This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-514 
entitled 'Freshwater Supply: States' View of How Federal Agencies Could 
Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages' which was released 
on July 08, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

July 2003:

FRESHWATER SUPPLY:

States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the 
Challenges of Expected Shortages:

GAO-03-514:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-514, a report to Congressional Requesters

Why GAO Did This Study:

The widespread drought conditions of 2002 focused attention on a 
critical national challenge: ensuring a sufficient freshwater supply 
to sustain quality of life and economic growth. States have primary 
responsibility for managing the allocation and use of water resources, 
but multiple federal agencies also play a role. For example, 
Interiors Bureau of Reclamation operates numerous water storage 
facilities, and the U.S. Geological Survey collects important surface 
and ground-water information. 

GAO was asked to determine the current conditions and future trends 
for U.S. water availability and use, the likelihood of shortages and 
their potential consequences, and states views on how federal 
activities could better support state water management efforts to meet 
future demands. 

For this review, GAO conducted a web-based survey of water managers in 
the 50 states and received responses from 47 states; California, 
Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate.

What GAO Found:

National water availability and use has not been comprehensively 
assessed in 25 years, but current trends indicate that demands on the 
nations supplies are growing. In particular, the nations capacity 
for storing surface-water is limited and ground-water is being 
depleted. At the same time, growing population and pressures to keep 
water instream for fisheries and the environment place new demands on 
the freshwater supply. The potential effects of climate change also 
create uncertainty about future water availability and use.

State water managers expect freshwater shortages in the near future, 
and the consequences may be severe. Even under normal conditions, 
water managers in 36 states anticipate shortages in localities, 
regions, or statewide in the next 10 years. Drought conditions will 
exacerbate shortage impacts. When water shortages occur, economic 
impacts to sectors such as agriculture can be in the billions of 
dollars. Water shortages also harm the environment. For example, 
diminished flows reduced the Florida Everglades to half its original 
size. Finally, water shortages cause social discord when users compete 
for limited supplies.

State water managers ranked federal actions that could best help 
states meet their water resource needs. They preferred: (1) financial 
assistance to increase storage and distribution capacity; (2) water 
data from more locations; (3) more flexibility in complying with or 
administering federal environmental laws; (4) better coordinated 
federal participation in water-management agreements; and (5) more 
consultation with states on federal or tribal use of water rights. 
Federal officials identified agency activities that support state 
preferences.

While not making recommendations, GAO encourages federal officials to 
review the results of our state survey and consider opportunities to 
better support state water management efforts. We provided copies of 
this report to the seven departments and agencies discussed within. 
They concurred with our findings and provided technical 
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-514.

To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Barry Hill at (202) 512-
9775 or hillb@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Transmittal Letter:

Executive Summary:

Purpose:

Background:

Results in Brief:

Principal Findings:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Chapter 1: Introduction:

Water Is an Abundant and Renewable Resource but Not Always 
Readily Available:

The Federal Government Has Authority to Manage Water Resources 
but Recognizes State Authorities:

State Laws Governing Water Allocation and Use Generally Follow Two 
Basic Doctrines:

Multiple Federal Agencies Have Water Management Responsibilities:

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Chapter 2: Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, 
but Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs:

National Water Availability and Use Has Not Been Assessed in Decades:

Trends in Water Availability and Use Raise Concerns about the Nation's 
Ability to Meet Future Needs:

Chapter 3: Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the
Environment, and Communities:

State Water Managers Expect Shortages within 10 Years:

Freshwater Shortages Have Severe Economic, Environmental, and 
Social Consequences:

Chapter 4: Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water
Management Efforts: 

Conclusions:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendixes:

Appendix I: GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal
Activities on State Water Availability, Management, and Use: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

Figures: 

Figure 1: Water Sources, Volumes, and Percentages of Total Water:

Figure 2: The Hydrologic Cycle:

Figure 3: Percent Time in Severe and Extreme Drought Nationwide, 1895 
to 1995:

Figure 4: Drought Conditions across the Nation as of July 23, 2002:

Figure 5: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface-Water Allocation:

Figure 6: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Ground-Water Allocation:

Figure 7: Overview of Federal Activities:

Figure 8: Reclamations Hoover Dam and the Corps Eufaula Lake Water 
Storage Facilities:

Figure 9: USGS Nationwide Streamgage Network:

Figure 10: Number of Listed Threatened and Endangered Species by 
State, as of March 2003:

Figure 11: Colorado River Basin Crosses Seven State Borders:

Figure 12: Federal and Tribal Lands in the United States:

Figure 13: Trends in Water Withdrawals by Use Category, 1950-1995:

Figure 14: Projections of United States Water Use for 2000:


Figure 15: Number and Capacity of Large Reservoirs Completed by Decade:

Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Population Using Ground-Water
as Drinking Water in 1995 by State:

Figure 17: Changes in Ground-Water Levels in the High Plains Aquifer 
from before Irrigation Pumping to 1999:

Figure 18: Sinkhole in West-Central Florida Caused by Development
of a New Irrigation Well:

Figure 19: Land Subsidence in South-Central Arizona:

Figure 20: States Population Growth from 1995 to 2025:

Figure 21: Total Freshwater Withdrawals by County, 1995:

Figure 22: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade
under Average Water Conditions:

Figure 23: The EvergladesPast and Present:

Figure 24: Competition for Water in the Klamath Basin:

Transmittal Letter July 9, 2003:

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici 
Chairman 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
United States Senate:

The Honorable James M. Jeffords 
Ranking Minority Member 
Committee on Environment and Public Works 
United States Senate:

The Honorable Mike Crapo 
Chairman 
The Honorable Bob Graham 
Ranking Minority Member 
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water 
Committee on Environment and Public Works 
United States Senate:

In response to your requests, this report identifies current conditions 
and future trends for U.S. water availability and use, the likelihood 
of shortages and their potential consequences, and state views on how 
federal activities could better support state water management efforts 
to meet future needs. While we are not making a specific 
recommendation, we encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland 
Security, Interior, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency 
officials to review the results of our state survey and consider 
modifications to their plans, policies, or activities as appropriate to 
better support state efforts to meet their future water needs.

We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and Interior; the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. We will also send copies to the states 
that participated in our review. This report will also be available on 
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any 
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix 
III.

Barry T. Hill 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:

Signed by Barry T. Hill:  

[End of section]

Executive Summary:

Purpose:

The widespread drought conditions of 2002 focused attention on a 
critical challenge for the United States--ensuring a sufficient 
freshwater supply to sustain quality of life and economic growth. Yet 
droughts are only one element of this complex issue. Water availability 
and use depend on many factors, such as the ability to store and 
distribute water, demographics, and social values. Across the nation, 
there is increasing competition to meet the freshwater needs of growing 
cities and suburbs, farms, industries, recreation and wildlife.

States are primarily responsible for managing the allocation and use of 
freshwater supplies. However, federal laws provide for control over the 
use of water in specific cases, such as on federal lands or in 
interstate commerce. Many federal agencies engage in activities, such 
as operating large water storage facilities and administering federal 
environmental protection laws, that influence state decisions. Federal 
agencies generally coordinate their activities with the states and 
complement state efforts to manage water supplies. On occasion, 
however, these activities conflict with state or other user objectives, 
such as when the need to leave water in a river to protect fish under 
federal environmental laws affects the delivery of irrigation water 
to farmers.

To assist congressional understanding of the range and complexity of 
freshwater supply issues, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, the Ranking Member of the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, and the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works asked GAO to identify 
(1) current conditions and future trends for U.S. water availability 
and use, (2) the likelihood of shortages and their potential 
consequences, and (3) state views on how federal activities could 
better support state water management efforts to meet future demands. 
To conduct this review, we focused on water supply and generally 
assumed a continuation of existing quantity allocations and current 
pricing conditions. Among other things, GAO conducted a Web-based 50-
state survey of state water managers and obtained responses from 
47 states; California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate. 
GAO also met with state water managers in seven geographically 
dispersed states--Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, 
Virginia, and Washington. GAO's complete scope and methodology is 
described in chapter 1.

Background:

Freshwater flows abundantly in the nation's lakes, rivers, streams, and 
underground aquifers. However, because of climatic conditions and other 
factors, water is not always available when and where it is needed or 
in the amount desired. Users with different interests and objectives, 
such as agricultural irrigation or municipal water supply, must share 
the available water, and users may not always get the amount of water 
they need or want, particularly in times of shortage. Competition for 
water and the potential for conflict grow as the number of users 
increases and/or the amount of available water decreases, and conflicts 
can extend across state or national borders.

Federal, state, local, tribal, and private interests share 
responsibility for developing and managing the nation's water resources 
within a complex web of federal and state laws, regulations and 
contractual obligations. State laws predominantly govern the allocation 
and use of water. The federal government has recognized the primacy 
of states' laws regarding water allocation and use in numerous acts, 
such as the Reclamation Act and the Clean Water Act, and the Supreme 
Court has ruled that states' laws govern the control, appropriation, 
use, and distribution of federal reclamation project water.

Federal agencies engage in five basic categories of activities that 
influence state water resource management decisions:

* Constructing, operating and maintaining water storage infrastructure, 
primarily through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the 
Department of the Interior's (Interior) Bureau of Reclamation 
(Reclamation).

* Collecting and disseminating data on water availability and use, 
primarily through Interior's U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

* Administering clean water and wildlife protection laws, primarily 
through agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
Department of Commerce's (Commerce) National Marine Fisheries Service, 
and Interior's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

* Assisting in the development and implementation of water management 
compacts and treaties, often involving multiple federal agencies.

* Managing water resources on federal lands by, for example, Interior's 
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
(USDA) Forest Service, and protecting tribal water rights by Interior's 
Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Results in Brief:

The last comprehensive national water availability and use assessment, 
completed 25 years ago, identified critical problems, such as shortages 
and conflicts among users. Future water availability and use is 
difficult to predict. For example, while USDA's 1999 forecast of future 
water use--not availability--projects a rise in total withdrawals of 
only 7 percent by 2040, it also warns of the tenuous nature of such 
projections. If the most important and uncertain assumptions used in 
USDA's projection, such as a decrease in irrigated acreage, fail to 
materialize, water use may be substantially above the estimate. Current 
trends indicate that demands on the nation's water resources are 
growing. While the nation's capacity for storing surface-water is 
limited and ground-water is being depleted, demands for freshwater are 
growing as the population increases, and pressures increase to keep 
water instream for fisheries, wildlife habitat, recreation, and scenic 
enjoyment. For example, ground-water supplies have been significantly 
depleted in many parts of the country, most notably in the High Plains 
aquifer underlying eight western states, which in some areas now holds 
less than half of the water held prior to commencement of ground-water 
pumping. Meanwhile, according to Bureau of the Census projections, the 
southwestern states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and 
Nevada, states that are already taxing their current water supplies, 
are each expected to see their population increase by more than 
50 percent from 1995 to 2025. Furthermore, the potential effects of 
climate change create additional uncertainty about future water 
availability and use. For example, less snow pack as a result of 
climate change could harm states that rely extensively on melted snow 
runoff for their freshwater supply.

State water managers expect freshwater shortages in the near future, 
and their consequences could be severe. According to the results of 
GAO's survey, even under normal water conditions, water managers in 
36 states anticipate water shortages in localities, regions, or 
statewide within the next 10 years. Under drought conditions, 46 
managers expect shortages in the next 10 years. Such shortages may be 
accompanied by severe economic, environmental, and social impacts. 
While no studies have measured the total economic impact of shortages, 
recent shortages have resulted in damages to specific segments of the 
economy. For example, in the summer of 1998, a drought that ranged from 
Texas to the Carolinas resulted in an estimated $6 to $9 billion in 
losses to the agriculture and ranching sectors. Water shortages can 
also result in environmental losses: damages to plant and animal 
species, wildlife habitat, and water quality. For example, diminished 
flows into the Florida Everglades have resulted in significantly 
reduced habitat for the wildlife population and a 90 percent reduction 
in the population of wading birds. Water shortages can also raise 
social concerns, such as conflicts between water users, reduced quality 
of life, and give rise to the perception of inequities in the 
distribution of disaster relief assistance. Many of these impacts are 
evident in the federally-operated Klamath Project--dams, reservoirs, 
and associated facilities--that sits on the California-Oregon border. 
Here, under drought conditions, several federal agencies--including 
Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service--are trying to balance the water needs of, among 
others, irrigators, who receive water from the project, and endangered 
fish, which must have sufficient water to survive. In 2002, thousands 
of fish died while water was delivered for agricultural irrigation; the 
prior year, farmers experienced crop losses while water was used to 
maintain stream flows for fish.

In responding to our Web-based survey, state water managers identified 
the potential federal actions that would most help them meet 
their states' water needs. Water managers from 47 states ranked their 
preferences within each of the five basic categories of federal 
activities. First, state water managers favored more federal financial 
assistance to plan and construct additional state water storage and 
distribution capacity and also favored more consultation with 
the states regarding the operation of federal storage facilities. 
Second, state managers favored having federal agencies collect water 
data in more locations to help them determine how much water is 
available. Third, state managers favored federal efforts to provide 
flexibility in how they comply with or administer federal environmental 
laws as well as consultation on these laws' development, revision, and 
implementation. Fourth, state managers favored improving coordination 
of federal agencies' participation with the states in water management 
agreements and increasing technical assistance to states in developing 
and implementing them. Finally, state managers favored more 
consultation with states on how federal agencies or tribal governments 
use their water rights, and increased financial and technical 
assistance to determine the amount of federal water rights. Federal 
officials identified current activities within each of these areas that 
support state efforts and explained that while some state preferences, 
such as funding for storage construction, would require congressional 
authorization, others can be addressed through ongoing efforts to 
enhance communication and cooperation. Appendix I contains the results 
of the survey.

Principal Findings:

Water Availability and Use Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting 
Future Needs:

The U.S. Water Resources Council completed the most recent, 
comprehensive, national water availability and use assessment in 
1978.[Footnote 1] That assessment found that parts of the nation had 
inadequate water supplies and growing demand, resulting in water 
shortages and conflicts among users. The most recent forecast of future 
water use--but not availability--is USDA's 1999 estimate for 2040. This 
forecast projects a rise in total withdrawals of only 7 percent despite 
a 41-percent increase in the nation's population. Yet the forecast also 
warns of the tenuous nature of such projections. For example, if the 
most important and uncertain assumptions used in USDA's projection, 
such as irrigated acreage, fail to decrease as assumed, water use may 
be substantially above the estimate.

Current trends--such as declining ground-water levels and increasing 
population--indicate that the freshwater supply is reaching its limits 
in some locations while freshwater demand is increasing. Specifically, 
the building of new, large reservoir projects has tapered off, limiting 
the amount of surface-water storage, and the storage that exists is 
threatened by age and sedimentation. Significant ground-water depletion 
has already occurred in many areas of the country; in some cases the 
depletion has permanently reduced an aquifer's storage capacity or 
allowed saltwater to intrude into freshwater sources. Tremendous 
population growth, driving increases in the use of the public water 
supply, is anticipated in the Western and Southern states, areas that 
are already taxing existing supplies. Demand to leave water in streams 
for environmental, recreational and water quality purposes add to 
supply concerns. Finally, some experts expect that climate change will 
affect water supply conditions in all regions of the country, either 
through increased demands associated with higher temperatures or 
changes in supply because of new precipitation or runoff patterns.

State Water Managers Expect Freshwater Shortages in the Near Future, 
Which May Have Severe Consequences:

Under normal water conditions, state water managers in 36 states 
anticipate water shortages locally, regionally, or statewide within the 
next 10 years, according to GAO's survey. Under drought conditions, the 
number grows to 46. Water managers expect these shortages because of 
depleted ground-water, inadequate access to surface-water, and growing 
populations, among other conditions, and despite ongoing actions to 
address their current and future water needs, such as: planning to 
prepare for and respond to droughts; assessing and monitoring water 
availability and withdrawals; and implementing water management 
strategies, such as joint management of surface and ground-water 
resources. In addition, water managers are reducing or reallocating 
water use, and developing or enhancing supplies by increasing water 
storage capacity, or less conventionally, seeding clouds to increase 
winter precipitation and developing saltwater desalination operations 
to produce freshwater.

If the anticipated water shortages actually occur, they could have 
severe economic, environmental and social impacts. The nationwide 
economic costs of water shortages are not known because the costs of 
shortages are difficult to measure. However, Commerce's National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has identified eight water 
shortages from drought or heat waves, each resulting in $1 billion or 
more in monetary losses over the past 20 years. For example, the 
largest shortage resulted in an estimated $40 billion in damages to the 
economies of the Central and Eastern United States in the summer of 
1988. Water shortages can also have environmental impacts, damaging 
plant and animal species, wildlife habitat, and water quality. The 
Florida Everglades experience illustrates how dramatically reduced 
water flows can alter an ecological system. In 1948, following a major 
drought and heavy flooding, the Congress authorized the Central and 
Southern Florida Project--an extensive system of over 1,700 miles of 
canals and levees and 16 major pump stations--to prevent flooding, 
provide drainage, and supply water to South Florida residents. This re-
engineering of the natural hydrologic environment reduced the 
Everglades to about half its original size and resulted in losses of 
native wildlife species and their critical habitat. In social terms, 
water shortages can create conflicts between water users, reduce 
quality of life, and create perceptions of inequities in the 
distribution of impacts and disaster relief. Federal experiences in 
operating the Klamath Project on the California-Oregon border, 
illustrate the conflicts that can arise when shortages occur. Farmers 
who rely on irrigation water from the project claim that Reclamation's 
attempts in 2001 to manage water for fish survival resulted in crop 
losses, while environmentalist, fishermen, and tribal representatives 
claim that subsequent actions by Reclamation in 2002 to provide water 
for farmers resulted in low river flows, contributing to the death of 
more than 30,000 fish. As a result, litigation over river flows is 
ongoing, and federal and state legislation has been enacted to address 
the financial damages of the various parties.

