with the states and non-federal water users to minimize disputes.
A National Park Service official said his agency seeks to reach
mutually acceptable compromises with other water users, even though the
other users' rights are often junior to the federal reserved rights. A
Bureau of Land Management official said while his agency has federal
reserved rights to water in a certain state, the agency also applies
for state rights because the state does not recognize the agency's
federal reserved water right.
State water managers also favored increased financial and technical
assistance to states to adjudicate water rights (the determination of
the legal rights and priorities of all persons for a particular source
as of a certain time) for federal agencies and tribal governments.
Federal agencies and tribes may be entitled to water rights that would
deprive others of water they have been using for many years. Until
adjudicated or determined by the courts, the extent of such rights is
unknown. Consequently, water managers, particularly those in
Western states, are concerned about the unquantified water rights for
federal and tribal lands, as well as the costs of quantifying these
rights through adjudication. For example, 14 state water managers said
quantifying federal reserved water rights is important to their state's
ability to manage its water; similarly, 12 state water managers said
quantifying tribal water rights is important.
To reduce uncertainty regarding water rights, some western states are
conducting general adjudications to formally quantify and order by
priority all rights claimed. These adjudications include determinations
of federal water rights, which, since the McCarran Amendment was
enacted in 1952, have been within the states' jurisdictions.[Footnote
48] This process of establishing the priority system is complicated and
costly, and federal claims are often the largest and most difficult to
adjudicate. For example, according to the Western States Water Council,
400 of the 700 claims being adjudicated in the Klamath Basin are
federal claims. While all other water users claiming rights must pay
filing fees to the state for the adjudication of these rights, the
federal government does not, according to a Supreme Court ruling.
Federal agency officials confirmed that the total quantity of water
rights for federal and tribal lands is not known. While state and
federal courts have settled some federal claims since the McCarran
Amendment was enacted, a substantial majority of tribal and federal
water rights have not yet been quantified. Currently, adjudications of
tribal, federal, and other parties' water rights are underway in
many states.[Footnote 49] For example, the U.S. Forest Service is
participating in 43 adjudications and the National Park Service in 45,
according to agency officials. As of March 2003, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs reported it has settled 20 water rights cases, but most tribal
rights are still unquantified.
According to officials, the federal resource management agencies file
claims in accordance with state rules and abide by the results of the
state adjudications. However, federal law prohibits the agencies from
paying adjudication filing fees. A National Park Service official said
it might be preferable to have a compromise between the two extremes of
having the federal government pay millions of dollars to adjudicate
every one of its water rights and paying nothing. This official notes
that adjudications are in the federal interest--having water rights
quantified creates more certainty for federal planning and decision-
making.
Conclusions:
While states have principal authority for water management, federal
activities and laws affect or influence virtually every water
management activity undertaken by states. With limited supplies and
growing demands, state water managers face the challenge of future
water shortages and their potentially severe consequences. Although the
state managers value the many contributions of federal agencies to
their efforts to ensure adequate water supplies, they also indicate
that federal activities could better support their efforts in a number
of areas. In some of these areas--such as providing funding for more
state storage and distribution capacity or more flexibility in
how states comply with federal environmental laws--federal agencies are
limited in what they can do. However, in other areas--such as seeking
increased state input to federal facility operations or enhancing
coordination with states--more supportive federal actions may not
necessarily involve new authority or significant expenditures. Slight
shifts of federal priorities or renewed emphasis on matters that impact
state efforts might be sufficient to help states better manage their
water resources. The information we collected from state water managers
should be useful to agencies in determining how their activities
affect states and how they can be more supportive of state efforts to
meet their future water needs. While we are not making a specific
recommendation, we encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland
Security, Interior, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency
officials to review the results of our state survey and consider
modifications to their plans, policies, or activities as appropriate to
better support state efforts to meet their future water needs.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Interior; the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Department of the Interior concurred with our findings and wrote
that the report provides valuable information to federal agencies for
improving interactions with state water managers and will be helpful to
state and local resource managers in identifying federal activities and
plans that support water management efforts at all levels of
government. Interior also provided technical clarifications, which we
incorporated as appropriate. Interior's complete letter is in appendix
II. The other departments and agencies concurred with our findings and
provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as
appropriate. They did not provide formal, written comments.
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal
Activities on State Water Availability, Management, and Use:
To obtain states' views on how federal activities could better support
state water management efforts to meet future demands, we conducted a
Web-based survey of state water managers in the 50 states. We developed
the survey questions by reviewing documents and by talking with
officials from the federal agencies listed on pages 42 and 43 and the
state water managers in three state offices-Arizona, Illinois, and
Pennsylvania. The questionnaire contained 56 questions that asked about
state water management; collection and dissemination of state water
quantity data by federal agencies; federal water storage and conveyance
within their state; the effects of federal environmental laws on state
water management; the effects of interstate compacts and international
treaties on state water management; and the effects of federal and
tribal rights to water on state water management.
To access the Web-based survey and the results for each question go to
GAO-03-834SP on the GAO Web site.
Q1. Has your state conducted an assessment of water availability,
withdrawals, and/or consumption?
1. Water availability statewide (most or all regions of your state);
Checked (percent): 53.2; Number of respondents: 47.
2. Water availability only for some regions or localities within your
state; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of respondents: 47.
