Freshwater Programs
Federal Agencies' Funding in the United States and Abroad Gao ID: GAO-05-253 March 11, 2005As the world's population tripled during the past century, demand for the finite amount of freshwater resources increased six-fold, straining these resources for many countries, including the United States. The United Nations estimates that, worldwide, more than 1 billion people live without access to clean drinking water and over 2.4 billion people lack the basic sanitation needed for human health. Freshwater supply shortages--already evident in the drought-ridden western United States--pose serious challenges and can have economic, social, and environmental consequences. Multiple federal agencies share responsibility for managing freshwater resources, but consolidated information on the federal government's financial support of these activities is not readily accessible. GAO was asked to determine for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 how much financial support federal agencies provided for freshwater programs in the United States and abroad. For the purposes of this report, freshwater programs include desalination, drinking water supply, flood control, irrigation, navigation, wastewater treatment, water conservation, water dispute management, and watershed management.
Of the over $52 billion in total financial support provided by federal agencies for freshwater programs during fiscal years 2000 through 2004, about $49 billion was directed to domestic programs and about $3 billion supported programs abroad. Domestic program activities involved 27 federal agencies, but 3 agencies--the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Agriculture's (Agriculture) Rural Utilities Service--accounted for over 70 percent of the financial support. Eighteen agencies supported domestic drinking water supply programs and 16 supported domestic wastewater treatment and watershed management programs. Grant programs of over $22 billion and direct federal spending of about $22 billion accounted for most of the domestic financial support. In addition to the about $49 billion that directly support freshwater activities in the United States, some agencies also have programs that may indirectly support such activities, but it is difficult to determine the dollar value of this indirect support. For example, Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program supports multiple activities, including irrigation, but information on each activity supported by the program is not readily available. Also included in the domestic program is about $175 million that the United States provided to three commissions that conduct freshwater activities along U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada. Of the estimated $3 billion in total financial support directed toward freshwater programs abroad between fiscal years 2000 through 2004, about $1 billion was recently provided for freshwater projects in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the financial support for international freshwater programs was provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Foreign wastewater treatment and watershed management programs were the ones that most of the agencies supported. The vast majority of the U.S. support for international programs was provided through grants. Not included in the $3 billion for international support are the contributions that the United States made to the general budgets of numerous international organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Bank. The international organizations used some portion of the U.S. contributions to support freshwater activities around the globe.
GAO-05-253, Freshwater Programs: Federal Agencies' Funding in the United States and Abroad
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-253
entitled 'Freshwater Programs: Federal Agencies' Funding in the United
States and Abroad' which was released on March 11, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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:
March 2005:
Freshwater Programs:
Federal Agencies' Funding in the United States and Abroad:
GAO-05-253:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-253, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
As the world‘s population tripled during the past century, demand for
the finite amount of freshwater resources increased six-fold, straining
these resources for many countries, including the United States. The
United Nations estimates that, worldwide, more than 1 billion people
live without access to clean drinking water and over 2.4 billion people
lack the basic sanitation needed for human health. Freshwater supply
shortages”already evident in the drought-ridden western United
States”pose serious challenges and can have economic, social, and
environmental consequences.
Multiple federal agencies share responsibility for managing freshwater
resources, but consolidated information on the federal government‘s
financial support of these activities is not readily accessible. You
asked GAO to determine for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 how much
financial support federal agencies provided for freshwater programs in
the United States and abroad. For the purposes of this report,
freshwater programs include desalination, drinking water supply, flood
control, irrigation, navigation, wastewater treatment, water
conservation, water dispute management, and watershed management.
What GAO Found:
Of the over $52 billion in total financial support provided by federal
agencies for freshwater programs during fiscal years 2000 through 2004,
about $49 billion was directed to domestic programs and about $3
billion supported programs abroad. Domestic program activities involved
27 federal agencies, but 3 agencies”the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of
Agriculture‘s (Agriculture) Rural Utilities Service”accounted for over
70 percent of the financial support. Eighteen agencies supported
domestic drinking water supply programs and 16 supported domestic
wastewater treatment and watershed management programs. Grant programs
of over $22 billion and direct federal spending of about $22 billion
accounted for most of the domestic financial support. In addition to
the about $49 billion that directly support freshwater activities in
the United States, some agencies also have programs that may indirectly
support such activities, but it is difficult to determine the dollar
value of this indirect support. For example, Agriculture‘s Conservation
Reserve Program supports multiple activities, including irrigation, but
information on each activity supported by the program is not readily
available. Also included in the domestic program is about $175 million
that the United States provided to three commissions that conduct
freshwater activities along U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada.
Of the estimated $3 billion in total financial support directed toward
freshwater programs abroad between fiscal years 2000 through 2004,
about $1 billion was recently provided for freshwater projects in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the financial support for international
freshwater programs was provided by the U.S. Agency for International
Development. Foreign wastewater treatment and watershed management
programs were the ones that most of the agencies supported. The vast
majority of the U.S. support for international programs was provided
through grants. Not included in the $3 billion for international
support are the contributions that the United States made to the
general budgets of numerous international organizations, such as the
United Nations and the World Bank. The international organizations used
some portion of the U.S. contributions to support freshwater activities
around the globe.
Federal Agencies‘ Estimated Obligations for Freshwater Programs in the
United States and Abroad, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-253.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202)
512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Federal Agencies Provided an Estimated $49 Billion for Domestic
Freshwater Programs during Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Federal Agencies Provided an Estimated $3 Billion for Freshwater
Programs Abroad during Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Federal Financial Support for Freshwater Programs in the
United States and along U.S. Borders:
Federal Agencies:
Other Agencies:
Binational Commissions:
Appendix III: Federal Financial Support for Freshwater Programs Abroad:
Federal Agencies:
Other Agencies:
Selected International Organizations:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Department of the Interior:
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Federal Agencies' Estimated Financial Support for Domestic
Freshwater Programs, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Table 2: Federal Agencies' Domestic Freshwater Programs, Fiscal Years
2000 through 2004:
Table 3: Funding Mechanisms Used by Agencies to Provide Financial
Support for Domestic Freshwater Programs, Fiscal Years 2000 through
2004:
Table 4: Examples of Agencies' Domestic Freshwater-Related Activities
That Were Supported by Other Agencies, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Table 5: U.S. Financial Contributions Used to Support Freshwater
Projects along Both Sides of the U.S. Borders, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2004:
Table 6: Federal Agencies' Estimated Financial Support for Freshwater
Programs Abroad, Excluding Afghanistan and Iraq, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2004:
Table 7: Federal Agencies' Freshwater Programs Abroad, Excluding
Afghanistan and Iraq, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Table 8: Examples of Agencies' Freshwater-Related Activities Abroad
That Were Supported by Other Agencies, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Table 9: Federal Agencies' Estimated Financial Support for Freshwater
Projects in Afghanistan and Iraq, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004:
Table 10: Total U.S. Contributions to Selected Multilateral Development
Banks and Financial Institutions, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 (Some
Portion of These Contributions Supported Freshwater Projects Abroad):
Table 11: Total U.S. Contributions to Selected International
Organizations, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 (Some Portion of These
Contributions Supported Freshwater Projects Abroad):
Figure:
Figure 1: Financial Support Provided by Each Funding Mechanism for
Domestic Freshwater Programs, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Letter March 11, 2005:
The Honorable George Radanovich:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power:
Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Ken Calvert:
House of Representatives:
As the world's population tripled during the past century, demand for
accessible freshwater--which makes up less than 1 percent of the
earth's water--increased six-fold, straining freshwater resources for
many countries, including the United States. In the United States, with
increasing demand for the finite amount of freshwater available, large
portions of the country could face water shortages in the next few
decades. Freshwater supply shortages--already evident in the drought-
ridden West--pose serious challenges and can have significant economic,
social, and environmental consequences. Water shortages reduce farmland
and forest productivity and damage plant and animal species, wildlife
habitat, and air and water quality. In addition, water shortages can
create potential disputes between various water users, managers, and
government entities. Ensuring future water supplies to meet these
various and sometimes competing needs may require significant
investments. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
estimated that utilities would need to invest over $150 billion just to
repair, replace, and upgrade the nation's drinking water infrastructure
over the next two decades.
Freshwater supply issues are not unique to the United States--by 2025,
one-third of the world's population is likely to live in countries
facing freshwater shortages. The United Nations highlighted these
concerns when it declared 2003 as the International Year of Freshwater.
In addition, it estimates that, worldwide, more than 1 billion people
live without access to clean drinking water, and that over 2.4 billion
people lack the basic sanitation needed for human health. Furthermore,
the Secretary-General notes that water-related diseases are responsible
for 80 percent of all illnesses and deaths in developing countries.
Finally, the World Bank estimates that countries will need to double
the $70 billion to $80 billion they currently invest annually to
provide clean drinking water and basic sanitation for the world's
population. To help address these global challenges, the United States
contributes financial support to foreign countries and international
organizations for various freshwater projects.
Multiple federal agencies share responsibility for managing freshwater
resources.[Footnote 1] Agencies provide services through direct federal
spending or financial assistance through grant, loan, and loan
guarantee programs to other parties.Direct federal spending includes
payments that agencies make for services provided by federal employees
and federal contracts for freshwater programs in the United States and
abroad. Freshwater programs include, among other things, desalination,
drinking water supply, flood control, irrigation, navigation,
wastewater treatment, water conservation, water dispute management, and
watershed management activities. Additionally, the United States makes
financial contributions to several binational commissions that support
freshwater projects along U.S. borders and to international
organizations, such as the World Bank and the United Nations, that
support freshwater projects around the world. However, consolidated
information on the federal government's financial support of freshwater
programs in the United States and abroad does not currently exist. This
information is not readily accessible because definitions of freshwater
programs and the availability of financial data vary across agencies.
In this context, you asked us to determine for fiscal years 2000
through 2004 how much financial support federal agencies provided for
freshwater programs in the United States and abroad.
To address these objectives, we identified federal agencies that
support freshwater programs in the United States and abroad by
reviewing Congressional Research Service, GAO, and United Nations
reports and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. We conducted
initial interviews with officials from the agencies we identified to
confirm that the agencies provided financial support for these programs
during fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and focused our efforts on those
agencies responsible for the majority of the federal financial support.
We used a questionnaire to gather detailed information from agencies
that track freshwater expenditures. In this report, we have only
included data on the financial support that agencies provided
specifically for the following freshwater programs: desalination,
drinking water supply, flood control, irrigation, navigation,
wastewater treatment, water conservation, water dispute management, and
watershed management. We did not include financial support for programs
that may indirectly provide financial support for freshwater projects
because information on these programs' freshwater activities is not
tracked separately. As a result, the financial information in this
report is an estimate of the minimum amount of funds agencies provided
for freshwater programs. In addition, although we requested program-
level financial information, we opted to present this information at
the agency-level because agencies' definitions of freshwater programs
vary. We conducted follow-up interviews with respondents to confirm the
information and to clarify the information they provided, if necessary.
A more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented
in appendix I. We performed our work between March 2004 and January
2005, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
Of the estimated $52 billion in total financial support provided in the
United States and abroad for freshwater programs during fiscal years
2000 through 2004, about $49 billion came from 27 federal agencies
specifically for domestic programs. Three agencies--EPA, the Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps), and the Department of Agriculture's (Agriculture)
Rural Utilities Service--accounted for over 70 percent of the total
federal support for domestic programs. Domestic drinking water supply
programs received support from 18 agencies. Agencies provided most of
the domestic financial support through grant programs and direct
federal spending, over $22 billion and about $22 billion, respectively.
We also identified domestic programs that may provide financial support
for freshwater activities, but are not included in the $49 billion
because supporting freshwater activities is not the programs' primary
purpose and the amounts spent on freshwater activities could not be
readily identified. Also included in the domestic program is about $175
million that the United States provided to three binational commissions
to support freshwater activities along both sides of the U.S. borders
during fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
Federal agencies provided an estimated $3 billion in federal financial
support for freshwater programs abroad during fiscal years 2000 through
2004. Of the about $3 billion in total international funding, the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of
Defense (Defense) provided about $1 billion for freshwater projects in
Afghanistan and Iraq during fiscal years 2002 through 2004. USAID
accounted for the majority of the international support. International
wastewater treatment and watershed management programs received the
most U.S. support. Agencies provided most of the support through
grants. Some federal agencies, such as the Department of the Interior's
(Interior) Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Corps, conducted
work on freshwater projects in foreign countries, but funding for these
projects also originated from USAID and the Department of State
(State). In addition to providing financial support directly for
freshwater programs abroad, the United States indirectly supports such
programs through its contributions to numerous international
organizations, such as the World Bank.
Background:
The federal government supports multiple freshwater programs in the
United States and abroad. Although agencies vary in how they describe
their freshwater programs (activities, projects, or initiatives), the
following terms generally describe the freshwater efforts covered in
this review:
* Desalination--Activities and/or infrastructure related to the process
of removing salts from saline water to provide freshwater.
* Drinking water supply--Activities and/or infrastructure designed to
improve access to and quality and availability of clean drinking water.
* Flood control--Activities related to dredging, hydrologic
forecasting, and the construction, operation, and maintenance of
infrastructure designed to reduce flood damage.
* Irrigation--Activities and/or infrastructure related to the
diversion, distribution, delivery, and drainage of water for
agricultural purposes.
* Navigation--Activities and/or infrastructure related to dredging and
the construction, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure (e.g.,
locks, channels, and dams), primarily for river-based transportation.
* Wastewater treatment--Activities and/or infrastructure designed to
manage and treat storm water and domestic and/or industrial wastewater.
* Water dispute management--Adjudication, litigation, and negotiation
activities to prevent or resolve water-related disputes, including
water settlement payments.
* Water conservation--Activities and/or infrastructure designed to
reclaim, recycle, and/or reuse potable or nonpotable water.
* Watershed protection, restoration, and management (watershed
management)--Activities and/or infrastructure related to nonpoint
source pollution prevention, wetlands restoration, and land-based
activities related to source water protection and coastal zone
management.
Federal agencies provide financial support for freshwater programs
through direct federal spending and grant, loan, and loan guarantee
programs. For the purposes of this report, direct federal spending is a
general term used to describe, among other things, work performed by
federal employees or through contracts with private and nongovernmental
entities on the federal government's behalf. For example, direct
federal spending includes the financial support spent by federal
agencies for, among other things, the construction of reservoirs for
flood control and irrigation. Grants, loans, and loan guarantees are
different types of financial assistance programs provided by federal
agencies to help communities with projects, such as construction of
water and wastewater treatment facilities. In addition to providing
financial support on the direct costs of freshwater programs, such as
capital construction and operations and maintenance costs, agencies
also provide funds for technical assistance and research and
development efforts.
Agencies rely on several sources of funding--including annual
appropriations from the general fund and from dedicated funding
sources, such as trust funds--to provide financial support for these
programs. Agencies obligate these funds for multiple purposes as they
implement their programs. Obligations represent amounts for orders
placed, contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions
during a given period that will require payments during the same or a
future period. Obligations differ from expenditures in that an
expenditure is the issuance of a check, disbursement of cash, or
electronic transfer of funds made to liquidate an obligation. In
addition, in some circumstances expenditures fulfilling an obligation
may occur during subsequent years. Consequently, obligations provide
the best estimate of what an agency plans to spend during a fiscal year.
The extent to which agencies track their freshwater efforts vary.