State Water Managers Identified Potential Federal Actions to Help Them 
Meet Future Challenges:

To identify potential federal actions to help states address their 
water challenges, GAO sought the views and suggestions of state water 
managers. Water managers from 47 states ranked actions federal agencies 
could take within five basic categories of federal activities:

* Planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining water storage and 
distribution facilities. State water managers reported their highest 
priority was more federal financial assistance to plan and construct 
their state's freshwater storage and distribution systems and also 
favored having more input in federal facilities operations. 
For example, over the next 10 years, 26 states are likely to add 
storage capacity, and 18 are likely to add distribution capacity. 
Consequently, water managers in 22 states said that more federal 
financial assistance would be most useful in helping their state meet 
its water storage and distribution needs. Reclamation and Corps 
officials understand the states' need for financial assistance for 
storage and distribution projects, and provide financial assistance on 
a project-by-project basis, as Congress authorizes and appropriates 
funds.

* Collecting and sharing water data. According to 37 states, federal 
agencies' data are important to their ability to determine the amount 
of available water. Managers in 39 states ranked expanding the number 
of federal data collection points, such as streamgage sites, as the 
most useful federal action to help their state meet its water 
information needs. Officials at USGS, USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, and Commerce's National Weather Service have 
ongoing efforts and/or plans to expand or improve their data collection 
programs.

* Administering federal environmental protection laws. According to 
23 state water managers, more flexibility in how they comply with or 
administer federal environmental laws would help states meet their 
obligations under the laws while also meeting their water management 
goals. The managers cited instances in which they believed that federal 
environmental laws had restricted the state's ability to develop new 
storage capacity, distribute water, or meet the needs of offstream 
users. Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service said they 
try to accommodate state concerns about federal environmental laws, but 
were obligated to ensure that the laws are complied with and 
administered as Congress intended. However, they also stated that 
their agencies use the flexibility they have under current law to help 
the states administer or comply with federal environmental laws.

* Participating in water-management agreements. In the 29 states that 
participate in an interstate or international water-management 
agreement, state water managers ranked better coordination of federal 
agencies' participation in the agreements as the most useful among 
potential federal actions to help states develop, enforce, and 
implement such agreements. Seven of these managers said that federal 
agencies had not fulfilled their responsibilities under interstate or 
international agreements during the last 5 years. In these cases, the 
managers pointed out that lack of coordinated federal actions--such as 
the failure to establish federal priorities in a river basin--have 
created uncertainty for state participants in water-management 
agreements. Reclamation and Corps officials stated that in most cases 
they have fulfilled their responsibilities under water-management 
agreements, but occasionally circumstances outside their control, such 
as funding, prevent them from carrying out these responsibilities. 
Nevertheless, these officials stated, their participation in water-
management agreements could be improved through their ongoing efforts 
to enhance coordination and communication with states and other water 
resource stakeholders, thus assisting in the implementation of water-
management agreements.

* Managing water rights for federal and tribal lands. Of the 31 state 
managers reporting that federal agencies or tribal governments claim or 
hold water rights (either state granted or federal reserved) in their 
state, 12 reported that the most helpful potential federal action would 
be to consult more with the states on federal or tribal use of these 
rights, and 16 indicated that their state had experienced a conflict 
within the last 5 years between a federal agency's use of its water 
rights and the state's water management goals. For example, a federal 
agency had challenged the state over ground-water rights the state had 
issued to users because the withdrawals threatened federal surface-
water rights. Disputes related to a federal agency's use of state-
granted rights are typically heard in state water courts, where the 
federal agency receives no preference over any other water right 
holder.

While states have principal authority for water management, federal 
activities and laws affect or influence virtually every water 
management activity undertaken by states. Although the state managers 
value the many contributions of federal agencies to their efforts to 
ensure adequate water supplies, they also indicate that federal 
activities could better support their efforts in a number of areas. The 
information we collected from state water managers should be useful to 
the federal agencies in determining how their activities affect states 
and how they can be more supportive of state efforts to meet their 
future water needs. While we are not making a specific recommendation, 
we encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, 
Interior, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency officials to 
review the results of our state survey and consider modifications to 
their plans, policies, or activities as appropriate to better support 
state efforts to meet their future water needs.

Appendix I contains the full survey results.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Interior; the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 
The Department of the Interior concurred with our findings and provided 
technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. 
Interior's complete letter is in appendix II. The other departments and 
agencies concurred with our findings and provided technical 
clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. They did not 
provide formal, written comments.

[End of section]

Chapter 1: Introduction:

Freshwater flows abundantly through the nation's lakes, rivers, streams 
and underground aquifers. Nature regularly renews this precious 
resource, but users do not always have access to freshwater when and 
where they need it, and in the amount they need. To make more water 
available and usable throughout the United States, federal agencies 
have built massive water storage projects and engage in other water 
development, management, and regulatory activities. Federal agencies 
have control over water use in some cases, such as on federal lands or 
in interstate commerce, but state laws predominantly govern water 
allocation and use.

Water Is an Abundant and Renewable Resource but Not Always 
Readily Available:

Water is one of the earth's most abundant resources--covering about 
70 percent of the earth's surface. However, accessible freshwater makes 
up less than 1 percent of the earth's water. As shown in figure 1, 
about 97 percent of the water on the planet is in the oceans and too 
salty to drink or to use to grow crops. Another 2 percent is locked 
away in glaciers and icecaps, virtually inaccessible for human use.

Figure 1: Water Sources, Volumes, and Percentages of Total Water:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Water is also a renewable resource--the water that was here a million 
years ago is still here today, continuously moving back and forth 
between the earth's surface and atmosphere through the hydrologic 
cycle, as figure 2 shows. In this cycle, evaporation occurs when the 
sun heats water in rivers, lakes, or the oceans, turning it into vapor 
or steam that enters the atmosphere and forms clouds. The evaporative 
process removes salts and other impurities that may be picked up either 
naturally or as a result of human use. When the water returns to earth 
as rain, it runs into streams, rivers, lakes, and finally the ocean. 
Some of the rain soaks below the earth's surface into aquifers composed 
of water-saturated permeable material such as sand, gravel, and soil, 
where it is stored as ground-water. When water returns to earth from 
the atmosphere as snow, it usually remains atop the ground until it 
melts, and then it follows the same path as rain. Some snow may turn 
into ice and glaciers, which can hold the water for hundreds of years 
before melting. The replenishment rates for these sources vary 
considerably--water in rivers is completely renewed every 16 days on 
average, but the renewal periods for glaciers, ground-water, and the 
largest lakes can run to hundreds or thousands of years.

Figure 2: The Hydrologic Cycle:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The United States has plentiful water resources. Rainfall averages 
nearly 30 inches annually, or 4,200 billion gallons per day throughout 
the continental 48 states. Two-thirds of the rainfall rapidly 
evaporates back to the atmosphere, but the remaining one-third flows 
into the nation's lakes, rivers, aquifers, and eventually to the ocean. 
These flows provide a potential renewable supply of about 1,400 billion 
gallons per day, or about 14 times the U. S. Geological Survey's (USGS) 
most recent estimate of daily consumptive use--the amount of water 
withdrawn from, but not immediately returned to, a usable water 
source.[Footnote 2] Much larger quantities of freshwater are stored in 
the nation's surface and ground-water reservoirs. Reservoirs created by 
the damming of rivers can store about 280,000 billion gallons of water, 
lakes can hold larger quantities, and aquifers within 2,500 feet of the 
earth's surface hold water estimated to be at least 100 times reservoir 
capacity.

Despite the abundance and renewability of the water supply, variability 
in the hydrologic cycle creates uncertainty in the timing, location and 
reliability of supplies. For example, while rainfall averages 30 inches 
annually nationwide, the average for specific areas of the country 
generally increases from west to east, from less than 1 inch in some 
desert areas in the Southwest to more than 60 inches in parts of the 
Southeast. Drought and flood are a normal, recurring part of the 
hydrologic cycle. Meteorological droughts, identified by a lack of 
measured precipitation, are difficult to predict and can 
last months, years, or decades.[Footnote 3] As shown in figure 3, at 
least some part of the United States has experienced severe or extreme 
drought conditions every year since 1896. Therefore, regions will 
encounter periods when supplies are relatively plentiful, or even 
excessive, as well as periods of shortage or extreme drought.

Figure 3: Percent Time in Severe and Extreme Drought Nationwide, 
1895 to 1995:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The variability in water availability was evident during 2002, when the 
United States had warmer than normal temperatures and below-average 
precipitation, which led to persistent or worsening drought throughout 
much of the nation. As the year began, moderate to extreme drought 
covered one-third of the nation and expanded to cover more than half of 
the nation during the summer, as shown in figure 4. Subsequently, heavy 
rainfall during July in Texas alleviated some of the drought conditions 
but led to widespread flooding. In addition, above average rainfall 
from September through November brought significant drought relief to 
the Southeast, where more than 4 years of drought had affected much of 
the region from Georgia to Virginia. However, severe drought conditions 
persisted over most of the interior Western states and the central and 
northern plains, with abnormal dryness across the Midwest through the 
end of the year.

Figure 4: Drought Conditions across the Nation as of July 23, 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Water resource issues tend to be local or regional. Water flows 
naturally within river basins. USGS recognizes 352 river-basins in the 
United States that typically encompass 5,000 to 20,000 square miles. 
However, even within river basins, the availability of water resources 
varies. Sharing the water within basins is usually possible, but poses 
challenges because water ignores jurisdictional boundaries and these 
jurisdictions may have competing interests. Therefore, distributing 
water from where it is to where it is needed may require the 
coordination of local, regional, state, federal, and even 
foreign interests.

Transferring water from one basin to another is even more complicated, 
since water generally cannot be moved between basins unless transfer 
facilities (i.e., canals, pipelines, and pumps) are constructed. 
Moreover, in most cases, river basin boundaries do not coincide with 
those of major underground aquifer systems. For this reason, numerous 
entities are involved in the many aspects of water resource planning, 
management, regulation, and development, and solutions to water-
management problems are often not easily found.

The Federal Government Has Authority to Manage Water Resources 
but Recognizes State Authorities:

The federal government has authority to manage water resources, but it 
recognizes the states' authority to allocate and use water within their 
jurisdictions. Federal authority is derived from several constitutional 
sources, among them the Commerce Clause[Footnote 4] and the Property 
Clause.[Footnote 5] The Commerce Clause permits federal regulation of 
water that may be involved in or may affect interstate 
commerce,[Footnote 6] including efforts to preserve the navigability of 
waterways.[Footnote 7] The Property Clause permits federal regulation 
of water as necessary for the beneficial use of federal 
property.[Footnote 8] In addition, 
under the Compact Clause of the Constitution, states cannot enter into 
agreements, or compacts, with each other--including those for the 
management of interstate waters--without the consent 
of Congress.[Footnote 9]

Federal laws often require federal agencies engaged in water resource 
management activities to defer to state laws or cooperate with state 
officials in implementing federal laws. For example, under the 
Reclamation Act, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), within the 
Department of the Interior, must defer to and comply with state laws 
governing the control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water 
unless applying the state's law would be inconsistent with an explicit 
congressional directive regarding the project.[Footnote 10] Similarly, 
the Water Supply Act of 1958 recognizes nonfederal interests in water 
supply development. The act states:

"It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the 
primary responsibilities of the States and local interests in 
developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and 
other purposes and that the Federal Government should participate and 
cooperate with States and local interests in developing such water 
supplies in connection withFederal navigation, flood control, 
irrigation, or multiple purpose projects."[Footnote 11]

Other federal laws have affirmed this recognition.[Footnote 12]

Consequently, federal agencies have traditionally followed a policy of 
deferring to the states for managing and allocating water resources. 
Officials of federal agencies involved in water resources management 
recently reiterated that their role is providing assistance while 
recognizing state primacy for water allocation. For example, in 
November 2001 testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works 
stated:

"I want to emphasize that Corps involvement in water supply is founded 
in deference to state water rights. During the enactment of the Flood 
Control Act of 1944, Congress made clear that we do not own the water 
stored in our projectsOur policy is to continue our commitment to 
consistency with state water lawwe must respect the primacy of state 
water law.":

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation echoed this approach 
in his testimony at the same hearing, stating that it is important to 
emphasize the primary responsibility of local water users in developing 
and financing water projects, with Reclamation playing the important 
roles of maintaining infrastructure and applying expertise to help 
locals meet water needs. Specifically addressing Western water 
challenges in August 2002, he stated:

"As in the past, Reclamation will continue to honor State water 
rightsworking with the states, our partners and all water users to 
leverage resources, to work at collaborative problem solving and to 
develop long-term solutions.":

State Laws Governing Water Allocation and Use Generally Follow Two 
Basic Doctrines:

The variety of state water laws relating to the allocation and use of 
water can generally be traced to two basic doctrines: the riparian 
doctrine and the prior appropriation doctrine. Under the riparian 
doctrine, water rights are linked to land ownership--owners of land 
bordering a waterway have a right to use the water that flows past the 
land for any reasonable purpose. Landowners may, at any time, use water 
flowing past the land even if they have never done so before; all 
landowners have an equal right to use the water and no one gains a 
greater right through prior use. In contrast, the prior appropriation 
doctrine does not link water rights with land ownership. Water rights 
are instead linked to priority and beneficial water use--parties who 
obtain water rights first generally have seniority for the use of water 
over those who obtain rights later, and rights holders must put the 
water to beneficial use or abandon their right to use the water. Simply 
put, "first in time, first in right" and "use it or lose it." When 
there is a water shortage, under the riparian doctrine all water users 
share the shortage in proportion to their rights, while under the prior 
appropriation doctrine, shortages fall on those who last obtained a 
legal right to use the water.

For managing surface-water allocation and use, Eastern states generally 
adhere to riparian doctrine principles and Western states generally 
adhere to prior appropriation doctrine principles. We obtained 
information on the water management doctrines of 47 states from our 50-
state Web-based survey of state water managers. As shown in figure 5, 
16 states follow either common-law riparian or regulated riparian 
(state permitted) doctrine, 15 states follow prior appropriation 
doctrine, 13 states follow other doctrines, and 2 states do not 
regulate surface-water allocation.[Footnote 13]

Figure 5: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Surface-Water Allocation:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Special rules apply to allocating ground-water rights, but most state 
approaches reflect the principals of prior appropriation or riparian 
doctrines, with some modifications that recognize the unique nature of 
ground-water. As shown in figure 6, 18 states follow the riparian-
derived doctrine of reasonable use; 12 states follow the prior 
appropriation doctrine; 13 states follow other approaches, such as 
granting rights to water beneath property to the landowners (absolute 
ownership) or dividing rights among landowners based on acreage 
(correlative rights); and 3 states do not regulate ground-water 
allocation.[Footnote 14]

Figure 6: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Ground-Water Allocation:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Multiple Federal Agencies Have Water Management Responsibilities:

Many federal agencies play a role in managing the nation's freshwater 
resources, as shown in figure 7. They build, operate and maintain large 
storage and distribution facilities; collect and share water 
availability and use data; administer clean water and environmental 
protection laws; assist in developing and implementing water-management 
agreements and treaties; and act as trustees for federal and tribal 
water rights. In performing these activities, each federal agency 
attempts to coordinate with other federal agencies and state water 
managers and users.

Figure 7: Overview of Federal Activities:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers Manage Large Water 
Storage Facilities:

Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers construct, operate, and maintain 
large facilities to store and manage untreated water, such as 
Reclamation's Hoover Dam in Arizona and the Corps' Eufaula Lake in 
Oklahoma (see fig. 8).[Footnote 15] While federal facilities compose 
only about 5 percent of the estimated 80,000 dams in the nation, they 
include many of the largest storage facilities, holding huge quantities 
of water for a wide variety of purposes, such as irrigation, industrial 
and municipal uses.[Footnote 16] Reclamation's water delivery 
quantities are usually specified under long-term contracts at 
subsidized prices, while the Corps provides water storage space in 
reservoirs under long-term contracts.

Figure 8: Reclamation's Hoover Dam and the Corps' Eufaula Lake Water 
Storage Facilities:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Reclamation has constructed irrigation, water storage, and distribution 
facilities throughout the 17 Western states. Today, these facilities 
serve many additional purposes, including municipal and industrial 
water supplies, power generation, recreation, and flood control. 
Reclamation manages about 348 reservoirs, with a total storage capacity 
of 245 million acre-feet of water, and approximately 250 diversion dams 
that provide water to approximately 9 million acres of farmland and 
nearly 31 million people.[Footnote 17] Reclamation also manages about 
18,000 miles of water delivery facilities and operates a variety of 
additional facilities, such as pumps and structures for fish passage, 
to meet the needs of water users.

Reclamation no longer operates and maintains all of the facilities that 
it has built. It has transferred operation and maintenance 
responsibilities for many of the facilities it owns--primarily to 
irrigation districts.[Footnote 18] Typically, Reclamation has retained 
operation and maintenance responsibilities for water facilities that 
are large, serve multiple purposes, or control water diversions across 
state or international boundaries. Reclamation currently has only one 
ongoing water storage or distribution construction project: the Animas-
La Plata project in Southwest Colorado and Northwest New Mexico, which 
will store and deliver water to two Indian tribes and others for 
irrigation, municipal and industrial uses.[Footnote 19] Congress has 
authorized but not funded additional Reclamation water resources 
projects, such as the Dixie Project in Utah, which was originally 
authorized in 1964.

Through its Civil Works Program, the Corps constructed and now operates 
and maintains water storage facilities across the nation.[Footnote 20] 
Corps projects originally were intended to control floods and provide 
for navigation, but Congress has since expanded the agency's mandate to 
store water for some municipal, industrial, irrigation, recreation, 
and/or hydropower uses. Today, the Corps manages 541 reservoirs with a 
total storage capacity of 330 million acre-feet, of which about 
15 percent is jointly used for irrigation and other purposes, and 
another 3 percent for municipal and industrial uses. Although 
municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply storage is a small 
portion of total storage capacity, the Corps estimates that the 
facilities supply water to nearly 10 million people in 115 cities. The 
Corps has rarely undertaken construction of new water storage 
facilities since the 1980s. In accordance with the 1986 Water Resources 
Development Act, the Corps has transferred to non-federal interests the 
operation and maintenance responsibilities for the one storage facility 
it has constructed since 1986.