3. Water withdrawals statewide (most or all regions of your state);
Checked (percent): 76.6; Number of respondents: 47.
4. Water withdrawals only for some regions or localities within your
state; Checked (percent): 10.6; Number of respondents: 47.
5. Water consumption statewide (most or all regions of your state);
Checked (percent): 51.1; Number of respondents: 47.
6. Water consumption only for some regions or localities within your
state; Checked (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.
7. None of the above; Checked (percent): 8.5; Number of respondents:
47.
Q2. Has your state conducted an assessment, either for all of your
state or for portions of your state, of the economic and/or
environmental effects of water shortages, including drought?
1. Actual economic effects of recent water shortages, including
drought; Checked (percent): 25.5; Number of respondents: 47.
2. Potential economic effects of future water shortages, including
drought; Checked (percent): 25.5; Number of respondents: 47.
3. Actual environmental effects of recent water shortages, including
drought; Checked (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.
4. Potential environmental effects of future water shortages, including
drought; Checked (percent): 23.4; Number of respondents: 47.
5. None of the above; Checked (percent): 53.2; Number of respondents:
47.
Q3. Which of the following plans does your state have?
1. Drought preparedness plan(s); Checked (percent): 48.9; Number of
respondents: 47.
2. Drought response plan(s); Checked (percent): 87.2; Number of
respondents: 47.
3. State does not have either of the above plans; Checked (percent):
8.5; Number of respondents: 47.
4. Uncertain about state plans; Checked (percent): 2.1; Number of
respondents: 47.
Q4. Did your state receive federal assistance for the development of
its drought preparedness and/or response plan(s)?
Yes (percent): 11.9; No (percent): 76.2; Uncertain (percent): 9.5;
Number of respondents: 41.
Q5. In the next 1-10 years which, if any, portions of your state, are
likely to experience water shortages under average water conditions?
Entire state (most, or all, of your state) (percent): 4.3; One or more
regions within your state (percent): 34.0; One or more small localized
areas within your state (percent): 38.3; None of the above (percent):
19.1; Uncertain (percent): 4.3; Number of respondents: 47.
Q6. In the next 1-10 years which, if any, portions of your state, are
likely to experience water shortages under drought conditions?
Entire state (most, or all, of your state) (percent): 23.4; One or more
regions within your state (percent): 61.7; One or more small localized
areas within your state (percent): 12.8; None of the above (percent):
0.0; Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.
Q7. In the next 10-20 years which, if any, portions of your state, are
likely to experience water shortages under average water conditions?
Entire state (most, or all, of your state) (percent): 4.3; One or more
regions within your state (percent): 44.7; One or more small localized
areas within your state (percent): 34.0; None of the above (percent):
12.8; Uncertain (percent): 4.3; Number of respondents: 47.
Q8. In the next 10-20 years which, if any, portions of your state, are
likely to experience water shortages under drought conditions?
Entire state (most, or all, of your state) (percent): 25.5; One or more
regions within your state (percent): 68.1; One or more small localized
areas within your state (percent): 4.3; None of the above (percent):
0.0; Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.
Q9. Which, if any, of the following actions are being taken by your
state government and/or by regional or local authorities to address
current and future water needs in your state?
1. Developing markets to allow voluntary water transfers among users;
Checked (percent): 31.9; Number of respondents: 47.
2. Developing new water supplies through reuse of reclaimed water;
Checked (percent): 48.9; Number of respondents: 47.
3. Developing new water supplies through recycling of storm water;
Checked (percent): 10.6; Number of respondents: 47.
4. Developing new water supplies using desalination (seawater or
brackish ground water); Checked (percent): 19.1; Number of respondents:
47.
5. Encouraging, requiring, and/or providing incentives for water
conservation; Checked (percent): 85.1; Number of respondents: 47.
6. Improving vegetation management along streams and rivers to increase
stream flow; Checked (percent): 42.6; Number of respondents: 47.
7. Improving riparian buffers to enhance water quality and increase
water quantity; Checked (percent): 70.2; Number of respondents: 47.
8. Increasing storage capacity, including surface storage reservoirs or
artificial groundwater recharge; Checked (percent): 63.8; Number of
respondents: 47.
9. Managing surface and ground water together (conjunctive management)
so that these sources can be used in combination or alternately;
Checked (percent): 80.9; Number of respondents: 47.
10. Monitoring water availability and withdrawals within the state;
Checked (percent): 93.6; Number of respondents: 47.
11. Pursuing water price restructuring; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number
of respondents: 47.
12. Requiring local water agencies to conduct water availability
assessments before approving new development or changes in land use;
Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of respondents: 47.
13. Using cloud seeding to induce precipitation where it might not
occur naturally, or in greater quantities than might occur naturally;
Checked (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.
14. Using inter-basin transfer of water; Checked (percent): 59.6;
Number of respondents: 47.
15. Other actions being taken to address water needs (Please specify
below.); Checked (percent): 34.0; Number of respondents: 47.
If answer 15 is checked (in Q9 above), please provide a brief
description (of other actions being taken to address your state's
water needs).
Providing description (percent): 100; Number of respondents: 16.
Q10. In general, what is the legal doctrine used by your state to
govern the allocation of surface water?
Prior appropriation (percent): 31.9; Common-law riparian (percent):
14.9; Regulated riparian (percent): 19.1; A combination of prior
appropriation and riparian (percent): 6.4; State does not regulate
surface water allocation (percent): 4.3; Other (percent): 21.3;
Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.