Agencies tend to track the financial support they provide to large
freshwater programs, such as EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Some programs, such as Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program,
serve multiple purposes and specific program components, such as
irrigation activities, are not specifically tracked. Similarly,
freshwater projects (e.g., a dam) can serve multiple purposes,
providing benefits such as water storage, flood control, and generation
of hydroelectric power. The financial support provided for the overall
project cost is generally available, but the costs for specific
components of the project are not readily available. In addition,
definitions of freshwater programs can vary depending on the agency's
role. An agency that is responsible for maintaining portions of the
nation's waterways may include lock infrastructure and waterway
operations and maintenance activities in its navigation program;
however, other agencies, which are responsible for research and
development of freshwater resources, may include stream flow and
sedimentation research within their navigation programs. Because of
these differences, agencies may not be tracking their freshwater
expenditures consistently across agencies. As such, financial
information reported by the agencies on the federal government's
financial support of freshwater programs in the United States and
abroad is an estimate of the minimum amount of funds provided for these
efforts.
Federal Agencies Provided an Estimated $49 Billion for Domestic
Freshwater Programs during Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Of the 27 agencies that provided about $49 billion in federal financial
support specifically for freshwater programs in the United States
during fiscal years 2000 through 2004, 3 agencies accounted for over 70
percent of the total.[Footnote 2] EPA provided about 31 percent of the
total support, the Corps accounted for about 26 percent of the total,
and Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service accounted for about 16
percent of the total. See table 1 for more information on the federal
financial support provided for domestic freshwater programs.
Table 1: Federal Agencies' Estimated Financial Support for Domestic
Freshwater Programs, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Dollars in millions.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Agricultural Research Service;
Fiscal year 2000: $87.9;
Fiscal year 2001: $98.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $103.9;
Fiscal year 2003: $114.0;
Fiscal year 2004: $119.1;
Total: $523.8.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Fiscal year 2000: $27.7;
Fiscal year 2001: $31.1;
Fiscal year 2002: $33.3;
Fiscal year 2003: $39.7;
Fiscal year 2004: $41.1;
Total: $172.9.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Economic Research Service;
Fiscal year 2000: $1.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $1.0;
Fiscal year 2002: $1.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $0.9;
Fiscal year 2004: $0.8;
Total: $4.7.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Farm Service Agency[A];
Fiscal year 2000: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $0.1;
Fiscal year 2002: $13.2;
Fiscal year 2003: $5.9;
Fiscal year 2004: $5.4;
Total: $24.6.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Forest Service[B];
Fiscal year 2000: $59.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $52.1;
Fiscal year 2002: $59.3;
Fiscal year 2003: $62.1;
Fiscal year 2004: $59.0;
Total: $291.5.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Fiscal year 2000: $270.3;
Fiscal year 2001: $259.1;
Fiscal year 2002: $403.1;
Fiscal year 2003: $473.7;
Fiscal year 2004: $445.9;
Total: $1,852.0.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Rural Utilities Service;
Fiscal year 2000: $1,311.1;
Fiscal year 2001: $1,340.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $2,065.4;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,388.8;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,471.7;
Total: $7,577.4.
Department: Agriculture; Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2000: $1,756.9;
Fiscal year 2001: $1,782.7;
Fiscal year 2002: $2,679.1;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,085.1;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,142.9;
Total: $10,446.7.
Department: Commerce;
Agency: Economic Development Administration;
Fiscal year 2000: $56.9;
Fiscal year 2001: $87.1;
Fiscal year 2002: $59.3;
Fiscal year 2003: $56.4;
Fiscal year 2004: $77.8;
Total: $337.5.
Department: Commerce;
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration[C];
Fiscal year 2000: $35.2;
Fiscal year 2001: $36.3;
Fiscal year 2002: $41.7;
Fiscal year 2003: $42.5;
Fiscal year 2004: $46.6;
Total: $202.3.
Department: Commerce;
Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2000: $92.1;
Fiscal year 2001: $123.4;
Fiscal year 2002: $101.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $98.9;
Fiscal year 2004: $124.3;
Total: $539.8.
Department: Defense;
Agency: Army Corps of Engineers[D];
Fiscal year 2000: $2,485.8;
Fiscal year 2001: $2,614.0;
Fiscal year 2002: $2,656.9;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,702.6;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,450.9;
Total: $12,910.2.
Department: Defense;
Agency: Army Material Command;
Fiscal year 2000: $0.2;
Fiscal year 2001: $1.3;
Fiscal year 2002: $3.4;
Fiscal year 2003: $6.0;
Fiscal year 2004: $9.5;
Total: $20.4.
Department: Defense;
Agency: Office of Naval Research;
Fiscal year 2000: $0.8;
Fiscal year 2001: $1.2;
Fiscal year 2002: $0.7;
Fiscal year 2003: $7.2;
Fiscal year 2004: $7.0;
Total: $16.8.
Department: Defense;
Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2000: $2,486.8;
Fiscal year 2001: $2,616.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $2,661.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,715.8;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,467.4;
Total: $12,947.4.
Department: Energy[E];
Fiscal year 2000: $4.2;
Fiscal year 2001: $1.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $3.7;
Fiscal year 2003: $0.3;
Fiscal year 2004: $7.7;
Total: $17.3.
Department: Health and Human Services;
Agency: Administration for Children and Families;
Fiscal year 2000: $5.1;
Fiscal year 2001: $5.3;
Fiscal year 2002: $6.6;
Fiscal year 2003: $6.6;
Fiscal year 2004: $7.2;
Total: $30.7.
Department: Health and Human Services;
Agency: Indian Health Service;
Fiscal year 2000: $91.2;
Fiscal year 2001: $91.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $90.8;
Fiscal year 2003: $88.0;
Fiscal year 2004: $92.7;
Total: $454.2.
Department: Health and Human Services;
Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2000: $96.3;
Fiscal year 2001: $96.8;
Fiscal year 2002: $97.4;
Fiscal year 2003: $94.5;
Fiscal year 2004: $99.9;
Total: $484.9.
Department: Housing and Urban Development;
Agency: Office of Community Planning and Development[F];
Fiscal year 2000: $275.8;
Fiscal year 2001: $478.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $552.9;
Fiscal year 2003: $528.9;
Fiscal year 2004: $424.4;
Total: $2,260.9.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs;
Fiscal year 2000: $71.5;
Fiscal year 2001: $74.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $88.3;
Fiscal year 2003: $89.2;
Fiscal year 2004: $67.1;
Total: $390.7.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Bureau of Land Management;
Fiscal year 2000: $47.2;
Fiscal year 2001: $52.7;
Fiscal year 2002: $61.6;
Fiscal year 2003: $71.1;
Fiscal year 2004: $80.7;
Total: $313.3.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Bureau of Reclamation[G];
Fiscal year 2000: $692.7;
Fiscal year 2001: $637.2;
Fiscal year 2002: $802.2;
Fiscal year 2003: $739.7;
Fiscal year 2004: $788.8;
Total: $3,660.6.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service[H];
Fiscal year 2000: $40.6;
Fiscal year 2001: $136.4;
Fiscal year 2002: $154.1;
Fiscal year 2003: $147.2;
Fiscal year 2004: $174.7;
Total: $653.0.
Department: Interior;
Agency: National Park Service[I];
Fiscal year 2000: $65.2;
Fiscal year 2001: $30.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $69.9;
Fiscal year 2003: $34.6;
Fiscal year 2004: $27.3;
Total: $227.4.
Department: Interior;
Agency: U.S. Geological Survey;
Fiscal year 2000: $196.6;
Fiscal year 2001: $212.3;
Fiscal year 2002: $216.6;
Fiscal year 2003: $218.0;
Fiscal year 2004: $225.8;
Total: $1,069.3.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2000: $1,113.9;
Fiscal year 2001: $1,143.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $1,392.8;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,299.7;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,364.4;
Total: $6,314.4.
Department: Transportation;
Agency: Federal Highway Administration[J];
Fiscal year 2000: $24.4;
Fiscal year 2001: $27.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $17.5;
Fiscal year 2003: $26.2;
Fiscal year 2004: $20.2;
Total: $116.2.
Department: Transportation;
Agency: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation[K];
Fiscal year 2000: $12.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $13.0;
Fiscal year 2002: $13.3;
Fiscal year 2003: $14.0;
Fiscal year 2004: $14.3;
Total: $66.5.
Department: Transportation;
Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2000: $36.4;
Fiscal year 2001: $40.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $30.8;
Fiscal year 2003: $40.2;
Fiscal year 2004: $34.5;
Total: $182.7.
Independent agency: Appalachian Regional Commission[L];
Fiscal year 2000: $23.6;
Fiscal year 2001: $30.7;
Fiscal year 2002: $22.7;
Fiscal year 2003: $24.4;
Fiscal year 2004: $23.9;
Total: $125.2.
Independent agency: EPA;
Fiscal year 2000: $2,987.4;
Fiscal year 2001: $3,012.4;
Fiscal year 2002: $3,135.2;
Fiscal year 2003: $3,085.3;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,132.8;
Total: $15,353.1.
Independent agency: National Science Foundation;
Fiscal year 2000: $14.3;
Fiscal year 2001: $18.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $18.3;
Fiscal year 2003: $27.7;
Fiscal year 2004: $33.2;
Total: $112.0.
Independent agency: Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2000: $3,025.3;
Fiscal year 2001: $3,061.6;
Fiscal year 2002: $3,176.2;
Fiscal year 2003: $3,137.4;
Fiscal year 2004: $3,190.0;
Total: $15,590.4.
Total;
Fiscal year 2000: $8,887.6;
Fiscal year 2001: $9,345.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $10,694.7;
Fiscal year 2003: $10,000.9;
Fiscal year 2004: $9,855.4;
Total: $48,784.5.
Source: GAO survey of federal agencies' freshwater programs.
Note: Other agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and Small Business Administration, may also provide financial support
for these programs. In addition, the Department of the Treasury's
Judgment Fund paid out over $41 million in fiscal year 2003 and over $3
million in fiscal year 2004 as part of the settlement of a dispute
related to the Central Valley Project, a large water project in
California. Sumner Peck Ranch Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation, No. CV-F-
91-048 OWW (E.D. Cal). An additional payment of over $64 million was
paid out in fiscal year 2005. The figures in the table are reported as
obligations, appropriations, or expenditures in current dollars. Unless
otherwise noted, figures refer to obligations. All totals were
calculated prior to rounding to the nearest million. Totals may not
equal the sums of the yearly amounts due to rounding.
[A] These figures are for the Farmable Wetlands Program that began as a
pilot program in fiscal year 2001. The figures are an estimate of the
amount of federal dollars (rental and other payments) paid to
landholders to convert farmlands into wetlands. According to a senior
agency official, these figures can be used as a proxy for obligations.
[B] These figures are appropriations. According to a senior agency
official, the agency obligates the entire relevant appropriation each
fiscal year.
[C] These figures only include selective programs from the National
Weather Service and Oceanic and Atmospheric Research offices.
[D] These figures only include the Civil Works program and are
primarily in obligations. Figures for one program were reported in
expenditures. According to a senior agency official, the agency
obligates the entire relevant appropriation for this program each
fiscal year.
[E] The Department of Energy is counted by itself because no separate
agencies were identified within the department that provided financial
support for freshwater programs.
[F] These figures are actual disbursements.
[G] These figures only include the agency's Water and Related Resources
budget and some nonfederal dollars, such as funds provided by local
governmental entities, which were used to supplement the agency's
annual budget. The agency could not readily break out funds provided by
the nonfederal dollars.
[H] These figures only include selective programs from the Division of
Bird Habitat Conservation and the Division of Federal Assistance. The
agency modified its data management system in 2001, which improved its
ability to track freshwater programs. Financial support provided in
fiscal year 2000 is incomplete because the information was not readily
available.
[I] These figures include the agency's Water Resources Division's
budget along with water-related activities at the Everglades and
Olympic National Parks. Financial support provided to other parks for
freshwater programs were not readily available.
[J] These figures only include costs related to mitigation of water
pollution due to highway runoff.
[K] These figures are appropriations. According to a senior agency
official, the agency obligates the entire relevant appropriation each
fiscal year.
[L] These figures are actual grant approval amounts.
[End of table]
Each of the agency's financial support of freshwater programs generally
reflects the nature of its mission. EPA--as the agency responsible for
protecting the nation's waters through enforcing clean water and safe
drinking water laws, providing support for municipal wastewater
treatment plants, and protecting watersheds and sources of drinking
water--provides substantial financial support for freshwater programs.
On the other hand, the Department of Health and Human Services'
(Health) Administration of Children and Families--an agency responsible
for federal programs that seek to promote economic and social well-
being--administers a grant program dedicated to helping rural, low-
income communities with their water and wastewater systems and provides
a relatively small amount of financial support. In addition, agencies,
such as Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service, the Department of
Commerce's (Commerce) Economic Development Administration, Health's
Indian Health Service, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (Housing) Office of Community Planning and Development,
and EPA, that assist communities with the development of drinking water
supply and wastewater treatment facilities provide far more financial
support than agencies, such as Agriculture's Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service and Defense's Army Material
Command and Office of Naval Research, that primarily support research
and development efforts.
Agencies generally receive annual appropriations from the general fund
to support their domestic freshwater programs. In addition to annual
appropriations, 4 agencies--Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service, the
Corps, Defense's Office of Naval Research, and the Appalachian Regional
Commission--received funds from supplemental appropriations. The
Department of Transportation's (Transportation) Federal Highway
Administration and Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
received the majority of their annual budgets from dedicated funding
sources available subject to appropriations (the Highway Trust Fund and
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, respectively). In addition, 4 other
agencies--Agriculture's Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the Corps, and Interior's Reclamation--
supplemented their annual budgets with dedicated funding sources
available subject to appropriation. The Agriculture agencies received
funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation, while the Corps and
Interior's Reclamation received funding from trust funds. Finally,
certain agencies, including Interior's Reclamation and Fish and
Wildlife Service and Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service, received
funds from dedicated funding sources available without further
appropriation. For example, Interior's Reclamation received funds from
the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund to finance the
operation and maintenance of freshwater infrastructure in the Colorado
River Basin for, among other things, drinking water supply, flood
control, and irrigation efforts.
Domestic drinking water supply and wastewater treatment programs were
supported by 18 and 16 agencies, respectively. Agriculture's Rural
Utilities Service, Commerce's Economic Development Administration,
Health's Indian Health Service, Housing's Office of Community Planning
and Development, and EPA primarily supported activities related to the
development of drinking water supply and wastewater treatment
infrastructure, and some of the other agencies mostly provided
technical assistance and/or research and development assistance, such
as water quality and water availability research. Sixteen agencies
supported a variety of watershed management programs. While 7 agencies
provided financial support for navigation programs, the Corps and
Transportation's Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation provided
the majority of the support for, among other things, operations and
maintenance of the nation's waterways. See table 2 for more information
on the domestic freshwater programs these agencies supported.
Table 2: Federal Agencies' Domestic Freshwater Programs, Fiscal Years
2000 through 2004:
Department or agency: Agriculture;
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Agricultural Research Service;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Navigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Economic Research Service;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Farm Service Agency;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Forest Service;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Rural Utilities Service;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Department: Commerce;
Agency: Economic Development Administration;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Department: Commerce;
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Navigation;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Defense;
Agency: Army Corps of Engineers;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Navigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Defense;
Agency: Army Material Command;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water conservation.