In addition to Reclamation and the Corps, federal agencies responsible 
for managing natural resources--such as USDA's Forest Service, and 
Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
National Park Service--also construct water facilities on their lands 
to support their agencies' objectives, and authorize the construction 
of facilities by other parties on their lands.[Footnote 21] Interior's 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, acting as trustee for tribal interests, 
authorizes similar facilities on tribal lands. The dams on these 
federal or tribal lands are typically much smaller than those operated 
by Reclamation and the Corps; many are not inventoried unless they meet 
certain size or hazard criteria. More specifically:

* Forest Service lands contain about 2,350 inventoried dams to provide 
water for many purposes such as fire suppression, livestock, 
recreation, and fish habitat;

* Bureau of Land Management lands contain about 1,160 dams, primarily 
providing water for livestock and wildlife;

* the Fish and Wildlife Service has an estimated 15,000 water storage 
and distribution facilities, primarily to provide water for fisheries 
as well as for waterfowl and migratory bird habitat;

* the National Park Service has 451 dams within its boundaries to 
manage water for habitat, fire suppression, flood control and 
recreation; and:

* the Bureau of Indian Affairs owns an estimated 500 to 1,000 dams that 
control flood and erosion and manage water for irrigation, flood 
control, stockwater, and recreation.

Several Agencies Collect and Share Water Data:

Several federal agencies collect and distribute information on water 
availability and use including surface-water, ground-water, rainfall, 
and snowpack. Interior's USGS is primarily responsible for collecting, 
analyzing, and sharing data on water availability and use. It collects, 
analyzes, and shares information on surface-water availability, 
ground-water availability, and water use through four programs:

* The National Streamflow Information Program collects surface-water 
availability data through its national streamgage network, which 
continuously measures the level and flow of rivers and streams at 
7,000 stations nationwide, as shown in figure 9, for distribution on 
the Internet.

* The Ground-Water Resources Program collects information from about 
600 continuous ground-water-monitoring stations in 39 states and 
Puerto Rico for distribution on the Internet. In addition, the agency 
manually collects ground-water data intermittently in thousands of 
locations; compiling and reporting this data can take months.

* The National Water Use Information Program compiles extensive 
national water use data collected from states every 5 years for the 
purpose of establishing long-term water use trends.

* The Cooperative Water Program is a collaborative program with states 
and other entities to collect and share surface and ground-water data.

Figure 9: USGS' Nationwide Streamgage Network:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Commerce's National Weather Service and USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service combine their data, together with USGS streamgage 
data, to forecast water supplies and floods. They post water supply 
forecasts twice a month on the Internet, and they provide daily, and 
sometimes hourly, flood forecast information to water storage facility 
management agencies and other interested parties through arranged 
communication channels. The National Weather Service measures rainfall 
with over 10,000 gages nationwide, providing data for weather and 
climate forecasts; it also collects snowfall data in cities and rural 
areas. The Natural Resources Conservation Service operates 670 
automated, high-elevation snow and climate measurement sites in 
12 states; these sites use advanced radio technology to report data on 
the Internet about once each day. The agency also periodically conducts 
manual surveys at about 1,000 other stations; it supplies data from 
these sites to federal and non-federal water managers who request it.

Federal agencies often collect water data or conduct water resources 
research in support of their own responsibilities. For example, both 
the National Park Service and the Forest Service collect streamflow 
data to supplement USGS' streamgage information; the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs conducts some research on water availability on tribal lands as 
a part of the agency's trust responsibilities to tribes; Reclamation 
and the Corps collect data on reservoir levels and water flows through 
their facilities; and Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and 
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service conduct and 
fund water quantity and quality research.

Several Agencies Administer Clean Water and Environmental 
Protection Laws:

Several federal agencies administer clean water and environmental 
protection laws that affect water resource management. The 
Environmental Protection Agency administers the Clean Water Act, as 
amended--the nation's principal federal law regulating surface-water 
quality. States and localities play a significant role in its 
implementation. Under the act, among other things, municipal or 
industrial parties that discharge pollutants must meet the regulatory 
requirements for pollution control.[Footnote 22] The Environmental 
Protection Agency administers a permit system that requires control of 
discharges to meet technology and/or water quality based requirements. 
In addition, the act requires parties that dispose of dredge or fill 
material in the nation's waters, including wetlands, to obtain a permit 
from the Corps.[Footnote 23] Furthermore, the act requires states to 
develop and implement programs to control non-point sources of 
pollution, which include run off from chemicals used in agriculture and 
from urban areas.[Footnote 24] The Clean Water Act can affect available 
water supplies, for example, by reducing offstream use or return flows 
to address water quality concerns.

Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and Commerce's National Marine 
Fisheries Service are responsible for administering the Endangered 
Species Act. This act requires federal agencies to ensure that any 
action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any listed species of plant or animal or 
adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.[Footnote 25] 
The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for administering the act 
for land and freshwater species, and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service is responsible for marine species, including Pacific salmon, 
which spend part of their lifespans in freshwater. To implement the 
act, the agencies identify endangered or threatened species and their 
critical habitats, develop and implement recovery plans for those 
species, and consult with other federal agencies on the impact that 
their proposed activities may have on those species. If the Fish and 
Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service finds that an 
agency's proposed activity will jeopardize an endangered or threatened 
species, then a "reasonable and prudent alternative" must be identified 
to ensure the species is not jeopardized.[Footnote 26] Numerous 
endangered species rely on the nation's waters, as shown in figure 10. 
The Endangered Species Act can affect water management activities, for 
example, by necessitating certain stream flow levels to avoid 
jeopardizing listed species or critical habitat.

Figure 10: Number of Listed Threatened and Endangered Species by State, 
as of March 2003:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Agencies Help Develop and Implement Water-Management Agreements:

States enter into agreements--interstate compacts--to address water 
allocation, quality, and other issues on rivers and lakes that cross 
state borders. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, at least 
26 interstate compacts address river water allocation between two or 
more states; 7 address water pollution issues; and 7 address general 
water resource issues, including flood control. Federal agencies may 
assist in developing and implementing these compacts, provide technical 
assistance, participate in and consult with oversight bodies, develop 
river operating plans, act as stewards of tribal and public natural 
resources, and enforce compacts. For example, the Supreme Court 
appointed the Secretary of Interior as the River Master responsible for 
implementing the water allocation formula of the 1922 Colorado River 
Compact. Under the compact, the states of the Upper Colorado River 
Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), as shown in figure 11, 
are required to deliver to the states of the Lower Basin (Arizona, 
California, and Nevada) a minimum of 75 million acre-feet of water over 
10-year periods.

Figure 11: Colorado River Basin Crosses Seven State Borders:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Through international treaties with Canada and Mexico, the 
United States can coordinate activities such as water allocation, flood 
control, water quality, and power generation activities, as well as 
resolve water related disputes along the nations' international 
borders. The 1909 Boundary Water Treaty established the International 
Joint Commission of the United States and Canada, and the 1944 Water 
Treaty with Mexico provided the International Boundary and Water 
Commission with the authority to carry out the treaty. These bi-
national commissions help the member nations coordinate water 
management activities, monitor water resources, and resolve disputes. 
For example, the International Boundary Water Commission recently 
facilitated an agreement between Mexico and the United States regarding 
Mexico's water debt under the treaty.

Agencies Are Responsible for Federal and Tribal Water Rights:

Numerous federal natural resources management agencies and the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs are trustees for the water rights of federal and 
tribal lands. The states grant the great majority of water rights to 
these agencies, but the agencies also have federal reserved rights. The 
federal government has reserved water rights to fulfill the purposes of 
federal lands such as national forests, national parks, and wildlife 
refuges and for tribal lands. Federal lands account for 655 million 
acres, or 29 percent, of U.S. lands, primarily in the Western states as 
shown in figure 12.

Figure 12: Federal and Tribal Lands in the United States:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The exact number and amount of federal reserved rights are not known. 
However, Bureau of Land Management officials estimate that 20 percent 
of the agency's water rights are federally reserved, largely for 
underground springs. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that it 
has very few federally reserved rights: almost all water rights for 
their activities are state granted. A Forest Service official estimated 
that half of the service's water rights are federally reserved. The 
National Park Service relies on both federal reserved and state granted 
rights, depending on the specific park circumstances.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, as trustee for tribal resources in the 
United States, has the primary statutory responsibility for protecting 
tribal water rights. The Supreme Court has found that water rights in a 
quantity sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the reservations are 
implied when the United States establishes reservation lands for a 
tribe.[Footnote 27] Tribes typically use water rights to ensure water 
is available for irrigation, hydropower, domestic use, stockwatering, 
industrial development and the maintenance of instream flows for 
rivers.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

To assist congressional deliberations on freshwater supply issues, we 
identified (1) the current conditions and future trends for U.S. water 
availability and use, (2) the likelihood of shortages and their 
potential consequences, and (3) state views on how federal activities 
could better support state water management efforts to meet 
future demands.

To identify the current conditions and future trends for U.S. water 
availability and use, we met with federal officials and collected and 
analyzed documentation from Reclamation, USGS, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish 
and Wildlife Services within the Department of the Interior; the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, Rural Utilities 
Service, Agriculture Research Service, Economic Research Service, and 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service within 
the Department of Agriculture; the National Weather Service and 
National Marine Fisheries Service within the Department of Commerce; 
the Army Corps of Engineers within the Department of Defense; the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland 
Security; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission. Although rising demands and environmental 
pressures have encouraged discussions of market based solutions, we 
assumed a continuation of current pricing and quantity allocation 
practices in our discussion of supply and demand trends and 
water shortages.

We analyzed the reports of past federal water commissions, including 
the U.S. Water Resources Council, National Water Commission, and the 
Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, and nonfederal 
organizations, such as the Western States Water Council and American 
Water Works Association. We also analyzed National Research Council, 
Congressional Research Service, and our own reports.

To determine the likelihood of shortages and their potential 
consequences, we analyzed water shortage impact information from the 
National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National 
Climatic Data Center, and from the states. We did not assess the 
accuracy of the various estimates of the economic impacts of water 
shortages. We obtained information from Congressional Research Service 
reports, our own reports, and analyzed media accounts of water 
shortages. We obtained the views of state water managers regarding the 
likelihood of water shortages using a Web-based survey of managers in 
the 50 states.

To obtain states' views on how federal activities could better support 
state water management efforts to meet future demands, we conducted a 
Web-based survey of state water managers in the 50 states. We developed 
the survey questions by reviewing documents and by talking with 
officials from the federal agencies listed above and the state water 
managers in three state offices--Arizona, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. 
The questionnaire contained 56 questions that asked about state water 
management; collection and dissemination of state water quantity data 
by federal agencies; federal water storage and conveyance within their 
state; the effects of federal environmental laws on state water 
management; the effects of interstate compacts and international 
treaties on state water management; and the effects of federal and 
tribal rights to water on state water management.

We pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with state 
water managers in Georgia, Florida, Virginia, and Washington. During 
the pretest we asked the state managers questions to determine whether 
(1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, 
(3) the questionnaire placed an undue burden on the respondents, 
and (4) the questions were unbiased. We also assessed the usability of 
the Web-based format. We made changes to the content and format of the 
final questionnaire based on pretest results.

We posted the questionnaire on GAO's survey Web site. State water 
managers were notified of the survey with an E-mail message sent before 
the survey was available. When the survey was activated, an E-mail 
message informed the state water managers of its availability and 
provided a link that respondents could click on to access the survey. 
This E-mail message also contained a unique user name and password that 
allowed each respondent to log on and fill out their own questionnaire. 
To maximize our response rate we sent reminder E-mails, contacted 
non-respondents by telephone, and mailed follow-up letters 
to non-respondents.

Questionnaires were completed by state water officials in 47 states 
(California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate) for a 
response rate of 94 percent. We performed analyses to identify 
inconsistencies and potential errors in the data and contacted 
respondents via telephone and E-mail to resolve these discrepancies. We 
did not conduct in-depth assessments of the state water official's 
responses. A technical specialist reviewed all computer programs for 
analyses of the survey data. Aggregated responses of the survey are in 
appendix I.

We conducted our work from March 2002 through May 2003 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Chapter 2: Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult to Forecast, 
but Trends Raise Concerns about Meeting Future Needs:

No federal entity has comprehensively assessed the availability and use 
of freshwater to meet the nation's needs in 25 years. While forecasting 
water use is notoriously difficult, numerous signs indicate that our 
freshwater supply is reaching its limits. Surface-water storage 
capacity is strained and ground-water is being depleted as demands for 
freshwater increase because of population growth and pressures to keep 
water instream for environmental protection purposes. The potential 
effects of climate change create additional uncertainty about the 
future availability and use of water.

National Water Availability and Use Has Not Been Assessed in Decades:

National water availability and use was last comprehensively assessed 
in 1978.[Footnote 28] The U.S. Water Resources Council, established by 
the Water Resources Planning Act in 1965,[Footnote 29] assessed the 
status of the nation's water resources--both surface-water and ground-
water--and reported in 1968 and 1978 on their adequacy to meet present 
and future water requirements. The 1978 assessment described how the 
nation's freshwater resources were extensively developed to satisfy a 
wide variety of users and how competition for water had created 
critical problems, such as shortages resulting from poorly distributed 
supplies and conflicts among users. The Council has not been funded 
since 1983.

While water availability shortages have occurred as expected, total 
water use actually declined nearly 9 percent between 1980 and 1995, 
according to USGS. [Footnote 30] As figure 13 shows, after continual 
increases in use from 1960 to 1980, total use began declining in 1980.

Figure 13: Trends in Water Withdrawals by Use Category, 1950-1995:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The reasons for the decrease in actual use illustrate why forecasting 
water use is so difficult. According to USGS, most of the increase from 
1950 to 1980 was due to expanded irrigation and hydropower generation. 
In the 1980s, more efficient irrigation techniques, coupled with new 
technologies that lowered industrial use, helped ease demand more than 
anticipated and returned more water to the nation's waterways and 
aquifers. Water use also declined because of enhanced public awareness 
and many states' conservation programs. Only public supply and rural 
use, driven by population growth and livestock needs, respectively, 
continued to grow after 1980. Accordingly, a 1999 USDA study found that 
past water use projections for 2000 show consistently large differences 
among the forecasts and large discrepancies between projected and 
actual water use (fig. 14).[Footnote 31] Key factors influencing some 
of the excessive projections include overestimating population 
increases, not accounting for technological advances, not anticipating 
the introduction of environmental laws, and underestimating the impact 
of conservation efforts.[Footnote 32]

Figure 14: Projections of United States Water Use for 2000:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The most recent water use--but not availability--forecast is the USDA's 
1999 projection for 2040, which identifies a rise in total water use of 
only 7 percent despite a 41-percent increase in the nation's 
population. However, the agency includes a warning about the tenuous 
nature of such projections. For example, irrigated acreage is one of 
the most important yet uncertain assumptions in the projection. If 
irrigated acreage does not drop in most Western river basins as 
assumed, use may be substantially above the estimate. As such, there 
are compelling reasons for concern regarding the future availability of 
freshwater to meet the nation's growing demands.

Trends in Water Availability and Use Raise Concerns about the Nation's 
Ability to Meet Future Needs:

While the nation does not have a current assessment of water 
availability and use, current trends raise concerns about the nation's 
ability to meet future needs. Numerous signs point to the danger that 
our freshwater supply is reaching its limits. These indicators include 
constraints on surface storage capacity and depletion of ground-water 
resources at the same time as demands for freshwater are on the rise. 
Increased demand comes from a growing population and pressures to keep 
water instream for fisheries, wildlife habitat, recreation, and scenic 
enjoyment. The potential effects of climate change create additional 
uncertainty about future water availability and use.

Surface Storage Construction and Maintenance Is Declining:

The construction of large reservoirs in the United States has slowed 
markedly since peaking during the 1960s, as shown in figure 15. 
Reclamation has only one large water storage project underway--Animas-
La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico; the Corps has none. Furthermore, 
because of the high cost and ecological impact of reservoirs and dams, 
researchers and agency officials generally agree that it is unlikely 
that the construction of such large-scale projects will be at the 
forefront in meeting future water needs.

Figure 15: Number and Capacity of Large Reservoirs Completed by Decade:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Available evidence also indicates that existing reservoirs may not able 
to continue storing water at current levels. Many of the federal and 
nonfederal dams that support storage reservoirs are aging and in need 
of repair. The American Society of Engineers has rated over 2,000 dams 
as unsafe, and nearly 10,000 as having high hazard potential, according 
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's fiscal year 2001-2002 
report to Congress on the National Dam Safety Program. According to 
Reclamation officials, approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams 
were built before 1950, and many of these before the development of 
current engineering standards. Reclamation recognizes that upgrading 
and maintaining existing infrastructure is vital to ensuring dependable 
supplies of water, and anticipates that future costs to rehabilitate 
Reclamation's infrastructure will be substantial. The Corps estimates 
it has a critical maintenance backlog of $884 million, largely for 
dredging waterways and repairing structures such as locks, dams, and 
breakwaters. While the direct impact on water supply is not clear, 
extensive maintenance and repair will be needed in future years to 
ensure the continued viability of the water management infrastructure.

Moreover, the amount of water available for use from these reservoirs 
is continually being reduced by sedimentation--the flow of soil, rock 
and other natural materials into reservoirs. Over time, sedimentation 
can significantly reduce reservoir water storage capacities. According 
to a 1995 Resources for the Future report,[Footnote 33] the total 
reduction resulting from the buildup of sediment is estimated at about 
1.5 million acre-feet per year. For example, USGS' reservoir 
sedimentation studies in Kansas found that decreases in water-storage 
capacity from sedimentation ranged from less than 5 percent to about 
50 percent at various locations.