If 'other' is checked (in Q10 above), please describe how your state
governs the allocation and use of surface water.
Providing description (percent): 100; Number of respondents: 10.
Q11. In general, what is the legal doctrine used by your state to
govern the allocation of ground water?
Correlative rights (percent): 6.4; Reasonable use (percent): 38.3;
Prior appropriation (percent): 25.5; Absolute ownership (percent): 2.1;
State does not regulate ground water allocation (percent): 6.4; Other
(percent): 19.1; Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.
If 'other' is checked (in Q11 above), please describe how your state
governs the allocation and use of ground water.
Providing description (percent): 100; Number of respondents: 9.
Q12. Overall, about how much of your state's data on water availability
and withdrawals is provided by federal agencies?
a. Data on ground water availability; Little or none (percent): 26.7;
Less than half (percent): 40.0; About half (percent): 11.1; More than
half (percent): 11.1; All or almost all (percent): 11.1; Uncertain
(percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 45.
b. Data on ground water withdrawals; Little or none (percent): 59.6;
Less than half (percent): 27.7; About half (percent): 4.3; More than
half (percent): 8.5; All or almost all (percent): 0.0; Uncertain
(percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 47.
c. Data on surface water availability; Little or none (percent): 13.0;
Less than half (percent): 10.9; About half (percent): 28.3; More than
half (percent): 30.4; All or almost all (percent): 15.2; Uncertain
(percent): 2.2; Number of respondents: 46.
d. Data on surface water withdrawals; Little or none (percent): 63.8;
Less than half (percent): 21.3; About half (percent): 6.4; More than
half (percent): 6.4; All or almost all (percent): 2.1; Uncertain
(percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 47.
Q13. Please provide the name(s) of the federal agency(ies) that provide
water availability and/or withdrawal data to you.
Provided agency name(s) (percent): 89.4; Number of respondents: 47.
Q14. Overall, how important are data provided by federal agencies to
your state's ability to complete each of the following activities?
a. To determine the quantity of available ground water; Very important
(percent): 34.9; Somewhat important (percent): 34.9; Equally important
and unimportant (percent): 16.3; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 9.3;
Very unimportant (percent): 4.7; Number of respondents: 43.
b. To determine the quantity of ground water withdrawals; Very
important (percent): 13.2; Somewhat important (percent): 15.8; Equally
important and unimportant (percent): 18.4; Somewhat unimportant
(percent): 28.9; Very unimportant (percent): 23.7; Number of
respondents: 38.
c. To determine the quantity of available surface water; Very important
(percent): 53.3; Somewhat important (percent): 28.9; Equally important
and unimportant (percent): 13.3; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 0.0;
Very unimportant (percent): 4.4; Number of respondents: 45.
d. To determine the quantity of surface water withdrawals; Very
important (percent): 8.1; Somewhat important (percent): 18.9; Equally
important and unimportant (percent): 21.6; Somewhat unimportant
(percent): 27.0; Very unimportant (percent): 24.3; Number of
respondents: 37.
e. To determine the quantity of consumptive water use; Very important
(percent): 10.3; Somewhat important (percent): 12.8; Equally important
and unimportant (percent): 25.6; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 25.6;
Very unimportant (percent): 25.6; Number of respondents: 39.
f. To assess the economic effects of water withdrawals; Very important
(percent): 3.8; Somewhat important (percent): 15.4; Equally important
and unimportant (percent): 23.1; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 23.1;
Very unimportant (percent): 34.6; Number of respondents: 26.
g. To assess the environmental effects of water withdrawals; Very
important (percent): 17.5; Somewhat important (percent): 32.5; Equally
important and unimportant (percent): 15.0; Somewhat unimportant
(percent): 25.0; Very unimportant (percent): 10.0; Number of
respondents: 40.
h. To plan environmental mitigation or restoration; Very important
(percent): 27.0; Somewhat important (percent): 32.4; Equally important
and unimportant (percent): 18.9; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 16.2;
Very unimportant (percent): 5.4; Number of respondents: 37.
i. To monitor the terms of water allocation agreements that distribute
water among multiple parties (such as states); Very important
(percent): 35.5; Somewhat important (percent): 22.6; Equally important
and unimportant (percent): 6.5; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 12.9;
Very unimportant (percent): 22.6; Number of respondents: 31.
Q15. What type(s) of water quantity data, not currently being collected
by the federal government, would be most useful in helping your state
with its water management?
Providing answer (percent): 74.5; Number of respondents: 47.
Q16. Which actions, with respect to federal collection and
dissemination of data, would be most useful to your state? Rank each of
the following actions from most useful (1st) to least useful (6th).
a. Collect data at more locations; Mean Ranking: 1.3; Number of
respondents: 45.
b. Improve the accuracy of data currently being collected; Mean
Ranking: 3.8; Number of respondents: 45.
c. Improve the timeliness of dissemination; Mean Ranking: 3.3; Number
of respondents: 45.
d. Improve access to data previously collected (for example,
historical); Mean Ranking: 3.8; Number of respondents: 45.
e. Provide data in a more usable format; Mean Ranking: 4.4; Number of
respondents: 45.
f. Provide more analyses of data; Mean Ranking: 4.3; Number of
respondents: 45.