Department: Defense;
Agency: Office of Naval Research;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Department: Energy[A];
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Waste- water treatment;
Department: Health and Human Services;
Agency: Administration for Children and Families;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Department: Health and Human Services;
Agency: Indian Health Service;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Department: Housing and Urban Development;
Agency: Office of Community Planning and Development;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Department: Interior;
Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Bureau of Land Management;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Bureau of Reclamation;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Interior;
Agency: National Park Service;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Interior;
Agency: U.S. Geological Survey;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Navigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Transportation;
Agency: Federal Highway Administration;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Transportation;
Agency: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation;
Freshwater program: Navigation;
Independent agency: Agency: Appalachian Regional Commission;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Navigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Independent agency: EPA;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Independent agency: National Science Foundation;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Navigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Total;
Freshwater program: Desalination: 8;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply: 18;
Freshwater program: Flood control: 12;
Freshwater program: Irrigation: 10;
Freshwater program: Navigation: 7;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment: 16;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management: 7;
Freshwater program: Water conservation: 10;
Freshwater program: Watershed management: 16.
Source: GAO survey of federal agencies' freshwater programs.
Note: The programs noted above only include programs that contributed
to the agencies' financial support in table 1. Agencies may support
additional freshwater programs.
[A] The Department of Energy is counted by itself because no separate
agencies were identified within the department that provided financial
support for freshwater programs.
[End of table]
Agencies used several different funding mechanisms to provide financial
support for domestic freshwater programs. Twenty of the 27 agencies
reported that they used direct federal spending to provide financial
support for freshwater programs. For the purposes of our review, we
define direct federal spending to include (1) work carried out by
federal employees, contractors, and private and nongovernmental
organization sectors for the federal government; (2) the federal
government's portion of federal cost-share programs; and (3) funds
provided from one agency to another agency to conduct work. Thirteen
agencies used grant programs, and 2 agencies each used loan and loan
guarantee programs. Many agencies used a combination of funding
mechanisms to provide financial support for freshwater programs. See
table 3 for more information on funding mechanisms used by agencies to
provide financial support for freshwater programs in the United States.
Table 3: Funding Mechanisms Used by Agencies to Provide Financial
Support for Domestic Freshwater Programs, Fiscal Years 2000 through
2004:
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending;
Department: Agriculture;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Agricultural Research Service;
* Economic Research Service;
* Farm Service Agency;
* Forest Service;
* Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending;
Department: Commerce;
Agency that provided financial support:
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending;
Department: Defense;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Army Corps of Engineers;
* Army Material Command.
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending;
Department: Health and Human Services;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Indian Health Service.
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending;
Department: Interior;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Bureau of Indian Affairs;
* Bureau of Land Management;
* National Park Service.
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending;
Department: Transportation;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Federal Highway Administration;
* Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
Funding mechanism: Grant programs;
Department: Commerce;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Economic Development Administration.
Funding mechanism: Grant programs;
Department: Health and Human Services;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Administration for Children and Families.
Funding mechanism: Grant programs;
Department: Housing and Urban Development;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Office of Community Planning and Development.
Funding mechanism: Grant programs;
Department: Independent Agencies;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Appalachian Regional Commission;
* EPA[A];
* National Science Foundation.
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending and grant programs;
Department: Agriculture;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending and grant programs;
Department: Defense;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Office of Naval Research.
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending and grant programs;
Department: Energy[B].
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending and grant programs;
Department: Interior;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Fish and Wildlife Service;
* U.S. Geological Survey.
Funding mechanism: Direct federal spending, and grant, loan, and loan
guarantee programs;
Department: Interior;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Bureau of Reclamation[C].
Funding mechanism: Grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs;
Department: Agriculture;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Rural Utilities Service.
Source: GAO survey of federal agencies' freshwater programs.
Note: The funding mechanisms noted above only include mechanisms used
to disburse agencies' financial support reported in table 1. Agencies
may use additional funding mechanisms.
[A] EPA grants are primarily used to fund the Drinking Water and Clean
Water State Revolving Funds. These revolving funds make loans to
municipalities.
[B] The Department of Energy is counted by itself because no separate
agencies were identified within the department that provided financial
support for freshwater programs.
[C] In fiscal year 2002, the agency dissolved its loan guarantee
program.
[End of table]
Grant programs and direct federal spending provided over $22 billion
and about $22 billion, respectively, for domestic freshwater programs.
Loan programs provided over $4 billion, and loan guarantee programs
provided over $90 million in initial obligations. Initial obligations
are the amount agencies obligated for the subsidy cost when a loan
guarantee was made. They do not include subsequent reestimates. See
figure 1 for the financial support provided by each funding mechanism.
Figure 1: Financial Support Provided by Each Funding Mechanism for
Domestic Freshwater Programs, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Note: In addition to these funding mechanisms, about 0.2 percent ($90.3
million) of the total financial support for domestic freshwater
programs was provided through loan guarantee programs.
[End of figure]
The $49 billion for domestic freshwater programs includes funding
provided from one agency to another to conduct freshwater activities in
the United States. For example, the Corps received financial support
from EPA to conduct watershed management activities. We included
funding for this effort in the financial information reported by EPA.
See table 4 for examples of agencies that performed work on freshwater
activities in the United States using financial support provided to
them by other agencies.
Table 4: Examples of Agencies' Domestic Freshwater-Related Activities
That Were Supported by Other Agencies, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Agriculture:
Agency conducting the work: Agricultural Research Service;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Agriculture agencies;
* Defense agencies;
* Interior agencies;
* EPA;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Irrigation, flood control,
water conservation, and watershed management.
Agency conducting the work: Rural Utilities Service;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Commerce's Economic Development Administration;
* Appalachian Regional Commission;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Drinking water supply and
wastewater treatment.
Commerce:
Agency conducting the work: Economic Development Administration;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment;
* Appalachian Regional Commission;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Drinking water supply,
wastewater treatment, irrigation, and flood control.
Agency conducting the work: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Army Corps of Engineers;
* Interior's U.S. Geological Survey;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Drinking water supply, water
conservation, watershed management, and flood control.
Defense:
Agency conducting the work: Army Corps of Engineers;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Agriculture agencies;
* Defense agencies;
* Interior agencies;
* EPA;
Examples of freshwater- related activities: Flood control, navigation,
and watershed management.
Health and Human Services:
Agency conducting the work: Indian Health Service;
Agency that provided financial support:
* EPA;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Drinking water supply and
wastewater treatment.
Housing and Urban Development:
Agency conducting the work: Office of Community Planning and
Development;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Appalachian Regional Commission;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Drinking water supply,
wastewater treatment, and flood control.
Interior:
Agency conducting the work: Bureau of Reclamation;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service;
* Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
* Defense agencies;
* Energy;
* Interior agencies;
* EPA;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Drinking water supply, flood
control, irrigation, wastewater treatment, and watershed management.
Agency conducting the work: U.S. Geological Survey;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Defense agencies;
* Interior agencies;
* Energy;
* EPA;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Drinking water supply and
watershed management.
Independent agency:
Agency conducting the work: EPA;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Agriculture agencies;
* Army Corps of Engineers;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Drinking water supply and
watershed management.
Source: GAO survey of federal agencies' freshwater programs.
[End of table]
We also identified domestic programs that may provide financial support
for freshwater activities, but are not included in the $49 billion
because supporting freshwater activities is not the programs' primary
purpose and activity-level data is not readily available. For example,
Housing's Office of Community Planning and Development administers a
loan guarantee program that may provide financial support for water
infrastructure projects, but aggregate information on the use of loan
guarantee authority for particular categories of activities is not
readily available. Consequently, financial support provided by these
types of programs is not included in table 1. Other agencies also have
these types of programs that may support freshwater-related activities:
Agriculture's Farm Service Agency, Forest Service, and Rural Utilities
Service; Commerce's Economic Development Administration; Interior's
Fish and Wildlife Service; the Appalachian Regional Commission; and
EPA. Furthermore, while these 27 agencies provided the majority of the
federal financial support for freshwater programs in the United States,
other agencies may also provide financial support for these types of
programs. Appendix II provides information on some other agencies and
programs that can provide financial support for freshwater-related
activities. These agencies provide financial assistance primarily for
specific regions of the United States and/or support a variety of
programs, including freshwater-related activities.
In the domestic support for freshwater programs, we also identified the
United States' financial contributions to three binational commissions-
-Border Environment Cooperation Commission, International Boundary and
Water Commission, and International Joint Commission. These commissions
support a variety of projects on both sides of the U.S. borders with
Canada and Mexico.[Footnote 3] Typically, these commissions coordinate
their efforts with EPA and/or State and are able to track how U.S.
contributions are used to support their freshwater activities.
Together, the three commissions used about $175 million in U.S.
contributions to support a number of freshwater projects during fiscal
years 2000 through 2004. For the purposes of our review, we include
information on U.S. contributions to these commissions in the same
section as the information for domestic freshwater programs because
these projects are joint efforts among the United States, Canada, and
Mexico along the shared borders; however, information on funding spent
solely in the United States by the commissions is not readily
available. Table 5 presents information on total U.S. contributions to
these commissions for freshwater projects. See appendix II for more
information on these commissions.
Table 5: U.S. Financial Contributions Used to Support Freshwater
Projects along Both Sides of the U.S. Borders, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2004:
Dollars in millions.
Commission: Border Environment Cooperation Commission;
Fiscal year 2000: $3.1;
Fiscal year 2001: $2.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $5.4;
Fiscal year 2003: $2.4;
Fiscal year 2004: $1.6;
Total: $15.4.
Commission: International Boundary and Water Commission;
Fiscal year 2000: $25.9;
Fiscal year 2001: $30.3;
Fiscal year 2002: $31.1;
Fiscal year 2003: $31.7;
Fiscal year 2004: $32.1;
Total: $151.1.
Commission: International Joint Commission[A];
Fiscal year 2000: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $1.5;
Fiscal year 2002: $2.9;
Fiscal year 2003: $2.3;
Fiscal year 2004: $1.5;
Total: $8.1.
Total;
Fiscal year 2000: $29.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $34.6;
Fiscal year 2002: $39.3;
Fiscal year 2003: $36.4;
Fiscal year 2004: $35.2;
Total: $174.6.
Sources: Department of State and commission officials.
Note: These figures are estimates of obligations in current dollars.
All totals were calculated prior to rounding to the nearest million.
Totals may not equal the sums of the yearly amounts due to rounding.
[A] The commission did not support any freshwater projects in fiscal
year 2000.
[End of table]
Federal Agencies Provided an Estimated $3 Billion for Freshwater
Programs Abroad during Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Of the about $3 billion of U.S. financial support provided
internationally for freshwater programs during fiscal years 2000
through 2004, an estimated $2 billion was spent throughout most of the
world, and more recently another $1 billion supported freshwater
projects in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition to the financial
assistance provided directly by federal agencies for freshwater
programs abroad, the United States also indirectly supports these
programs through its contributions to numerous international
organizations, such as the World Bank and the United Nations.
Eight Federal Agencies Provided Financial Support for Programs
throughout the World:
Eight federal agencies obligated an estimated $2 billion during fiscal
years 2000 through 2004 for freshwater activities abroad, excluding
Afghanistan and Iraq. USAID accounted for over 90 percent of the $2
billion. Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service provided about 6 percent;
Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service and the U.S. Trade and
Development Agency (an independent federal agency) each accounted for
around 1 percent. The remaining 4 agencies (State, the Corps, the
African Development Foundation, and the National Science Foundation)
together provided about 1 percent of the support. See table 6 for
information on the federal financial support provided for freshwater
programs abroad, excluding aid provided to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Table 6: Federal Agencies' Estimated Financial Support for Freshwater
Programs Abroad, Excluding Afghanistan and Iraq, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2004:
Dollars in thousands.
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Foreign Agricultural Service;
Fiscal year 2000: $57;
Fiscal year 2001: $4,213;
Fiscal year 2002: $2,875;
Fiscal year 2003: $396;
Fiscal year 2004: $19,303;
Total: $26,844.
Department: Defense;
Agency: Army Corps of Engineers[A];
Fiscal year 2000: $28;
Fiscal year 2001: $100;
Fiscal year 2002: $100;
Fiscal year 2003: $200;
Fiscal year 2004: $100;
Total: $528.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Fiscal year 2000: $18,363;
Fiscal year 2001: $29,799;
Fiscal year 2002: $30,067;
Fiscal year 2003: $26,446;
Fiscal year 2004: $24,033;
Total: $128,708.
Department: State;
Fiscal year 2000: $1,693;
Fiscal year 2001: $1,950;
Fiscal year 2002: $2,000;
Fiscal year 2003: $2,865;
Fiscal year 2004: $200;
Total: $8,708.
Independent agency: African Development Foundation;
Fiscal year 2000: $55;
Fiscal year 2001: $102;
Fiscal year 2002: $393;
Fiscal year 2003: $30;
Fiscal year 2004: $279;
Total: $859.
Independent agency: National Science Foundation;
Fiscal year 2000: $100;
Fiscal year 2001: $112;
Fiscal year 2002: $126;
Fiscal year 2003: $222;
Fiscal year 2004: $146;
Total: $706.
Independent agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Fiscal year 2000: $432,004;
Fiscal year 2001: $339,310;
Fiscal year 2002: $372,592;
Fiscal year 2003: $344,746;
Fiscal year 2004: $331,486;
Total: $1,820,137[B].
Independent agency: U.S. Trade and Development Agency;
Fiscal year 2000: $4,115;
Fiscal year 2001: $7,616;
Fiscal year 2002: $9,214;
Fiscal year 2003: $4,769;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,932;
Total: $28,645.
Total;
Fiscal year 2000: $456,414;
Fiscal year 2001: $383,201;
Fiscal year 2002: $417,367;
Fiscal year 2003: $379,673;
Fiscal year 2004: $378,479;
Total: $2,015,134.
Source: GAO survey of federal agencies' freshwater programs.
Note: Some of the agencies primarily provide financial support on a
project-by-project basis. Consequently, total financial support may
vary from year-to-year. Other agencies, such as the Inter-American
Foundation, may also provide financial support for these programs. The
figures in the table are reported as obligations in current dollars.
All totals were calculated prior to rounding to the nearest thousand.
Totals may not equal the sums of the yearly amounts due to rounding.
[A] These figures only include the Civil Works program.
[B] This total includes contributions provided to the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research during fiscal years 2000
through 2004 for irrigation and watershed management projects.
[End of table]
For international support on freshwater programs abroad, agencies
generally receive annual appropriations from the general fund to
support their freshwater programs. Some freshwater programs, such as
those at Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, are also supported by
permanent or dedicated funding sources, which remain available without
further appropriation. Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service
receives funds for its freshwater programs from the Commodity Credit
Corporation (a dedicated funding source at Agriculture subject to
congressional appropriation).
Seven of the 8 agencies reported that they provided financial support
for wastewater treatment and watershed management programs abroad. In
addition, 6 agencies each provided financial support for drinking water
supply and irrigation programs. See table 7 for information on the
freshwater programs supported by federal agencies abroad.
Table 7: Federal Agencies' Freshwater Programs Abroad, Excluding
Afghanistan and Iraq, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Department: Agriculture;
Agency: Foreign Agricultural Service;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Defense;
Agency: Army Corps of Engineers;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Navigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: Interior;
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Department: State;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Independent agency: African Development Foundation;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Independent agency: National Science Foundation;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Independent agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Independent agency: U.S. Trade and Development Agency;
Freshwater program: Desalination;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply;
Freshwater program: Flood control;
Freshwater program: Irrigation;
Freshwater program: Navigation;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment;
Freshwater program: Water conservation;
Freshwater program: Watershed management.