Ground-Water Is Being Depleted:

As shown in figure 16, ground-water is a major source of drinking water 
in every state. It provides about 40 percent of the nation's public 
water supply, and more than 40 million people--including 97 percent of 
the rural population--supply their own drinking water from domestic 
wells. Ground-water is also the source of about 37 percent of the water 
used for irrigation and livestock, is a major contributor to flow in 
many streams and rivers, and has a strong influence on river and 
wetland habitats for plants and animals.

Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Population Using Ground-Water as 
Drinking Water in 1995 by State:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Ground-water depletion is occurring across the nation. According to 
USGS, ground-water depletion may be related to the slowed construction 
of surface reservoirs in recent years--as surface-water resources 
become fully developed and allocated, ground-water commonly offers the 
only available source for new development. USGS has documented 
significant ground-water depletion in particular areas of the 
Southwest; the Sparta aquifer of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; 
the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer of the Chicago-Milwaukee area; and the 
High Plains aquifer (consisting largely of the Ogallala aquifer). The 
High Plains aquifer underlies a 174,000-square-mile region including 
parts of eight states (Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, 
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming) and supplies about 
30 percent of all ground-water used nationwide for irrigation.

Ongoing water-level monitoring in the High Plains aquifer provides a 
well-documented example of the long-term depletion of ground-water 
resources. Ongoing monitoring, initiated in 1988, found that the 
intense use of ground-water has caused major declines in the water 
level and reduced the ground-water remaining in storage in some areas 
to a level that makes the aquifer no longer economical to use. As shown 
in figure 17, the changes are particularly evident in the central and 
southern High Plains, where more than half of the ground-water that was 
available before pumping started has been depleted. Through 1999, an 
estimated 220 million acre-feet have been removed from storage in the 
aquifer--or more than half the volume of water in Lake Erie. Water 
levels continue to decline in many areas of the aquifer, but the rate 
of decline has slowed during the past 2 decades in some areas. The 
decline is attributed to decreases in irrigated acreage, improvements 
in irrigation and cultivation practices, and above-normal precipitation 
and groundwater recharge during the period.

Figure 17: Changes in Ground-Water Levels in the High Plains Aquifer 
from before Irrigation Pumping to 1999:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Ground-water depletion has, in some cases, resulted in land subsidence 
and a permanent reduction of an aquifer's water storage capacity. 
According to USGS, many areas across the United States have experienced 
subsidence, a decline in land-surface elevation caused by the removal 
of subsurface support through the withdrawal of ground-water. 
Subsidence can severely damage structures such as wells, buildings, and 
highways, and creates problems in the design and operation of 
facilities for drainage, flood protection, and water distribution. 
Furthermore, the compaction of aquifer materials that causes subsidence 
can result in a permanent reduction of 10 to 30 percent of the storage 
capacity of some aquifer systems. In the arid Southwest, subsidence 
shows as deep fissures or "cracks" in the earth's surface, while in the 
humid East, subsidence is evidenced by "sinkholes." Figure 18 shows a 
sinkhole in west-central Florida caused by drilling for a new 
irrigation well.

Figure 18: Sinkhole in West-Central Florida Caused by Development of a 
New Irrigation Well:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

USGS has extensively examined land subsidence in south-central Arizona. 
Ground-water pumping for agriculture in the aquifers serving the basins 
of south-central Arizona began in the late 1800s, and by the 1940s many 
of the basins had undergone intensive ground-water pumping. Ground-
water depletion has been widespread over these basins, as shown in 
figure 19, and some water-level declines have exceeded 300 feet. These 
declines have resulted in regional subsidence, exceeding 10 feet in 
some areas.

Figure 19: Land Subsidence in South-Central Arizona:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Depleting aquifers in many coastal areas may also result in saltwater 
intrusion, making the water unusable for drinking, irrigation, and 
other purposes requiring freshwater. According to USGS, incidences of 
saltwater intrusion have been documented in almost all coastal states, 
especially along the Atlantic coast--affecting areas from Miami, 
Florida, to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. In particular, saltwater intrusion 
is occurring in:

* Florida, in the Jacksonville, Tampa, and Miami areas;

* Georgia and South Carolina, in the Brunswick and Savannah areas, and 
on Hilton Head Island, respectively; and:

* New Jersey, in parts of Atlantic, Gloucester, Monmouth, Cape May, 
Ocean, and Salem Counties.

The threat of saltwater intrusion is also present in much of the 
interior of the country, where deep saline water underlies the 
freshwater. For example, ground-water withdrawals from the alluvial 
aquifer for irrigation near Brinkley, Arkansas, have caused upward 
movement of saline water from the underlying Sparta aquifer into the 
alluvial aquifer.

Projected Population Growth Will Increase Freshwater Demands:

The U.S. Bureau of the Census projects substantial population growth 
by 2025 in areas of the nation where demand is already stressing the 
water supply. This growth could threaten the water supply even further. 
According to USGS, population growth drives increases in the use of the 
public water supply.[Footnote 34] Indeed, public use increased by 
4 percent while population increased by 7 percent from 1990 to 1995. 
The difference in rates indicates the success of conservation in 
lowering per-capita use, from 184 gallons per day in 1990 to 179 
gallons per day 1995. Whether conservation will continue to lower per 
capita use and at what rate is unknown.

According to the Bureau of the Census' 1997 projections, net population 
change through 2025 will be most evident in three states--California, 
Texas, and Florida--each of which is projected to gain more than 
6 million persons.[Footnote 35] These three states will account for 
45 percent of the net population change in the United States. 
California, the most populous state, with 12 percent of the nation's 
population in 1995, is expected to have 15 percent of the nation's 
population by 2025. As shown in figure 20, Western and Southern states 
will not only have the largest net growth but will also grow at the 
fastest rates. California is expected to grow faster than any other 
state after 2000, with an estimated 56-percent growth rate between 1995 
and 2025.

Figure 20: States' Population Growth from 1995 to 2025:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Many of the states that are growing the most or at the fastest rates 
are also those that are currently stressing freshwater supplies. 
Figure 21 shows total freshwater use in the United States in 1995, by 
county, in million gallons used per day, and illustrates that many of 
the states that are expected to grow the most or the fastest--
California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and Texas--also 
include significant areas that are already using water at among the 
greatest daily rates in the nation. In some of these same areas of high 
water use, the consumptive use of water nears or exceeds the renewable 
water supply, indicating that all or most of the water that is 
available is used. For example, according to USGS, in the Lower 
Colorado River basin, covering most of Arizona and significant parts of 
Nevada and New Mexico, the population consumed 10.6 billion gallons per 
day, but the renewable supply is only 10.3 billion gallons per day.

Figure 21: Total Freshwater Withdrawals by County, 1995:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Western states are already experiencing the effects of this anticipated 
growth. For example, due to ongoing population growth and the effects 
of recent drought, several Colorado River basin states, such as New 
Mexico and Arizona, are demanding that California, one of the biggest 
users of Colorado River water, adhere to the 1922 Colorado River 
Compact. For many years Southern California had been using Colorado 
River water that was not used by the other states, and had come to rely 
on this water to meet the demands of its users. After prolonged 
negotiations, the California users, such as irrigation and municipal 
water districts, could not agree on a plan to reduce their Colorado 
River water use. As a result, Reclamation has begun limiting California 
to its legal entitlement of 4.4 million acre feet of Colorado River 
water annually. State users are continuing to discuss a potential 
water-sharing agreement, and stored water is expected to prevent 
immediate severe impacts. However, Southern California water users have 
begun considering alternative supplies, such as obtaining water from 
Northern California water right holders, storing water in surface 
reservoirs and underground aquifers, and building desalination 
facilities to turn ocean water into freshwater.

Based on recent media reports, many metropolitan areas in other parts 
of the nation are also experiencing the impact of population growth on 
water supply. For example:

* Atlanta, Georgia, the fourth fastest growing metropolitan area in the 
United States from 1990 to 2000, is recovering from a prolonged 
drought and is exploring ways to meet increased demand due to 
population growth.

* Chicago, Illinois, the seventh fastest growing metropolitan area 
between 1990 and 2000, has experienced significant ground-water 
depletion.

* Tampa, Florida, another area experiencing high population 
growth, began operating a new desalination plant in early 2003 to 
produce 25 million gallons of drinking water daily. This technology is 
seldom used in the United States owing to the relatively high cost of 
desalting water.

* Denver, Colorado, officials have proposed strict water conservation 
measures for 2003 because of anticipated water shortages; measures 
include limits on landscape watering and the amount of grass that can 
be planted at new homes.

* New York City's water supply reached its most worrisome levels in 
more than 30 years during 2002, resulting in a drought emergency 
declaration for the city and four upstate counties. More than 9 million 
residents experienced water restrictions. The states of New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Maine, and New Hampshire also enacted water 
restrictions.

Growing Demand to Leave Water Instream Affects Offstream Availability:

Over the past 30 years, the nation has increasingly emphasized 
protecting the environment. Among other things, the public places 
higher value on leaving water instream for endangered species, 
recreation, and scenic enjoyment, which may limit the use of existing 
water supplies and the development of new supplies. Federal laws such 
as the Endangered Species Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
reflect these environmental values. However, when water is left 
instream to protect wetlands, fisheries, and endangered species or to 
preserve the wild and scenic status of a river, it cannot be 
simultaneously available for traditional offstream uses such as 
irrigation and municipal and industrial supply.

Under the Endangered Species Act, plants and animals may be listed as 
threatened or endangered, depending on the risk of extinction. Once a 
species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to help the 
species recover and to protect its habitat. Implementation of the 
Endangered Species Act resulted in immediate challenges for water 
resource managers. For example, the Tellico Dam, on the Little 
Tennessee River was already under construction when Congress enacted 
the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Construction of the dam, which 
provides flood control, hydropower and water supply, was challenged 
under the act to prevent jeopardizing the endangered snail darter--a 
species of fish. In 1979, Congress specifically exempted the project 
from the Endangered Species Act, allowing the project to be 
completed.[Footnote 36] Subsequently, the snail darter was found in 
other locations and reclassified as threatened.

More recently, in the Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon 
border, Reclamation's actions to comply with the Endangered Species Act 
by leaving water instream resulted in losses to traditional offstream 
users. After consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service about the operation of the Klamath 
Project in 2001, an acute drought year, Reclamation allocated nearly 
all the project water to the protection of endangered species in the 
Klamath River (Coho salmon) and the reservoir (two species of sucker 
fish). While this action met Reclamation's obligations under the 
Endangered Species Act not to jeopardize any endangered species, 
Reclamation could not then meet its contractual water delivery 
obligations to irrigators, who consequently experienced crop losses. 
The potential for future conflicts over the implementation of the 
Endangered Species Act is strong as competition grows between instream 
and offstream water demands.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides protection for a designated 
river or segment by limiting the future licensing of dams, reservoirs 
and other water projects on, or adversely affecting, protected 
segments.[Footnote 37] Conflict can arise over how much water should 
remain in rivers to maintain their wild and scenic values and over whom 
should decide the proper amount of water. Environmentalists and boaters 
may prefer high, strong flows in wild and scenic stretches, while 
others stress the need for water to be available above and below wild 
and scenic segments for farming and other economic development, 
potentially reducing flows. For example, in August 2002, addressing the 
issue of water in the Salmon River, the Idaho Supreme Court ordered 
federal and state officials to participate in formal mediation, with 
consultation from environmental, industry and local government 
representatives, to determine the quantities of water to be legally 
reserved for all six wild and scenic rivers in Idaho. The court ordered 
the state and the Forest Service to reach a compromise on water 
allocation; if they do not, the case will be returned to state water 
court.

Climate Change Makes Future Supply and Demand Conditions Uncertain:

Uncertainties regarding potential reductions in water availability also 
result from the natural variations of the hydrologic cycle and the 
possibility that greenhouse gasses, such as man-made concentrations of 
carbon dioxide and other gasses in the atmosphere, might warm the earth 
and thereby alter the cycle. According to the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program, composed of federal and nonfederal representatives, 
water supply conditions in all regions of the United States are likely 
to be affected by climate change in the future, either through 
increased demands associated with higher temperatures or changes in 
supply because of changes in precipitation and runoff patterns.

A 2002 federal interagency report summarized climate and precipitation 
changes for the contiguous United States during the past century and 
expected changes over the next century.[Footnote 38] The report noted 
that for the past century, warming amounted to about 1 degree 
Fahrenheit, and that total annual precipitation increased by an 
estimated 5 to 10 percent. While most regions experienced greater 
precipitation, parts of the upper Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains 
had less precipitation. For the next century, the report noted the 
following likely changes--average temperature increases of 3 to 9 
degrees Fahrenheit across the nation, increased precipitation and 
evaporation, and more frequent occurrences of unusual warmth and 
extreme wet and dry conditions.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates federal 
agencies' climate research activities, concludes that climate change 
will pose many challenges to water supply management in future years. 
Program research indicates that changes in the amount, timing, and 
distribution of rain, snowfall and runoff are probable, leading to 
changes in water availability as well as in competition for water 
resources. Precipitation is very likely to continue to increase on 
average, especially in the nation's middle and northern areas, with 
much of the increase coming in the form of heavy downpours, which are 
not as easily absorbed for storage in underground aquifers. Snowpack, 
which serves as natural water storage in mountainous regions and 
northern portions of the United States, gradually releases its water in 
spring and summer; however, snowpack is very likely to decrease as the 
climate warms, despite increasing precipitation. It is very likely that 
more precipitation will fall as rain, and that snowpack will develop 
later and melt earlier. As a result, peak stream flows will very likely 
come earlier in the spring, and summer flows will be reduced. Potential 
impacts of these changes include an increased possibility of flooding 
in winter and early spring and more shortages in the summer.

[End of section]

Chapter 3: Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the Economy, the 
Environment, and Communities:



Freshwater shortages are likely in the near future and their impact on 
the economy, environment, and communities may be severe.[Footnote 39] 
Under normal water conditions, state water managers in 36 states 
anticipate water shortages in localities, regions, or statewide within 
the next 10 years. Under drought conditions, 46 state water managers 
expect shortages. While no studies have measured the total economic 
impacts of shortages, recent shortages have resulted in billions of 
dollars in damages to specific segments of the economy, such as 
agriculture. Water shortages can also damage plant and animal species, 
wildlife habitat, and water quality. Moreover, water shortages can harm 
the nation's social fabric, for example, by creating conflicts between 
water users, reducing the quality of life, and creating perceptions of 
inequitable treatment among communities due to varying levels of water 
availability or relief for water shortage impacts.

State Water Managers Expect Shortages within 10 Years:

Consistent with the water availability and use trends, state water 
managers expect water shortages in the near future. According to our 
survey of state water managers, 36 of 47 states expect some portion of 
their state to experience shortages under average water conditions 
within the next 10 years.[Footnote 40] As shown in figure 22, 18 state 
managers expect shortages to occur in one or more localized areas, 
while 18 state managers expect regional or statewide shortages. Water 
managers indicated that their states are vulnerable to shortages 
because they do not always have the infrastructure to store and 
distribute water where and when it is needed, they rely on diminishing 
ground-water resources, or because population growth has outpaced 
existing storage capacity in some regions of the state.

Figure 22: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under 
Average Water Conditions:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The probability of shortages increases and the effects broaden under 
drought conditions. According to 46 of the 47 water managers, 
their states are likely to experience shortages within the next 
10 years under drought conditions. Water managers in 6 states predict 
the shortages to occur in one or more localized areas within their 
state, 29 managers predict shortages in one or more regions in their 
state, and 11 managers predict statewide shortages.

States expect these shortages despite their efforts to prepare. 
Recognizing the challenges ahead, state water managers reported that 
state, regional, and/or local authorities are planning for their 
current and future water needs:

* Drought preparedness and response planning. Twenty-three states have 
a drought preparedness plan to reduce drought vulnerability, and 
41 states have a drought response plan to provide assistance to those 
affected by drought.

* Assessing and monitoring water availability and use. 
Forty-four states are monitoring water availability and use by, for 
example, measuring streamflows or water withdrawals.

* Implementing water management strategies. Thirty-eight states are 
coordinating the management of surface and ground-water resources to 
help meet their current and future water needs.

* Reducing or reallocating water use. Forty states are taking actions 
to conserve water, and 15 states are allowing voluntary water transfers 
among users, allowing water to be bought and sold or leased.

* Developing or enhancing supplies. Some states are undertaking 
scientific or technological approaches--eight western states are using 
cloud seeding to increase precipitation within the state, and nine 
coastal states are developing saltwater desalination operations to 
make freshwater.

Freshwater Shortages Have Severe Economic, Environmental, and 
Social Consequences:

Shortages of freshwater may harm not only a local area, but also 
multiple regions and sectors of the economy for many years. Water 
shortages can also damage the environment and create conflicts between 
water users.

Water Shortages Can Cause Billions of Dollars in Economic Damages:

No estimates are available on the total economic costs of water 
shortages to the nation. However, adequate supplies of water must be 
available to produce goods and provide services, and shortages can 
create both direct and indirect problems. For example, shortages reduce 
crop, rangeland, and forest productivity; increase fire hazards; 
increase mortality rates for livestock and wildlife; and damage 
wildlife and fish habitat. In 2003, alone, Congress provided an 
additional $3.1 billion in appropriations to offset agricultural 
losses. Water shortages also have indirect impacts. For example, 
reductions in crop, rangeland, and forest productivity reduces income 
for farmers and agribusiness, increases prices for food, contributes to 
higher unemployment, increases foreclosures on banks loans to farmers 
and businesses, and requires more spending for disaster relief.