Q17. Are there other actions federal agencies could take to improve
their collection and dissemination of water quantity data?
Providing answer (percent): 57.4; Number of respondents: 47.
Q18. How much of your state's water is stored using facilities
constructed, operated, or maintained by the federal government?
Little or none (percent): 36.2; Less than half (percent): 23.4; About
half (percent): 8.5; More than half (percent): 25.5; All or almost all
(percent): 2.1; Uncertain (percent): 4.3; Number of respondents: 47.
Q19. How likely is it that your state will add storage capacity within
the next 10 years?
Very likely (percent): 36.2; Somewhat likely (percent): 19.1; Equally
likely and unlikely (percent): 10.6; Somewhat unlikely (percent): 12.8;
Very unlikely (percent): 21.3; Uncertain (percent): 0.0; Number of
respondents: 47.
Q20. Has your state estimated the cost to add storage capacity?
Yes (percent): 27.7; No (percent): 57.4; Uncertain (percent): 14.9;
Number of respondents: 47.
Q21. Does your state plan to seek federal assistance for the addition
of storage capacity?
Definitely yes (percent): 23.9; Probably yes (percent): 30.4; Probably
no (percent): 23.9; Definitely no (percent): 4.3; Uncertain (percent):
17.4; Number of respondents: 46.
Q22. What activities have federal agencies participated in during the
past 5 years with respect to non-federal storage infrastructure in
your state?
1. Planning of facilities; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of
respondents: 47.
2. Reviewing plans for facilities; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of
respondents: 47.
3. Operating and/or maintaining facilities; Checked (percent): 17.0;
Number of respondents: 47.
4. Constructing facilities; Checked (percent): 12.8; Number of
respondents: 47.
5. None of these activities; Checked (percent): 31.9; Number of
respondents: 47.
6. Uncertain; Checked (percent): 23.4; Number of respondents: 47.
Q23. Within the last 5 years, has your state requested that a federal
agency modify its operation of a federal storage facility to better
meet the state's water management goals?
Yes, many times (percent): 23.4; Yes, a few times (percent): 23.4; Yes,
but only once or twice (percent): 14.9; No (percent): 23.4; Our state
does not have any federal storage facilities (percent): 8.5; Uncertain
(percent): 6.4; Number of respondents: 47.
If 'yes' is checked (in Q23 above), please provide some examples of the
types of changes requested and the agencies that you requested make the
changes.
Providing examples (percent): 86.2; Number of respondents: 29.
Q24. How much of your state's water is conveyed using facilities (for
example, an aqueduct or canal) constructed, operated, or maintained by
the federal government?
Little or none (percent): 68.1; Less than half (percent): 19.1; About
half (percent): 2.1; More than half (percent): 8.5; All or almost all
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.
Q25. How likely is it that your state will add conveyance capacity
within the next 10 years?
Very likely (percent): 25.5; Somewhat likely (percent): 12.8; Equally
likely and unlikely (percent): 2.1; Somewhat unlikely (percent): 10.6;
Very unlikely (percent): 36.2; Uncertain (percent): 12.8; Number of
respondents: 47.
Q26. Has your state estimated the cost to add conveyance capacity?
Yes (percent): 19.1; No (percent): 74.5; Uncertain (percent): 6.4;
Number of respondents: 47.
Q27. Does your state plan to seek federal assistance for the addition
of conveyance capacity?
Definitely yes (percent): 19.1; Probably yes (percent): 12.8; Probably
no (percent): 40.4; Definitely no (percent): 6.4; Uncertain (percent):
21.3; Number of respondents: 47.
Q28. What activities have federal agencies participated in during the
past 5 years with respect to non-federal conveyance infrastructure in
your state?
1. Planning of facilities; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of
respondents: 47.
2. Reviewing plans for facilities; Checked (percent): 31.9; Number of
respondents: 47.
3. Operating and/or maintaining facilities; Checked (percent): 4.3;
Number of respondents: 47.
4. Constructing facilities; Checked (percent): 10.6; Number of
respondents: 47.
5. None of these activities; Checked (percent): 44.7; Number of
respondents: 47.
6. Uncertain; Checked (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.
Q29. Has the lack of maintenance (e.g., repair or rehabilitation) of
federal storage or conveyance facilities reduced water availability in
your state within the last 5 years?
Yes, many times (percent): 6.4; Yes, a few times (percent): 0.0; Yes,
but only once or twice (percent): 8.5; No (percent): 53.2; Our state
does not have any federal storage or conveyance facilities (percent):
14.9; Uncertain (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.
If 'yes' is checked (in Q29 above), please provide example(s) of poor
maintenance and how it affected water availability in your state.
Providing examples (percent): 85.7; Number of respondents: 7.
Q30. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state meet its
water management goals with respect to the storage and conveyance of
water? Rank each of the following actions from most useful (1st) to
least useful (6th).
a. Improve the maintenance of federal facilities; Mean Ranking: 4.8;
Number of respondents: 44.
b. Increase federal technical assistance for the planning,
construction, operation, or maintenance of state storage and conveyance
infrastructure; Mean Ranking: 3.5; Number of respondents: 44.
c. Increase federal financial assistance for the planning and
construction of state storage and conveyance infrastructure; Mean
Ranking: 1.9; Number of respondents: 44.
d. Increase federal financial assistance for the operation and
maintenance of state storage and conveyance infrastructure; Mean
Ranking: 3.4; Number of respondents: 44.
e. Seek more state input in operation of federal storage facilities;
Mean Ranking: 3.4; Number of respondents: 44.
f. Streamline federal review processes of proposed state storage and
conveyance facilities; Mean Ranking: 4.0; Number of respondents: 44.