Total;
Freshwater program: Desalination: 3;
Freshwater program: Drinking water supply: 6;
Freshwater program: Flood control: 4;
Freshwater program: Irrigation: 6;
Freshwater program: Navigation: 2;
Freshwater program: Wastewater treatment: 7;
Freshwater program: Water dispute management: 4;
Freshwater program: Water conservation: 4;
Freshwater program: Watershed management: 7.
Source: GAO survey of federal agencies' freshwater programs.
[End of table]
About 99 percent of the estimated $2 billion in federal financial
support for freshwater programs abroad was delivered through grant
programs administered by 7 agencies. The Corps was the only agency that
did not have a grant program to support freshwater programs abroad.
Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service, the Corps, State, and USAID
provided a relatively small amount of financial support (about $15
million total) through direct federal spending. Additionally, USAID
obligated $4 million in loan guarantees for water supply and wastewater
treatment projects through its Development Credit Authority program to
cover up to 50 percent of the risk in lending.[Footnote 4]
Some of the $2 billion for freshwater programs abroad includes funding
provided from one agency to another to conduct freshwater projects in
foreign countries. For example, Interior's Reclamation received funds
from State to conduct desalination activities. We included funding for
this effort in the financial information reported by State. See table 8
for examples of agencies that performed work on freshwater activities
abroad using financial support provided to them by other agencies.
Table 8: Examples of Agencies' Freshwater-Related Activities Abroad
That Were Supported by Other Agencies, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Agriculture:
Agency conducting the work: Agricultural Research Service;
Agency that provided financial support:
* Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service;
* State;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Irrigation.
Agency conducting the work: Foreign Agricultural Service;
Agency that provided financial support:
* State;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Wastewater treatment.
Agency conducting the work: Forest Service;
Agency that provided financial support:
* State;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Watershed management.
Commerce:
Agency conducting the work: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration;
Agency that provided financial support:
* State;
* USAID;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Flood control and watershed
management.
Defense:
Agency conducting the work: Army Corps of Engineers;
Agency that provided financial support:
* State;
* USAID;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Watershed management and
wastewater treatment.
Interior:
Agency conducting the work: Bureau of Reclamation;
Agency that provided financial support:
* State;
* USAID;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Desalination, flood control,
and water dispute management.
Agency conducting the work: U.S. Geological Survey;
Agency that provided financial support:
* State;
* USAID;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Flood control, drinking
water supply, wastewater treatment, and water conservation.
Independent agency:
Agency conducting the work: EPA;
Agency that provided financial support:
* State;
Examples of freshwater-related activities: Drinking water supply.
Source: GAO survey of federal agencies' freshwater programs.
[End of table]
Appendix III provides information on these and other agencies and
programs that can also provide financial support for freshwater
activities abroad.
Financial Support for Afghanistan and Iraq:
For Afghanistan and Iraq, USAID and Defense provided about $1 billion
during fiscal years 2002 through 2004 to support the reconstruction and
rehabilitation of freshwater infrastructure in these countries. For the
purposes of our review, we report financial support for freshwater
projects in Afghanistan and Iraq separately from the $2 billion total
in foreign aid because these funds were primarily made available during
fiscal year 2004. USAID provided financial support through grants and
contracts and by transferring funds to the Corps to carry out work on
water supply, wastewater treatment, irrigation, and watershed projects
in Afghanistan and Iraq. USAID received funds from the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriation for Defense and for the Reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 2004 to support, among other
activities, freshwater projects in those two countries. Within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, (1) the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency's Humanitarian Assistance Program supports, among
other things, water infrastructure projects overseas and (2) the Army's
Commander's Emergency Response Program is designed to respond to urgent
humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements at the local level
in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also within Defense, the Project and
Contracting Office awarded and continues to manage various contracts to
support, among other things, the construction of rural water systems
and the rehabilitation of drinking water supply facilities in major
cities in Iraq. Table 9 presents information on financial support
provided by USAID and Defense for freshwater projects in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Table 9: Federal Agencies' Estimated Financial Support for Freshwater
Projects in Afghanistan and Iraq, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004:
Dollars in millions.
Country: Afghanistan;
Agency: Defense's Defense Security Cooperation Agency[A];
Fiscal year 2002: $1.2;
Fiscal year 2003: $1.1;
Fiscal year 2004: $0.5;
Total: $2.8.
Country: Afghanistan;
Agency: Defense's Secretary of the Army[B];
Fiscal year 2002: $-;
Fiscal year 2003: $-;
Fiscal year 2004: $5.8;
Total: $5.8.
Country: Afghanistan;
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Fiscal year 2002: $15.1;
Fiscal year 2003: $9.6;
Fiscal year 2004: $82.8;
Total: $107.5.
Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2002: $16.3;
Fiscal year 2003: $10.6;
Fiscal year 2004: $89.1;
Total: $116.1.
Country: Iraq;
Agency: Defense's Defense Security Cooperation Agency[A];
Fiscal year 2002: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $1.1;
Fiscal year 2004: $2.3;
Total: $3.4.
Country: Iraq;
Agency: Defense's Project and Contracting Office;
Fiscal year 2002: $-;
Fiscal year 2003: $-;
Fiscal year 2004: $369.8;
Total: $369.8.
Country: Iraq;
Agency: Defense's Secretary of the Army[B];
Fiscal year 2002: $-;
Fiscal year 2003: $-;
Fiscal year 2004: $24.6;
Total: 24.6.
Country: Iraq;
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
Fiscal year 2002: $-;
Fiscal year 2003: $214.9;
Fiscal year 2004: $348.6;
Total: $563.5.
Subtotal;
Fiscal year 2002: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $216.0;
Fiscal year 2004: $745.3;
Total: $961.3.
Total;
Fiscal year 2002: $16.3;
Fiscal year 2003: $226.7;
Fiscal year 2004: $834.4;
Total: $1,077.4.
Sources: U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of
Defense.
Note: The figures in the table are reported as obligations in current
dollars. All totals were calculated prior to rounding to the nearest
million. Totals may not equal the sums of the yearly amounts due to
rounding.
[A] The agency's Humanitarian Assistance Program funded these projects.
[B] Army's Commander's Emergency Response Program funded these
projects.
[End of table]
The United States Also Provided Financial Contributions to Various
International Organizations That Support Freshwater Programs:
In addition to providing financial support directly through federal
agencies for freshwater programs abroad, the United States also
indirectly supports these programs through its contributions to
numerous international organizations (e.g., the United Nations and the
World Bank). In most cases, the United States makes contributions to
the general budgets of these organizations and not to a specific
project or program. In addition, these organizations usually combine
U.S. contributions with other sources of funds, including contributions
from other countries, to fund their freshwater programs. As a result,
it is difficult to determine what portion of U.S. contributions to
international organizations is used to support freshwater programs.
The United States contributed to the general budgets of a number of
multilateral development banks and financial institutions that support
freshwater projects around the world, and some portion of these
contributions was used to support freshwater efforts worldwide. Using
funds contributed by the United States and other countries or borrowed
from world capital markets, multilateral development banks finance
economic and social development programs around the world. Together,
these autonomous institutions are the largest single source of
developmental assistance for developing countries. The United States is
a member of, and has made financial contributions to, five multilateral
development banks that support freshwater projects around the world.
These multilateral development banks include the African Development
Bank Group, the Asian Development Bank, the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank,
and the World Bank Group. The United States also contributed to other
international financial institutions--including the Global Environment
Facility, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the
North American Development Bank--that also support freshwater projects
abroad. See table 10 for figures on total contributions the United
States made to selected multilateral development banks and financial
institutions. Some portion of these contributions supported freshwater
projects abroad.
Table 10: Total U.S. Contributions to Selected Multilateral Development
Banks and Financial Institutions, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 (Some
Portion of These Contributions Supported Freshwater Projects Abroad):
Dollars in millions.
Multilateral development bank or financial institution: African
Development Bank;
Fiscal year 2000: $57.8;
Fiscal year 2001: $105.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $105.1;
Fiscal year 2003: $5.1;
Fiscal year 2004: $224.5;
Total: $498.4.
Multilateral development bank or financial institution: Asian
Development Bank;
Fiscal year 2000: $132.2;
Fiscal year 2001: $71.8;
Fiscal year 2002: $115.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2004: $240.8;
Total: $559.8.
Multilateral development bank or financial institution: European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development;
Fiscal year 2000: $36.2;
Fiscal year 2001: $36.7;
Fiscal year 2002: $35.6;
Fiscal year 2003: $35.7;
Fiscal year 2004: $35.3;
Total: $179.5.
Multilateral development bank or financial institution: Global
Environment Facility;
Fiscal year 2000: $58.1;
Fiscal year 2001: $107.8;
Fiscal year 2002: $100.5;
Fiscal year 2003: $146.9;
Fiscal year 2004: $138.4;
Total: $551.7.
Multilateral development bank or financial institution: Inter-American
Development Bank;
Fiscal year 2000: $69.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $34.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $18.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $42.6;
Fiscal year 2004: $24.9;
Total: $189.4.
Multilateral development bank or financial institution: International
Fund for Agricultural Development;
Fiscal year 2000: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $5.0;
Fiscal year 2002: $15.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $14.9;
Fiscal year 2004: $14.9;
Total: $49.8.
Multilateral development bank or financial institution: North American
Development Bank;
Fiscal year 2000: $41.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $84.0;
Fiscal year 2002: $0.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $102.6;
Fiscal year 2004: $61.4;
Total: $289.0.
Multilateral development bank or financial institution: World Bank
Group;
Fiscal year 2000: $992.8;
Fiscal year 2001: $783.3;
Fiscal year 2002: $796.4;
Fiscal year 2003: $1.6;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,753.4;
Total: $4,327.5.
Total;
Fiscal year 2000: $1,387.1;
Fiscal year 2001: $1,229.4;
Fiscal year 2002: $1,185.6;
Fiscal year 2003: $349.4;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,493.6;
Total: $6,645.1.
Sources: Department of the Treasury and the Environmental Protection
Agency (for contributions to the North American Development Bank).
Note: The figures in the table are reported in current dollars.
[End of table]
The United States also contributed to the general budgets of a number
of international organizations that support freshwater projects around
the world, and some portion of these contributions was used to support
freshwater efforts. Of these organizations, the United States
contributed the most financial support to the United Nations. In
addition to assisting with peacekeeping efforts, the United Nations
provides funds for humanitarian, environmental, and development
programs that support, among other things, water resources management
efforts around the world. Table 11 presents figures on contributions
the United States made to selected international organizations. Some
portion of these contributions supported freshwater projects abroad.
Table 11: Total U.S. Contributions to Selected International
Organizations, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004 (Some Portion of These
Contributions Supported Freshwater Projects Abroad):
Dollars in millions.
Organization: Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture;
Fiscal year 2000: $12.3;
Fiscal year 2001: $16.4;
Fiscal year 2002: $16.4;
Fiscal year 2003: $20.2;
Fiscal year: 2004[A]: $16.6;
Total: $81.7.
Organization: Organization of American States;
Fiscal year 2000: $45.8;
Fiscal year 2001: $53.3;
Fiscal year 2002: $50.1;
Fiscal year 2003: $69.0;
Fiscal year: 2004[A]: 55.3;
Total: $273.5.
Organization: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development;
Fiscal year 2000: $50.0;
Fiscal year 2001: $44.8;
Fiscal year 2002: $51.7;
Fiscal year 2003: $63.8;
Fiscal year: 2004[A]: 82.2;
Total: $292.5.
Organization: Pan American Health Organization;
Fiscal year 2000: $51.7;
Fiscal year 2001: $52.3;
Fiscal year 2002: $55.0;
Fiscal year 2003: $66.3;
Fiscal year: 2004[A]: 57.2;
Total: $282.4.
Organization: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands;
Fiscal year 2000: $0.8;
Fiscal year 2001: $0.8;
Fiscal year 2002: $1.1;
Fiscal year 2003: $0.7;
Fiscal year: 2004[A]: 0.8;
Total: $4.2.
Organization: United Nations[B];
Fiscal year 2000: $569.2;
Fiscal year 2001: $592.9;
Fiscal year 2002: $673.8;
Fiscal year 2003: $775.3;
Fiscal year: 2004[A]: 506.9[C];
Total: $3,117.5.
Organization: The World Conservation Union[D];
Fiscal year 2000: $1.5;
Fiscal year 2001: $1.4;
Fiscal year 2002: $1.9;
Fiscal year 2003: $1.6;
Fiscal year: 2004[A]: 0.3[E];
Total: $6.7.
Total;
Fiscal year 2000: $731.3;
Fiscal year 2001: $761.7;
Fiscal year 2002: $849.9;
Fiscal year 2003: $996.8;
Fiscal year: 2004[A]: $719.3;
Total: $4,085.5.
Source: Department of State.
Note: The figures in the table are reported as obligations in current
dollars. All totals were calculated prior to rounding to the nearest
million. Totals may not equal the sums of the yearly amounts due to
rounding.
[A] These figures are estimates of financial contributions the United
States made to the organizations in fiscal year 2004.
[B] These figures include: (1) assessed contributions to the United
Nations (U.N.), and selected specialized agencies of the U.N.--Food and
Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization, and (2)
voluntary contributions to selected specialized agencies of the U.N.--
the Food and Agriculture Organization, the U.N. Development Programme,
the U.N. Environment Programme, the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change, and the World Health Organization.
[C] These figures do not include voluntary contributions to the U.N. or
its selected specialized agencies.
[D] These figures include voluntary contributions and dues paid to the
World Conservation Union.
[E] This figure does not include voluntary contributions to the World
Conservation Union.
[End of table]
Appendix III presents general information on these multilateral
development banks, financial institutions, and international
organizations and their freshwater programs.
Agency Comments:
We provided the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy,
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior,
Transportation, and State and independent agencies, including the
African Development Foundation, the Appalachian Regional Commission,
EPA, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business
Administration, USAID, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, with
a draft of this report for review and comment. Three of these agencies-
-Interior, Health and Human Services, and USAID--provided us with
written comments that are included in appendixes IV through VI. The 3
agencies agreed with the report and provided us with technical
comments, which we have included as appropriate. The other 13 agencies
provided us with technical comments orally or did not provide us with
any comments. We have made changes in response to the technical
comments throughout the report, as appropriate.
We will send copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy,
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior,
Transportation, and State; the Administrators of EPA, Small Business
Administration, and USAID; the Directors of the National Science
Foundation, Office of Management and Budget, and U.S. Trade and
Development Agency; the President of the African Development
Foundation; the Federal Co-Chair of the Appalachian Regional
Commission; and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me or Edward
Zadjura at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed
in appendix VII.
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
The objectives of our review were to determine for fiscal years 2000
through 2004 how much financial support federal agencies provided for
freshwater programs in the United States and abroad.
To identify the agencies that support freshwater programs in the United
States and abroad, we reviewed the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance and reports published by GAO, the Congressional Research
Service, the United Nations, and the National Research Council of the
National Academies. We also interviewed water and natural resources
experts at the Congressional Research Service. For the purpose of our
review, we examined freshwater programs that support desalination;
drinking water supply; flood control; irrigation; navigation (primarily
for river-based transportation); wastewater treatment; water
conservation; water dispute management; and watershed protection,
restoration, and management activities. We identified numerous agencies
that support at least one of these freshwater programs. After
conducting additional background research and interviews with officials
at these agencies, we narrowed our focus to 32 agencies.[Footnote 5]
These agencies received congressional appropriations during each of the
fiscal years from 2000 through 2004 and, to some extent, tracked the
amount of financial support they provided for freshwater programs.