While national estimates are not available, regional and state 
estimates provide some insight into the severity of water shortages. 
According to a 2000 report on extreme weather events from the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,[Footnote 41] eight water 
shortages from drought or heat waves had each resulted in $1 billion or 
more in monetary losses over the past 20 years in various states. The 
more significant of the economic impacts included were:

* $6 to $9 billion in losses for the agriculture and ranching sectors 
of Texas/Oklahoma and eastward to the Carolinas in the summer of 1998,

* $5 billion in economic damages in Texas and Oklahoma from fall 1995 
to summer 1996,

* $40 billion in damages to the economies of the Central and Eastern 
United States in summer 1988, and:

* $20 billion in economic damages to the Central and Eastern 
United States from June to September 1980.

River basin commissions and states also reported recent drought-related 
economic losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, the 
Susquehanna River Basin Commission,[Footnote 42] reported that, as a 
result of the 1999 drought, 34 counties in New York State declared an 
agricultural disaster with losses of about $2.5 billion, and it 
estimated Pennsylvania crop losses at $500 million, with some farmers 
losing as much as 70 to 100 percent of their crops. The Commission also 
reported that other water-dependent industries, such as nurseries, 
suffered significant losses and electrical power plants had trouble 
getting sufficient water supplies to meet operational needs because of 
low stream flows. Similarly, in December 2001, the Washington State 
Department of Ecology estimated that the 2001 drought cost between 
$270 million to $400 million in damages to agricultural production, a 
loss of 4,600 to 7,500 agricultural jobs, and placed at risk an 
additional 950 to 1,400 jobs in the food processing, wholesaling, 
trucking, warehousing, and transportation services sectors. Finally, 
persistent drought conditions could also put at risk another 4,500 to 
6,000 jobs in the construction, retail, and service sectors, 
among others.

In addition to lost economic productivity, droughts also increase 
federal and state government expenditures. For example, Washington 
State paid almost $8 million in drought related expenditures to obtain 
water for several irrigation districts, maintain stream flow in 
critical fish-bearing streams, and to monitor stream flows. In 
addition, the state paid $1 million to the Bonneville Power 
Administration, which markets electrical power in the Pacific 
Northwest, to offset losses in power-generating revenues.

While the most commonly estimated economic impacts of water shortages 
occur in agriculture and related sectors, less obvious sectors of the 
economy are also affected.

* In March 2002, New Jersey declared a state of water emergency 
(rainfall in 35 of the past 49 months had been below normal, with 8 of 
the last 12 significantly below normal). Among other things, the state 
suspended the distribution of water for construction or use by any new 
building, dwelling, or structure in three south New Jersey townships. 
The pace of development in these townships threatened to damage the 
ecological and water supply capability of the local aquifer system. The 
monetary losses resulting from this suspension are difficult to 
quantify, but, at a minimum, building suppliers and other construction-
related sectors lost revenues, and local municipalities lost tax 
revenues.

* In February 2003, the Southern Nevada Water Authority approved a plan 
to restrict water use in the Las Vegas Valley during an ongoing 
drought. Residents and businesses, such as golf courses, will be 
required to curtail water use. For example, golf courses will be 
required to use no more than 7 acre-feet of water per year. According 
to an operator of three golf courses, he will have to remove 90 acres 
of grass at an estimated cost of $500,000.

Some organizations are developing estimates of the economic impacts of 
droughts. For example:

* University of Georgia researchers have developed an economic model to 
measure the potential economic impacts of a drought for the 20-county 
regional economy in southwest Georgia. Using this model, the 
researchers estimated that each $1 million decline in agricultural 
production results in an additional $700,000 decline in other economic 
segments, for a total loss of $1.7 million. In addition, for each job 
lost in agriculture, 1.4 jobs are lost in other economic sectors, for a 
total of 2.4 jobs lost.

* Texas requires regional water planning groups to evaluate the social 
and economic impacts of not meeting regional needs for water supply. 
For example, a regional group for Northeastern Texas projected that by 
2010 unmet regional water needs would result in 93,000 fewer jobs, 
199,000 fewer people, and about a 13 percent loss in personal income. 
Based on these regional reports, in 2002, the Texas Water Development 
Board reported that if the state does not ensure it has enough water to 
meet projected needs, it will have 7.4 million fewer jobs, 13.8 million 
fewer people, and 38 percent less income within the state by 2050.

Water Shortages Damage the Environment:

Water shortages can result in environmental losses--damages to plant 
and animal species, wildlife habitat and air and water quality. 
Following a water shortage, some conditions quickly return to normal, 
while other effects may linger or change conditions permanently. The 
Florida Everglades experience illustrates the effects that reduced 
water flows can have on an ecological system.

Following periods of major drought in the 1930s and 1940s and heavy 
flooding in 1947, Congress authorized in 1948 the Central and Southern 
Florida Project--an extensive system of over 1,700 miles of canals and 
levees and 16 major pump stations--to prevent flooding and saltwater 
intrusion into the aquifer underlying the wetlands, as well as to 
provide drainage and supply water to the residents of South Florida. 
Some drained areas became farmland, while others became heavily 
urbanized. These engineering changes, coupled with agricultural and 
industrial activities and urbanization, have reduced the Everglades to 
about half its original size, as shown in figure 23, and damaged the 
environment. For example, the population of wading birds once numbered 
in the millions, has fallen by 90 percent in recent decades. Moreover, 
some scientists believe that the reduced flow of freshwater into 
Florida Bay may be hastening its environmental decline. An effort to 
restore the Everglades is currently underway involving numerous 
federal, state, tribal and local entities. The current estimated costs, 
which are shared equally by federal agencies and the state, for 
activities in the South Florida ecosystem restoration initiative--
including the three goals of getting the water right, restoring, 
preserving and protecting natural habitats, and fostering the 
compatibility of the built and natural systems--are $14.8 billion.

Figure 23: The Everglades--Past and Present:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

[A] Other smaller natural areas are dispersed throughout South Florida, 
such as national wildlife refuges and state, local, or privately owned 
lands, but are not shown in the figure.

Water Shortages Can Cause Social Discord:

Water shortages can raise a number of concerns for communities, 
such as:

* Conflicts arising between various water users, managers, and 
government entities due to competition for scarce water resources;

* Threats to the lifestyles of individuals whose livelihoods depend on 
water, such as farmers and commercial fishermen; and:

* Feelings of undue burden from a shortage, such as feelings of unfair 
treatment in the amount or timing of relief efforts by government 
entities.

The experiences in the Klamath River Basin, on the California-Oregon 
border, illustrate how these concerns can play out. In 2001, severe 
drought in the Klamath River Basin exacerbated conflicts among numerous 
interests: farmers who rely on water for irrigation, commercial 
fishermen who rely on salmon spawned in the river for their livelihood, 
environmental groups interested in protecting endangered species, and 
Native American tribes with long-standing cultural, fishing and water 
rights interests. In April 2001, Reclamation announced that it would 
not be able to supply water to farmers in the majority of the basin so 
that the limited supplies could be used to protect endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 43] Many 
farmers claimed to have suffered crop losses as a result of restricted 
water deliveries and protested the decision in public demonstrations; 
some individuals unlawfully opened water control gates. Farmers viewed 
the diversion of water as breaking the federal government's long-
standing promise to provide water and land for farming and as harming 
the agriculture based culture that had developed in the area since the 
project was initiated in the early 1900s.

Subsequent to the National Academy of Sciences' February 2002 review 
of the scientific support for minimum lake and river flows, Reclamation 
developed a 10-year operating plan to comply with the requirements of 
the Endangered Species Act while also allowing water deliveries to 
irrigators. However, in September 2002 as many as 30,000 adult salmon 
and steelhead died while returning to the Klamath and Trinity Rivers to 
spawn. California State Department of Fish and Game officials and 
others argue that low river flows and high water temperature may have 
stressed the salmon and made them more susceptible to disease. 
Consequently, according to local media accounts, the environmentalists, 
Indian tribal leaders, and commercial fishermen now claim that the 
government is catering to farmers and ignoring their concerns (see 
fig. 24). The result has been on going litigation over river flows and 
legislation to address the financial damages of the various parties. 
Although the Klamath water supply issues were made more acute by the 
severe drought, the conflicts over who gets water will continue because 
demands are greater than current supplies.

Figure 24: Competition for Water in the Klamath Basin:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

The competition for water is by no means unique to the Klamath Basin. 
Similar conflicts are brewing in other areas, such as the Columbia and 
Snake River System in the Northwest, the San Joaquin and Sacramento 
Basins in California, the Missouri River System in the Northern 
Plains states, the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico, and the Florida 
Everglades. Recognizing the potential for conflict due to water 
shortages, in May 2003, Interior proposed concentrating federal 
financial and technical assistance in key western watersheds and in 
critical research and development such as conservation and desalination 
to help predict, prevent, and alleviate future water supply 
conflicts.[Footnote 44]

[End of section]

Chapter 4: Federal Activities Could Further Support State Water 
Management Efforts:

To identify potential federal actions to help states address their 
water management challenges, we sought the views and suggestions of 
state water managers. We also asked federal officials to identify their 
current activities in each of these categories and the extent to which 
they can support state preferences for assistance. Water managers from 
47 states ranked actions federal agencies could take within five basic 
categories of activities:[Footnote 45]

* Planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining water storage and 
distribution facilities. The most helpful potential federal action was 
to provide more federal financial assistance to plan and construct 
additional state water storage and distribution capacity; states also 
favored more consultation on the operation of federal water storage and 
distribution systems.

* Collecting and sharing water data. Collecting water data at more 
locations would be most useful, compared with actions to improve the 
accuracy, timeliness, access, format, or analyses of the data.

* Administering federal environmental protection laws. The most 
beneficial potential federal actions were (1) more state flexibility in 
how they comply with or administer federal environmental laws and 
(2) more consultation with the states on these laws' development, 
revision, and implementation.

* Participating in water-management agreements. The highest preferences 
were increasing federal agencies' coordination with, and technical 
assistance to, the states in developing and implementing 
these agreements.

* Managing water rights for federal and tribal lands. The most helpful 
potential actions were (1) more consultation with states on how federal 
agencies or tribal governments use their water rights, (2) increased 
financial and technical assistance to determine how much water federal 
agencies and tribes are entitled to, and (3) better coordinated 
participation among federal agencies and tribes in the establishment 
and use of their water rights.

Appendix I contains the detailed results of the survey.

States Preferred More Financial Assistance to Increase Water Storage 
and Distribution Capacity and Consultation on Federal 
Storage Operations:

In terms of water storage and distribution capacity, state water 
managers reported their highest priority was more federal financial 
assistance to plan and construct the state's freshwater storage and 
distribution systems. According to our survey, over the next 10 years, 
26 states are likely to add storage capacity, and 18 are likely to add 
distribution capacity. The additional storage and distribution capacity 
will be used to meet a variety of needs, such as augmenting local 
supplies, connecting water systems, and developing ground-water 
storage. Consequently, water managers in 22 states said that more 
federal financial assistance would be most useful in helping their 
state meet its water storage and distribution needs. For example, of 
the 26 states that are likely to add storage capacity, 16 plan to seek 
federal assistance, as do 14 of the 18 states that are likely to add 
distribution capacity. Estimated costs to add this storage and 
conveyance capacity could be in the billions of dollars for each state 
if built as planned. For example, Texas estimated in its 2002 State 
Water Plan the capital costs of water supply projects over the next 
50 years, including the addition of 8 major reservoirs, to be 
$17.9 billion.

Reclamation and Corps officials understand the states' need for 
financial assistance for storage and distribution projects, and provide 
financial assistance on a project-by-project basis, as the Congress 
authorizes and appropriates funds. Current authorized and funded water 
projects include Reclamation's Animas-La Plata project in southwest 
Colorado and northwest New Mexico for storing and distributing water in 
these states at a cost of about $700 million, and the Corps' and the 
state of Florida's participation in the estimated $14.8 billion effort 
to restore the Florida Everglades. Reclamation and Corps officials were 
not aware of any state requests directly to them to provide financial 
assistance to plan or construct new state storage or distribution 
projects, with the exception of projects under the ongoing 
CALFED program.[Footnote 46]

State water managers also favored more consultation on the operation of 
federal water storage facilities. While federal agencies develop plans 
to govern the operations of each facility, changes in water 
availability, such as a drought, and new or changing demands for water, 
such as a new endangered species listing or residential development, 
can alter the state's water management goals in a river basin. State 
managers sometimes pursue a change in the operations of a federal water 
storage facility to better help the state meet its multiple water 
management goals. State water managers in 29 states said they had 
worked with federal water project managers within the last 5 years to 
obtain changes in federal operations to better meet their state's water 
management goals. The state managers requested changes in federal 
operations to help balance instream water uses---that is, 
environmental, recreation, hydropower production, and navigation uses-
--with offstream water uses, such as municipal water supply and 
irrigation. For example, one western state asked Reclamation to modify 
facility operations to benefit fish spawning, while several states 
requested changes to Corps facility operations to support the states' 
water management goals--for example, to improve water quality, 
recreation, and minimize flooding impacts.

Reclamation and Corps officials told us their agencies currently work 
with state water managers on a daily basis to meet the needs of water 
users affected by their facilities. Furthermore, they are making 
efforts to consult more with the states and thereby prevent future 
conflicts related to their operations. According to a Reclamation 
official, operators at the agency's facilities annually share 
operations plans with state water managers and other stakeholders to 
review the previous year's operations and solicit their views on the 
need for changes to meet new or increased demands. Furthermore, 
Reclamation plans to identify river basins with the greatest potential 
for future conflict between water users and environmental needs and to 
develop future operating plans with input from all users. Officials 
said they are trying to prevent water management crises on the scale of 
those that have occurred in the Klamath, Columbia, Middle Rio Grande, 
and Colorado River basins and avoid costly litigation. A Corps' 
official stated that the Portland, Oregon, district office holds a 
daily public briefing in its reservoir control room to describe 
conditions in the entire Columbia Basin, and the Corps shares its 
operating plans annually with the states.

While Reclamation and Corps officials welcome state water managers' 
views on operations, the agencies are not always able to accommodate 
state requests when the request would prevent or limit the agency's 
ability to meet its obligations under laws or contracts. For example, 
Reclamation officials said they must consider the authorized purpose of 
the facility, the agency's contractual obligations for water delivery, 
environmental regulations, and the requirements of state law when 
considering a state request. In addition, federal officials said they 
could not honor some requests because modifying facility operations to 
meet the needs of one water user may adversely affect water 
availability for other water users. For example, Reclamation received a 
request from one state to change facility operations to increase water 
flows for downstream rafting in the spring; however, another state said 
the additional release would decrease the quality of recreational 
fishing. Once the states agreed on a compromise, Reclamation modified 
its releases to meet the water needs of both users. Corps officials 
shared similar experiences. For example, a state requested that the 
Corps store more water in a flood control reservoir. The Corps asked 
the state if it was willing to accept responsibility for the 
environmental impacts of flooding more area behind the reservoir. The 
state agreed and the Corps adjusted the annual operating plan.

States Believe They Would Benefit from Federal Data Collection in More 
Locations:

State water managers placed a high value on data collected under 
federal programs to support the states' ability to complete specific 
water management activities. For example:

* 37 states reported that federal agencies' data are important to their 
ability to determine the amount of available surface-water,

* 22 states reported that the federal data are important to their 
planning for environmental mitigation or restoration activities, and:

* 14 of the 29 states that participate in interstate or international 
water-management agreements reported that federal data are important to 
monitoring the terms of the agreements.

To supplement the data collected under federal programs, some states 
also collect their own water data. However, in some circumstances, 
data collected under federal programs may be more credible and 
consistent than the state data, according to state water managers. 
For example, one state water manager said his state participates in the 
USGS Cooperative Program because other states with which it manages 
shared waters consider USGS-collected information more credible than 
the state-collected information. Another state manager said that 
consistent, long-term, federal data collection is extremely valuable 
and cannot be replicated by the state. Furthermore, according to USGS 
and state officials, state and locally collected data is not always 
comparable because collection practices are not standardized.

Water managers in 39 states ranked expanding the number of data 
collection points for federal agencies as the most useful action to 
help their state meet its water information needs. Specifically, state 
managers reported that the addition of more monitoring stations to 
measure stream flow, aquifer levels, and snow pack depths would 
help states decide, for example, whether to allow additional water 
withdrawals from particular sources. State managers suggested more 
monitoring locations are particularly needed in rural areas, where 
water is shared among multiple states, or areas needing increased water 
flows to meet environmental protection needs. For example, one state 
manager said more monitoring stations are needed on the smaller 
tributaries, where the needs of endangered or threatened fish are in 
conflict with traditional offstream uses.

Officials at the USGS, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and 
the National Weather Service, each have ongoing efforts and/or plans to 
improve their data collection programs. However, they need to do so 
within current funding levels. USGS--the agency primarily responsible 
for water data collection and analysis--officials said the agency 
continually examines how to allocate its resources to meet its national 
responsibilities while also helping states. According to agency 
officials, USGS and the states generally agree on which water sources 
to monitor; however, the agency and the states sometimes differ on how 
many locations to monitor for a particular source. Disagreement occurs 
because USGS' monitoring stations are widely distributed to meet its 
nationwide responsibilities, rather than concentrated to benefit a 
particular state.

To meet demand for more data and more sophisticated water supply 
forecasts, Natural Resources Conservation Service officials say they 
need to double the current number of snow pack monitoring stations and 
water supply forecasting activities. Specifically, the agency has 
identified the need to automate and expand reporting on snow pack data 
in the Great Lakes and the Northeast, as it does for the West. Finally, 
officials at the National Weather Service said they plan to automate 
rainfall data reporting, which will make these data more readily 
accessible, but they have no plans to expand data collection locations.

According to USGS, Natural Resources Conservation Service and National 
Weather Service officials, obtaining additional funding is their 
primary barrier to expanding or automating data collection. To address 
funding limitations, they have developed collaborative relationships to 
accept data from other entities, including states and universities, and 
make these data available to users on their web sites. Because data 
quality is a concern under this process, the federal agencies must 
verify that the entities' data collection practices meet federal 
standards before accepting the data. To help ensure quality, the 
agencies participate in interagency work groups that set standards for 
federal water data collection and dissemination, such as the Advisory 
Committee on Water Information.