Q31. Are there other actions federal agencies could take to improve
their participation in the planning, review, construction, operation,
and/or maintenance of federal water storage and conveyance
infrastructure?
Providing answer (percent): 44.7; Number of respondents: 47.
Q32. What effect has each of the federal laws listed below had on water
availability, for in-stream purposes, in your state within the past
5 years?
a. Clean Water Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent):
14.9; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 38.3; Had no
effect on water availability (percent): 29.8; Somewhat decreased water
availability (percent): 6.4; Greatly decreased water availability
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 10.6; Number of respondents: 47.
b. Coastal Zone Management Act; Greatly increased water availability
(percent): 2.5; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 15.0;
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 65.0; Somewhat decreased
water availability (percent): 2.5; Greatly decreased water availability
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 15.0; Number of respondents: 40.
c. Endangered Species Act; Greatly increased water availability
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 34.0;
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 27.7; Somewhat decreased
water availability (percent): 14.9; Greatly decreased water
availability (percent): 4.3; Uncertain (percent): 19.1; Number of
respondents: 47.
d. Federal Power Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent):
2.2; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 24.4; Had no
effect on water availability (percent): 33.3; Somewhat decreased water
availability (percent): 15.6; Greatly decreased water availability
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 24.4; Number of respondents: 45.
e. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Greatly increased water
availability (percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability
(percent): 21.7; Had no effect on water availability (percent): 37.0;
Somewhat decreased water availability (percent): 8.7; Greatly decreased
water availability (percent): 2.2; Uncertain (percent): 30.4; Number of
respondents: 46.
f. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; Greatly increased water
availability (percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability
(percent): 7.3; Had no effect on water availability (percent): 56.1;
Somewhat decreased water availability (percent): 7.3; Greatly decreased
water availability (percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 29.3; Number of
respondents: 41.
g. Safe Drinking Water Act; Greatly increased water availability
(percent): 6.4; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 19.1;
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 44.7; Somewhat decreased
water availability (percent): 14.9; Greatly decreased water
availability (percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 14.9; Number of
respondents: 47.
h. Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts; Greatly increased water availability
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 10.9;
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 56.5; Somewhat decreased
water availability (percent): 6.5; Greatly decreased water availability
(percent): 4.3; Uncertain (percent): 21.7; Number of respondents: 46.
i. Wilderness Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent): 0.0;
Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 2.2; Had no effect on
water availability (percent): 68.9; Somewhat decreased water
availability (percent): 2.2; Greatly decreased water availability
(percent): 2.2; Uncertain (percent): 24.4; Number of respondents: 45.
Q33. What effect has each of the federal laws listed below had on water
availability, for off-stream purposes, in your state within the past
5 years?
a. Clean Water Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent):
6.5; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 17.4; Had no
effect on water availability (percent): 23.9; Somewhat decreased water
availability (percent): 37.0; Greatly decreased water availability
(percent): 2.2; Uncertain (percent): 13.0; Number of respondents: 46.
b. Coastal Zone Management Act; Greatly increased water availability
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 7.7;
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 64.1; Somewhat decreased
water availability (percent): 10.3; Greatly decreased water
availability (percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 17.9; Number of
respondents: 39.
c. Endangered Species Act; Greatly increased water availability
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 2.2;
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 26.1; Somewhat decreased
water availability (percent): 50.0; Greatly decreased water
availability (percent): 6.5; Uncertain (percent): 15.2; Number of
respondents: 46.
d. Federal Power Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent):
0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 8.9; Had no
effect on water availability (percent): 40.0; Somewhat decreased water
availability (percent): 22.2; Greatly decreased water availability
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 28.9; Number of respondents: 45.
e. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Greatly increased water
availability (percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability
(percent): 2.3; Had no effect on water availability (percent): 32.6;
Somewhat decreased water availability (percent): 30.2; Greatly
decreased water availability (percent): 2.3; Uncertain (percent): 32.6;
Number of respondents: 43.
f. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; Greatly increased water
availability (percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability
(percent): 4.9; Had no effect on water availability (percent): 56.1;
Somewhat decreased water availability (percent): 7.3; Greatly decreased
water availability (percent): 2.4; Uncertain (percent): 29.3; Number of
respondents: 41.
g. Safe Drinking Water Act; Greatly increased water availability
(percent): 8.7; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 19.6;
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 43.5; Somewhat decreased
water availability (percent): 10.9; Greatly decreased water
availability (percent): 2.2; Uncertain (percent): 15.2; Number of
respondents: 46.
h. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; Greatly increased water availability
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 2.3;
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 52.3; Somewhat decreased
water availability (percent): 18.2; Greatly decreased water
availability (percent): 4.5; Uncertain (percent): 22.7; Number of
respondents: 44.
i. Wilderness Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent): 0.0;
Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 0.0; Had no effect on
water availability (percent): 66.7; Somewhat decreased water
availability (percent): 2.4; Greatly decreased water availability
(percent): 2.4; Uncertain (percent): 28.6; Number of respondents: 42.