Together, these agencies accounted for the majority of the federal
financial support for freshwater programs in the United States and
abroad during fiscal years 2000 through 2004. These agencies include
the following:
* Department of Agriculture (Agriculture): Agricultural Research
Service; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
Economic Research Service; Farm Service Agency; Foreign Agricultural
Service; Forest Service; Natural Resources Conservation Service; Rural
Utilities Service;
* Department of Commerce (Commerce): Economic Development
Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
* Department of Defense (Defense): Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
Army Material Command, Office of Naval Research;
* Department of Energy (Energy);
* Department of Health and Human Services (Health): Administration for
Children and Families, Indian Health Service;
* Department of Housing and Urban Development (Housing): Office of
Community Planning and Development;
* Department of the Interior (Interior): Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey;
* Department of State (State);
* Department of Transportation (Transportation): Federal Highway
Administration, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation; and:
* Independent agencies: African Development Foundation, Appalachian
Regional Commission, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National
Science Foundation, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID),
U.S. Trade and Development Agency.
To determine the amount of financial support these agencies provided
for freshwater programs, we used a questionnaire to gather information
on agencies' freshwater programs, including funds provided on an annual
basis to support these programs.[Footnote 6] Before distributing the
questionnaire, we had staff from the Resources, Science, and Industry
and American Law Divisions of the Congressional Research Service review
the draft questionnaire, and we included their comments, accordingly.
In addition, we pretested the questionnaire with an official from the
Corps and incorporated her comments, as appropriate. We sent the
questionnaires, along with a cover letter, to respondents and requested
that agencies return the completed questionnaire within 4 weeks. All
agencies returned their questionnaires. We conducted follow-up
interviews with respondents to confirm the information and to clarify
the information, if necessary.
In our questionnaire, we requested financial information on the direct
costs of agencies' freshwater programs, such as capital construction
and operations and maintenance costs of freshwater infrastructure. We
also requested information on the amount of financial support provided
for technical assistance and research and development efforts related
to freshwater programs.[Footnote 7] We requested information on
freshwater programs that agencies typically fund during a year and
excluding atypical funding, such as financial support for freshwater
projects in response to natural disasters. We obtained and reported on
financial support for freshwater projects in Afghanistan and Iraq
separately from the total foreign assistance because these funds were
provided in recent years.
We requested this information in the form of obligations because
obligations provide a good estimate of what an agency plans to spend
during a fiscal year. Additionally, financial information in the form
of obligations are the best measure for comparing the amount of
financial support provided from year to year over a period of time.
Because we reviewed a fairly recent period of time during which
inflation was minimal, we reported the figures in current dollars. For
loan guarantee programs, we requested that the agency provide the
amount they initially obligated the year the loan was guaranteed to
cover potential defaults, rather than annual reestimates of these
amounts.
In cases where agencies do not track financial information in the form
of obligations, we requested that senior agency officials provide the
best available proxy for obligations. Some officials said that
obligations are comparable to their appropriation or expenditure
figures. Other officials stated that their agency collects information
on actual disbursements or actual grant approval amounts. Agencies for
which we do not report obligations include Agriculture's Farm Service
Agency and Forest Service, Housing's Office of Community Planning and
Development, Transportation's Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, and the Appalachian Regional Commission--see notes to
table 1 for more:
information on these agencies' financial information.[Footnote 8] We
did not independently assess the reliability of the financial
information provided by agency officials because obligations are agency
expectations for expenditures and there are no associated transactions
to track.
Although we requested program-level financial information, we opted to
present this information at the agency-level because agencies'
definitions of freshwater programs vary. However, we collected the
program-level financial information to ensure that agency officials
reported financial support for freshwater programs consistently across
agencies. As part of this effort, we confirmed with each agency that
for each of the programs listed in the questionnaire, the agency only
provided financial information on the freshwater portion of the
program. In addition to programs that specifically supported freshwater
activities, we also requested information on other programs that may
provide funding for these activities. We did not include financial
support from these programs in the agency totals because supporting
freshwater activities is not their primary purpose and activity level
data is not readily available. Consequently, the financial information
we reported is an estimate of the minimum amount of financial support
provided by the agencies.
In addition to the agencies that specifically supported freshwater
programs, we identified and obtained information on several binational
commissions, international organizations, and multilateral development
banks to which the United States made financial contributions and which
support freshwater programs along U.S. borders or abroad. To identify
how U.S. contributions to binational commissions were used to support
freshwater programs along U.S. borders, we obtained financial
information from officials at State and EPA and representatives from
the commissions. To identify the annual amount of the United States'
financial contributions to multilateral development banks and other
international organizations, we obtained financial information from
officials at State and the Department of the Treasury. When necessary,
we corroborated this information with support from other sources,
including annual reports to Congress on U.S. contributions to
international organizations.
We conducted our review from March 2004 through January 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II Federal Financial Support for Freshwater Programs in the
United States and along U.S. Borders:
This appendix discusses federal financial support of freshwater
programs in the United States and along U.S. borders in three parts.
First, we provide a general overview on the agencies responsible for
the majority of the federal financial support for freshwater programs
in the United States, along with the total amount of financial support
provided for freshwater programs during fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
Second, we briefly summarize the information on some other agencies
that can also provide financial support to domestic freshwater
programs. Third, we provide information on (1) binational commissions
that used U.S. financial contributions for freshwater projects along
the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico and (2) total U.S. financial
contributions to these commissions for their freshwater programs during
fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
Federal Agencies:
The following agencies provide the majority of the federal government's
financial support specifically for freshwater programs in the United
States. These programs, as described by agency officials, documents,
and reports, are discussed below.
Department of Agriculture: $10.4 Billion:
The mission of the Department of Agriculture is to provide leadership
on food, agriculture, and natural resources issues on the basis of
sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient
management. The department conducts work under a variety of mission
areas, including farm services, natural resources and the environment,
research and education, and rural development. The agency provides
financial support for freshwater programs primarily for the
construction of drinking water and wastewater facilities, watershed and
wetland management, and freshwater-related research.
Agricultural Research Service: $523.8 Million:
The Agricultural Research Service is the department's primary in-house
scientific research agency. The agency conducts research to develop and
transfer solutions to address agricultural problems to enhance natural
resources, such as protecting and sustaining freshwater resources. The
agency's authority to conduct these efforts primarily falls under the
Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1862 and the Agricultural
Research Act of 1935. Freshwater programs include technological
improvements in irrigation, rural and urban water recycling and reuse,
nonpoint source pollution prevention, stream restoration, and flood
control structures. The agency also receives financial support from
other federal agencies--such as Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the Corps--to support domestic
freshwater programs, including watershed management, irrigation, and
water conservation. Additionally, the agency receives funds from State
to conduct freshwater activities abroad, such as irrigation systems in
Pakistan and Mexico.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: $172.9
Million:
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service was
created in 1994 through the USDA Reorganization Act. The agency
provides financial support--primarily through grants to universities,
nonprofit associations, private industry, and other groups--for state
and local research, education, and outreach activities. The agency
conducts these activities primarily through the Hatch Act of 1887, as
amended, the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Policy Act of 1977, and section 406 of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. For example, through the
Hatch Act, the agency provides block grants for agricultural research
on an annual basis primarily to state land grant institutions. These
funds are distributed according to a statutory formula. Although the
scope of the agricultural research conducted under the Hatch Act is
broad, portions of the financial support are directed toward research
projects on freshwater resources.
Economic Research Service: $4.7 Million:
The Economic Research Service is Agriculture's main source of economic
information and research. Regarding freshwater resources, the agency
primarily provides financial support for research and development
programs. For example, the agency is currently conducting research on
the impact of agriculture on water quality by examining (1) the
influence of economic, environmental, and institutional factors
affecting adoption of water conservation management practices and
irrigation technologies; (2) the economics of alternative public policy
mechanisms to encourage agricultural water conservation and improved
water quality; and (3) the availability of water infrastructure and
policy mechanisms to facilitate water reallocations and the
implications for irrigated agriculture and resource costs. According to
a senior agency official, these research activities are generally
performed under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. In addition to
conducting its own freshwater programs, the agency receives funds from
Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service to support freshwater
research and development efforts to foreign countries, such as a
project to support hydrological modeling of river systems in North
China.
Farm Service Agency: $24.6 Million:
The Farm Service Agency was formed after a departmental reorganization
in 1994 and incorporated programs from several agencies. One of the
agency's primary missions is to help farmers conserve both land and
water resources. The agency supports several multipurpose programs--
such as the Debt for Nature Program and the Conservation Reserve
Program--that may also benefit freshwater resources, but financial
information specifically for freshwater efforts is not readily
available. For example, through the Conservation Reserve Program,
landowners receive annual rental payments and other payments for
implementing long-term conservation practices on their land, for among
other things, management of wetlands. The Farmable Wetlands Program,
which began as a pilot in six states in fiscal year 2001 and is part of
the Conservation Reserve Program, provides payments to farmers who
voluntarily restore farmable wetlands. The program expanded nationwide
in fiscal year 2002 when it was authorized by the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002. Funding for this program comes from the
Commodity Credit Corporation--a government-owned and -operated
corporation established in 1933 to stabilize, support, and protect farm
income and prices.
Forest Service: $291.5 Million:
Among its goals, the Forest Service promotes ecosystem health and
conservation in part by improving and protecting watershed conditions
to provide the water quality and quantity necessary to support
ecological functions. In the United States, forests cover approximately
one-third of the land area from which about 66 percent of freshwater
originates. Under the Organic Act of 1897, one of the primary reasons
for establishing national forests was to maintain and restore
watersheds to protect freshwater resources. The agency fulfills these
efforts by supporting programs for watershed management activities,
such as conducting water quality monitoring and watershed restoration.
The agency also secures water rights to protect and use freshwater on
Forest Service lands.
Natural Resources Conservation Service: $1.9 Billion:
The mission of the Natural Resources Conservation Service is to provide
leadership in a partnership effort to help landowners conserve,
maintain, and improve natural resources, including freshwater. As a
part of these efforts, the agency supports watershed management, flood
control, and water conservation programs. The agency provides financial
support for freshwater activities through a variety of programs,
including Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Operations and the
Watershed Rehabilitation Program. Most financial support for freshwater
activities reported by the agency was through the Wetlands Reserve
Program, which was mandated by the Food Security Act of 1985 and
reauthorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The
program is voluntary and offers landowners financial and technical
assistance for the restoration, protection, and enhancement of
wetlands. To be eligible for the program, a landowner must have owned
the land for at least 12 months and the wetland must be restorable and
suitable for wildlife benefits. As with the Farmable Wetlands Program
administered by the Farm Service Agency, the source of funds for the
program is through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Rural Utilities Service: $7.6 Billion:
Part of the mission of the Rural Utilities Service is to improve the
quality of life in rural communities by administering drinking water
supply and wastewater treatment programs. The agency provides the most
financial support for freshwater programs of any Agriculture agency.
The agency primarily uses grant and loan programs to provide financial
support for developing water systems in rural areas and reducing water
costs for rural users. The main authority to administer these programs
is through the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act of 1961.
Municipalities, counties, special-purpose districts, Indian tribes, and
nonprofit organizations are eligible for the programs. In addition, the
agency provides technical assistance and training grants to nonprofit
organizations to assist rural communities with drinking water and
wastewater issues. Furthermore, the agency also administers a loan
guarantee program for drinking water supply and wastewater treatment
loans it provides. In addition to executing its own grants during
fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the agency, under a memorandum of
understanding, administered grants funded by Commerce's Economic
Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional Commission for
drinking water supply and wastewater treatment projects.
Department of Commerce: $539.8 Million:
The Department of Commerce's strategic goals include, among other
things, encouraging economic growth that benefits Americans and
observing, protecting, and managing the Earth's resources to promote
environmental stewardship. The department's freshwater programs include
water infrastructure and water availability activities.
Economic Development Administration: $337.5 Million:
The Economic Development Administration, established by the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended, leads the
federal government's economic development efforts by facilitating
growth in America. Through its Public Works and Economic Adjustment
Assistance Programs, the agency provides grants to communities and
entities in regions experiencing economic decline and distress. These
grants are used for, among other things, revitalizing, expanding, and
upgrading the physical infrastructure, including water and sewer
systems. Under the Partnership Planning Program, the agency also
provides grants for planning and technical assistance. The agency can
track the majority of its freshwater activities using standard
industrial codes, such as water system and water treatment. The agency
also supports other programs that can provide funds for freshwater-
related activities. In addition to executing its own grants during
fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the agency, under a memorandum of
agreement, administered grants funded by the Appalachian Regional
Commission and Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment to carry out
freshwater infrastructure activities.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: $202.3 Million:
Among its missions, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
researches and gathers data related to changes in the weather and
availability of water. Several offices within the agency provide
financial support for freshwater activities. The National Weather
Service--authorized under the Organic Act of October 1, 1890, as
amended, and the Flood Control Act of 1938, as amended--provided the
largest portion of the agency's budget for freshwater programs. Within
its hydrology program, the National Weather Service supports watershed
management and flood control activities, such as forecasting water
availability activities on rivers, lakes, and streams and inland water
research. In addition, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
provides financial support for drinking water supply, water
conservation, watershed management, and navigation in the Great Lakes
region. These activities are carried out under various legal
authorities, such as the National Climate Program Act (15 U.S.C. §§
2901-2908) and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as
amended. Other offices within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration also provide financial support for, among other things,
fisheries and aquatic species management and freshwater-related
activities in coastal, estuarine, and marine environments. During
fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the agency performed work in other
countries, but funding for these efforts typically originated with
State and USAID.
Department of Defense: $12.9 Billion:
The Department of Defense provides services for military and civilian
purposes. The Corps provides financial support for the vast majority of
the department's freshwater programs for civilians through its Civil
Works program. In addition, the Army and Navy provide financial support
for science and technology research on drinking water supply, water
conservation, wastewater treatment, and desalination. Some of these
technologies have the potential to be transitioned from a military
function to benefit civilians.
Army Corps of Engineers: $12.9 Billion:
The Army Corps of Engineers provides engineering services for military
and civilian purposes. In addition to designing and managing
construction of military facilities, the Corps plans, designs, builds,
and operates water resources and other civil works projects through its
Civil Works program. The Corps carries out water infrastructure and
environmental management and restoration projects under various legal
authorities, including numerous river and harbors acts, flood control
acts, and Water Resources Development Acts. Activities supported
include navigation, flood protection, dam and reservoir projects, and
drinking water and wastewater projects.[Footnote 9] The Corps' annual
appropriations are primarily directed to specific projects. These
appropriations are received through Energy and Water Development
appropriation acts rather than the Department of Defense appropriations
acts. In addition to annual appropriations from the general fund, the
Corps receives appropriations from dedicated funding sources, such as
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Inland Waterway Trust Fund,
which receive revenue through receipts of, respectively, a tax on port
use and a tax on fuel used by vessels in commercial waterway
transportation. The Corps also performs domestic work funded by
agencies, such as EPA, Agriculture, and Interior.
Army Material Command: $20.4 Million:
The Army Material Command conducts research related to, among other
things, the logistics of providing water for combat operations on land.
The agency performs in-house research, manages contract efforts, and
supports other military and government agencies with drinking water
treatment, monitoring, storage, and distribution; wastewater treatment;
desalination; and water conservation programs. Within the agency, the
Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center
researches, develops, engineers, and integrates advanced technology
into ground operations. For example, the Water Purification and
Recovery Technology program seeks to reduce the logistical burden of
providing water for ground troops. According to Army officials, the
Army carries out these activities under its general mission to provide
and equip combat operations on land.