States Favor More Flexibility in How They Comply with or Administer 
Federal Environmental Laws and More Opportunities for Comment:

Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water 
Act provide important protections to the nation's wildlife and natural 
resources. The Endangered Species Act provides protection and assists 
the recovery of threatened or endangered plant and animal species and 
their critical habitat, and the Clean Water Act requires improvements 
to water quality and the prevention of discharges of pollutants into 
our nation's waters.

The implementation of these laws can also affect state water management 
goals and objectives. For example, the Endangered Species Act can 
create a demand to leave water instream to ensure that species or 
critical habitat are not jeopardized, thus competing with traditional 
offstream water demands, such as irrigation, municipal, and industrial 
uses. When demand is high among traditional users or supplies are 
limited, fulfilling the demands created by federal environmental laws 
can be challenging for some state managers.

According to our survey, the impacts of federal environmental 
protection laws on state water managers vary, depending on the 
particular water demands and uses within each state. For example, while 
25 state water managers reported that the Clean Water Act increased 
water availability for instream purposes, managers offered diverse 
views of the law's effects on offstream availability. Managers in 
11 states reported that the Clean Water Act's water quality impacts 
increased water availability for offstream uses, such as drinking 
water, while managers in 18 states reported that the law decreased 
offstream water availability, for example, because of the need to leave 
water instream to maintain water quality standards. Similarly, 26 state 
managers reported that the Endangered Species Act tended to decrease 
the amount of water available for offstream uses, but managers were 
more evenly divided on whether the law has made more water available 
for instream uses. For example, managers in 16 states reported that the 
Endangered Species Act has helped increase water availability for 
instream uses, such as maintaining fish habitat, while 9 managers 
reported decreased availability because the law limited water 
availability for hydropower production, another instream water use.

Overall, 23 state water managers ranked having more flexibility in how 
they comply with or administer federal environmental laws as the most 
useful among potential actions that would help states meet the 
requirements of federal environmental protection laws while also 
meeting water management goals. Because the effects of the laws are so 
varied, we did not identify a consensus regarding the specific elements 
of compliance or administration of these laws that required more 
flexibility. However, state water managers described instances in which 
they believed that federal environmental laws restricted the state's 
ability to develop new water storage capacity, distribute water, or 
meet the needs of offstream users.

Federal officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, agreed 
that while they try to accommodate state concerns about federal 
environmental laws, the amount of flexibility they can provide is 
limited by their obligation to ensure that the laws are complied with 
and administered as Congress intended. However, officials cited 
examples of current and planned efforts to use the flexibility they 
have under current law to help the states comply with or administer 
federal environmental laws likes the Clean Water Act and Endangered 
Species Act. For example, Environmental Protection Agency officials 
said they are assessing ways to make their water quality programs more 
efficient and effective, which may result in more flexibility for 
the states. National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife 
Service officials said they already have considerable flexibility under 
the Endangered Species Act to accommodate state-developed water 
management plans that also meet the needs of listed threatened or 
endangered species. Officials of both the services said they 
encourage states to work cooperatively with them to develop water 
management plans.

In 17 states, water managers also said they would like federal agencies 
to seek more state advice on developing, revising, and implementing 
federal environmental laws. Specifically, three state managers made the 
following suggestions:

* Congress and federal agencies should seek states' input when 
reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 47]

* Federal agencies should recognize and support states' species 
recovery plans; this could help agencies to develop federal recovery 
plans that are better coordinated with state activities.

* States should peer review federal agencies' science and decisions, 
thus better balancing state and federal viewpoints.

Regarding federal actions to seek more state advice, federal agency 
officials cited several examples of ongoing and planned efforts to 
enhance their working relationships and reduce conflicts with state 
agencies and other stakeholders. The Fish and Wildlife Service and 
National Marine Fisheries Service have existing joint policies to use 
the expertise and solicit the participation of states in the recovery 
planning process, and to solicit peer review of draft recovery plans. 
Agency officials commonly cited the use of river basin-wide agreements 
as an example of efforts to formally bring together state, federal, and 
other stakeholders to address important issues, such as providing 
certainty in water supplies while protecting wildlife habitats and 
preventing additional threatened or endangered species listings or 
protecting water quality. Officials of several agencies cited examples 
of successful cooperative agreements used in the California Bay-Delta, 
Upper Colorado River Basin, Snake River Basin, and in the Lemhi and 
Upper Salmon River Basins. According to a Fish and Wildlife Service 
official, such agreements signal enhanced efforts at developing 
relationships, sharing information, and getting advice from the states. 
According to officials, the Environmental Protection Agency hopes to 
facilitate cooperative relationships, for example, by awarding grants 
to states to explore comprehensive solutions at the watershed level. 
Reclamation officials cited planned actions to prevent federal/state 
conflicts regarding environmental issues. For example, the agency plans 
to provide more staff training on the purpose, processes, and 
requirements of the Endangered Species Act in order to ensure clarity 
regarding the act's requirements and the agency's responsibilities.

State Managers Would Gain from Improved Coordination of Federal 
Participation in Interstate or International Water-Management 
Agreements:

State water managers in the 29 of 47 states that participate in an 
interstate or international water-management agreement ranked better 
coordination of federal agency participation with the state in the 
agreements as most useful among potential federal actions to 
help states in the development, enforcement, and implementation of such 
agreements. While many states said that federal agencies had fulfilled 
their responsibilities under interstate or international agreements 
during the last 5 years, seven state managers said that one or more 
agencies had not. These seven managers, and others, described instances 
in which they believe that federal agencies have not met their 
responsibilities under water-management agreements, such as:

* Ignoring obligations under participation agreements, such as the 
Corps not paying its river basin commission membership dues.

* Mismanaging existing river management facilities and failing to 
construct needed water storage facilities, such as projects for storing 
Colorado River water.

* Inadequately enforcing the water allocation terms of 
international treaties by not vigorously enforcing the terms of 
the U.S. water-management treaty with Mexico.

* Not resolving federal river basin priorities, thus creating 
uncertainty for state compact participants regarding federal actions.

Officials from Reclamation and the Corps stated that in most cases they 
have fulfilled their responsibilities under water-management 
agreements, but occasionally circumstances outside their control 
prevent them from carrying out their responsibilities. For example, in 
the case of the Corps not paying its river basin commission dues, Corps 
officials indicated that congressional appropriations language 
specifies that the federal government should no longer contribute 
financially to the annual expenses of these commissions. A Corps 
official stated that the agency has little funding available for 
efforts to coordinate activities under compacts, and moreover, other 
federal agencies have not approached the Corps to engage in 
coordination efforts. A Reclamation official acknowledged that he had 
encountered barriers to coordination with other federal agencies--for 
example, federal agency officials are sometimes unwilling to sacrifice 
relationships they have developed with stakeholders in the interest of 
improving coordination among all parties.

Nevertheless, Reclamation and Corps officials stated that their 
participation in water-management agreements could be improved through 
their ongoing efforts to enhance coordination and communication 
with states and other water resource stakeholders. For example, 
Reclamation plans to facilitate meetings and assist water management 
projects in basins where the greatest potential for conflict exists 
among water users and environmental uses, thus laying the groundwork 
for the development of future water-management agreements. These 
efforts are similar to those officials described to assist the states 
and other stakeholders to allow more input into the operation of 
federal storage facilities.

States also ranked as important increased technical assistance to 
develop or implement water-management agreements. Of the 29 states in 
our survey that already participate in water-management agreements, 
11 said they plan to propose, negotiate, or participate in a new water-
management agreement within the next 5 years. For example, one state 
manager suggested federal assistance would be helpful in establishing a 
compact for managing water from an underground aquifer with another 
state. Another state water manager suggested that the state would 
benefit from assistance in the form of federal studies on water 
availability, use, and demand on sources shared between the 
United States and Canada.

Water management agencies do not have specific programs or funds 
to assist states in developing or implementing water-management 
agreements, according to agency officials. However, Reclamation and 
Corps officials pointed out that the federal agencies do assist in 
implementing agreements through the ongoing operation of federal 
water projects within the compact river basins, helping to ensure that 
the agreement terms are met. For example, Corps officials pointed to 
efforts by 10 federal agencies to assist in implementing agreements in 
the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint 
river basins located in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Furthermore, to 
help implement the water management treaty with Mexico, a National 
Weather Service official said the agency provides forecasting tools to 
Mexico to help facilitate accurate water supply forecasting on both 
sides of the border.

States Favored Having More Influence on the Use of Federal and Tribal 
Water Rights as Well as Greater Federal Efforts to Define These Rights:

Of the 31 state managers reporting that federal agencies or tribal 
governments claim or hold water rights (either state granted or federal 
reserved) in their state, 12 reported that the most helpful potential 
federal action would be to consult more with the states on federal or 
tribal use of these rights. Sixteen of these water managers indicated 
that their state had experienced a conflict within the last 5 years 
between how a federal agency used its water rights and the state's 
water management goals. State water managers reported conflicts with 13 
different agencies, such as Reclamation, the Forest Service, the Park 
Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. State managers also 
described instances of federal agencies challenging state decisions to 
grant water rights to others. For example:

* In one state, Reclamation challenged the state over ground-water 
rights it had issued to users because the withdrawals threatened 
federal surface-water rights.

* Similarly, a tribe sued the same state to stop issuance of ground-
water rights potentially impacting water availability for tribal lands. 
According to state officials, both cases were settled by agreement.

* Another manager reported that the state and a federal agency 
disagreed on whether a federal lands leaseholder or the federal agency 
should hold the water right for water held in small storage facilities 
on federal lands. The court awarded the right to the leaseholder, 
despite federal concerns over future use of the water on its lands.

According to officials from the federal resource management agencies 
and Reclamation, the agencies exercise their state-granted water rights 
in accordance with state water laws and the agencies try to coordinate 
with the states over their use of water under federal reserved rights. 
National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service 
officials said their agencies typically seek state-granted water rights 
for offstream uses of water on their lands, such as camp and picnic 
grounds or livestock watering. Typically, disputes related to federal 
agency use of state-granted rights are heard in state water courts 
where the federal agencies receive no preference over any other water 
right holder. Officials provided several examples of how their agencies 
work with the states and non-federal water users to minimize disputes. 
A National Park Service official said his agency seeks to reach 
mutually acceptable compromises with other water users, even though the 
other users' rights are often junior to the federal reserved rights. A 
Bureau of Land Management official said while his agency has federal 
reserved rights to water in a certain state, the agency also applies 
for state rights because the state does not recognize the agency's 
federal reserved water right.

State water managers also favored increased financial and technical 
assistance to states to adjudicate water rights (the determination of 
the legal rights and priorities of all persons for a particular source 
as of a certain time) for federal agencies and tribal governments. 
Federal agencies and tribes may be entitled to water rights that would 
deprive others of water they have been using for many years. Until 
adjudicated or determined by the courts, the extent of such rights is 
unknown. Consequently, water managers, particularly those in 
Western states, are concerned about the unquantified water rights for 
federal and tribal lands, as well as the costs of quantifying these 
rights through adjudication. For example, 14 state water managers said 
quantifying federal reserved water rights is important to their state's 
ability to manage its water; similarly, 12 state water managers said 
quantifying tribal water rights is important.

To reduce uncertainty regarding water rights, some western states are 
conducting general adjudications to formally quantify and order by 
priority all rights claimed. These adjudications include determinations 
of federal water rights, which, since the McCarran Amendment was 
enacted in 1952, have been within the states' jurisdictions.[Footnote 
48] This process of establishing the priority system is complicated and 
costly, and federal claims are often the largest and most difficult to 
adjudicate. For example, according to the Western States Water Council, 
400 of the 700 claims being adjudicated in the Klamath Basin are 
federal claims. While all other water users claiming rights must pay 
filing fees to the state for the adjudication of these rights, the 
federal government does not, according to a Supreme Court ruling.

Federal agency officials confirmed that the total quantity of water 
rights for federal and tribal lands is not known. While state and 
federal courts have settled some federal claims since the McCarran 
Amendment was enacted, a substantial majority of tribal and federal 
water rights have not yet been quantified. Currently, adjudications of 
tribal, federal, and other parties' water rights are underway in 
many states.[Footnote 49] For example, the U.S. Forest Service is 
participating in 43 adjudications and the National Park Service in 45, 
according to agency officials. As of March 2003, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs reported it has settled 20 water rights cases, but most tribal 
rights are still unquantified.

According to officials, the federal resource management agencies file 
claims in accordance with state rules and abide by the results of the 
state adjudications. However, federal law prohibits the agencies from 
paying adjudication filing fees. A National Park Service official said 
it might be preferable to have a compromise between the two extremes of 
having the federal government pay millions of dollars to adjudicate 
every one of its water rights and paying nothing. This official notes 
that adjudications are in the federal interest--having water rights 
quantified creates more certainty for federal planning and decision-
making.

Conclusions:

While states have principal authority for water management, federal 
activities and laws affect or influence virtually every water 
management activity undertaken by states. With limited supplies and 
growing demands, state water managers face the challenge of future 
water shortages and their potentially severe consequences. Although the 
state managers value the many contributions of federal agencies to 
their efforts to ensure adequate water supplies, they also indicate 
that federal activities could better support their efforts in a number 
of areas. In some of these areas--such as providing funding for more 
state storage and distribution capacity or more flexibility in 
how states comply with federal environmental laws--federal agencies are 
limited in what they can do. However, in other areas--such as seeking 
increased state input to federal facility operations or enhancing 
coordination with states--more supportive federal actions may not 
necessarily involve new authority or significant expenditures. Slight 
shifts of federal priorities or renewed emphasis on matters that impact 
state efforts might be sufficient to help states better manage their 
water resources. The information we collected from state water managers 
should be useful to agencies in determining how their activities 
affect states and how they can be more supportive of state efforts to 
meet their future water needs. While we are not making a specific 
recommendation, we encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland 
Security, Interior, Corps, and Environmental Protection Agency 
officials to review the results of our state survey and consider 
modifications to their plans, policies, or activities as appropriate to 
better support state efforts to meet their future water needs.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Interior; the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 
The Department of the Interior concurred with our findings and wrote 
that the report provides valuable information to federal agencies for 
improving interactions with state water managers and will be helpful to 
state and local resource managers in identifying federal activities and 
plans that support water management efforts at all levels of 
government. Interior also provided technical clarifications, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. Interior's complete letter is in appendix 
II. The other departments and agencies concurred with our findings and 
provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. They did not provide formal, written comments.

[End of section]

Appendixes:

Appendix I: GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal 
Activities on State Water Availability, Management, and Use:

To obtain states' views on how federal activities could better support 
state water management efforts to meet future demands, we conducted a 
Web-based survey of state water managers in the 50 states. We developed 
the survey questions by reviewing documents and by talking with 
officials from the federal agencies listed on pages 42 and 43 and the 
state water managers in three state offices-Arizona, Illinois, and 
Pennsylvania. The questionnaire contained 56 questions that asked about 
state water management; collection and dissemination of state water 
quantity data by federal agencies; federal water storage and conveyance 
within their state; the effects of federal environmental laws on state 
water management; the effects of interstate compacts and international 
treaties on state water management; and the effects of federal and 
tribal rights to water on state water management.

To access the Web-based survey and the results for each question go to 
GAO-03-834SP on the GAO Web site.

Q1. Has your state conducted an assessment of water availability, 
withdrawals, and/or consumption?

1. Water availability statewide (most or all regions of your state); 
Checked (percent): 53.2; Number of respondents: 47.

2. Water availability only for some regions or localities within your 
state; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of respondents: 47.

3. Water withdrawals statewide (most or all regions of your state); 
Checked (percent): 76.6; Number of respondents: 47.

4. Water withdrawals only for some regions or localities within your 
state; Checked (percent): 10.6; Number of respondents: 47.

5. Water consumption statewide (most or all regions of your state); 
Checked (percent): 51.1; Number of respondents: 47.

6. Water consumption only for some regions or localities within your 
state; Checked (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.

7. None of the above; Checked (percent): 8.5; Number of respondents: 
47.



Q2. Has your state conducted an assessment, either for all of your 
state or for portions of your state, of the economic and/or 
environmental effects of water shortages, including drought?

1. Actual economic effects of recent water shortages, including 
drought; Checked (percent): 25.5; Number of respondents: 47.

2. Potential economic effects of future water shortages, including 
drought; Checked (percent): 25.5; Number of respondents: 47.

3. Actual environmental effects of recent water shortages, including 
drought; Checked (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.

4. Potential environmental effects of future water shortages, including 
drought; Checked (percent): 23.4; Number of respondents: 47.

5. None of the above; Checked (percent): 53.2; Number of respondents: 
47.



Q3. Which of the following plans does your state have?

1. Drought preparedness plan(s); Checked (percent): 48.9; Number of 
respondents: 47.

2. Drought response plan(s); Checked (percent): 87.2; Number of 
respondents: 47.

3. State does not have either of the above plans; Checked (percent): 
8.5; Number of respondents: 47.

4. Uncertain about state plans; Checked (percent): 2.1; Number of 
respondents: 47.



Q4. Did your state receive federal assistance for the development of 
its drought preparedness and/or response plan(s)?

Yes (percent): 11.9; No (percent): 76.2; Uncertain (percent): 9.5; 
Number of respondents: 41.



Q5. In the next 1-10 years which, if any, portions of your state, are 
likely to experience water shortages under average water conditions?

Entire state (most, or all, of your state) (percent): 4.3; One or more 
regions within your state (percent): 34.0; One or more small localized 
areas within your state (percent): 38.3; None of the above (percent): 
19.1; Uncertain (percent): 4.3; Number of respondents: 47.



Q6. In the next 1-10 years which, if any, portions of your state, are 
likely to experience water shortages under drought conditions?

Entire state (most, or all, of your state) (percent): 23.4; One or more 
regions within your state (percent): 61.7; One or more small localized 
areas within your state (percent): 12.8; None of the above (percent): 
0.0; Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.