Q34. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state fulfill
the requirements of federal environmental laws while meeting its water
management goals? Rank each of the following actions from most useful
(1st) to least useful (4th).
a. Charge for the use of water from federal storage and conveyance
facilities and use funds to help mitigate damage to environment from
projects; Mean Ranking: 4.0; Number of respondents: 46.
b. Give the states more flexibility in compliance or administration of
federal environmental laws; Mean Ranking: 1.8; Number of respondents:
46.
c. Improve coordination among federal agencies in implementing
environmental laws; Mean Ranking: 2.5; Number of respondents: 46.
d. Seek more state input into development, revision and implementation
of federal environmental laws; Mean Ranking: 1.8; Number of
respondents: 46.
Q35. Are there other actions federal agencies could take to help your
state fulfill the requirements of federal environmental laws?
Providing answer (percent): 40.4; Number of respondents: 47.
Q36. Does your state participate in an interstate compact or
international treaty to allocate water among multiple parties?
Yes (percent): 61.7; No (percent): 36.2; Uncertain (percent): 2.1;
Number of respondents: 47.
Q37. About how much of your state's water is affected by an interstate
compact and/or international treaty?
Little or none (percent): 20.7; Less than half (percent): 44.8; About
half (percent): 0.0; More than half (percent): 31.0; All or almost all
(percent): 3.4; Uncertain (percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 29.
Q38. Within the last 5 years, have any federal agencies participated in
the development, implementation or enforcement of an interstate compact
affecting water availability in your state?
1. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the development of
an interstate compact(s); Checked (percent): 17.2; Number of
respondents: 29.
2. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the implementation
of an interstate compact(s); Checked (percent): 58.6; Number of
respondents: 29.
3. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the enforcement of
an interstate compact(s); Checked (percent): 31.0; Number of
respondents: 29.
4. None of the above; Checked (percent): 17.2; Number of respondents:
29.
Q39. Within the last 5 years, have any federal agencies participated in
the development, implementation or enforcement of an international
treaty affecting water availability in your state?
1. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the development of
an international treaty(ies); Checked (percent): 13.8; Number of
respondents: 29.
2. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the implementation
of an international treaty(ies); Checked (percent): 27.6; Number of
respondents: 29.
3. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the enforcement of
an international treaty(ies); Checked (percent): 27.6; Number of
respondents: 29.
4. None of the above; Checked (percent): 55.2; Number of respondents:
29.
Q40. Within the last 5 years, have federal agencies participating in
the development, implementation, or enforcement of an interstate
compact(s) and/or international treaty(ies) affecting water allocation
fulfilled their responsibilities?
All agencies have fulfilled all responsibilities (percent): 50.0; One
or more agencies have not fulfilled their responsibilities (percent):
26.9; Uncertain (percent): 23.1; Number of respondents: 26.
If 'one or more agencies' is checked (in Q40 above), please specify the
agency(ies) and briefly describe how often responsibilities have not
been fulfilled.
Providing answer (percent): 100; Number of respondents: 7.
Q41. Does your state plan to propose, negotiate, or participate in a
new interstate compact or international treaty within the next 5 years?
Definitely yes (percent): 13.8; Probably yes (percent): 24.1; Probably
no (percent): 37.9; Definitely no (percent): 13.8; Uncertain (percent):
10.3; Number of respondents: 29.
Q42. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state with
respect to the development, enforcement, and implementation of
interstate compacts and international treaties? Rank order each of the
following actions from most useful (1st) to least to the least
useful (6th).
a. Better coordinate federal participation with the state; Mean
Ranking: 2.6; Number of respondents: 28.
b. Better coordinate participation among federal agencies; Mean
Ranking: 2.8; Number of respondents: 28.
c. Create a market-based allocation system for water shared by states;
Mean Ranking: 5.3; Number of respondents: 28.
d. Develop alternative tools for resolving water allocation conflicts
among states; Mean Ranking: 3.0; Number of respondents: 28.
e. Increase technical assistance to assist the states with development
or implementation; Mean Ranking: 2.8; Number of respondents: 28.
f. Make it easier to amend or revise existing agreements; Mean Ranking:
4.5; Number of respondents: 28.
Q43. Are there other actions that would be useful in helping your state
with respect to the development, enforcement, and implementation of
interstate compacts and international treaties?
Providing answer (percent): 41.4; Number of respondents: 29.
Q44. Do any federal agencies hold or claim water rights in your state?
Yes: 51.1; No: 31.9; Uncertain: 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.
Q45. Currently, about how much of your state's water is allocated to
fulfill federal water rights?
Little or none (percent): 50.0; Less than half (percent): 37.5; About
half (percent): 0.0; More than half (percent): 4.2; All or almost all
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 8.3; Number of respondents: 24.
Q46. If all federal claims to water in your state were quantified,
about how much of your state's water would be allocated to fulfill
these rights?
Little or none (percent): 37.5; Less than half (percent): 29.2; About
half (percent): 4.2; More than half (percent): 4.2; All or almost all
(percent): 4.2; Uncertain (percent): 20.8; Number of respondents: 24.
Q47. How important is the quantification of federal water rights to
your state's ability to manage its water?
Very important (percent): 29.2; Somewhat important (percent): 29.2;
Equally important and unimportant (percent): 12.5; Somewhat unimportant
(percent): 12.5; Very unimportant (percent): 16.7; Uncertain (percent):
0.0; Number of respondents: 24.