Office of Naval Research: $16.8 Million:
The Office of Naval Research coordinates, executes, and promotes the
science and technology programs of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. The
agency provides financial support through direct federal spending and
grant programs for drinking water supply, wastewater treatment, and
desalination projects. In addition to private contractors, the agency
collaborates with schools, universities, government laboratories, and
nonprofit organizations to execute its science and technology programs.
More recently in fiscal year 2003, in response to appropriations
committee direction, the Office of Naval Research began funding the
Expeditionary Unit Water Purification project, which will develop
prototype demonstrators to produce drinking water from brackish or
saline water.[Footnote 10] The agency leads this effort, which involves
other federal agencies, such as the Army, Interior's Reclamation, and
the Department of Energy. The Office of Naval Research conducts its
research efforts under 10 U.S.C. §§ 5022-5023.
Other Defense Programs:
The Office of the Secretary of Defense administers programs that can
provide financial support for freshwater activities, although that is
not the focus of the programs. For example, the Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program and the Environmental Security
Technology Certification Program fund research for technologies related
to, among other things, water quality and wastewater treatment. In
addition, the Legacy Program supports watershed rehabilitation and
freshwater conservation efforts, although these efforts are not
specifically tracked.
The Office of Economic Adjustment provides technical expertise and
financial support to state and local governments in planning community
adjustments. The agency may acquire the services of Commerce's Economic
Development Administration to execute grants that implement plans to
convert former military bases to civilian uses. According to a senior
agency official, the agency does not track its implementation projects
by category, some of which could be water infrastructure projects.
Department of Energy: $17.3 Million:
Created by the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Energy's
mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of
the United States; promote scientific and technological innovation in
support of that mission; and ensure the environmental cleanup of the
nation's nuclear weapons complex. Although freshwater-related issues
are not a primary focus, the department, through grants and direct
federal spending, provides financial support for groundwater cleanup
projects and for the research and development of desalination
technologies. As provided for in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978, the department engages in groundwater cleanup and
remediation activities at several former uranium mill sites. The
department also provides funding for alternative clean water supplies,
a distillation water treatment plant, and flood control activities at
these sites. In addition, Energy and Interior's Reclamation
collaborated to produce a national road map in 2003 for the research
and development of desalination and water purification technologies.
The Conference Committee report accompanying the 2004 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act directed Energy's Office of
Environmental Management's Technology Development and Deployment
Program to provide $3 million to support the research and development
of desalination research technologies. Sandia National Laboratories
coordinated these activities for the department.
Department of Health and Human Services: $484.9 Million:
The Department of Health and Human Services is the government's
principal agency for protecting the health of Americans and providing
essential human services. The department's freshwater programs
primarily provide financial support for water supply and wastewater
treatment systems.
Administration for Children and Families: $30.7 Million:
The Administration for Children and Families promotes the economic and
social well-being of families, children, individuals, and communities.
As part of these efforts, the Office of Community Services provides
training and technical assistance grants on a regionwide basis to help
small, rural, low-income communities construct, repair, and
rehabilitate water and wastewater systems. The agency's Rural Community
Facilities Development Program provides these services, authorized
under section 680 of the Community Services Block Grant Act included in
the Coats Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998. Project
activities under this program include (1) providing training and
technical assistance to low-income rural communities to develop
expertise needed to establish and manage water facilities; (2)
improving the coordination of federal, state, and local agencies with
rural water and wastewater management; and (3) educating local, rural
community leaders about available federal resources. According to
agency officials, the program enables rural communities to comply with
the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water
Act. Entities eligible for the program include multistate, regional,
private, and nonprofit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations.
Indian Health Service: $454.2 Million:
The Indian Health Service originated in 1955 when Interior transferred
administration of the American Indian and Alaska Native health programs
to the Department of Health and Human Services. However, the Indian
Health Service continues to receive annual appropriations from a
budgetline within Interior's annual appropriations. The Office of
Environmental Health and Engineering provides technical and financial
support to Indian tribes and Alaska Native communities to promote a
healthy environment through the cooperative development and continuing
operation of safe water, wastewater, and solid waste systems. The
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program is the Indian Health
Service's primary water infrastructure program. Program services are
authorized under Public Law No. 86-121, Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (Pub. L. No. 94-437), as amended, and the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. No. 93-638), as amended. The
Indian Health Service may provide sanitation facilities directly or in
partnership with other federal agencies or with nonfederal entities.
The agency's nonfederal project partners could include tribes, tribal-
designated housing entities, tribal enterprises, states, counties, and
municipalities. The agency's federal partners include Housing's Office
of Native American Programs, Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Reclamation, Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service Program, and EPA.
The agency may also administer projects funded by those federal
agencies to provide sanitation facilities services to tribes.
Department of Housing and Urban Development: $2.3 Billion:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development supports community
development through partnerships with states and local governments. The
department's primary tool for providing financing for public
improvements is the Community Development Block Grant program,
authorized under title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended. The program is managed by (1) the Office of
Community Planning and Development and (2) the Office of Public and
Indian Housing.
Office of Community Planning and Development: $2.3 Billion:
The Office of Community Planning and Development runs the Community
Development Block Grant program for states, entitled cities and
counties, and insular areas (U.S. territories). Grant recipients design
and administer their projects, and the Office of Community Planning and
Development provides project oversight. In order to qualify for a
grant, a project must meet one of the following national objectives:
(1) principally benefit low-and moderate-income families, (2) aid in
the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or (3) meet other
urgent community development needs. The agency can track some of its
freshwater projects on the basis of general categories, such as water
and sewer and flood and drainage activities. In addition to the
Community Development Block Grant program, local governments may apply
for a loan guarantee program, authorized under section 108 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.[Footnote 11]
The local government pledges its future year Community Development
Block Grant funds as security for a federally guaranteed loan, which
provides funds to pursue neighborhood revitalization projects.
Freshwater projects are not specifically tracked in this program. In
addition to executing its own grants during fiscal years 2000 through
2004, the agency, through a memorandum of agreement, administered
grants funded by the Appalachian Regional Commission.
Office of Public and Indian Housing:
The Office of Public and Indian Housing provides programs for Indian
tribes and Alaska Native communities, which are similar to those
provided by the Office of Community Planning and Development. These
programs are the Indian Community Development Block Grant program
governed by title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, as amended,[Footnote 12] and the Indian Housing Block Grant
program governed by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self
Determination Act of 1996. The programs can provide financial support
for water infrastructure projects; however, the freshwater component is
not specifically tracked. Indian Housing Block Grant recipients are
eligible to secure financing for affordable housing activities using a
95 percent federal loan guarantee under title VI of the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. Infrastructure projects
that support freshwater and sanitary waste disposal for low-and
moderate-income households are eligible activities under the title VI
program.
Department of the Interior: $6.3 Billion:
Part of the mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect
natural areas through scientific research and to foster sound use of
land and water resources. Consequently, the department supports
multiple types of freshwater programs.
Bureau of Indian Affairs: $390.7 Million:
Specifically related to freshwater resources, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs is responsible for protecting water and land rights and
developing and maintaining infrastructure, such as dams and drinking
water facilities, on 55.7 million acres of land held in trust by the
United States for Indian tribes and Alaska Native communities. As part
of these efforts, the agency provides financial support for drinking
water supply, wastewater treatment, irrigation, dam safety, water
rights litigation and negotiation, and Indian land and water claim
settlements programs. The agency's authority to support these programs
comes primarily from the Snyder Act of 1921 and the Indian Dams Safety
Act of 1993.
Bureau of Land Management: $313.3 Million:
The mission of the Bureau of Land Management is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of federally owned lands that are located
primarily in 12 western states. As such, the agency supports watershed
management and water dispute management activities and carries out
these efforts primarily under the Federal Land and Policy Management
Act of 1976. Among its programs, the agency supports water resource
inventories, watershed assessments, wetland and stream projects, and
the monitoring of lake and stream ecosystems.
Bureau of Reclamation: $3.7 Billion:
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner. As a part of these efforts, the agency is
the nation's largest supplier of water--managing 457 dams and 348
reservoirs in 17 western states--and delivers water to irrigate 10
million acres of land and to supply more than 31 million municipal,
rural, and industrial water users. Financial support for freshwater
programs is provided under a number of different legal authorities, but
primarily under the Reclamation Act of 1902. The agency provides
financial support for freshwater activities primarily through the Water
and Related Resources program, through direct federal spending and
through grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs.[Footnote 13] The
terms of funding vary and are dictated by project authorization,
legislation, or other authorizations. In addition to annual
appropriations, Reclamation receives funding from a variety of sources,
such as the Reclamation Fund,[Footnote 14] Central Valley Project
Restoration Fund,[Footnote 15] and funds collected from surcharges
placed on the use of water and power. Reclamation also receives funds
from other federal agencies to conduct various freshwater programs,
such as collecting data for the U.S. Geological Survey's watershed
management and flood control activities. Moreover, Reclamation--under
section 607 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961--periodically
received funds from USAID and State to conduct freshwater projects in
other countries during fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
Fish and Wildlife Service: $653 Million:
The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is, working with others,
to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. As such,
the agency's freshwater programs primarily support watershed
protection, restoration, and management through direct federal spending
and grant programs.[Footnote 16] For example, under the Landowner
Incentive Program, the agency provides grants to state agencies with
primary responsibility for fish and wildlife to establish or supplement
landowner incentive programs that protect and restore habitats on
private lands. Freshwater programs carried out by the agency are
conducted under a number of different legal authorities--generally
under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989, the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, and the Dingell-Johnson
Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950. According to agency officials, the
majority of the funds come from dedicated funding sources--the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Act, which includes excise taxes collected on sporting
arms, ammunition, bows and arrows, and fishing equipment. The remaining
funds come from annual appropriations from the general fund.
National Park Service: $227.4 Million:
The mission of the National Park Service is to preserve unimpaired
natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system.
Through the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, the agency
mainly supports watershed protection, restoration, and management
programs as well as drinking water supply and water rights management
programs. Each of the 388 national parks is responsible for management
activities in the park. Information on the amount of financial support
provided for freshwater programs at individual parks is not tracked
centrally. However, the agency did provide information on major
freshwater projects as well as the financial support provided by the
Water Resources Division. The agency conducts freshwater work directly
through wetlands restoration efforts at the Everglades National Park
and stream restoration activities affiliated with the removal of the
Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams in Olympic National Park. In addition, the
Water Resources Division within the agency provides direct financial
and technical support for freshwater resources management and policy
and operation support to units of the national park system.
U.S. Geological Survey: $1.1 Billion:
The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey is to provide reliable
scientific information to, among other things, describe and understand
the Earth and manage freshwater resources. The agency conducts programs
that support the planning and operation of freshwater resources,
primarily through technical assistance and research activities.
Specifically, the agency collects basic data on stream flow,
groundwater levels, and water quality and conducts interpretive studies
designed to answer specific questions about water resources. These
activities are primarily carried out through the Cooperative Water
Program, National Water Quality Assessment, and Hydrologic Networks and
Analysis Program. The agency conducts its freshwater programs under
many different legal authorities--most generally under the U.S.
Geological Survey Organic Act. The agency also receives funds from
other federal agencies--such as EPA, the Corps, State, and Interior's
National Park Service--to gather data on water resources and water
contaminant studies.
Department of Transportation: $182.7 Million:
The Department of Transportation develops and coordinates policies to
provide for an efficient and economical national transportation system.
The department's freshwater programs include watershed management and
navigation.
Federal Highway Administration: $116.2 Million:
The Federal Highway Administration is charged with carrying out highway
safety projects and administering the Federal-Aid Highway Program.
Funded by the Highway Trust Fund as authorized by the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21ST Century and other acts, the program provides
financial resources and technical assistance to state and local
governments for constructing, preserving, and improving highways. The
program provides financial support for selecting, planning, designing,
and building highways. Funds may also be used for reducing water
pollution due to highway runoff and are included in the project's
overall costs. States are responsible for project oversight and may
voluntarily report data spent on individual project costs to the
Federal Highway Administration. Another component of the Federal-Aid
Highway Program is the wetland mitigation program, which replaces an
average of 1.5 acres of wetlands for every acre affected by highway
construction activities. Financial information on this program is not
included in the agency's total because it is incomplete and primarily
available on an acreage basis, which compares acres of wetlands
replaced and the acres affected by highway construction activities.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: $66.5 Million:
A wholly owned government corporation within the Department of
Transportation, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation was
created by the Wiley-Dondero Act of May 13, 1954. In cooperation with
the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, the agency
serves the marine transportation industries by providing a safe,
secure, reliable, efficient, and competitive international waterway.
The agency constructs, operates, and maintains the part of the St.
Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie that is within the
territorial limits of the United States. The majority of the agency's
activities are related to lock infrastructure and waterway operations,
maintenance, and security. The agency receives the vast majority of its
annual budget from an appropriation from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. The rest of its budget is derived from other sources, such as
interest income, rent payments, and the collection of noncommercial
tolls.
Independent Agencies: $15.6 Billion:
Appalachian Regional Commission: $125.2 Million:
The Appalachian Regional Commission, established by the Appalachian
Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended, seeks to foster economic
and community development across the 13-state Appalachian Region. The
region includes all of West Virginia and portions of Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The agency
provides grants, which are primarily funded by annual appropriations,
for basic infrastructure services to public and nonprofit entities
through its Area Development Program. According to a senior agency
official, approximately 33 percent of the agency's budget goes toward
grants for drinking water, wastewater, and related activities. The
agency has other programs that may also provide financial support for
freshwater activities, although that is not their primary purpose. The
Appalachian Regional Commission grants are administered either by the
agency or by another federal agency, such as Agriculture's Rural
Utilities Service; Commerce's Economic Development Administration;
Housing's Office of Community Planning and Development; and,
occasionally, EPA.
Environmental Protection Agency: $15.4 Billion:
Within the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of Water
supports most of the agency's freshwater efforts, primarily through the
Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds. Under these
programs, EPA provides grants to states for below-market loans to
municipalities for drinking water or surface water protection and
restoration projects. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund supports the
construction of municipal wastewater facilities and nonpoint source
pollution control and estuary protection projects. The Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund provides financial support to community water
systems for installing, upgrading, or replacing infrastructure. EPA
also administers other grant programs, such as the Public Water System
Supervision Grants Program, Water Quality Cooperative Agreements, Non-
Point Source Grants, and Wetland Program Grants. These programs are
conducted primarily under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act. EPA also receives funds from other federal agencies to carry
out freshwater programs. For example, EPA received funds from the Corps
for wetland restoration activities in coastal Louisiana.
National Science Foundation: $112.0 Million:
Established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, the
National Science Foundation is an independent federal agency whose
mission is to promote the progress of science; advance the nation's
health, prosperity, and welfare; and secure the nation's defense. Using
annual appropriations from the general fund, the agency provides grants
for research activities across scientific and engineering disciplines
to address issues related to, among other things, the preservation,
management, and enhancement of the environment. With regard to
freshwater issues, the agency provides financial support for research
on, among other things, drinking water treatment, desalination, flood
control, wastewater treatment, and watershed management. For example,
during fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the agency--through the Science
and Technology Centers Program--provided financial support to the
Center for Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas.
The center will carry out multidisciplinary research into the hydrology
and management of freshwater resources in semi-arid regions.
Small Business Administration: $0.3 Million:
The Small Business Administration, created by the Small Business Act of
1953, seeks to assist the interests of small businesses. The agency
does not lend money; rather, it provides loan guarantees to small
businesses. The agency's Basic 7(a) and Basic 504 loan programs can be
used for water infrastructure projects, such as water supply and
irrigation systems, sewage treatment facilities, and dredging and
surface cleanup activities. Under both programs, the agency guarantees
a portion of the loans and shares the risk with a commercial lender if
a borrower defaults on its loan. A senior agency official notes that
unlike the Basic 7(a) program, the Basic 504 program receives no
appropriations. Eligibility for the programs varies slightly, but under
both programs recipients must be a for-profit corporation. The Small
Business Administration initially obligated about $327,000 during
fiscal years 2000 to 2004 to cover potential default on water-related
loans in its loan guarantee program. This small amount of obligations
is not included in our governmentwide totals.
Other Agencies:
Our review focuses on the federal agencies that provide the majority of
the federal financial support for selected freshwater programs.
Additional agencies that support freshwater activities, as described by
agency officials, reports, and documents, are discussed below.
Bonneville Power Administration:
The Bonneville Power Administration is a self-financing agency that
markets wholesale electrical power and operates and markets
transmission services in the Pacific Northwest. The agency pays for its
costs through power and transmission sales and funds the region's
efforts to protect and rebuild fish and wildlife populations in the
Columbia River Basin.
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Within the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency leads the nation's efforts to prepare for hazards and
manages the federal response and recovery efforts following any
national event. In terms of freshwater activities, the agency manages
the National Flood Insurance Program--a program that assists with flood
insurance, floodplain management, and flood hazard mapping activities.
Regional Economic Development Entities:
Regional commissions provide assistance to some of the nation's most
chronically poor and distressed communities. Since its creation in
1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission has been providing assistance
to counties affected by severe and chronic economic distress. More
recently, Congress created additional regional economic development
entities. The Delta Regional Authority, created in 2000, serves parts
of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee. The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority,
created in 2002, includes the states of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska,
North Dakota, and South Dakota. Additionally, Congress created a wholly
intrastate commission in 1998, the Denali Commission, to provide
infrastructure and economic development throughout Alaska.
River Basin Commissions:
The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 authorized the President to
establish river basin commissions to serve as the principal agencies
for coordinating the development of water and related land resources in
river basins. In 1981, an executive order terminated six of these
commissions. Many river basin commissions established by interstate
compacts, such as the Delaware River Basin Commission, still exist.
Information on federal financial assistance provided to river basin
commissions is not readily available because individual commissions
primarily maintain these data.
Tennessee Valley Authority:
The Tennessee Valley Authority is a self-financing corporation of the
federal government that supplies affordable and reliable power and
operates fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydropower plants in the Tennessee
Valley. The agency receives its revenues through power sales and the
sale of bonds in the financial market and uses its own funds for a
variety of stewardship and watershed activities. These activities
include reservoir operations, navigation, watershed improvement
activities, aquatic plant management, and land planning and use.
Binational Commissions:
During fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the United States provided
financial contributions to three binational commissions for freshwater
projects along U.S. borders. The United States typically made
contributions to the budgets of these commissions, and a portion of
these contributions supported freshwater projects along U.S. borders.
Since the commissions coordinate activities along U.S. borders with
State and EPA, financial information on the U.S. contributions for
freshwater projects during fiscal years 2000 through 2004 was
available. These commissions, as described by federal agencies and
commission officials and documents, are discussed below.
Border Environment Cooperation Commission: $15.4 Million:
Created as a side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement,
the Border Environment Cooperation Commission is a binational
international organization that works to conserve, protect, and enhance
the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border. The commission's annual
budget for drinking water and wastewater treatment activities comes
mainly from EPA. The commission's annual budget for irrigation, air
quality, solid waste, and other projects comes from State and Mexico's
Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources. Managed by a
binational Board of Directors, composed of five members from each
country, the commission identifies, supports, evaluates, and certifies
various environmental infrastructure projects. Once the commission
certifies that sustainability and public participation requirements are
met, project sponsors may qualify for funding from the North American
Development Bank or from other sources requiring such certification.
Additionally, through its Project Development Assistance Program, which
is EPA-funded, the commission provides technical grants to qualifying
border communities for the development of water and wastewater projects.
International Boundary and Water Commission: $151.1 Million:
The International Boundary and Water Commission is a binational, treaty-
based organization comprised of a U.S. section, headquartered in El
Paso, Texas, and a Mexican section, headquartered in Ciudad Juarez,
Mexico. Through binational cooperation, the commission seeks to
preserve the international land and river boundary between Mexico and
the United States in a manner that balances economic, environmental,
and sovereignty needs; carry out the conservation, flood control,
national ownership, and utilization of international waters; and
improve the quality and utilization of international waters in a manner
that supports ecological needs and regional development. The U.S.
section of the commission operates under State's foreign policy
guidance and receives an annual appropriation through the Departments
of Commerce, State, Justice, and other related agencies' appropriation
bills. The U.S. section of the commission operates and maintains two
international wastewater treatment plants, multiple diversion dams, and
numerous smaller in-river structures for flood control and water
distribution. In addition, the U.S. section and the Mexican section of
the commission jointly operate two international dams. Additionally,
the U.S. section of the commission is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of five flood control projects with over 500 miles of
levees and related structures, which protect approximately 3 million
residents and 1.5 million acres of adjoining farmland in the United
States and Mexico.
International Joint Commission: $8.1 Million:
Established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the International
Joint Commission is an independent binational organization that assists
the governments of the United States and Canada in addressing water
quality and quantity issues and air pollution problems along the U.S.-
Canadian border. The U.S. section of the commission receives an annual
appropriation through State for these purposes. The commission is made
up of six commissioners, three that are appointed by the President of
the United States and three appointed by the Governor in Council of
Canada, on the advice of the Prime Minister. Although the commission
does not build or maintain any water-related infrastructure, it
undertakes research efforts and analyses of binational water issues and
of the operations of selected water works affecting both countries. For
example, a current research and development effort is a 5-year, $20-
million study to determine changes to the operation of infrastructure
that affect water levels and flows on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence
River. The U.S. section and the Canadian government are sharing equally
the cost of this study.
[End of section]
Appendix III Federal Financial Support for Freshwater Programs Abroad:
This appendix on U.S. financial support of freshwater programs abroad
has three sections. First, we provide a general overview of the
agencies responsible for the majority of the U.S. government's direct
financial support for freshwater programs abroad, along with the total
amount each agency provided for freshwater programs during fiscal years
2000 through 2004, excluding aid provided to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Second, we briefly discuss other agencies that can also support
freshwater programs abroad. Third, we provide information on
international organizations to which the United States contributes
annually and that support freshwater projects around the world.
Federal Agencies:
The following agencies provide the majority of the U.S. government's
financial support specifically for freshwater programs abroad. These
programs, as described by agency officials, documents, and reports, are
discussed below.
Department of Agriculture: $26.8 Million:
With the Department of Agriculture, the Foreign Agricultural Service
works to improve foreign market access for U.S. products and provides
food aid and technical assistance to foreign countries. As the primary
agency responsible for Agriculture's international work, the agency
administers international research and technical assistance activities
in coordination with developing and transitional countries. These
activities include international cooperative research efforts on
freshwater quality and availability, irrigation, and watershed
management issues. The majority of the agency's financial support for
freshwater activities abroad is provided by the Export Credit Guarantee
Program using various food aid agreements, as authorized by several
statutes, including the Food for Progress Act of 1985; section 416(b)
of the Agriculture Act of 1949, as amended; and the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program of 2003.
Through these food aid agreements, the Export Credit Guarantee Program
provides U.S. agricultural commodities to a recipient country for
resale. The proceeds from the sale may be used to support various
agricultural, economic, and infrastructure development projects in the
recipient country. Recently, this program funded the development of,
among other things, water supply, irrigation, and water treatment
projects in countries such as Guatemala, Pakistan, Vietnam, and
Uzbekistan. Additionally, as authorized by section 1543 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, as amended, the
agency manages the Cochran Fellowship Program, which provides
opportunities for professionals from foreign countries to attend
training programs on a number of agricultural issues, including drought
mitigation and irrigation management.
Department of Defense: $0.5 Million:
Although freshwater is not a focus area for the Department of Defense,
the department provides financial support for several efforts related
to freshwater projects abroad.[Footnote 17] In addition to providing
engineering services for military and civilian purposes in the United
States, the Corps, through its Civil Works program, provides technical
assistance to foreign countries on a number of freshwater issues, such
as wastewater treatment, flood control, and irrigation. The Corps is
authorized by section 234 (Interagency and International Support
Authority) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to provide up
to $250,000 of its own funding for technical assistance on freshwater
projects to international organizations and federal agencies in foreign
countries. However, other federal agencies, such as USAID, and the
governments of foreign countries often provide the funding that
supports the Corps' freshwater work in foreign countries. Recently, the
Corps received funds from USAID to provide technical assistance for the
reconstruction of drinking water infrastructure and wastewater
treatment systems in Iraq. The Corps also received funds from USAID for
similar work in Afghanistan.
In addition to the Corps, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency,
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, coordinates and oversees
humanitarian assistance programs abroad. Under 10 U.S.C. § 2561, U.S.
military units are authorized to perform humanitarian activities
(primarily carried out through contracts) in communities and areas
where military units are deployed abroad. These activities include,
among other activities, digging wells and improving sanitation
facilities. For example, military commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq
from the United States Central Command have used these funds to repair
and augment drinking water and wastewater systems.
Department of the Interior: $128.7 Million:
As part of its mission to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats for the American people, the Fish and Wildlife Service--within
the Department of the Interior--protects wetlands used by waterfowl and
migratory birds, in Canada and Mexico, as well as in countries in
Central and South America and the Caribbean. The agency provides
financial support to protect, restore, and enhance these wetlands
through several programs, including the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act of 1989 and the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 2000. Through its North American Wetlands
Conservation program, the agency coordinates with representatives from
Canada and Mexico to provide grants for long-term acquisition,
restoration, and/or enhancement of critical wetlands used by waterfowl
and migratory birds in the three countries. Grant recipients are
required to provide matching funds at a 1: 1 ratio. Under the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000, the Fish and
Wildlife Service established a matching grants program that, among
other things, supports the maintenance, protection, and restoration of
the habitats of birds in the United States, Latin America, and the
Caribbean. Government agencies, individuals, corporations, and other
private entities may apply for a grant from this program, if they
provide $3 for every $1 they receive from the agency.
Department of State: $8.7 Million:
As recognized in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, the
Department of State is the lead agency responsible for the continuous
supervision and general direction of foreign assistance. The
department's mission is to create a more secure, democratic, and
prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the
international community.
Several bureaus within State provide financial support for freshwater
programs abroad; however, the level of their involvement varies. The
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
coordinates the department's overall policy for international
environmental issues, including freshwater issues. The bureau provides
grants to support international initiatives on watershed management,
access to safe drinking water, flood control, and water dispute
management. The Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs coordinates U.S. foreign
policy and diplomatic relations with countries in the Middle East and
North Africa. In support of the United State's role in the Middle East
Peace Process, this bureau promotes technical cooperation between Arabs
and Israelis on numerous freshwater issues. Typically, the bureau
provides funds to other federal agencies, such as those within
Agriculture and Interior, for projects designed to promote water
cooperation and the building of strong working relationships between
water officials and experts in the region.
The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration coordinates the
department's efforts related to global population, refugees, and
migration issues. This bureau provides financial support for various
water and sanitation projects in foreign countries through grants and
cooperative agreements issued to international and nongovernmental
organizations. These projects provide water for drinking, irrigation,
and sanitation to temporary refugee camps. Although State does not
specifically track freshwater expenditures for refugee camps, a bureau
official estimates that less than $5 million a year is obligated to
support these activities.
The Bureau of International Organization Affairs develops and
implements the U.S. government's policies and efforts with the United
Nations, its affiliated agencies, and other international
organizations. This bureau manages the U.S. government's assessed and
voluntary contributions to various organizations. Most of these
contributions are made directly to the core budgets of these
organizations and are not designated for specific activities.
Independent Agencies:
African Development Foundation: $0.9 Million:
The African Development Foundation is a public corporation and federal
agency established by the African Development Foundation Act of 1980,
as amended. The agency supports community-based, self-help initiatives
to alleviate poverty and to promote sustainable development in Africa.
Currently working in 15 sub-Saharan African countries, the agency
provides grants of usually $250,000 or less directly to community-
based, nongovernmental organizations and enterprises administered by
Africans. The agency's grants enable community-based groups to expand
their production capacity and increase incomes, thereby improving the
community's economic security. Although freshwater is not a program
focus, the agency supported various irrigation, drinking water, and
wastewater projects in countries such as Botswana, Guinea, Mali, and
Niger.
National Science Foundation: $0.7 Million:
Established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended,
the National Science Foundation is an independent U.S. government
agency whose mission is to promote the progress of science; advance the
national health, prosperity, and welfare; and secure the national
defense. Using annual appropriations from the general fund, the agency
provides grants for scientific research for various freshwater issues
abroad, including watershed management, drinking water treatment, and
wastewater management. The statute creating the agency authorizes it to
promote the interchange of scientific information between scientists
and engineers in the United States and foreign countries. For example,
the agency's Office of International Science and Engineering provides
grants to U.S. scientists and engineers to participate in international
collaborative research partnerships with their foreign colleagues.
U.S. Agency for International Development: $1.8 Billion:
The U.S. Agency for International Development is an independent federal
agency created under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
Operating under guidance from the Secretary of State, USAID provides
economic, development, and humanitarian assistance around the world in
support of U.S. foreign policy goals. As part of the agency's efforts
to promote an integrated approach to water resources management, USAID
provides technical assistance, educational and outreach opportunities,
emergency relief assistance, and international leadership on a variety
of water issues in over 76 countries. USAID reports that over the 5-
year period covered in this analysis (fiscal years 2000 through 2004),
approximately 5 percent of its annual appropriation has been used to
support freshwater-related activities. USAID provides financial support
for freshwater programs through partnerships with nongovernmental
organizations; government entities (host country and U.S. government
agencies); and public international organizations, such as United
Nations agencies.
During fiscal years 2000 through 2004, USAID missions in Egypt, Jordan,
and the West Bank/Gaza received the most financial support from USAID
for freshwater projects.[Footnote 18] Most funds for freshwater
projects are distributed as grants, although some funds are provided in
the form of loan guarantees through USAID's Development Credit
Authority. The majority of USAID's freshwater funds are used to support
water supply projects. USAID also supports sanitation and wastewater
management projects. Additionally, USAID provides financial support
for, among other things, watershed management, irrigation, and flood
and drought forecasting and preparedness activities in foreign
countries. During fiscal years 2002 through 2004, USAID provided about
$670 million for the reconstruction of drinking water infrastructure
and wastewater treatment systems in Afghanistan and Iraq.[Footnote 19]
USAID primarily drew on funds from the President's Supplemental
Appropriation for the Reconstruction and Development of Iraq and
Afghanistan to carry out this work.
U.S. Trade and Development Agency: $28.6 Million:
Created under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, the U.S.
Trade and Development Agency is an agency that provides financial
support to promote U.S. private sector participation in development
projects in developing and middle-income countries. The agency offers
early planning support to overseas development projects by funding
technical assistance activities, feasibility studies, conferences, and
other activities. The agency provides grants directly to host-country
project sponsors (i.e., local, regional, and national governments;
private sector; and nongovernmental organizations) that agree to select
U.S. companies to perform the work associated with project planning.
Agency-supported projects span a variety of sectors, including drinking
water supply, wastewater treatment, irrigation, and flood control. For
example, the agency supported the development of water treatment and
supply projects in Ghana, wastewater treatment facilities in India, and
an irrigation project in China.
Other Agencies:
Our review focused on the federal agencies that provide the majority of
the federal financial support for selected freshwater programs abroad.
Additional agencies that support freshwater programs, as described by
agency officials, reports, and documents, are discussed below.
Department of Health and Human Services--Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention:
In conjunction with the Pan American Health Organization, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention developed a Safe Water System
program to help provide safe drinking water to developing countries. To
date, this project has supplied inexpensive, adaptable, and flexible
drinking water technologies to communities in at least 19 countries.
Export-Import Bank of the United States:
The Export-Import Bank is an independent agency that assists in
financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international
markets by providing U.S. businesses with working capital guarantees,
export credit insurance, loan guarantees, and direct loans. Although
freshwater-related goods and services are not a primary focus, the bank
provides financial support for the export of water purification
devices, wastewater treatment systems, and technologies designed to
prevent and mitigate water pollution.
Inter-American Foundation:
The Inter-American Foundation is an independent foreign assistance
agency that provides grants to nongovernmental organizations in Latin
America and the Caribbean for economic and social development projects.
The agency primarily relies on congressional appropriations to fund
development projects. The agency also has access to additional funding
from the Social Progress Trust Fund, which consists of payments on
loans made by the United States to Latin American and Caribbean
countries under the Alliance for Progress program. According to a
senior agency official, the agency does not specifically track
freshwater expenditures, which are a small part of the agency's total
portfolio; activities supported include improving access to drinking
water, developing irrigation systems, and protecting watersheds.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation:
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is a self-sustaining U.S.
government corporation created to facilitate U.S. private investment in
developing countries and emerging market economies, primarily by
offering political risk insurance, loan guarantees, and direct loans.
The agency provides financial support for various development projects
worldwide, including some freshwater projects.
Peace Corps:
Created in late 1961, the Peace Corps promotes world peace and
friendship by helping developing countries meet their need for trained
workers while promoting mutual understanding between Americans and
citizens of foreign countries. The Peace Corps supports volunteers who
commit to 2-year assignments in host communities where they work on
various community development projects, such as teaching English,
strengthening farmer cooperatives, or building sanitation systems.
Although some volunteers work on water sanitation systems and
agricultural projects, the Peace Corps does not directly fund any
freshwater projects.
Selected International Organizations:
During fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the United States indirectly
supported freshwater programs abroad through its financial
contributions to various international organizations that support
freshwater programs abroad. The United States typically made
contributions to the general budgets of these organizations, although
some contributions were directed for a particular project or program.
Some portion of the general budgets of these organizations was used to
support freshwater projects around the world. These organizations can
be split into two groups: (1) multilateral development banks and
international financial institutions and (2) other international
organizations. Contributions to multilateral development banks and
international financial institutions are typically coordinated by the
Department of the Treasury,[Footnote 20] while contributions to the
other organizations are typically coordinated by State. These
organizations' freshwater projects and programs, as described by
officials and documents, are discussed below.
Multilateral Development Banks and Financial Institutions:
African Development Bank Group:
The African Development Bank Group--the African Development Bank and
the African Development Fund--provides loans and offers technical
assistance to African countries for development projects. The bank's
priority areas include rural water supply, irrigation, and other
agricultural and development projects. The bank's membership includes
all countries in Africa as well as some countries in the Americas,
Asia, and Europe.
Asian Development Bank:
The Asian Development Bank--the Ordinary Capital Resources group and
the Asian Development Fund--provides loans and loan guarantees and
offers technical assistance to low-and middle-income countries in Asia
and the Pacific for a variety of economic and social development
projects. Traditionally, the bank supports projects related to
agriculture (including irrigation) and rural development. Recently, the
bank placed additional importance on its Social Infrastructure Sector,
which supports projects to improve water supply. Since its inception,
the bank has lent the most money to Indonesia; China, Pakistan, and
India were also major borrowers.
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development:
Created in 1991, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
seeks to foster the transition toward open market-oriented economies in
countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of
Independent States. The bank provides financial support for, among
other issues, the development and improvement of water and wastewater
systems.
Global Environment Facility:
The Global Environment Facility is a multilateral, financial
institution that provides grants and other financial assistance,
particularly in low-and middle-income countries, for projects that
protect the global environment. One of the organization's top priority
areas is protecting freshwater resources. Working in partnership with
the U.N. Environment Programme, the U.N. Development Programme, and the
World Bank, the organization funds projects to improve protection of
safe drinking water supply, manage water disputes, and reduce water-
borne pollutants.
Inter-American Development Bank:
The Inter-American Development Bank provides financial and technical
support for various development projects in Latin America and the
Caribbean. The bank funds projects in several sectors, including
agriculture, fisheries, water and sanitation, and the environment.
Since 1961, the bank has lent most of its money to Brazil, Argentina,
Mexico, and Colombia.
International Fund for Agricultural Development:
Established in 1977, the International Fund for Agricultural
Development works to alleviate poverty and improve nutrition around the
world, with a special focus on low-income countries. As an
international financial institution associated with the United Nations,
the organization provides loans and grants for technical assistance,
research, and activities in several areas related to freshwater. These
areas include agricultural development, irrigation, and water
infrastructure development in rural areas.
North American Development Bank:
Created in a side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement,
the North American Development Bank is jointly funded by Mexico and the
United States. Working closely with the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission, the bank finances projects related to drinking water
supply, wastewater treatment, and other environmental infrastructure
projects along the U.S.-Mexico border. The United States provides its
annual contributions--through EPA--to the bank as a grant. The bank may
use a portion of these contributions to support freshwater projects
along the U.S. borders. The bank's Board of Directors consists of
members from the United States and Mexico, with the chairmanship of the
board annually alternating between U.S. and Mexican representatives.
World Bank Group:
The World Bank Group, the largest multilateral development bank, is
made up of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
International Development Association, International Finance
Corporation, and Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency. These
institutions provide loans and loan guarantees and offer technical
assistance for various economic and social development projects. The
bank has several water-related program areas that focus on, among other
things, extending water supply and sanitation services to the urban
poor, increasing rural access to water supply and sanitation, and
improving water resources management. The bank has funded the
construction of dams, flood control infrastructure, and drinking water
and wastewater treatment facilities in countries around the world.
Together with the U.N. Development Programme, the World Bank created
the Water and Sanitation Program, which works with donors, governments
of foreign countries, and nongovernmental organizations to support the
development of cost-effective water delivery technologies and
implementation of strategies for providing safe water and sanitation to
the world's poor.
Other International Organizations That Support Freshwater Programs
Abroad:
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture:
Created more than six decades ago, the Inter-American Institute for
Cooperation on Agriculture is a specialized international agency that
promotes agricultural development, food security, and rural economic
development in North, Central, and South America and the Caribbean. The
institute's focal areas include rural development, agribusiness
development, and agricultural and food safety. Within these areas, the
institute provides technical assistance for the management of, among
other things, water resources, watershed management, and efforts to
combat desertification.
Organization of American States:
The Organization of American States brings together 35 countries in
North, Central, and South America and the Caribbean to strengthen
cooperation and advance common interests. Through its Office for
Sustainable Development and Environment, the organization provides
technical assistance to countries and promotes cooperation on various
issues, including integrated water resources management. For example,
the organization provides financial support to help countries in South
and Central America manage transboundary water resources in several
major river basins. The organization works in partnership with the
United Nations' Environment Programme, the World Bank, and the Global
Environment Facility on these projects. The organization also serves as
the technical secretariat for the Inter-American Water Resources
Network, which was created in 1993 to foster cooperation on water
management issues in the hemisphere.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development brings
together 30 industrialized nations in a forum to discuss, develop, and
refine economic and social policies. The organization is funded by
contributions from member countries, with the United States providing
25 percent of the general budget. Among other issues, the organization
carries out research and analysis on water management policies, water
use for agriculture, water pricing, water and wastewater infrastructure
financing, and technologies to improve water quality.
Pan American Health Organization:
The Pan American Health Organization is an international public health
agency that works to improve the health and living standards of
residents in North, Central, and South America and the Caribbean.
Affiliated with the United Nations and the World Health Organization,
the organization provides technical support to various countries on a
number of health-related issues. Among the organization's top
priorities are improving supplies of clean water and adequate
sanitation facilities.
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands:
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands is an inter-governmental treaty
adopted in 1971 that addresses various wetlands-related issues
worldwide. A small secretariat carries out the work of the convention
using financial contributions from the 138 countries that are
signatories to the convention. The United States makes voluntary
contributions to the organization's general budget and also funds a
grant program for wetlands-related training. The organization has also
used U.S. contributions to support the protection of key wetland
habitats for migratory birds in Latin American and the Caribbean.
United Nations:
Among other purposes, the United Nations seeks to achieve international
cooperation in solving economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian
problems. Funded through assessed dues paid by its 191 member nations,
the United Nations consists of a number of commissions, funds,
organizations, and other entities developed to respond to global needs.
The United States has been the largest contributor of funds since the
organization's inception in 1945, making annual contributions that
amount to about 22 percent of the United Nations' general budget. In
addition to its assessed contributions, the United States provides
voluntary contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated
organizations. Most of these contributions are used for humanitarian
and development programs. With respect to freshwater projects, the
United Nations provides advisory and technical assistance to
governments on various freshwater issues, such as water resources
management and infrastructure improvements. Within the United Nations'
system, 26 entities support water-related projects. However, according
to a U.N. official who works on freshwater issues, the entities do not
currently work together to track the financial support provided for
freshwater projects.
World Conservation Union:
Created in 1948, the World Conservation Union is an international
environmental organization with members from the government of foreign
countries, governmental agencies, and nongovernmental entities. The
organization has over 1,000 members from 140 countries, including 6
U.S. federal agencies--USAID, Agriculture's Forest Service, Commerce's
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service and National Park Service, and EPA. The organization's
mission is to encourage the conservation of nature and ensure that the
use of natural resources is ecologically sustainable. In addition to
providing technical assistance on the management and restoration of
wetlands and water resources, the organization supports several
freshwater projects, such as the Water for Nature Initiative. This
initiative works with partners in approximately 40 countries to improve
water resources management in 10 river basins.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
FEB 14 2005:
Ms. Anu K. Mittal:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
The Department has reviewed your draft report entitled "Freshwater
Programs-Federal Agencies' Funding in the United States and Abroad"
(GAO-05-253) and has no comments at this time.
The Department provided several technical comments directly to your
staff.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Daniel R. Levinson:
Acting Inspector General:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point and coordinator for U.S. Government
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on
them.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET:
Washington, D.C. 20240:
FEB 16 2005:
Ms. Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability
Office report entitled, "FRESHWATER PROGRAMS: Federal Agencies' Funding
in the United States and Abroad," (GAO-05-253), transmitted to the
Secretary of the Interior on January 25, 2005. In general, we agree
with the results of the draft report, with the exceptions listed in the
enclosure.
The enclosure provides comments and suggestions from the Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Land Management, and the Department's Office of Policy
Analysis. We hope our comments will assist you in preparing the final
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
P. Lynn Scarlett:
Assistant Secretary:
Policy, Management and Budget:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT:
FEB 14 2005:
Mrs. Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for your letter of January 25, 2005, transmitting the GAO
report entitled Freshwater Programs: Federal Agencies' Funding in the
United States and Abroad (GAO-05-253). I am pleased to provide a formal
response on behalf of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID).
We have reviewed the draft and appreciate the thorough analysis which
has been performed by your team. The estimates of USAID obligations and
activities you requested for Tables 8, 9, and 11 represent the most
current data available to us at the time this review was made in
January, 2005. The statement in the second paragraph of page 61, "USAID
reports that approximately 5% of its annual appropriation is used to
support freshwater-related activities." would be better expressed as:
"USAID reports that over the 5-year period covered in this analysis (FY
2000-2004), approximately 5 percent of its appropriation has been used
for support of freshwater-related activities."
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this
research.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steve Wisecarver:
Acting Assistant Administrator:
Bureau for Management:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Ms. Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841;
Edward Zadjura, (202) 512-9914:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Diana Cheng, Richard P. Johnson,
Nathan Morris, Lynn Musser, Jonathan Nash, and Kim Raheb made
significant contributions to this report. Denise Fantone, Jessica Fast,
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and John Hutton also contributed to this
report.
(360448):
FOOTNOTES
[1] In this report, the term "agency" represents executive departments,
subagencies, or offices of executive departments, and independent
agencies or commissions (such as EPA or the Appalachian Regional
Commission).
[2] The Rural Utilities Service is one of several subagencies within
Agriculture's Rural Development agency.
[3] For the International Boundary and Water Commission, the United
States funds only the expenses of the U.S. section of the commission.
In addition, the United States may provide financial contributions to
other commissions, such as the North American Commission for
Environmental Cooperation, which may fund freshwater projects that
benefit the United States, Canada, and/or Mexico.
[4] The $4 million figure represents initial obligations, not annual
reestimates, of the amount in loan guarantees necessary to cover up to
50 percent of the risk in lending on USAID-supported loan projects. See
appendix I for more information on loan guarantee programs and the
types of financial information presented in this report.
[5] We also obtained financial information on the total amount of funds
the Department of Defense provided to support freshwater projects in
Afghanistan and Iraq through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency,
Secretary of the Army, and Project Contracting Office. Although the
Small Business Administration also provides loan guarantees for
freshwater-related projects, these efforts are not the focus of the
agency. In addition, the agency obligated a small amount of funds for
these efforts during the 5-year period covered in this review.
Consequently, we did not focus our efforts on these agencies.
[6] For the purpose of our review, we defined the term "financial
support" to include federal dollars provided through grant, loan, and
loan guarantee programs and direct federal spending.
[7] For the purpose of our review, we excluded administrative overhead
costs, such as those related to administering grant, loan, and loan
guarantee programs.
[8] Obligation figures were reported for most of the Corps' programs
except one, which was reported in expenditures.
[9] Funding provided for regulatory permitting activities are not
included in the agencywide totals.
[10] The administration has not requested funding for the Expeditionary
Unit Water Purification project in its annual budgets, but Congress has
nevertheless provided funding since fiscal year 2003.
[11] Regulations governing the section 108 program may be found at 24
C.F.R. Part 570, Subpart M.
[12] Regulations governing the program appear at 24 C.F.R. Part 1003.
[13] In fiscal year 2002, the agency dissolved its loan guarantee
program.
[14] The Reclamation Fund--a special fund established by Congress under
the Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended--receives revenue from the sale
of public lands, proceeds from the Mineral Leasing Act, and certain
other revenues. Reclamation receives congressional appropriations from
this fund for investigating, constructing, operating, and administering
Reclamation projects.
[15] The Central Valley Project Restoration Fund--authorized in the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, title 34 of Public Law 102-575-
-provides funding for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition,
and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the Central
Valley project area of California. Revenues are derived from payments
by project beneficiaries and from donations.
[16] Funding provided for listing activities under the Endangered
Species Act are not included in the agencywide totals.
[17] The estimated $500,000 figure only includes the technical
assistance provided by the Corps for freshwater projects abroad. For
information on Defense's financial support for freshwater projects in
Afghanistan and Iraq, see table 9 and the associated narrative.
[18] According to USAID, a mission is a USAID office in a foreign
country.
[19] See table 9 for more information on these USAID obligations.
[20] During fiscal years 2000 through 2004, EPA provided U.S.
contributions to the North American Development Bank.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