Q7. In the next 10-20 years which, if any, portions of your state, are 
likely to experience water shortages under average water conditions?

Entire state (most, or all, of your state) (percent): 4.3; One or more 
regions within your state (percent): 44.7; One or more small localized 
areas within your state (percent): 34.0; None of the above (percent): 
12.8; Uncertain (percent): 4.3; Number of respondents: 47.



Q8. In the next 10-20 years which, if any, portions of your state, are 
likely to experience water shortages under drought conditions?

Entire state (most, or all, of your state) (percent): 25.5; One or more 
regions within your state (percent): 68.1; One or more small localized 
areas within your state (percent): 4.3; None of the above (percent): 
0.0; Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.



Q9. Which, if any, of the following actions are being taken by your 
state government and/or by regional or local authorities to address 
current and future water needs in your state?

1. Developing markets to allow voluntary water transfers among users; 
Checked (percent): 31.9; Number of respondents: 47.

2. Developing new water supplies through reuse of reclaimed water; 
Checked (percent): 48.9; Number of respondents: 47.

3. Developing new water supplies through recycling of storm water; 
Checked (percent): 10.6; Number of respondents: 47.

4. Developing new water supplies using desalination (seawater or 
brackish ground water); Checked (percent): 19.1; Number of respondents: 
47.

5. Encouraging, requiring, and/or providing incentives for water 
conservation; Checked (percent): 85.1; Number of respondents: 47.

6. Improving vegetation management along streams and rivers to increase 
stream flow; Checked (percent): 42.6; Number of respondents: 47.

7. Improving riparian buffers to enhance water quality and increase 
water quantity; Checked (percent): 70.2; Number of respondents: 47.

8. Increasing storage capacity, including surface storage reservoirs or 
artificial groundwater recharge; Checked (percent): 63.8; Number of 
respondents: 47.

9. Managing surface and ground water together (conjunctive management) 
so that these sources can be used in combination or alternately; 
Checked (percent): 80.9; Number of respondents: 47.

10. Monitoring water availability and withdrawals within the state; 
Checked (percent): 93.6; Number of respondents: 47.

11. Pursuing water price restructuring; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number 
of respondents: 47.

12. Requiring local water agencies to conduct water availability 
assessments before approving new development or changes in land use; 
Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of respondents: 47.

13. Using cloud seeding to induce precipitation where it might not 
occur naturally, or in greater quantities than might occur naturally; 
Checked (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.

14. Using inter-basin transfer of water; Checked (percent): 59.6; 
Number of respondents: 47.

15. Other actions being taken to address water needs (Please specify 
below.); Checked (percent): 34.0; Number of respondents: 47.



If answer 15 is checked (in Q9 above), please provide a brief 
description (of other actions being taken to address your state's 
water needs).

Providing description (percent): 100; Number of respondents: 16.



Q10. In general, what is the legal doctrine used by your state to 
govern the allocation of surface water?

Prior appropriation (percent): 31.9; Common-law riparian (percent): 
14.9; Regulated riparian (percent): 19.1; A combination of prior 
appropriation and riparian (percent): 6.4; State does not regulate 
surface water allocation (percent): 4.3; Other (percent): 21.3; 
Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.



If 'other' is checked (in Q10 above), please describe how your state 
governs the allocation and use of surface water.

Providing description (percent): 100; Number of respondents: 10.



Q11. In general, what is the legal doctrine used by your state to 
govern the allocation of ground water?

Correlative rights (percent): 6.4; Reasonable use (percent): 38.3; 
Prior appropriation (percent): 25.5; Absolute ownership (percent): 2.1; 
State does not regulate ground water allocation (percent): 6.4; Other 
(percent): 19.1; Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.



If 'other' is checked (in Q11 above), please describe how your state 
governs the allocation and use of ground water.

Providing description (percent): 100; Number of respondents: 9.



Q12. Overall, about how much of your state's data on water availability 
and withdrawals is provided by federal agencies?

a. Data on ground water availability; Little or none (percent): 26.7; 
Less than half (percent): 40.0; About half (percent): 11.1; More than 
half (percent): 11.1; All or almost all (percent): 11.1; Uncertain 
(percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 45.

b. Data on ground water withdrawals; Little or none (percent): 59.6; 
Less than half (percent): 27.7; About half (percent): 4.3; More than 
half (percent): 8.5; All or almost all (percent): 0.0; Uncertain 
(percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 47.

c. Data on surface water availability; Little or none (percent): 13.0; 
Less than half (percent): 10.9; About half (percent): 28.3; More than 
half (percent): 30.4; All or almost all (percent): 15.2; Uncertain 
(percent): 2.2; Number of respondents: 46.

d. Data on surface water withdrawals; Little or none (percent): 63.8; 
Less than half (percent): 21.3; About half (percent): 6.4; More than 
half (percent): 6.4; All or almost all (percent): 2.1; Uncertain 
(percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 47.



Q13. Please provide the name(s) of the federal agency(ies) that provide 
water availability and/or withdrawal data to you.

Provided agency name(s) (percent): 89.4; Number of respondents: 47.



Q14. Overall, how important are data provided by federal agencies to 
your state's ability to complete each of the following activities?

a. To determine the quantity of available ground water; Very important 
(percent): 34.9; Somewhat important (percent): 34.9; Equally important 
and unimportant (percent): 16.3; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 9.3; 
Very unimportant (percent): 4.7; Number of respondents: 43.

b. To determine the quantity of ground water withdrawals; Very 
important (percent): 13.2; Somewhat important (percent): 15.8; Equally 
important and unimportant (percent): 18.4; Somewhat unimportant 
(percent): 28.9; Very unimportant (percent): 23.7; Number of 
respondents: 38.

c. To determine the quantity of available surface water; Very important 
(percent): 53.3; Somewhat important (percent): 28.9; Equally important 
and unimportant (percent): 13.3; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 0.0; 
Very unimportant (percent): 4.4; Number of respondents: 45.

d. To determine the quantity of surface water withdrawals; Very 
important (percent): 8.1; Somewhat important (percent): 18.9; Equally 
important and unimportant (percent): 21.6; Somewhat unimportant 
(percent): 27.0; Very unimportant (percent): 24.3; Number of 
respondents: 37.

e. To determine the quantity of consumptive water use; Very important 
(percent): 10.3; Somewhat important (percent): 12.8; Equally important 
and unimportant (percent): 25.6; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 25.6; 
Very unimportant (percent): 25.6; Number of respondents: 39.

f. To assess the economic effects of water withdrawals; Very important 
(percent): 3.8; Somewhat important (percent): 15.4; Equally important 
and unimportant (percent): 23.1; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 23.1; 
Very unimportant (percent): 34.6; Number of respondents: 26.

g. To assess the environmental effects of water withdrawals; Very 
important (percent): 17.5; Somewhat important (percent): 32.5; Equally 
important and unimportant (percent): 15.0; Somewhat unimportant 
(percent): 25.0; Very unimportant (percent): 10.0; Number of 
respondents: 40.

h. To plan environmental mitigation or restoration; Very important 
(percent): 27.0; Somewhat important (percent): 32.4; Equally important 
and unimportant (percent): 18.9; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 16.2; 
Very unimportant (percent): 5.4; Number of respondents: 37.

i. To monitor the terms of water allocation agreements that distribute 
water among multiple parties (such as states); Very important 
(percent): 35.5; Somewhat important (percent): 22.6; Equally important 
and unimportant (percent): 6.5; Somewhat unimportant (percent): 12.9; 
Very unimportant (percent): 22.6; Number of respondents: 31.

Q15. What type(s) of water quantity data, not currently being collected 
by the federal government, would be most useful in helping your state 
with its water management?

Providing answer (percent): 74.5; Number of respondents: 47.

Q16. Which actions, with respect to federal collection and 
dissemination of data, would be most useful to your state? Rank each of 
the following actions from most useful (1st) to least useful (6th).

a. Collect data at more locations; Mean Ranking: 1.3; Number of 
respondents: 45.

b. Improve the accuracy of data currently being collected; Mean 
Ranking: 3.8; Number of respondents: 45.

c. Improve the timeliness of dissemination; Mean Ranking: 3.3; Number 
of respondents: 45.

d. Improve access to data previously collected (for example, 
historical); Mean Ranking: 3.8; Number of respondents: 45.

e. Provide data in a more usable format; Mean Ranking: 4.4; Number of 
respondents: 45.

f. Provide more analyses of data; Mean Ranking: 4.3; Number of 
respondents: 45.



Q17. Are there other actions federal agencies could take to improve 
their collection and dissemination of water quantity data?

Providing answer (percent): 57.4; Number of respondents: 47.



Q18. How much of your state's water is stored using facilities 
constructed, operated, or maintained by the federal government?

Little or none (percent): 36.2; Less than half (percent): 23.4; About 
half (percent): 8.5; More than half (percent): 25.5; All or almost all 
(percent): 2.1; Uncertain (percent): 4.3; Number of respondents: 47.



Q19. How likely is it that your state will add storage capacity within 
the next 10 years?

Very likely (percent): 36.2; Somewhat likely (percent): 19.1; Equally 
likely and unlikely (percent): 10.6; Somewhat unlikely (percent): 12.8; 
Very unlikely (percent): 21.3; Uncertain (percent): 0.0; Number of 
respondents: 47.



Q20. Has your state estimated the cost to add storage capacity?

Yes (percent): 27.7; No (percent): 57.4; Uncertain (percent): 14.9; 
Number of respondents: 47.



Q21. Does your state plan to seek federal assistance for the addition 
of storage capacity?

Definitely yes (percent): 23.9; Probably yes (percent): 30.4; Probably 
no (percent): 23.9; Definitely no (percent): 4.3; Uncertain (percent): 
17.4; Number of respondents: 46.



Q22. What activities have federal agencies participated in during the 
past 5 years with respect to non-federal storage infrastructure in 
your state?

1. Planning of facilities; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of 
respondents: 47.

2. Reviewing plans for facilities; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of 
respondents: 47.

3. Operating and/or maintaining facilities; Checked (percent): 17.0; 
Number of respondents: 47.

4. Constructing facilities; Checked (percent): 12.8; Number of 
respondents: 47.

5. None of these activities; Checked (percent): 31.9; Number of 
respondents: 47.

6. Uncertain; Checked (percent): 23.4; Number of respondents: 47.



Q23. Within the last 5 years, has your state requested that a federal 
agency modify its operation of a federal storage facility to better 
meet the state's water management goals?

Yes, many times (percent): 23.4; Yes, a few times (percent): 23.4; Yes, 
but only once or twice (percent): 14.9; No (percent): 23.4; Our state 
does not have any federal storage facilities (percent): 8.5; Uncertain 
(percent): 6.4; Number of respondents: 47.



If 'yes' is checked (in Q23 above), please provide some examples of the 
types of changes requested and the agencies that you requested make the 
changes.

Providing examples (percent): 86.2; Number of respondents: 29.



Q24. How much of your state's water is conveyed using facilities (for 
example, an aqueduct or canal) constructed, operated, or maintained by 
the federal government?

Little or none (percent): 68.1; Less than half (percent): 19.1; About 
half (percent): 2.1; More than half (percent): 8.5; All or almost all 
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 2.1; Number of respondents: 47.



Q25. How likely is it that your state will add conveyance capacity 
within the next 10 years?

Very likely (percent): 25.5; Somewhat likely (percent): 12.8; Equally 
likely and unlikely (percent): 2.1; Somewhat unlikely (percent): 10.6; 
Very unlikely (percent): 36.2; Uncertain (percent): 12.8; Number of 
respondents: 47.



Q26. Has your state estimated the cost to add conveyance capacity?

Yes (percent): 19.1; No (percent): 74.5; Uncertain (percent): 6.4; 
Number of respondents: 47.



Q27. Does your state plan to seek federal assistance for the addition 
of conveyance capacity?

Definitely yes (percent): 19.1; Probably yes (percent): 12.8; Probably 
no (percent): 40.4; Definitely no (percent): 6.4; Uncertain (percent): 
21.3; Number of respondents: 47.



Q28. What activities have federal agencies participated in during the 
past 5 years with respect to non-federal conveyance infrastructure in 
your state?

1. Planning of facilities; Checked (percent): 29.8; Number of 
respondents: 47.

2. Reviewing plans for facilities; Checked (percent): 31.9; Number of 
respondents: 47.

3. Operating and/or maintaining facilities; Checked (percent): 4.3; 
Number of respondents: 47.

4. Constructing facilities; Checked (percent): 10.6; Number of 
respondents: 47.

5. None of these activities; Checked (percent): 44.7; Number of 
respondents: 47.

6. Uncertain; Checked (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.



Q29. Has the lack of maintenance (e.g., repair or rehabilitation) of 
federal storage or conveyance facilities reduced water availability in 
your state within the last 5 years?

Yes, many times (percent): 6.4; Yes, a few times (percent): 0.0; Yes, 
but only once or twice (percent): 8.5; No (percent): 53.2; Our state 
does not have any federal storage or conveyance facilities (percent): 
14.9; Uncertain (percent): 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.



If 'yes' is checked (in Q29 above), please provide example(s) of poor 
maintenance and how it affected water availability in your state.

Providing examples (percent): 85.7; Number of respondents: 7.



Q30. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state meet its 
water management goals with respect to the storage and conveyance of 
water? Rank each of the following actions from most useful (1st) to 
least useful (6th).

a. Improve the maintenance of federal facilities; Mean Ranking: 4.8; 
Number of respondents: 44.

b. Increase federal technical assistance for the planning, 
construction, operation, or maintenance of state storage and conveyance 
infrastructure; Mean Ranking: 3.5; Number of respondents: 44.

c. Increase federal financial assistance for the planning and 
construction of state storage and conveyance infrastructure; Mean 
Ranking: 1.9; Number of respondents: 44.

d. Increase federal financial assistance for the operation and 
maintenance of state storage and conveyance infrastructure; Mean 
Ranking: 3.4; Number of respondents: 44.

e. Seek more state input in operation of federal storage facilities; 
Mean Ranking: 3.4; Number of respondents: 44.

f. Streamline federal review processes of proposed state storage and 
conveyance facilities; Mean Ranking: 4.0; Number of respondents: 44.



Q31. Are there other actions federal agencies could take to improve 
their participation in the planning, review, construction, operation, 
and/or maintenance of federal water storage and conveyance 
infrastructure?

Providing answer (percent): 44.7; Number of respondents: 47.



Q32. What effect has each of the federal laws listed below had on water 
availability, for in-stream purposes, in your state within the past 
5 years?

a. Clean Water Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent): 
14.9; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 38.3; Had no 
effect on water availability (percent): 29.8; Somewhat decreased water 
availability (percent): 6.4; Greatly decreased water availability 
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 10.6; Number of respondents: 47.

b. Coastal Zone Management Act; Greatly increased water availability 
(percent): 2.5; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 15.0; 
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 65.0; Somewhat decreased 
water availability (percent): 2.5; Greatly decreased water availability 
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 15.0; Number of respondents: 40.

c. Endangered Species Act; Greatly increased water availability 
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 34.0; 
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 27.7; Somewhat decreased 
water availability (percent): 14.9; Greatly decreased water 
availability (percent): 4.3; Uncertain (percent): 19.1; Number of 
respondents: 47.

d. Federal Power Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent): 
2.2; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 24.4; Had no 
effect on water availability (percent): 33.3; Somewhat decreased water 
availability (percent): 15.6; Greatly decreased water availability 
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 24.4; Number of respondents: 45.

e. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Greatly increased water 
availability (percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability 
(percent): 21.7; Had no effect on water availability (percent): 37.0; 
Somewhat decreased water availability (percent): 8.7; Greatly decreased 
water availability (percent): 2.2; Uncertain (percent): 30.4; Number of 
respondents: 46.

f. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; Greatly increased water 
availability (percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability 
(percent): 7.3; Had no effect on water availability (percent): 56.1; 
Somewhat decreased water availability (percent): 7.3; Greatly decreased 
water availability (percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 29.3; Number of 
respondents: 41.

g. Safe Drinking Water Act; Greatly increased water availability 
(percent): 6.4; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 19.1; 
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 44.7; Somewhat decreased 
water availability (percent): 14.9; Greatly decreased water 
availability (percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 14.9; Number of 
respondents: 47.

h. Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts; Greatly increased water availability 
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 10.9; 
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 56.5; Somewhat decreased 
water availability (percent): 6.5; Greatly decreased water availability 
(percent): 4.3; Uncertain (percent): 21.7; Number of respondents: 46.

i. Wilderness Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent): 0.0; 
Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 2.2; Had no effect on 
water availability (percent): 68.9; Somewhat decreased water 
availability (percent): 2.2; Greatly decreased water availability 
(percent): 2.2; Uncertain (percent): 24.4; Number of respondents: 45.



