Bills
| 3.23.22

Should There Be Increased Flexibility for Water Management in Dealing With the Drought in the Western States? (H.R. 2898)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is H.R. 2898?

(Updated October 2, 2017)

This bill aims to provide a comprehensive solution addressing the severe drought that is affecting California and the Western U.S. by expanding water infrastructure and enhancing water conservation, while protecting water rights.


Federal agencies would be given more operational flexibility in maximizing water projects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta while still satisfying the needs of protected species like the delta smelt. They would be directed to pump as much water as possible south of the Delta when there are drought conditions, and continue doing so for two normal water years after the drought has ended. The decision making process for water projects would be streamlined to ensure that decisions are made in an expedited manner. If there is not expected to be any harm to protected species, federal agencies would be directed to increase pumping operations.


Protected fisheries — including the delta smelt — would be monitored using the most accurate survey methods available to determine how water projects could be maximized without causing significant impacts to the smelt. For salmon fisheries, agencies would be directed to identify management actions other than reducing the pumping of water that could enhance salmon recovery. This would be accomplished by quantifying the benefit to salmon species from reductions in pumping.


The permitting process for constructing new dams and reservoirs would be consolidated to eliminate redundant permits that multiple agencies require for federal and non-federal projects. This “one-stop-shop” would coordinate all reviews, analysis, opinions, permits, licenses or other required federal approvals for proposed projects.


For the construction of large multi-purpose dams and reservoirs, the feasibility study must be completed within three years of it being started, and cost no more than $3 million to the federal government. This could be extended by seven years if the Secretary of the Interior (DOI) provides a detailed justification to Congress. To reduce duplications in the review process, the DOI and the non-federal project sponsor (in this case a state agency) would work together on conducting an expedited environmental review.


Water users — like irrigation districts and water utilities — would be able to pre-pay their repayment contracts for using Bureau of Reclamation facilities instead of having to pay them over the long term. This allows the irrigation districts and water utilities to avoid being subject to land-use restrictions and paperwork requirements that they are required to comply with as long as they are in the debt of the Bureau of Reclamation. Current federal law prohibits those contracts from being repaid early, thus forcing water users to make small, long-term repayments.


To better fulfill the Bureau of Reclamation’s dam safety responsibility, the Bureau could study and construct improvements to dams and reservoirs if they are found to be feasible. Beneficiaries of the project would contribute to paying for such projects. Current law prohibits the Bureau from considering structural improvements while it is making safety repairs.


The Depts. of the Interior and Agriculture would be prohibited from conditioning or withholding the issuance, renewal, amendments, or extension of land use permits based on the limitation of water rights. Federal agencies would also be prohibited from requiring water users to apply for or acquire a water right in the name of the U.S. under state law to access the water. These provisions reaffirms the rights of states to develop their own systems of water law by preventing the federal government from asserting jurisdiction over those water rights.

Argument in favor

More needs to be done to increase the availability of water for irrigation in drought-affected areas of the Western U.S. This includes finding ways to maximize the use of existing water projects, while protecting water rights and making it easier to build needed dams and reservoirs.

Argument opposed

This legislation jeopardizes environmental protections for threatened species like the nearly extinct Delta Smelt — which cannot survive increased use of water for irrigation. Consolidating environmental reviews and permits will reduce the amount public input on proposed projects.

Impact

Farmers in drought affected areas — particularly those irrigating using water projects in California, conservationists concerned about the Delta Smelt and other protected species, agencies managing water projects, state governments, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Dept. of the Interior.

Cost of H.R. 2898

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) — the sponsor of this legislation — said that:

“California’s drought has devastated communities throughout the Central Valley and now the consequences are extending throughout the country. Inaction will result in the collapse of our domestic food supply. Congress cannot make it rain but we can enact policies that expand our water infrastructure, allow for more water conveyance, and utilize legitimate science to ensure a reliable water supply for farmers and families.”

Expressing agreement with some portions of this bill, while disapproving of others, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that this legislation:

“Includes some useful provisions to increase the flexibility of water delivery as well as some provisions that would violate environmental law, which I’ve said many times I cannot support. I continue to believe we need a comprehensive approach with both short- and long-term solutions to include increased flexibility as well as desalination, water storage, and water recycling.”

This legislation has 26 cosponsors, and was passed by the House Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 23 to 12. During the 113th Congress, House Republicans and Senate Democrats were negotiating a bipartisan solution, but a final deal was not reached before the session ended. Republicans believe that this proposal reflects the fruits of those negotiations, although Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) is currently drafting a proposal of her own in the Senate.


Of Note: In 2013, California’s farms produced $46.4 billion in crops, including $7.6 billion of milk, $5.8 billion of almonds, $5.6 billion of grapes, and more than $3 billion of cattle and calves. Of the total output, over $21 billion was exported, and California alone accounted for 14.7 percent of U.S. agricultural exports. The prolonged drought that California is experiencing is anticipated to have a “major impact” on its agricultural production according to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA).

According to the USDA’s Drought Monitor, nearly all of California is considered to be in “exceptional” drought — the most severe intensity measured. Indeed, California’s drought is the longest since the state began keeping records over 100 years ago, and could inflict up to $2.2 billion in losses on the agriculture industry.

The Delta Smelt has been the focus of considerable blame for the inability of water projects to convey water to farmers, as environmental agencies have blocked water transfers to protect the nearly-extinct fish’s habitat. Since 2008, regulators have allowed 1.4 trillion gallons of water to flow into San Francisco Bay with an eye toward the fish’s conservation, but Delta Smelt populations are at the lowest level since 1967 with only eight new juvenile fish identified in the fall of 2014.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickruser USDAgov)