Q48. Within the last five years, has your state experienced any
conflict between how a federal agency employed its water rights and
your state's water management goals?
Yes, many times (percent): 13.6; Yes, a few times (percent): 40.9; Yes,
but only once or twice (percent): 18.2; No, our state has not
experienced any conflict (percent): 27.3; Uncertain (percent): 0.0;
Number of respondents: 22.
If 'yes' is checked (in Q48 above), please specify the agency(ies).
Providing answer (percent): 93.8; Number of respondents: 16.
Q49. Do any tribal governments hold or claim water rights in your
state?
Yes (percent): 52.2; No (percent): 41.3; Uncertain (percent): 6.5;
Number of respondents: 46.
Q50. Currently, about how much of your state's water is allocated to
fulfill tribal water rights?
Little or none (percent): 73.9; Less than half (percent): 26.1; About
half (percent): 0.0; More than half (percent): 0.0; All or almost all
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 23.
Q51. If all tribal claims to water in your state were quantified, about
how much of your state's water would be allocated to fulfill these
rights?
Little or none (percent): 45.8; Less than half (percent): 25.0; About
half (percent): 0.0; More than half (percent): 4.2; All or almost all
(percent): 4.2; Uncertain (percent): 20.8; Number of respondents: 24.
Q52. How important is the quantification of tribal water rights to your
state's ability to manage its water?
Very important (percent): 37.5; Somewhat important (percent): 12.5;
Equally important and unimportant (percent): 12.5; Somewhat unimportant
(percent): 8.3; Very unimportant (percent): 25.0; Uncertain (percent):
4.2; Number of respondents: 24.
Q53. Within the last five years, has your state experienced any
conflict between how a tribal government employed its water rights and
the state's water management goals?
Yes, many times (percent): 4.3; Yes, a few times (percent): 26.1; Yes,
but only once or twice (percent): 21.7; No, our state has not
experienced any conflict (percent): 39.1; Uncertain (percent): 8.7;
Number of respondents: 23.
If 'yes' is checked (in Q53 above), please specify the tribal
government(s).
Writing comment (percent): 83.3; Number of respondents: 12.
Q55. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state fulfill
federal and tribal rights to water while meeting your state's water
management goals? Rank each of the following actions from most useful
(1st) to least useful (6th).
a. Better coordinate participation among federal agencies in the
establishment and use of federal or tribal water rights; Mean Ranking:
3.0; Number of respondents: 25.
b. Clarify federal policy on tribal governments' authority to sell
water rights; Mean Ranking: 4.1; Number of respondents: 25.
c. Improve the efficiency of water use, including increasing
conservation when applicable, on federal and tribal lands; Mean
Ranking: 4.7; Number of respondents: 25.
d. Increase financial and technical assistance to states for
adjudication of federal and tribal water rights; Mean Ranking: 2.9;
Number of respondents: 25.
e. Seek more state input into the use of federal or tribal water rights
and potential effects on state water management goals; Mean Ranking:
2.2; Number of respondents: 25.
f. Streamline federal processes to quantify federal or tribal water
rights; Mean Ranking: 4.1; Number of respondents: 25.
Q56. Are there other actions that federal agencies could take to help
your state fulfill federal and tribal rights to water while meeting
your state's water management goals?
Providing answer (percent): 38.7; Number of respondents: 31.
Additional Comments: If you would like to make additional comments
concerning any topic related to water availability, management, or use,
please feel free to do so in the space provided.
Providing answer (percent): 36.2; Number of respondents: 47.
Note: Question 54 was not included because it was used only for
navigation purposes in the Web-based questionnaire.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240:
JUN 10 2003:
Mr. Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team U.S. General
Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (DOI) the
opportunity to review and comment on the draft U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) report entitled, "FRESHWATER SUPPLY: States' View of How
Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected
Shortages," (GAO-03-514) dated May 8, 2003. In general, we agree with
the findings and the recommendations in the report.
The report appears to be accurate and represents a substantial effort
on the part of the GAO staff involved in the review. We acknowledge the
critical need for Federal-state partnerships in addressing the national
challenge of ensuring adequate water supplies for all of our citizens.
The report provides valuable information to Federal agencies for
improving interactions with state water managers in addressing existing
and potential water shortages across the country. The report will be
helpful also to state and local resource managers in identifying
Federal activities and plans that support water management efforts at
all levels of Government. Finally, we are confident that information
contained in this report will be of great value to Congressional
committees in their deliberations on national water policy issues.
The enclosure provides specific comments from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, and
the DOI's Office of Budget. We hope our comments will assist you in
preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
P. Lynn Scarlett:
Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841 Keith Oleson (415) 904-2218:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Brad Dobbins, Elizabeth Fan, John
Kalmar, Katherine Kousser, Janet Lewis, and Lynn Musser made key
contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were
Charles Bausell, Robert Crystal, Kim Raheb, Carol Shulman, and Don
Yamada.
:
(360185):
:
:
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Council, established by the Water Resources Planning Act in
1965 (P.L. 89-80), comprising the heads of several federal departments
and agencies, such as Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency,
has not been funded since 1983.
[2] USGS fully defines consumptive use as water that has evaporated,
transpired (e.g., from vegetation), incorporated into products or
crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise removed from the
immediate water environment.
[3] While meteorological measurements are the first indicators of
drought, other definitions of drought exist. For example, agricultural
drought occurs when there is not enough moisture in the soil to meet
the needs of a particular crop at a particular time, hydrological
drought refers to deficiencies in water supplies, and socioeconomic
drought is associated with supply and demand for water as an economic
good.
[4] U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 3.
[5] U.S. Const. art. IV, §3, cl. 2.
[6] See e.g., United States v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204, 1210 (7th Cir.
1977); Utah v. Marsh, 740 F. 2d 799, 803 (10th Cir. 1984).
[7] United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 703
(1898).
[8] Id.
[9] U.S. Const. art. I, §10, cl. 3.
[10] 43 U.S.C. § 383; California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978).
[11] 43 U.S.C. § 390b.
[12] See, e.g., the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666, which waives
U.S. sovereign immunity and allows the federal government to be sued in
state court to determine its rights to the use of water in a river
system or other source. Both the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1251(g) et seq., and the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531
et seq., state that it is the policy of Congress that federal agencies
cooperate with state and local agencies to resolve water
resource issues.
[13] Three states did not respond to our survey, and one state was
uncertain.
[14] Three states did not respond to our survey, and one state was
uncertain.
[15] For information on national needs for drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Water
Infrastructure: Information on Financing, Capital Planning, and
Privatization, GAO-02-764 (Washington, D.C., May 5, 1999).
[16] Other federal agencies have facility management responsibilities
not directly related to water storage and distribution. For example,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of
Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating dam safety efforts,
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--an independent five-
member commission appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate--licenses and regulates non-federal hydropower projects.
[17] An acre-foot is the amount needed to cover an acre of land with 1
foot of water, sufficient to meet the needs of a family of four for 1
year.
[18] According to the Reclamation officials, the agency has transferred
operation and maintenance responsibilities for 415 water storage and
delivery facilities since Reclamation constructed them.
[19] For more information, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Animas-
La Plata Project: Status and Legislative Framework, GAO/RCED-96-1
(Washington, D.C., Nov. 17, 1995).
[20] Unlike Reclamation, the Corps does not own or operate water
distribution facilities.
[21] Non-federal parties also construct and operate water storage
projects on federal lands. Federal natural resource agencies issue
permits for these activities. For example, the National Park Service
issued a permit to the City of San Francisco to construct and operate,
within the Yosemite National Park, Hetch Hetchy reservoir, the primary
water source for the city.
[22] 33 U.S.C. §1311(a).
[23] 33 U.S.C. §1344(a), (d).
[24] 33 U.S.C. §1329.
[25] 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2).
[26] 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(3)(a).
[27] Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).
[28] In its 2002 report to Congress, USGS described the concepts for a
national assessment of freshwater availability and use. (Report to
Congress: Concepts for National Assessment of Water Availability and
Use, Circular 1223, 2002.)
[29] Pub. L. No. 89-80, 79 Stat. 244 (1965).
[30] 1995 is the most recent data available; USGS' 2000 national water
use information is not yet ready for publication.
[31] Brown, Thomas C. 1999. Past and Future Freshwater Use in the
United States: A Technical Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Forest
Service RPA Assessment.
[32] Various agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency,
have programs that provide technical assistance to states, water
districts, and water users for efficiency, conservation, and reuse
efforts.
[33] Resources for the Future, established in 1952, conducts
independent research on environmental and natural resource issues.
[34] Other factors that influence the demand for water include the
price of water, the price of other goods (such as, the price of energy
used in water pumps and the price of goods produced using water),
income, instream demands for habitat and other ecological needs,
and climate.
[35] Net population change is births minus deaths plus net migration.
[36] Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 96-
69, 93 Stat. 437 (1980).
[37] The National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest
Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service, all manage designated rivers.
[38] U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002,
Washington, D.C., May 2002.
[39] Shortages are at prevailing water prices; we did not consider the
potential effects of changes in water prices for this review.
[40] Based on discussions with state water managers during survey
pretests, we asked managers to use the last 10 to 20 years to determine
average water conditions for their state.
[41] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Climatic Data Center is responsible for monitoring and assessing the
earth's climate and is the world's largest repository of weather data.
The center gathers water shortage related information including
economic impact data.
[42] The Susquehanna River Basin Commission coordinates water resources
efforts of the states of Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania and the
federal government to administer water resources in the Susquehanna
River Basin.
[43] Reclamation operates a federal water supply project in the Upper
Basin that has provided water for irrigation to farmers for nearly
100 years.
[44] U.S. Department of Interior, Water 2025: Preventing Crises and
Conflict, Washington, D.C., May 2003.
[45] State water managers in 47 states responded to our survey;
California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate.
[46] In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $23 million in funding to
Reclamation's Central Valley Project for activities that support the
California Bay-Delta Restoration Program (CALFED), including
investigations of water storage opportunities and ongoing reservoir
planning activities.
[47] Endangered Species Act reauthorization has been on the legislative
agenda since authorization expired in 1992, and bills have been
introduced in each Congress to address various aspects of endangered
species protection.
[48] Pub. L. No. 82-495, §208, 66 Stat. 549, 560 (1952); see chapter 1,
footnote 11, for more information on the McCarran Amendment.
[49] For any water right holder, including federal agencies,
participation in adjudication involves submitting a claim for the
amount, location, and use of water.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