Q33. What effect has each of the federal laws listed below had on water 
availability, for off-stream purposes, in your state within the past 
5 years?

a. Clean Water Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent): 
6.5; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 17.4; Had no 
effect on water availability (percent): 23.9; Somewhat decreased water 
availability (percent): 37.0; Greatly decreased water availability 
(percent): 2.2; Uncertain (percent): 13.0; Number of respondents: 46.

b. Coastal Zone Management Act; Greatly increased water availability 
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 7.7; 
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 64.1; Somewhat decreased 
water availability (percent): 10.3; Greatly decreased water 
availability (percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 17.9; Number of 
respondents: 39.

c. Endangered Species Act; Greatly increased water availability 
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 2.2; 
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 26.1; Somewhat decreased 
water availability (percent): 50.0; Greatly decreased water 
availability (percent): 6.5; Uncertain (percent): 15.2; Number of 
respondents: 46.

d. Federal Power Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent): 
0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 8.9; Had no 
effect on water availability (percent): 40.0; Somewhat decreased water 
availability (percent): 22.2; Greatly decreased water availability 
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 28.9; Number of respondents: 45.

e. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Greatly increased water 
availability (percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability 
(percent): 2.3; Had no effect on water availability (percent): 32.6; 
Somewhat decreased water availability (percent): 30.2; Greatly 
decreased water availability (percent): 2.3; Uncertain (percent): 32.6; 
Number of respondents: 43.

f. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; Greatly increased water 
availability (percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability 
(percent): 4.9; Had no effect on water availability (percent): 56.1; 
Somewhat decreased water availability (percent): 7.3; Greatly decreased 
water availability (percent): 2.4; Uncertain (percent): 29.3; Number of 
respondents: 41.

g. Safe Drinking Water Act; Greatly increased water availability 
(percent): 8.7; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 19.6; 
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 43.5; Somewhat decreased 
water availability (percent): 10.9; Greatly decreased water 
availability (percent): 2.2; Uncertain (percent): 15.2; Number of 
respondents: 46.

h. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; Greatly increased water availability 
(percent): 0.0; Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 2.3; 
Had no effect on water availability (percent): 52.3; Somewhat decreased 
water availability (percent): 18.2; Greatly decreased water 
availability (percent): 4.5; Uncertain (percent): 22.7; Number of 
respondents: 44.

i. Wilderness Act; Greatly increased water availability (percent): 0.0; 
Somewhat increased water availability (percent): 0.0; Had no effect on 
water availability (percent): 66.7; Somewhat decreased water 
availability (percent): 2.4; Greatly decreased water availability 
(percent): 2.4; Uncertain (percent): 28.6; Number of respondents: 42.



Q34. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state fulfill 
the requirements of federal environmental laws while meeting its water 
management goals? Rank each of the following actions from most useful 
(1st) to least useful (4th).

a. Charge for the use of water from federal storage and conveyance 
facilities and use funds to help mitigate damage to environment from 
projects; Mean Ranking: 4.0; Number of respondents: 46.

b. Give the states more flexibility in compliance or administration of 
federal environmental laws; Mean Ranking: 1.8; Number of respondents: 
46.

c. Improve coordination among federal agencies in implementing 
environmental laws; Mean Ranking: 2.5; Number of respondents: 46.

d. Seek more state input into development, revision and implementation 
of federal environmental laws; Mean Ranking: 1.8; Number of 
respondents: 46.



Q35. Are there other actions federal agencies could take to help your 
state fulfill the requirements of federal environmental laws?

Providing answer (percent): 40.4; Number of respondents: 47.



Q36. Does your state participate in an interstate compact or 
international treaty to allocate water among multiple parties?

Yes (percent): 61.7; No (percent): 36.2; Uncertain (percent): 2.1; 
Number of respondents: 47.



Q37. About how much of your state's water is affected by an interstate 
compact and/or international treaty?

Little or none (percent): 20.7; Less than half (percent): 44.8; About 
half (percent): 0.0; More than half (percent): 31.0; All or almost all 
(percent): 3.4; Uncertain (percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 29.



Q38. Within the last 5 years, have any federal agencies participated in 
the development, implementation or enforcement of an interstate compact 
affecting water availability in your state?

1. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the development of 
an interstate compact(s); Checked (percent): 17.2; Number of 
respondents: 29.

2. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the implementation 
of an interstate compact(s); Checked (percent): 58.6; Number of 
respondents: 29.

3. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the enforcement of 
an interstate compact(s); Checked (percent): 31.0; Number of 
respondents: 29.

4. None of the above; Checked (percent): 17.2; Number of respondents: 
29.



Q39. Within the last 5 years, have any federal agencies participated in 
the development, implementation or enforcement of an international 
treaty affecting water availability in your state?

1. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the development of 
an international treaty(ies); Checked (percent): 13.8; Number of 
respondents: 29.

2. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the implementation 
of an international treaty(ies); Checked (percent): 27.6; Number of 
respondents: 29.

3. Federal agency or agencies have participated in the enforcement of 
an international treaty(ies); Checked (percent): 27.6; Number of 
respondents: 29.

4. None of the above; Checked (percent): 55.2; Number of respondents: 
29.



Q40. Within the last 5 years, have federal agencies participating in 
the development, implementation, or enforcement of an interstate 
compact(s) and/or international treaty(ies) affecting water allocation 
fulfilled their responsibilities?

All agencies have fulfilled all responsibilities (percent): 50.0; One 
or more agencies have not fulfilled their responsibilities (percent): 
26.9; Uncertain (percent): 23.1; Number of respondents: 26.



If 'one or more agencies' is checked (in Q40 above), please specify the 
agency(ies) and briefly describe how often responsibilities have not 
been fulfilled.

Providing answer (percent): 100; Number of respondents: 7.



Q41. Does your state plan to propose, negotiate, or participate in a 
new interstate compact or international treaty within the next 5 years?

Definitely yes (percent): 13.8; Probably yes (percent): 24.1; Probably 
no (percent): 37.9; Definitely no (percent): 13.8; Uncertain (percent): 
10.3; Number of respondents: 29.



Q42. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state with 
respect to the development, enforcement, and implementation of 
interstate compacts and international treaties? Rank order each of the 
following actions from most useful (1st) to least to the least 
useful (6th).

a. Better coordinate federal participation with the state; Mean 
Ranking: 2.6; Number of respondents: 28.

b. Better coordinate participation among federal agencies; Mean 
Ranking: 2.8; Number of respondents: 28.

c. Create a market-based allocation system for water shared by states; 
Mean Ranking: 5.3; Number of respondents: 28.

d. Develop alternative tools for resolving water allocation conflicts 
among states; Mean Ranking: 3.0; Number of respondents: 28.

e. Increase technical assistance to assist the states with development 
or implementation; Mean Ranking: 2.8; Number of respondents: 28.

f. Make it easier to amend or revise existing agreements; Mean Ranking: 
4.5; Number of respondents: 28.



Q43. Are there other actions that would be useful in helping your state 
with respect to the development, enforcement, and implementation of 
interstate compacts and international treaties?

Providing answer (percent): 41.4; Number of respondents: 29.



Q44. Do any federal agencies hold or claim water rights in your state?

Yes: 51.1; No: 31.9; Uncertain: 17.0; Number of respondents: 47.



Q45. Currently, about how much of your state's water is allocated to 
fulfill federal water rights?

Little or none (percent): 50.0; Less than half (percent): 37.5; About 
half (percent): 0.0; More than half (percent): 4.2; All or almost all 
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 8.3; Number of respondents: 24.



Q46. If all federal claims to water in your state were quantified, 
about how much of your state's water would be allocated to fulfill 
these rights?

Little or none (percent): 37.5; Less than half (percent): 29.2; About 
half (percent): 4.2; More than half (percent): 4.2; All or almost all 
(percent): 4.2; Uncertain (percent): 20.8; Number of respondents: 24.



Q47. How important is the quantification of federal water rights to 
your state's ability to manage its water?

Very important (percent): 29.2; Somewhat important (percent): 29.2; 
Equally important and unimportant (percent): 12.5; Somewhat unimportant 
(percent): 12.5; Very unimportant (percent): 16.7; Uncertain (percent): 
0.0; Number of respondents: 24.



Q48. Within the last five years, has your state experienced any 
conflict between how a federal agency employed its water rights and 
your state's water management goals?

Yes, many times (percent): 13.6; Yes, a few times (percent): 40.9; Yes, 
but only once or twice (percent): 18.2; No, our state has not 
experienced any conflict (percent): 27.3; Uncertain (percent): 0.0; 
Number of respondents: 22.



If 'yes' is checked (in Q48 above), please specify the agency(ies).

Providing answer (percent): 93.8; Number of respondents: 16.



Q49. Do any tribal governments hold or claim water rights in your 
state?

Yes (percent): 52.2; No (percent): 41.3; Uncertain (percent): 6.5; 
Number of respondents: 46.



Q50. Currently, about how much of your state's water is allocated to 
fulfill tribal water rights?

Little or none (percent): 73.9; Less than half (percent): 26.1; About 
half (percent): 0.0; More than half (percent): 0.0; All or almost all 
(percent): 0.0; Uncertain (percent): 0.0; Number of respondents: 23.



Q51. If all tribal claims to water in your state were quantified, about 
how much of your state's water would be allocated to fulfill these 
rights?

Little or none (percent): 45.8; Less than half (percent): 25.0; About 
half (percent): 0.0; More than half (percent): 4.2; All or almost all 
(percent): 4.2; Uncertain (percent): 20.8; Number of respondents: 24.



Q52. How important is the quantification of tribal water rights to your 
state's ability to manage its water?

Very important (percent): 37.5; Somewhat important (percent): 12.5; 
Equally important and unimportant (percent): 12.5; Somewhat unimportant 
(percent): 8.3; Very unimportant (percent): 25.0; Uncertain (percent): 
4.2; Number of respondents: 24.



Q53. Within the last five years, has your state experienced any 
conflict between how a tribal government employed its water rights and 
the state's water management goals?

Yes, many times (percent): 4.3; Yes, a few times (percent): 26.1; Yes, 
but only once or twice (percent): 21.7; No, our state has not 
experienced any conflict (percent): 39.1; Uncertain (percent): 8.7; 
Number of respondents: 23.



If 'yes' is checked (in Q53 above), please specify the tribal 
government(s).

Writing comment (percent): 83.3; Number of respondents: 12.



Q55. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state fulfill 
federal and tribal rights to water while meeting your state's water 
management goals? Rank each of the following actions from most useful 
(1st) to least useful (6th).

a. Better coordinate participation among federal agencies in the 
establishment and use of federal or tribal water rights; Mean Ranking: 
3.0; Number of respondents: 25.

b. Clarify federal policy on tribal governments' authority to sell 
water rights; Mean Ranking: 4.1; Number of respondents: 25.

c. Improve the efficiency of water use, including increasing 
conservation when applicable, on federal and tribal lands; Mean 
Ranking: 4.7; Number of respondents: 25.

d. Increase financial and technical assistance to states for 
adjudication of federal and tribal water rights; Mean Ranking: 2.9; 
Number of respondents: 25.

e. Seek more state input into the use of federal or tribal water rights 
and potential effects on state water management goals; Mean Ranking: 
2.2; Number of respondents: 25.

f. Streamline federal processes to quantify federal or tribal water 
rights; Mean Ranking: 4.1; Number of respondents: 25.



Q56. Are there other actions that federal agencies could take to help 
your state fulfill federal and tribal rights to water while meeting 
your state's water management goals?

Providing answer (percent): 38.7; Number of respondents: 31.



Additional Comments: If you would like to make additional comments 
concerning any topic related to water availability, management, or use, 
please feel free to do so in the space provided.

Providing answer (percent): 36.2; Number of respondents: 47.



Note: Question 54 was not included because it was used only for 
navigation purposes in the Web-based questionnaire.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

United States Department of the Interior:

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240:

JUN 10 2003:

Mr. Barry T. Hill:

Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team U.S. General 
Accounting Office:

441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Hill:

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (DOI) the 
opportunity to review and comment on the draft U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report entitled, "FRESHWATER SUPPLY: States' View of How 
Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected 
Shortages," (GAO-03-514) dated May 8, 2003. In general, we agree with 
the findings and the recommendations in the report.

The report appears to be accurate and represents a substantial effort 
on the part of the GAO staff involved in the review. We acknowledge the 
critical need for Federal-state partnerships in addressing the national 
challenge of ensuring adequate water supplies for all of our citizens. 
The report provides valuable information to Federal agencies for 
improving interactions with state water managers in addressing existing 
and potential water shortages across the country. The report will be 
helpful also to state and local resource managers in identifying 
Federal activities and plans that support water management efforts at 
all levels of Government. Finally, we are confident that information 
contained in this report will be of great value to Congressional 
committees in their deliberations on national water policy issues.

The enclosure provides specific comments from the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, and 
the DOI's Office of Budget. We hope our comments will assist you in 
preparing the final report.

Sincerely,

P. Lynn Scarlett:

Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget:

Enclosure:

[End of section]

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841 Keith Oleson (415) 904-2218:

Acknowledgments:

In addition to those named above, Brad Dobbins, Elizabeth Fan, John 
Kalmar, Katherine Kousser, Janet Lewis, and Lynn Musser made key 
contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were 
Charles Bausell, Robert Crystal, Kim Raheb, Carol Shulman, and Don 
Yamada.

:

(360185):

:

:

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Council, established by the Water Resources Planning Act in 
1965 (P.L. 89-80), comprising the heads of several federal departments 
and agencies, such as Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, 
has not been funded since 1983.

[2] USGS fully defines consumptive use as water that has evaporated, 
transpired (e.g., from vegetation), incorporated into products or 
crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise removed from the 
immediate water environment.

[3] While meteorological measurements are the first indicators of 
drought, other definitions of drought exist. For example, agricultural 
drought occurs when there is not enough moisture in the soil to meet 
the needs of a particular crop at a particular time, hydrological 
drought refers to deficiencies in water supplies, and socioeconomic 
drought is associated with supply and demand for water as an economic 
good.

[4] U.S. Const. art. I, 8, cl. 3.

[5] U.S. Const. art. IV, 3, cl. 2.

[6] See e.g., United States v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204, 1210 (7th Cir. 
1977); Utah v. Marsh, 740 F. 2d 799, 803 (10th Cir. 1984).

[7] United States v. Rio Grande Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 703 
(1898).

[8] Id.

[9] U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 3.

[10] 43 U.S.C.  383; California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978).

[11] 43 U.S.C.  390b.

[12] See, e.g., the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C.  666, which waives 
U.S. sovereign immunity and allows the federal government to be sued in 
state court to determine its rights to the use of water in a river 
system or other source. Both the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 
 1251(g) et seq., and the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.  1531 
et seq., state that it is the policy of Congress that federal agencies 
cooperate with state and local agencies to resolve water 
resource issues.

[13] Three states did not respond to our survey, and one state was 
uncertain.

[14] Three states did not respond to our survey, and one state was 
uncertain.

[15] For information on national needs for drinking water and 
wastewater infrastructure, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Water 
Infrastructure: Information on Financing, Capital Planning, and 
Privatization, GAO-02-764 (Washington, D.C., May 5, 1999).

[16] Other federal agencies have facility management responsibilities 
not directly related to water storage and distribution. For example, 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of 
Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating dam safety efforts, 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--an independent five-
member commission appointed by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate--licenses and regulates non-federal hydropower projects.

[17] An acre-foot is the amount needed to cover an acre of land with 1 
foot of water, sufficient to meet the needs of a family of four for 1 
year.

[18] According to the Reclamation officials, the agency has transferred 
operation and maintenance responsibilities for 415 water storage and 
delivery facilities since Reclamation constructed them.

[19] For more information, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Animas-
La Plata Project: Status and Legislative Framework, GAO/RCED-96-1 
(Washington, D.C., Nov. 17, 1995).

[20] Unlike Reclamation, the Corps does not own or operate water 
distribution facilities.

[21] Non-federal parties also construct and operate water storage 
projects on federal lands. Federal natural resource agencies issue 
permits for these activities. For example, the National Park Service 
issued a permit to the City of San Francisco to construct and operate, 
within the Yosemite National Park, Hetch Hetchy reservoir, the primary 
water source for the city.

[22] 33 U.S.C. 1311(a).

[23] 33 U.S.C. 1344(a), (d).

[24] 33 U.S.C. 1329.

[25] 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2).

[26] 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(3)(a).

[27] Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).

[28] In its 2002 report to Congress, USGS described the concepts for a 
national assessment of freshwater availability and use. (Report to 
Congress: Concepts for National Assessment of Water Availability and 
Use, Circular 1223, 2002.)

[29] Pub. L. No. 89-80, 79 Stat. 244 (1965).

[30] 1995 is the most recent data available; USGS' 2000 national water 
use information is not yet ready for publication.

[31] Brown, Thomas C. 1999. Past and Future Freshwater Use in the 
United States: A Technical Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Forest 
Service RPA Assessment.

[32] Various agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, 
have programs that provide technical assistance to states, water 
districts, and water users for efficiency, conservation, and reuse 
efforts.

[33] Resources for the Future, established in 1952, conducts 
independent research on environmental and natural resource issues.

[34] Other factors that influence the demand for water include the 
price of water, the price of other goods (such as, the price of energy 
used in water pumps and the price of goods produced using water), 
income, instream demands for habitat and other ecological needs, 
and climate.

[35] Net population change is births minus deaths plus net migration.

[36] Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 96-
69, 93 Stat. 437 (1980).

[37] The National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest 
Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service, all manage designated rivers.

[38] U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, 
Washington, D.C., May 2002.

[39] Shortages are at prevailing water prices; we did not consider the 
potential effects of changes in water prices for this review.

[40] Based on discussions with state water managers during survey 
pretests, we asked managers to use the last 10 to 20 years to determine 
average water conditions for their state.

[41] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National 
Climatic Data Center is responsible for monitoring and assessing the 
earth's climate and is the world's largest repository of weather data. 
The center gathers water shortage related information including 
economic impact data.

[42] The Susquehanna River Basin Commission coordinates water resources 
efforts of the states of Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania and the 
federal government to administer water resources in the Susquehanna 
River Basin.

[43] Reclamation operates a federal water supply project in the Upper 
Basin that has provided water for irrigation to farmers for nearly 
100 years.

[44] U.S. Department of Interior, Water 2025: Preventing Crises and 
Conflict, Washington, D.C., May 2003.

[45] State water managers in 47 states responded to our survey; 
California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate.

[46] In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $23 million in funding to 
Reclamation's Central Valley Project for activities that support the 
California Bay-Delta Restoration Program (CALFED), including 
investigations of water storage opportunities and ongoing reservoir 
planning activities.

[47] Endangered Species Act reauthorization has been on the legislative 
agenda since authorization expired in 1992, and bills have been 
introduced in each Congress to address various aspects of endangered 
species protection.

[48] Pub. L. No. 82-495, 208, 66 Stat. 549, 560 (1952); see chapter 1, 
footnote 11, for more information on the McCarran Amendment.

[49] For any water right holder, including federal agencies, 
participation in adjudication involves submitting a claim for the 
amount, location, and use of water.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: