prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: From its headwaters in Colorado and Wyoming to its terminus in the Gulf of California, the Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles  The river runs through seven U S  states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Mexico  Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation, part of the Department of the Interior [DOI]) plays a prominent role in the management of the basin's waters  In the Lower Basin (i e , Arizona, Nevada, and California), Reclamation also serves as water master on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, a role that elevates the status of the federal government in basin water management  The federal role in the management of Colorado River water is magnified by the multiple federally owned and operated water storage and conveyance facilities in the basin, which provide low-cost water and hydropower supplies to water users  Colorado River water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) purposes  The river's flow and stored water also are important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreation, among other uses  A majority (70%) of basin water supplies are used to irrigate 5 5 million acres of land; basin waters also provide M&I water supplies to nearly 40 million people  Much of the area that depends on the river for water supplies is outside of the drainage area for the Colorado River Basin  Storage and conveyance facilities on the Colorado River provide trans-basin diversions that serve areas such as Cheyenne, WY; multiple cities in Colorado's Front Range (e g , Fort Collins, Denver, Boulder, and Colorado Springs, CO); Provo, UT; Albuquerque and Santa Fe, NM; and Los Angeles, San Diego, and the Imperial Valley in Southern California ( Figure 1 )  Colorado River hydropower facilities can provide up to 42 gigawatts of electrical power per year  The river also provides habitat for a wide range of species, including several federally endangered species  It flows through 7 national wildlife refuges and 11 National Park Service (NPS) units; these and other areas of the river support important recreational opportunities  Precipitation and runoff in the basin are highly variable  Water conditions on the river depend largely on snowmelt in the basin's northern areas  Observed data (1906-2018) show that natural flows in the Colorado River Basin in the 20 th century averaged about 14 8 million acre-feet (MAF) annually  Flows have dipped significantly during the current drought, which dates to 2000; natural flows from 2000 to 2018 averaged approximately 12 4 MAF per year   In 2018, Reclamation estimated that the 19-year period from 2000 to 2018 was the driest period in more than 100 years of record keeping  The dry conditions are consistent with prior droughts in the basin that were identified through tree ring studies; some of these droughts lasted for decades  Climate change impacts, including warmer temperatures and altered precipitation patterns, may further increase the likelihood of prolonged drought in the basin  Pursuant to the multiple compacts, federal laws, court decisions and decrees, contracts, and regulatory guidelines governing Colorado River operations (collectively known as the Law of the River ), Congress and the federal government play a prominent role in the management of the Colorado River  Specifically, Congress funds and oversees Reclamation's management of Colorado River Basin facilities, including facility operations and programs to protect and restore endangered species  Congress has also approved and continues to actively consider Indian water rights settlements involving Colorado River waters, and development of new and expanded water storage in the basin  In addition, Congress has approved funding to mitigate drought and stretch basin water supplies and has considered new authorities for Reclamation to combat drought and enter into agreements with states and Colorado River contractors  This report provides background on management of the Colorado River, including a discussion of trends and agreements since 2000  It also discusses the congressional role in the management of basin waters  In the latter part of the 19 th century, interested parties in the Colorado River Basin began to recognize that local interests alone could not solve the challenges associated with development of the Colorado River  Plans conceived by parties in California's Imperial Valley to divert water from the mainstream of the Colorado River were thwarted because these proposals were subject to the sovereignty of both the United States and Mexico  The river also presented engineering challenges, such as deep canyons and erratic water flows, and economic hurdles that prevented local or state groups from building the necessary storage facilities and canals to provide an adequate water supply  Because local or state groups could not resolve these "national problems," Congress considered ideas to control the Colorado River and resolve potential conflicts between the states  Thus, in an effort to resolve these conflicts and prevent litigation, Congress gave its consent for the states and Reclamation to enter into an agreement to apportion Colorado River water supplies in 1921  The below sections discuss the resulting agreement, the Colorado River Compact, and other documents and agreements that form the basis of the Law of the River, which governs Colorado River operations  The Colorado River Compact of 1922, negotiated by the seven basin states and the federal government, was signed by all but one basin state (Arizona)  Under the compact, the states established a framework to apportion the water supplies between the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ, near the Utah border  Each basin was apportioned 7 5 MAF annually for beneficial consumptive use, and the Lower Basin was given the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use by an additional 1 MAF annually  The agreement also required Upper Basin states to deliver to the Lower Basin a total of 75 MAF over each 10-year period, thus allowing for averaging over time to make up for low-flow years  The compact did not address inter- or intrastate allocations of water (which it left to future agreements and legislation), nor did it address water to be made available to Mexico, the river's natural terminus; this matter was addressed in subsequent international agreements  The compact was not to become binding until it had been approved by the legislatures of each of the signatory states and by Congress  Congress approved and modified the Colorado River Compact in the Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA) of 1928  The act ratified the 1922 compact, authorized the construction of a federal facility to impound water in the Lower Basin (Boulder Dam, later renamed Hoover Dam) and related facilities to deliver water in Southern California (e g , the All-American Canal, which delivers Colorado River water to California's Imperial Valley), and apportioned the Lower Basin's 7 5 MAF per year among the three Lower Basin states  It provided 4 4 MAF per year to California, 2 8 MAF to Arizona, and 300,000 acre-feet (AF) to Nevada, with the states to divide any surplus waters among them  It also directed the Secretary of the Interior to serve as the sole contracting authority for Colorado River water use in the Lower Basin and authorized several storage projects for study in the Upper Basin  Congress's approval of the compact in the BCPA was conditioned on a number of factors, including ratification by California and five other states (thereby allowing the compact to become effective without Arizona's concurrence), and California agreeing by act of its legislature to limit its water use to 4 4 MAF per year and not more than half of any surplus waters  California met this requirement by passing the California Limitation Act of March 4, 1929  Arizona did not ratify the Colorado River Compact until 1944, at which time the state began to pursue a federal project to bring Colorado River water to its primary population centers in Phoenix and Tucson  California opposed the project, arguing that under the doctrine of prior appropriation, California's historical use of the river trumped Arizona's rights to the Arizona allotment  California also argued that Colorado River apportionments under the BCPA included water developed on Colorado River tributaries, whereas Arizona claimed, among other things, that these apportionments included the river's mainstream waters only  In 1952, Arizona filed suit in the U S  Supreme Court to settle the issue  Eleven years later, in the 1963 Arizona v  California decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona, finding that Congress had intended to apportion the mainstream of the Colorado River and that California and Arizona each would receive one-half of surplus flows  The same Supreme Court decision held that Section 5 of the BCPA controlled the apportionment of waters among Lower Basin States, and that the BCPA (and not the law of prior appropriation) controlled the apportionment of water among Lower Basin states  The ruling was notable for its directive to forgo traditional Reclamation deference to state law under the Reclamation Act of 1902, and formed the basis for the Secretary of the Interior's unique role as water master for the Lower Basin  The decision also held that Native American reservations on the Colorado River were entitled to priority under the BCPA  Later decrees by the Supreme Court in 1964 and 1979 supplemented the 1963 decision  Following the Arizona v  California decision, Congress eventually authorized Arizona's conveyance project for Colorado River water, the Central Arizona Project (CAP), in the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968 (CRBPA)  As a condition for California's support of the project, Arizona agreed that, in the event of shortage conditions, California's 4 4 MAF has priority over CAP water supplies  In 1944, the United States signed a water treaty with Mexico (1944 U S -Mexico Water Treaty) to guide how the two countries share the waters of the Colorado River and the Rio Grande  The treaty established water allocations for the two countries and created a governance framework (the International Boundary and Water Commission) to resolve disputes arising from the treaty's execution  The treaty requires the United States to provide Mexico with 1 5 MAF of water annually, plus an additional 200,000 AF when a surplus is declared  During drought, the United States may reduce deliveries to Mexico in similar proportion to reductions of U S  consumptive uses  The treaty has been supplemented by additional agreements between the United States and Mexico, known as m inutes   Projects originally authorized for study in the Upper Basin under BCPA were not allowed to move forward until the Upper Basin states determined their individual water allocations, which they did under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948  The Upper Basin Compact established Colorado (where the largest share of runoff to the river originates) as the largest entitlement holder in the Upper Basin, with rights to 51 75% of any Upper Basin flows after Colorado River Compact obligations to the Lower Basin have been met  Other states also received percentage-based allocations, including Wyoming (14%), New Mexico (11 25%), and Utah (23%)  Arizona was allocated 50,000 AF in addition to its Lower Basin apportionment, in recognition of the small portion of the state in the Upper Basin  Basin allocations by state following approval of the Upper Basin Compact (i e , the allocations that generally guide current water deliveries) are shown below in Figure 2   The Upper Basin Compact also established the Upper Colorado River Commission, which coordinates operations and positions among Upper Basin states  Subsequent federal legislation paved the way for development of Upper Basin allocations  The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Act of 1956 authorized storage reservoirs and dams in the Upper Basin, including the Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, Navajo, and Curecanti Dams  The act also established the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund, which receives revenues collected in connection with the projects, to be made available for defraying the project's costs of operation, maintenance, and emergency expenditures  In addition to the aforementioned authorization of CAP in Arizona, the 1968 CRBPA amended CRSP to authorize several additional Upper Basin projects (e g , the Animas La Plata and Central Utah projects) as CRSP participating projects  It also directed that the Secretary of the Interior propose operational criteria for Colorado River Storage Project units (including the releases of water from Lake Powell) that prioritize (1) Treaty Obligations to Mexico, (2) the Colorado River Compact requirement for the Upper Basin to deliver 75 MAF to Lower Basin states over any 10-year period, and (3) carryover storage to meet these needs  The CRBPA also established the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund, both of which were authorized to utilize revenues from power generation from relevant Upper and Lower Basin facilities to fund certain expenses in the sub-basins  Due to the basin's large water storage projects, basin water users are able to store as much as 60 MAF, or about four times the Colorado River's annual flows  Thus, storage and operations in the basin receive considerable attention, particularly at the basin's two largest dams and their storage reservoirs: Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell in the Upper Basin (26 2 MAF of storage capacity) and Hoover Dam/Lake Mead in the Lower Basin (26 1 MAF)  The status of these projects is of interest to basin stakeholders and observers and is monitored closely by Reclamation  Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1963, provides the linchpin for Upper Basin storage and regulates flows from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin, pursuant to the Colorado River Compact  It also generates approximately 5 billion kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity per year, which the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) supplies to 5 8 million customers in Upper Basin States  Other significant storage in the Upper Basin includes the initial "units" of the CRSP: the Aspinall Unit in Colorado (including Blue Mesa, Crystal, and Morrow Point dams on the Gunnison River, with combined storage capacity of more than 1 MAF), the Flaming Gorge Unit in Utah (including Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River, with a capacity of 3 78 MAF), and the Navajo Unit in New Mexico (including Navajo Dam on the San Juan River, with a capacity of 1 MAF)  The Upper Basin is also home to 16 "participating" projects which are authorized to use water for irrigation, municipal and industrial uses, and other purposes  In the Lower Basin, Hoover Dam, completed in 1936, provides the majority of the Lower Basin's storage and generates about 4 2 billion KWh of electricity per year for customers in California, Arizona, and Nevada  Also important for Lower Basin Operations are Davis Dam/Lake Mohave, which regulates flows to Mexico under the 1944 Treaty, and Parker Dam/Lake Havasu, which impounds water for diversion into the Colorado River Aqueduct (thereby allowing for deliveries to urban areas in southern California) and CAP (allowing for diversion to users in Arizona)  Further downstream on the Arizona/California border, Imperial Dam (a diversion dam) diverts Colorado River water to the All-American Canal for use in California's Imperial and Coachella Valleys  Reclamation monitors Colorado River reservoir levels and projects them 24 months into the future in monthly studies (called 24-month studies )  The studies take into account forecasted hydrology, reservoir operations, and diversion and consumptive use schedules to model a single scenario of reservoir conditions  The studies inform operating decisions by Reclamation looking one to two years into the future  They express water storage conditions at Lake Mead and Lake Powell in terms of elevation, as feet above mean sea level (ft)  In addition to the 24-month studies, the CRBPA requires the Secretary to transmit to Congress and the governors of the basin states, by January 1 of each year, a report describing the actual operation for the preceding water year and the projected operation for the coming year  This report is commonly referred to as the annual operating plan (AOP)  The AOP's projected January 1 water conditions for the upcoming calendar year establish a baseline for future annual operations  Since the adoption of guidelines by Reclamation and basin states in 2007 (see below section, " 2007 Interim Guidelines "), operations of the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams have been tied to specific pool elevations at Lake Mead and Lake Powell  For Lake Mead, the first level of shortage (1 st Tier Shortage Condition), under which Arizona and Nevada's allocations would be decreased, would be triggered if Lake Mead falls below 1,075 ft  For Lake Powell, releases under tiered operations are based on storage levels in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead (specific delivery curtailments based on lake levels similar to Lake Mead have not been adopted)  As of January 2019, Reclamation predicted that Lake Mead's 2019 elevation would remain above 1,075 ft (approximately 9 6 MAF of storage) and that Lake Powell would remain at its prior year level (i e , the Upper Elevation Balancing Tier) during 2019  However, Reclamation also projected that there was a 69% chance of a 1 st Tier Shortage Condition at Lake Mead beginning in January 2020  Reclamation predicted a small (3%) chance of Lake Powell dropping to 3,490 feet, or minimum power pool (i e , a level beyond which hydropower could not be generated) by 2020; the chance of this occurring by 2022 was greater (15%)  Improved hydrology for 2019 may decrease the likelihood of shortage in the immediate future  Construction of most of the Colorado River's water supply infrastructure predated major federal environmental protection statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U S C  §§4321 et seq  ) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 87 Stat  884, 16 U S C  §§1531-1544)  Thus, many of the environmental impacts associated with the development of basin resources were not originally taken into account  Over time, multiple efforts have been initiated to mitigate these effects  Some of the highest-profile efforts have been associated with water quality (in particular, salinity control) and the effects of facility operations on endangered species  Salinity and water quality are long-standing issues in the Colorado River Basin  Parts of the Upper Basin are covered by salt-bearing shale (which increases salt content in water inflows), and salinity content increases as the river flows downstream due to both natural leaching and return flows from agricultural irrigation  The 1944 U S -Mexico Water Treaty did not set water quality or salinity standards in the Colorado River Basin  However, after years of dispute between the United States and Mexico regarding the salinity of the water reaching Mexico's border, the two countries reached an agreement on August 30, 1973, with the signing of Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission  The agreement guarantees Mexico that the average salinity of its treaty deliveries will be no more than 115 parts per million higher than the salt content of the water diverted to the All-American Canal at Imperial Dam in Southern California  To control the salinity of Colorado River water in accordance with this agreement, Congress passed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 ( P L  93-320 ), which authorized desalting and salinity control facilities to improve Colorado River water quality  The most prominent of these facilities is the Yuma Desalting Plant, which was largely completed in 1992 but has never operated at capacity  In 1974, the seven basin states also established water quality standards for salinity through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum  Congress enacted the ESA in 1973  As basin species became listed in accordance with the act, federal agencies and nonfederal stakeholders consulted with the U S  Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to address the conservation of the listed species  As a result of these consultations, several major programs have been developed to protect and restore fish species on the Colorado River and its tributaries  Summaries of some of the key programs are below  The Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program was established in 1988 to assist in the recovery of four species of endangered fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin  Congress authorized this program in P L  106-392   The program is implemented through several stakeholders under a cooperative agreement signed by the governors of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; DOI; and the Administrator of WAPA  The recovery goals of the program are to reduce threats to species and improve their status so they are eventually delisted from the ESA  Some of the actions taken in the past include providing adequate instream flows for fish and their habitat, restoring habitat, reducing nonnative fish, augmenting fish populations with stocked fish, and conducting research and monitoring  Reclamation is the lead federal agency for the program and provides the majority of federal funds for implementation  It is also funded through a portion of Upper Basin hydropower revenues from WAPA; FWS; the states of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah; and water users, among others  The San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program was established in 1992 to assist in the recovery of ESA-listed fish species on the San Juan River, the Colorado's largest tributary  The program is concerned with the recovery of the Razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ) and Colorado pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus Lucius )  Congress authorized this program in P L  106-392 with the aim to protect the genetic integrity and population of listed species, conserve and restore habitat (including water quality), reduce nonnative species, and monitor species  The Recovery Program is coordinated by FWS  Reclamation is responsible for operating the Animas-La Plata Project and Navajo Dam on the San Juan River in a way that reduces effects on the fish populations  The program is funded by a portion of revenues from power generation, Reclamation, participating states, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs  Recovery efforts for listed fish are coordinated with the Upper Colorado River Program discussed above  The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program was established in 1997 in response to a directive from Congress under the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 ( P L  102-575 ) to operate Glen Canyon Dam "in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established " This program uses experiments to determine how water flows affect natural resources south of the dam  Reclamation is in charge of modifying flows for experiments, and the U S  Geological Survey conducts monitoring and other studies to evaluate the effects of the flows  The results are expected to better inform managers how to provide water deliveries and conserve species
Report 2:  Once VA’s MSPV-NG initial formulary was established in December 2016, each medical center was charged with implementing it  According to logistics officials we spoke with at selected medical centers, they had varying levels of success due, in part, to incomplete guidance from the program office  Without clear guidance, many medical centers reported they were unable to find direct matches or substitutes on the MSPV-NG formulary for a substantial number of items they routinely used, which negatively impacted utilization rates for the initial formulary  In our November 2017 report, we recommended that the Director of the MSPV- NG program office provide complete guidance to medical centers for matching equivalent supply items  VA agreed with this recommendation and indicated it would provide this guidance to medical centers by December 2017  According to SAC, as of June 2017, only about a third of the items on the initial version of the formulary were being ordered in any significant quantity by medical centers, indicating that many items on the formulary were not those that are needed by medical centers  Senior VHA acquisition officials attributed this mismatch to shortcomings in their initial requirements development process as well as with VA’s purchase data  VA had set a target that medical centers would order 40 percent of their supplies from the MSPV-NG formulary, but utilization rates were below this target with a nationwide average utilization rate across medical centers of about 24 percent as of May 2017  Specifically, Chief Supply Chain Officers—who are responsible for managing the ordering and stocking of medical supplies at six selected medical centers—told us that many items they needed were not included in the MSPV-NG formulary  As such, we found that these six medical centers generally fell below VA’s stated utilization target  As shown in figure 2, among the six selected medical centers we reviewed, one met the target, while the remaining five were below 25 percent utilization  Instead of fully using MSPV-NG, the selected medical centers are purchasing many items through other means, such as purchase cards or new contracts awarded by their local contracting office, in part, because they said the formulary does not meet their needs  These approaches run counter to the goals of the MSPV-NG program and contribute to VA not making the best use of taxpayer dollars  Greater utilization of MSPV-NG is essential to VA achieving the cost avoidance goal of $150 million for its supply chain transformation effort  Under the legacy MSPV program, the National Acquisition Center tracked cost avoidance achieved by comparing prices for competitively-awarded MSPV supply contracts with prices available elsewhere  However, VHA officials stated that they are not currently tracking cost avoidance related specifically to MSPV-NG  In our November 2017 report, we recommended that the VHA Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer, in coordination with SAC, should calculate cost avoidance achieved by MSPV-NG on an ongoing basis  VA agreed with this recommendation and reported it would develop a new metric to measure cost avoidance by June 2018  In Phase 2 of MSPV-NG, the program office has taken some steps to incorporate greater clinical involvement in subsequent requirements development, but both its requirements development and SAC’s contracting efforts have been hampered by staffing and schedule constraints  In the fall of 2016, the program office began to establish panels of clinicians to serve on MSPV-NG integrated product teams (IPT) assigned to the task of developing updated requirements for the second phase of the formulary  Program officials said they had difficulty recruiting clinicians to participate  We found that slightly more than half (20 of the 38) of the IPTs had begun their work to review items and develop updated requirements by the time the MSPV-NG program launched in December 2016  Staff on the IPTs had to complete their responsibilities by the end of March 2017 while simultaneously managing their regular workload as physicians, surgeons, or nurses  By early March 2017, the IPTs still had about 4,200 items to review  Faced with meeting this unrealistic time frame, the MSPV-NG program office had 9 IPT members travel to one location—with an additional 10 members participating virtually—to meet for 5 days to review the remaining items  Members told us that this time pressure limited the extent to which they were able to pursue the goal of standardizing supplies, and that their review ended up being more of a data validation exercise than a standardization review  VHA ultimately met this compressed timeline, but in a rushed manner that limited the impact of clinician involvement  In our November 2017 report, we recommended that the VHA Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer use input from national clinical program offices to prioritize its requirements development and standardization efforts beyond Phase 2 to focus on supply categories that offer the best opportunity for standardization and cost avoidance  VA agreed with this recommendation and stated it is in the process of finalizing guidance that will detail the importance of involving the national clinical program offices in MSPV-NG requirements development and standardization efforts  The SAC plans to replace the existing Phase 1 non-competitive agreements with competitive awards based on the Phase 2 requirements generated by the IPTs, but it may not be able to keep up with expiring agreements due to an unrealistic schedule  Because they were made on a non-competitive basis, the Phase 1 agreements were established for a period of 1 year  In order to keep the full formulary available, the SAC director said the staff must award 200 to 250 contracts before the Phase 1 agreements expire later this year  SAC officials acknowledged that it is unlikely that they will be able to award the contracts by the time the existing agreements expire  According to SAC officials, they are in the process of hiring more staff to deal with the increased workload  Further, the SAC division director told us that they canceled all outstanding Phase 2 solicitations in September 2017 due to low response rates, protests from service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and changes in overall MSPV-NG strategy  In our November 2017 report, we recommended that the MSPV-NG program office and SAC should establish a plan for how to mitigate the potential risk of gaps in contract coverage while SAC is still working to make competitive Phase 2 awards, which could include prioritizing supply categories that are most likely to yield cost avoidance  VA agreed with this recommendation and indicated it has developed a plan to mitigate the risk of gaps in contract coverage with short- and mid-term procurement strategies to ensure continued provision of medical and surgical supplies to VHA facilities  The department also stated that it plans to replace the current MSPV-NG contract and formulary process with a new approach where the prime vendor would develop the formulary  However, VA will likely face challenges in this new approach until it fully addresses the existing shortcomings in the MSPV-NG program  Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time  If you or your staff have any questions about this statement, please contact Shelby S  Oakley at 202-512-4841 or OakleyS@gao gov  In addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  Individuals who made key contributions to the report on which this testimony is based are Lisa Gardner, Assistant Director; Emily Bond; Matthew T  Crosby; Lorraine Ettaro; Michael Grogan; Jeff Hartnett; Katherine Lenane; Teague Lyons; Roxanna Sun; and Colleen Taylor  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, 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 

ground_truth: The LDA, as amended, requires lobbyists to file quarterly disclosure reports and semiannual reports on certain political contributions. The law also includes a provision for GAO to annually audit lobbyists' compliance with the LDA. GAO's objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which lobbyists can demonstrate compliance with disclosure requirements, (2) identify challenges to compliance that lobbyists report, and (3) describe the resources and authorities available to USAO in its role in enforcing LDA compliance, and the efforts USAO has made to improve enforcement. This is GAO's 11th report under the provision. GAO reviewed a stratified random sample of 98 quarterly disclosure LD-2 reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2016 and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2017. GAO also reviewed two random samples totaling 160 LD-203 reports from year-end 2016 and midyear 2017. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 45,818 disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity, and 30,594 reports of federal political campaign contributions. GAO also met with officials from USAO to obtain status updates on its efforts to focus resources on lobbyists who fail to comply. GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for review and comment. The Department of Justice provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For the 2017 reporting period, most lobbyists provided documentation for key elements of their disclosure reports to demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended (LDA). For lobbying disclosure (LD-2) reports and political contributions (LD-203) reports filed during the third and fourth quarter of 2016 and the first and second quarter of 2017, GAO estimates that 87 percent of lobbyists filed reports as required for the quarter in which they first registered; the figure below describes the filing process and enforcement; 99 percent of all lobbyists who filed (up from 83 percent in 2016) could provide documentation for income and expenses; and 93 percent filed year-end 2016 LD-203 reports as required. These findings are generally consistent with prior reports GAO issued for the 2010 through 2016 reporting periods. However, in recent years GAO's findings showed some variation in the estimated percentage of reports with supporting documentation. For example, an estimated increase in lobbyists who could document expenses is notable in 2017 and represents a statistically significant increase from 2016. As in GAO's other reports, some lobbyists were still unclear about the need to disclose certain previously held covered positions, such as paid congressional internships or certain executive agency positions. GAO estimates that 15 percent of all LD-2 reports may not have properly disclosed previously held covered positions. On the other hand, over the past several years of reporting on lobbying disclosure, GAO found that most lobbyists in the sample rated the terms associated with LD-2 reporting as “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to understand. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) stated it has sufficient resources and authority to enforce compliance with the LDA. USAO continued its efforts to bring lobbyists into compliance by reminding them to file reports or by applying civil penalties.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: The LDA requires lobbyists to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House and to file quarterly reports disclosing their respective lobbying activities  Lobbyists are required to file their registrations and reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House through a single entry point  Registrations and reports must be publicly available in downloadable, searchable databases from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House  No specific statutory requirements exist for lobbyists to generate or maintain documentation in support of the information disclosed in the reports they file  However, guidance issued by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House recommends that lobbyists retain copies of their filings and documentation supporting reported income and expenses for at least 6 years after they file their reports  The LDA requires that the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House guide and assist lobbyists with the registration and reporting requirements and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for LDA compliance  The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House review the guidance semiannually  It was last revised January 31, 2017, to (among other issues) update the registration threshold to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, and clarify the identification of clients and covered officials and issues related to rounding income and expenses  The guidance provides definitions of LDA terms, elaborates on registration and reporting requirements, includes specific examples of different scenarios, and provides explanations of why certain scenarios prompt or do not prompt disclosure under the LDA  The offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House told us they continue to consider information we report on lobbying disclosure compliance when they periodically update the guidance  In addition, they told us they e-mail registered lobbyists quarterly on common compliance issues and reminders to file reports by the due dates  The LDA defines a lobbyist as an individual who is employed or retained by a client for compensation, who has made more than one lobbying contact (written or oral communication to covered officials, such as a high ranking agency official or a Member of Congress made on behalf of a client), and whose lobbying activities represent at least 20 percent of the time that he or she spends on behalf of the client during the quarter  Lobbying firms are persons or entities that have one or more employees who lobby on behalf of a client other than that person or entity  Figure 1 provides an overview of the registration and filing process  Lobbying firms are required to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for each client if the firms receive or expect to receive more than $3,000 in income from that client for lobbying activities  Lobbyists are also required to submit an LD-2 quarterly report for each registration filed  The LD-2s contain information that includes: the name of the lobbyist reporting on quarterly lobbying activities; the name of the client for whom the lobbyist lobbied; a list of individuals who acted as lobbyists on behalf of the client during the reporting period; whether any lobbyists served in covered positions in the executive or legislative branch such as high-ranking agency officials or congressional staff positions, in the previous 20 years; codes describing general issue areas, such as agriculture and education; a description of the specific lobbying issues; houses of Congress and federal agencies lobbied during the reporting reported income (or expenses for organizations with in-house lobbyists) related to lobbying activities during the quarter (rounded to the nearest $10,000)  The LDA also requires lobbyists to report certain political contributions semiannually in the LD-203 report  These reports must be filed 30 days after the end of a semiannual period by each lobbying firm registered to lobby and by each individual listed as a lobbyist on a firm’s lobbying report  The lobbyists or lobbying firms must: list the name of each federal candidate or officeholder, leadership political action committee, or political party committee to which he or she contributed at least $200 in the aggregate during the semiannual period; report contributions made to presidential library foundations and presidential inaugural committees; report funds contributed to pay the cost of an event to honor or recognize an official who was previously in a covered position, funds paid to an entity named for or controlled by a covered official, and contributions to a person or entity in recognition of an official, or to pay the costs of a meeting or other event held by or in the name of a covered official; and certify that they have read and are familiar with the gift and travel rules of the Senate and House and that they have not provided, requested, or directed a gift or travel to a member, officer, or employee of Congress that would violate those rules  The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, along with USAO, are responsible for ensuring LDA compliance  The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House notify lobbyists or lobbying firms in writing that they are not complying with the LDA reporting  Subsequently, they refer those lobbyists who fail to provide an appropriate response to USAO  USAO researches these referrals and sends additional noncompliance notices to the lobbyists or lobbying firms, requesting that they file reports or terminate their registration  If USAO does not receive a response after 60 days, it decides whether to pursue a civil or criminal case against each noncompliant lobbyist  A civil case could lead to penalties up to $200,000 for each violation, while a criminal case—usually pursued if a lobbyist’s noncompliance is found to be knowing and corrupt—could lead to a maximum of 5 years in prison  Generally, under the LDA, within 45 days of being employed or retained to make a lobbying contact on behalf of a client, the lobbyist must register by filing an LD-1 form with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House  Thereafter, the lobbyist must file quarterly disclosure (LD-2) reports detailing the lobbying activities  Of the 3,433 new registrations we identified for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017, we matched 2,995 of them (87 2 percent) to corresponding LD-2 reports filed within the same quarter as the registration  These results are consistent with the findings we have reported in prior reviews  We used the House lobbyists’ disclosure database as the source of the reports  We also used an electronic matching algorithm that allows for misspellings and other minor inconsistencies between the registrations and reports  Figure 2 shows lobbyists filed disclosure reports as required for most new lobbying registrations from 2010 through 2017  For selected elements of lobbyists’ LD-2 reports that can be generalized to the population of lobbying reports, our findings have generally been consistent from year to year  Most lobbyists reporting $5,000 or more in income or expenses provided written documentation to varying degrees for the reporting elements in their disclosure reports  Figure 3 shows that for most LD-2 reports, lobbyists provided documentation for income and expenses for sampled reports from 2010 through 2017  However, in recent years our findings showed some variation in the estimated percentage of lobbyists who have reports with documentation for income and expense supporting lobbying activities  Specifically, our estimate for 2017 (99 percent) represents a statistically significant increase from 2016  Figure 4 shows that for some LD-2 reports, lobbyists did not round their income or expenses as the guidance requires  In 2017, we estimate 25 percent of reports did not round reported income or expenses according to the guidance  We have found that rounding difficulties have been a recurring issue on LD-2 reports from 2010 through 2017  As we previously reported, several lobbyists who listed expenses told us that based on their reading of the LD-2 form they believed they were required to report the exact amount  While this is not consistent with the LDA and the guidance, this may be a source of some of the confusion regarding rounding errors  In 2016, the guidance was updated to include an additional example about rounding expenses to the nearest $10,000  In 2017, 11 percent of lobbyists reported $10,000 or more in income or expenses  The LDA requires lobbyists to disclose lobbying contacts made with federal agencies on behalf of the client for the reporting period  This year, of the 98 LD-2 reports in our sample, 51 reports disclosed lobbying activities at federal agencies  Of those, lobbyists provided documentation for all lobbying activities at executive branch agencies for 34 LD-2 reports  Figures 5 through 8 show that lobbyists for most LD-2 reports provided documentation for selected elements of their LD-2 reports from 2010 through 2017  Lobbyists for an estimated 93 percent of LD-2 reports filed year-end 2016 for all lobbyists listed political contributions on the report as required  Figure 9 shows that lobbyists for most lobbying firms filed contribution reports as required in our sample from 2010 through 2017  All individual lobbyists and lobbying firms reporting lobbying activity are required to file LD-203 reports semiannually, even if they have no contributions to report, because they must certify compliance with the gift and travel rules  The LDA requires a lobbyist to disclose previously held covered positions in the executive or legislative branch, such as high ranking agency officials and congressional staff, when first registering as a lobbyist for a new client  This can be done either on a new LD-1 or on the quarterly LD- 2 filing when added as a new lobbyist  This year, we estimate that 15 percent of all LD-2 reports may not have properly disclosed previously held covered positions as required  As in our other reports, some lobbyists were still unclear about the need to disclose certain covered positions, such as paid congressional internships or certain executive agency positions  Figure 10 shows the extent to which lobbyists may not have properly disclosed one or more covered positions as required from 2010 through 2017  Lobbyists amended 15 of the 98 LD-2 disclosure reports in our original sample to change previously reported information after we contacted them  Of the 15 reports, 7 were amended after we notified the lobbyists of our review, but before we met with them  An additional 8 of the 15 reports were amended after we met with the lobbyists to review their documentation  We consistently find a notable number of amended LD-2 reports in our sample each year following notification of our review  This suggests that sometimes our contact spurs lobbyists to more closely scrutinize their reports than they would have without our review  Table 1 lists reasons lobbying firms in our sample amended their LD-1 or LD-2 reports  As part of our review, we compared contributions listed on lobbyists’ and lobbying firms’ LD-203 reports against those political contributions reported in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) database to identify whether political contributions were omitted on LD-203 reports in our sample  The sample of LD-203 reports we reviewed contained 80 reports with contributions and 80 reports without contributions  We estimate that overall for 2017, lobbyists failed to disclose one or more reportable contributions on 12 percent of reports  Additionally, ten LD-203 reports were amended in response to our review  For this element in prior reports, we reported an estimated minimum percentage of reports based on a one-sided 95 percent confidence interval rather than the estimated proportion as shown here  Estimates in the table have a maximum margin of error of 11 percentage points  The year to year differences are not statistically significant  Table 2 illustrates that from 2010 through 2017 most lobbyists disclosed FEC reportable contributions on their LD-203 reports as required  As part of our review, 88 different lobbying firms were included in our 2017 sample of LD-2 disclosure reports  Consistent with prior reviews, most lobbying firms reported that they found it “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to comply with reporting requirements  Of the 88 different lobbying firms in our sample, 34 reported that the disclosure requirements were “very easy,” 40 reported them “somewhat easy,” and 13 reported them “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult” (see figure 11)  Most lobbying firms we surveyed rated the definitions of terms used in LD-2 reporting as “very easy” or “somewhat easy” to understand with regard to meeting their reporting requirements  This is consistent with prior reviews  Figures 12 through 16 show what lobbyists reported as their ease of understanding the terms associated with LD-2 reporting requirements from 2012 through 2017  U S  Attorney’s Office (USAO) officials stated that they continue to have sufficient personnel resources and authority under the LDA to enforce reporting requirements  This includes imposing civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance  Noncompliance refers to a lobbyist’s or lobbying firm’s failure to comply with the LDA  However, USAO noted that the number of assigned personnel has decreased due to attrition  USAO officials stated that lobbyists resolve their noncompliance issues by filing LD-2, LD-203, or LD-2 amendments, or by terminating their registration, depending on the issue  Resolving referrals can take anywhere from a few days to years, depending on the circumstances  During this time, USAO creates summary reports from its database to track the overall number of referrals that are pending or become compliant as a result of the lobbyist receiving an e-mail, phone call, or noncompliance letter  Referrals remain in the pending category until they are resolved  The pending category is divided into the following areas: “initial research for referral,” “responded but not compliant,” “no response/waiting for a response,” “bad address,” and “unable to locate ” The USAO attempts to review and update all pending cases every six months  USAO focuses its enforcement efforts primarily on the “responded but not compliant” and the “no response/waiting for a response” groups  Officials told us that, if the USAO, after several unsuccessful attempts, has been unsuccessful in contacting the non-compliant firm or its lobbyist, USAO confers with both the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House to determine whether further action is needed  In the cases where the lobbying firm is repeatedly referred for not filing disclosure reports but does not appear to be actively lobbying, USAO suspends enforcement actions  USAO officials reported they will continue to monitor these firms and will resume enforcement actions if required  USAO received 3,213 referrals from both the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for failure to comply with LD-2 reporting requirements cumulatively for filing years 2009 through 2015  Table 4 shows the number and status of the referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbying firms into compliance  Enforcement actions include USAO attempts to bring lobbyists into compliance through letters, e-mails, and calls  About 45 percent (1,450 of 3,213) of the total referrals received are now compliant because lobbying firms either filed their reports or terminated their registrations  In addition, some of the referrals were found to be compliant when USAO received the referral  Therefore, no action was taken  This may occur when lobbying firms respond to the contact letters from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House after USAO received the referrals  About 55 percent (1,752 of 3,213) of referrals are pending further action because USAO could not locate the lobbying firm, did not receive a response from the firm after an enforcement action, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbying firm  The remaining 11 referrals did not require action or were suspended because the lobbyist or client was no longer in business or the lobbyist was deceased  LD-203 referrals consist of two types: (1) LD-203(R) referrals represent lobbying firms that have failed to file LD-203 reports for their lobbying firm and (2) LD-203 referrals represent the lobbyists at the lobbying firm who have failed to file their individual LD-203 reports as required  USAO received 2,255 LD-203(R) referrals (cumulatively from 2009 through 2015) and 3,716 LD-203 referrals (cumulatively from 2009 through 2014 from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for lobbying firms and lobbyists for noncompliance with reporting requirements)  LD- 203 referrals are more complicated than LD-2 referrals because both the lobbying firm and the individual lobbyists within the firm are each required to file a LD-203  Lobbyists employed by a lobbying firm typically use the firm’s contact information and not the lobbyists’ personal contact information  This makes it difficult to locate a lobbyist who is not in compliance and may have left the firm  USAO officials reported that, while many firms have assisted USAO by providing contact information for lobbyists, they are not required to do so  According to officials, USAO has difficulty pursuing LD-203 referrals for lobbyists who have departed a firm without leaving forwarding contact information with the firm  While USAO utilizes web searches and online databases, including social media, to find these missing lobbyists, it is not always successful  Table 5 shows the status of LD-203 (R) referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbying firms into compliance  A little more than 44 percent (998 of 2,255) of the lobbying firms referred by the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for noncompliance from calendar years 2009 through 2015 are now considered compliant because firms either filed their reports or terminated their registrations  About 56 percent (1,251 of 2,255) of the referrals are pending further action  Table 6 shows that USAO received 3,716 LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House for lobbyists who failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for calendar years 2009 through 2014  It also shows the status of the referrals received and the number of enforcement actions taken by USAO to bring lobbyists into compliance  In addition, table 6 shows that about 47 percent (1,741 of 3,716) of the lobbyists had come into compliance by filing their reports or are no longer registered as a lobbyist  About 53 percent (1,966 of 3,716) of the referrals are pending further action because USAO could not locate the lobbyist, did not receive a response from the lobbyist, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbyist  Table 7 shows that USAO received LD-203 referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House for 4,991 lobbyists who failed to comply with LD-203 reporting requirements for any filing year from 2009 through 2014  It also shows the status of compliance for individual lobbyists listed on referrals to USAO  About 51 percent (2,526 of 4,991) of the lobbyists had come into compliance by filing their reports or are no longer registered as a lobbyist  About 50 percent (2,465 of 4,991) of the referrals are pending action because USAO could not locate the lobbyists, did not receive a response from the lobbyists, or plans to conduct additional research to determine if it can locate the lobbyists  USAO officials said that many of the pending LD-203 referrals represent lobbyists who no longer lobby for the lobbying firms affiliated with the referrals, even though these lobbying firms may be listed on the lobbyist’s LD-203 report  According to USAO officials, lobbyists and lobbying firms who repeatedly fail to file reports are labeled chronic offenders and referred to one of the assigned attorneys for follow-up  USAO also receives complaints regarding lobbyists who are allegedly lobbying but never filed an LD-203  USAO officials added that USAO monitors and investigates chronic offenders to ultimately determine the appropriate enforcement actions, which may include settlement or other civil actions  In regards to the four active cases involving chronic offenders they reported to us in 2016, USAO officials noted that the agency is investigating one case, negotiating a resolution that will include a civil penalty in another case, and closing two other investigations without further action  In addition, USAO is reviewing its records to identify additional chronic offenders for further action due to noncompliance  We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice for review and comment  The Department of Justice provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General, Secretary of the Senate, Clerk of the House of Representatives, and interested congressional committees and members  In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2717 or jonesy@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  Our objectives were to determine the extent to which lobbyists are able to demonstrate compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended (LDA) by providing documentation to support information contained on registrations and reports filed under the LDA; to identify challenges and potential improvements to compliance, if any; and to describe the resources and authorities available to the U S  Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO), its role in enforcing LDA compliance, and the efforts it has made to improve LDA enforcement  We used information in the lobbying disclosure database maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives (Clerk of the House)  To assess whether these disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, we reviewed relevant documentation and consulted with knowledgeable officials  Although registrations and reports are filed through a single web portal, each chamber subsequently receives copies of the data and follows different data-cleaning, processing, and editing procedures before storing the data in either individual files (in the House) or databases (in the Senate)  Currently, there is no means of reconciling discrepancies between the two databases caused by the differences in data processing  For example, Senate staff told us during previous reviews they set aside a greater proportion of registration and report submissions than the House for manual review before entering the information into the database  As a result, the Senate database would be slightly less current than the House database on any given day pending review and clearance  House staff told us during previous reviews that they rely heavily on automated processing  In addition, while they manually review reports that do not perfectly match information on file for a given lobbyist or client, staff members approve and upload such reports as originally filed by each lobbyist, even if the reports contain errors or discrepancies (such as a variant on how a name is spelled)  Nevertheless, we do not have reasons to believe that the content of the Senate and House systems would vary substantially  Based on interviews with knowledgeable officials and a review of documentation, we determined that House disclosure data were sufficiently reliable for identifying a sample of quarterly disclosure reports (LD-2) and for assessing whether newly filed lobbyists also filed required reports  We used the House database for sampling LD-2 reports from the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017, as well as for sampling year-end 2016 and midyear 2017 political contributions reports (LD-203)  We also used the database for matching quarterly registrations with filed reports  We did not evaluate the Offices of the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House, both of which have key roles in the lobbying disclosure process  However, we did consult with officials from each office  They provided us with general background information at our request  To assess the extent to which lobbyists could provide evidence of their compliance with reporting requirements, we examined a stratified random sample of 98 LD-2 reports from the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017  The sample size of 98 LD-2 reports for this year’s review represents an increase from the sample size selected for the 2015 and 2016 reviews, and is a return to the sample size selected in reviews prior to 2015  We increased the sample size because, in 2016, we observed a change in the estimate of the percentage of reports that had documentation of income and expenses (83 percent down from 92 percent in 2015)  At that time, we were unable to state that this was a statistically significant change because, in part, the reduced sample size of 80 did not give us enough power to detect and report on the change of that size  We excluded reports with no lobbying activity or with income or expenses of less than $5,000 from our sampling frame  We drew our sample from 45,818 activity reports filed for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017 available in the public House database, as of our final download date for each quarter  Our sample of LD-2 reports was not designed to detect differences over time  However, we conducted tests of significance for changes from 2010 to 2017 for the generalizable elements of our review  We found that results were generally consistent from year to year and there were few statistically significant changes after using a Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiple comparisons  For this year’s review, we identified that the estimated change in the percent of LD-2 reports that provided written documentation for the income and expenses from 2016 to 2017 is notable  In recent years, our findings show some variation in the estimate percentage of reports with documentation  Specifically, our estimate for 2017 (99 percent) represents a statistically significant increase from 2016  These changes are identified in the report  The inability to detect significant differences from year to year in our results may be related to sampling error alone or the nature of our sample, which was relatively small and was designed only for cross-sectional analysis  Our sample is based on a stratified random selection and is only one of a large number of samples that we may have drawn  Because each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval  This interval would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that we could have drawn  The percentage estimates for LD-2 reports have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 12 percentage points or fewer of the estimate itself  We contacted all the lobbyists and lobbying firms in our sample and, using a structured web-based survey, asked them to confirm key elements of the LD-2 and whether they could provide written documentation for key elements in their reports, including the amount of income reported for lobbying activities; the amount of expenses reported on lobbying activities; the names of those lobbyists listed in the report; the houses of Congress and federal agencies that they lobbied, and the issue codes listed to describe their lobbying activity  After reviewing the survey results for completeness, we interviewed lobbyists and lobbying firms to review the documentation they reported as having on their online survey for selected elements of their respective LD- 2 report  Prior to each interview, we conducted a search to determine whether lobbyists properly disclosed their covered position as required by the LDA  We reviewed the lobbyists’ previous work histories by searching lobbying firms’ websites, LinkedIn, Leadership Directories, Legistorm, and Google  Prior to 2008, lobbyists were only required to disclose covered official positions held within 2 years of registering as a lobbyist for the client  The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 amended that time frame to require disclosure of positions held 20 years before the date the lobbyists first lobbied on behalf of the client  Lobbyists are required to disclose previously held covered official positions either on the client registration (LD-1) or on an LD-2 report  Consequently, those who held covered official positions may have disclosed the information on the LD-1 or a LD-2 report filed prior to the report we examined as part of our random sample  Therefore, where we found evidence that a lobbyist previously held a covered official position, and that information was not disclosed on the LD-2 report under review, we conducted an additional review of the publicly available Secretary of the Senate or Clerk of the House database to determine whether the lobbyist properly disclosed the covered official position on a prior report or LD-1  Finally, if a lobbyist appeared to hold a covered position that was not disclosed, we asked for an explanation at the interview with the lobbying firm to ensure that our research was accurate  In previous reports, we reported the lower bound of a 90 percent confidence interval to provide a minimum estimate of omitted covered positions and omitted contributions with a 95 percent confidence level  We did so to account for the possibility that our searches may have failed to identify all possible omitted covered positions and contributions  As we have developed our methodology over time, we are more confident in the comprehensiveness of our searches for these items  Accordingly, this report presents the estimated percentages for omitted contributions and omitted covered positions, rather than the minimum estimates  As a result, percentage estimates for these items will differ slightly from the minimum percentage estimates presented in prior reports  In addition to examining the content of the LD-2 reports, we confirmed whether the most recent LD-203 reports had been filed for each firm and lobbyist listed on the LD-2 reports in our random sample  Although this review represents a random selection of lobbyists and firms, it is not a direct probability sample of firms filing LD-2 reports or lobbyists listed on LD-2 reports  As such, we did not estimate the likelihood that LD-203 reports were appropriately filed for the population of firms or lobbyists listed on LD-2 reports  To determine if the LDA’s requirement for lobbyists to file a report in the quarter of registration was met for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 and the first and second quarters of 2017, we used data filed with the Clerk of the House to match newly filed registrations with corresponding disclosure reports  Using an electronic matching algorithm that includes strict and loose text matching procedures, we identified matching disclosure reports for 2,995, or 87 2 percent, of the 3,433 newly filed registrations  We began by standardizing client and lobbyist names in both the report and registration files (including removing punctuation and standardizing words and abbreviations, such as “company” and “CO”)  We then matched reports and registrations using the House identification number (which is linked to a unique lobbyist-client pair), as well as the names of the lobbyist and client  For reports we could not match by identification number and standardized name, we also attempted to match reports and registrations by client and lobbyist name, allowing for variations in the names to accommodate minor misspellings or typos  For these cases, we used professional judgment to determine whether cases with typos were sufficiently similar to consider as matches  We could not readily identify matches in the report database for the remaining registrations using electronic means  To assess the accuracy of the LD-203 reports, we analyzed stratified random samples of LD-203 reports from the 30,594 total LD-203 reports  The first sample contains 80 reports of the 9,474 reports with political contributions and the second contains 80 reports of the 20,335 reports listing no contributions  Each sample contains 40 reports from the year- end 2016 filing period and 40 reports from the midyear 2017 filing period  The samples from 2017 allow us to generalize estimates in this report to either the population of LD-203 reports with contributions or the reports without contributions to within a 95 percent confidence interval of within plus or minus 11 percentage points or fewer  Although our sample of LD- 203 reports was not designed to detect differences over time, we conducted tests of significance for changes from 2010 to 2017 and found no statistically significant differences after adjusting for multiple comparisons  While the results provide some confidence that apparent fluctuations in our results across years are likely attributable to sampling error, the inability to detect significant differences may also be related to the nature of our sample, which was relatively small and designed only for cross- sectional analysis  We analyzed the contents of the LD-203 reports and compared them to contribution data found in the publicly available Federal Elections Commission’s (FEC) political contribution database  We consulted with staff at FEC responsible for administering the database  We determined that the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives  We compared the FEC-reportable contributions on the LD-203 reports with information in the FEC database  The verification process required text and pattern matching procedures so we used professional judgment when assessing whether an individual listed is the same individual filing an LD-203  For contributions reported in the FEC database and not on the LD-203 report, we asked the lobbyists or organizations to explain why the contribution was not listed on the LD-203 report or to provide documentation of those contributions  As with covered positions on LD-2 disclosure reports, we cannot be certain that our review identified all cases of FEC-reportable contributions that were inappropriately omitted from a lobbyist’s LD-203 report  We did not estimate the percentage of other non-FEC political contributions that were omitted because they tend to constitute a small minority of all listed contributions and cannot be verified against an external source  To identify challenges to compliance, we used a structured web-based survey and obtained the views from 88 different lobbying firms included in our sample on any challenges to compliance  The number of different lobbying firms is 88, which is less than our original sample of 98 reports because some lobbying firms had more than one LD-2 report included in our sample  We calculated responses based on the number of different lobbying firms that we contacted rather than the number of interviews  Prior to our calculations, we removed the duplicate lobbying firms based on the most recent date of their responses  For those cases with the same response date, the decision rule was to keep the cases with the smallest assigned case identification number  To obtain their views, we asked them to rate their ease with complying with the LD-2 disclosure requirements using a scale of “very easy,” “somewhat easy,” “somewhat difficult,” or “very difficult ” In addition, using the same scale we asked them to rate the ease of understanding the terms associated with LD-2 reporting requirements  To describe the resources and authorities available to the U S  Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) and its efforts to improve its LDA enforcement, we interviewed USAO officials  We obtained information on the capabilities of the system officials established to track and report compliance trends and referrals and on other practices established to focus resources on LDA enforcement  USAO provided us with reports from the tracking system on the number and status of referrals and chronically noncompliant lobbyists and lobbying firms  The mandate does not require us to identify lobbyists who failed to register and report in accordance with the LDA requirements, or determine for those lobbyists who did register and report whether all lobbying activity or contributions were disclosed  Therefore, this was outside the scope of our audit  We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to March 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  The random sample of lobbying disclosure reports we selected was based on unique combination of House ID, lobbyist, and client names (see table 8)  See table 9 for a list of the lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random sample of lobbying contribution reports with contributions  See table 10 for a list of the lobbyists and lobbying firms from our random sample of lobbying contribution reports without contributions  In addition to the contact named above, Clifton G  Douglas Jr  (Assistant Director), Shirley Jones (Assistant General Counsel) and Ulyana Panchishin (Analyst-In-Charge) supervised the development of this report  James Ashley, Ann Czapiewski, Krista Loose, Kathleen Jones, Amanda Miller, Sharon Miller, Stewart W  Small, and Kayla L  Robinson made key contributions to this report  Assisting with lobbyist file reviews were Justine Augeri, Matthew Bond, James A  Howard, Jesse Jordan, Sherrice Kerns, Dalton Matthew Lauderback, Alexandria Palmer, Alan Rozzi, Shane Spencer, Jessica Walker, Ralanda Winborn, and Kate Wulff  Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with New Disclosure Requirements  GAO-08-1099  Washington, D C: September 30, 2008  2008 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-09-487  Washington, D C: April 1, 2009  2009 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-10-499  Washington, D C: April 1, 2010  2010 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-11-452  Washington, D C: April 1, 2011  2011 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-12-492  Washington, D C: March 30, 2012  2012 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-13-437  Washington, D C: April 1, 2013  2013 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-14-485  Washington, D C: May 28, 2014  2014 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-15-310  Washington, D C : March 26, 2015  2015 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-16-320  Washington, D C : March 24, 2016  2016 Lobbying Disclosure: Observations on Lobbyists’ Compliance with Disclosure Requirements  GAO-17-385  Washington, D C : March 31, 2017 


Report 2:  The majority of program funding comes from hydropower revenues generated at Glen Canyon Dam  The MSCP is a multistakeholder initiative to conserve 27 species (8 listed under ESA) along the Lower Colorado River while maintaining water and power supplies for farmers, tribes, industries, and urban residents  The MSCP began in 2005 and is planned to last for at least 50 years  The MSCP was created through consultation under ESA  To achieve compliance under ESA, federal entities involved in managing water supplies in the Lower Colorado River met with resource agencies from Arizona, California, and Nevada; Native American Tribes; environmental groups; and recreation interests to develop a program to conserve species along a portion of the Colorado River  A biological opinion (BiOp) issued by the FWS in 1997 served as a basis for the program  Modifications to the 1997 BiOp were made in 2002, and in 2005, the BiOp was renewed for 50 years  Nonfederal entities received an incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of the ESA for their activities in 2005 and shortly thereafter implemented a habitat conservation plan  The objective of the MSCP is to create habitat for listed species, augment the populations of species listed under ESA, maintain current and future water diversions and power production, and abide by the incidental take authorizations for listed species under the ESA  The estimated total cost of the program over its lifetime is approximately $626 million in 2003 dollars ($882 million in 2018 dollars) and is to be split evenly between Reclamation (50%) and the states of California, Nevada, and Arizona (who collectively fund the remaining 50%)  The management and implementation of the MSCP is the responsibility of Reclamation, in consultation with a steering committee of stakeholders  Twenty-two federally recognized tribes in the Colorado River Basin have quantified water diversion rights that have been confirmed by court decree or final settlement  These tribes collectively possess rights to 2 9 MAF per year of Colorado River water  However, as of 2015, these tribes typically were using just over half of their quantified rights  Additionally, 13 other basin tribes have reserved water rights claims that have yet to be resolved  Increased water use by tribes with existing water rights, and/or future settlement of claims and additional consumptive use of basin waters by other tribes, is likely to exacerbate the competition for basin water resources  The potential for increased use of tribal water rights (which, once ratified, are counted toward state-specific allocations where the tribal reservation is located) has been studied in recent years  In 2014, Reclamation, working with a group of 10 tribes with significant reserved water rights claims on the Colorado River, initiated a study known as the 10 Tribes Study   The study, published in 2018, estimated that, cumulatively, the 10 tribes could have reserved water rights (including unresolved claims) to divert nearly 2 8 MAF per year  Of these water rights, approximately 2 MAF per year were decreed and an additional 785,273 AF (mostly in the Upper Basin) remained unresolved  The report estimated that, overall, the 10 tribes are diverting (i e , making use of) almost 1 5 MAF of their 2 8 MAF in resolved and unresolved claims  Table 1 shows these figures at the basin and sub-basin levels  According to the study, the majority of unresolved claims in the Upper Basin are associated with the Ute Tribe in Utah (370,370 AF per year), the Navajo Nation in Utah (314,926 AF), and the Navajo Nation in the Upper Basin in Arizona (77,049 AF)  When the Colorado River Compact was originally approved, it was assumed based on the historical record that average annual flows on the river were 16 4 MAF per year  According to Reclamation data, from 1906 to 2018, observed natural flows on the river at Lee Ferry, AZ—the common point of measurement for observed basin flows—averaged 14 8 MAF annually  Natural flows from 2000 to 2018 (i e , during the ongoing drought) averaged considerably less than that—12 4 MAF annually  While natural flows have trended down, consumptive use in the basin has grown and has regularly exceeded natural flows since 2000  From 1971 to 2015, average total consumptive use grew from 13 MAF to over 15 MAF annually  Combined, the two trends have caused a significant drawdown of basin storage levels ( Figure 3 )  From 2009 to 2015, the largest consumptive water use occurred in the Lower Basin (7 5 MAF per year), while Upper Basin consumptive use averaged about 3 8 MAF annually  Use of Treaty water by Mexico (1 5 MAF per year) and evaporative loss from reservoirs (approximately 2 MAF per year) in both basins also factored significantly into total basin consumptive use  Notably, consumptive use in the Lower Basin, combined with mandatory releases to Mexico, regularly exceeds the mandatory 8 23 MAF per year that must be released from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin and Mexico pursuant to Reclamation requirements  This imbalance between Lower Basin inflows and use, known as the structural deficit , causes additional stress on basin storage  The current drought in the basin has included some of the lowest flows on record  According to Reclamation, the 19-year period from 2000 to 2018 was the driest period in more than 100 years of record keeping  Observers have pointed out that flows in some recent years have been lower than would be expected given the amount of precipitation that has occurred, and have noted that warmer temperatures appear to be a significant contributor to these diminished flows  Based on these and other observations, some have argued that Colorado River flows are unlikely to return to 20 th century averages, and that future water supply risk is high  A 2012 study by Reclamation projected a long-term imbalance in supply and demand in the Colorado River Basin  In the study, Reclamation noted that the basin had thus far avoided serious impacts on water supplies due to the significant storage within the system, coupled with the fact that some Upper Basin states have yet to fully develop the use of their allocations  However, Reclamation projected that in the coming half century, flows would decrease by an average of 9% at Lee Ferry and drought would increase in frequency and duration  At the same time, Reclamation projected that demand for basin water supplies would increase, with annual consumptive use projected to rise from 15 MAF to 18 1-20 4 MAF by 2050, depending on population growth  A range of 64%-76% of the growth in demand was expected to come from increased M&I demand  Reclamation's 2012 study also posited several potential ways to alleviate future shortages in the basin, such as alternative water supplies, demand management, drought action plans, water banking, and water transfer/markets  Some of these options already are being pursued  In particular, some states have become increasingly active in banking unused Colorado River surface water supplies, including through groundwater banks or storage of unused surface waters in Lake Mead (see below section, " 2007 Interim Guidelines ")  Drought conditions throughout the basin have raised concerns about potential negative impacts on water supplies  Concerns center on uncertainty that might result if the Secretary of the Interior were to determine that a shortage condition exists in the Lower Basin, and that related curtailments were warranted  Some in Upper Basin States are also concerned about the potential for a c ompact call of Lower Basin states on Upper Basin states  Drought and other uncertainties related to water rights priorities (e g , potential tribal water rights claims) spurred the development of several efforts that generally attempted to relieve pressure on basin water supplies, stabilize storage levels, and provide assurances of available water supplies  Some of the most prominent developments since the year 2000 (i e , the beginning of the current drought) are discussed below  Prior to the 2003 QSA, California had been using approximately 5 2 MAF of Colorado River on average each year (with most of its excess water use attributed to urban areas)  Under the QSA, an agreement between several California water districts and DOI, California agreed to reduce its use to the required 4 4 MAF under the Law of the River  It sought to accomplish this aim by quantifying Colorado River entitlement levels of several water contractors; authorizing efforts to conserve additional water supplies (e g , the lining of the All-American Canal); and providing for several large-scale, long-term agriculture-to-urban water transfers  The QSA also committed the state to a path for restoration and mitigation related to the Salton Sea, a water body in Southern California that was historically sustained by Colorado River irrigation runoff from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys  A related agreement between Reclamation and the Lower Basin states, the Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy (IOPP), went into effect concurrently with the QSA in 2004  IOPP is an administrative mechanism that provides an accounting of inadvertent overruns in consumptive use compared to the annual entitlements of water users in the Lower Basin  These overruns must be "paid back" in the calendar year following the overruns, and the paybacks must be made only from "extraordinary conservation measures" above and beyond normal consumptive use  The 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act ( P L  108-451 , AWSA) significantly altered the allocation of CAP water in Arizona and set the stage for some of the cutbacks in the state that are currently under discussion  It ratified three water rights settlements (one in each title) between the federal government and the State of Arizona, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), and the Tohono O'odham Nation, respectively  For the state and its CAP water users, the settlement resolved a final repayment cost for CAP by reducing the water users' reimbursable repayment obligation from about $2 3 billion to $1 65 billion  Additionally, Arizona agreed to new tribal and non-tribal allocations of CAP water so that approximately half of CAP's annual allotment would be available to Indian tribes in Arizona, at a higher priority than most other uses  The tribal communities were authorized to lease the water so long as the water remains within the state via the state's water banking authority  The act also authorized funds to cover the cost of infrastructure required to deliver the water to the Indian communities, much of it derived from power receipts accruing to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund  Another significant development in the basin was the 2007 adoption of the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead (2007 Interim Guidelines)  Development of the agreement began in 2005, when, in response to drought in the Southwest and the decline in basin water storage (and a record low point in Lake Powell of 33% active capacity), the Secretary of the Interior instructed Reclamation to develop coordinated strategies for Colorado River reservoir operations during drought or shortages  The resulting guidelines included criteria for releases from Lakes Mead and Powell determined by "trigger levels" in both reservoirs, as well as a schedule of Lower Basin curtailments at different operational tiers ( Table 2 )  Under the guidelines, Arizona and Nevada, which have junior rights to California, would face reduced allocations if Lake Mead elevations dropped below 1,075 ft  At the time, it was thought that the 2007 Guidelines would significantly reduce the risk of Lake Mead falling to 1,025 feet  The guidelines are considered "interim" because they were scheduled to expire in 20 years (i e , at the end of 2026)  The 2007 agreement also included for the first time a mechanism by which parties in the Lower Basin were able to store conserved water in Lake Mead, known as Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS)  Reclamation accounts for this water annually, and the users storing the water may access the surplus in future years, in accordance with the Law of the River  From 2013 to 2017, the portion of Lake Mead water in storage that was classified as ICS ranged from a low of 711,864 AF in 2015 to a high of 1 261 MAF in 2017 ( Figure 4 )  In 2014, Reclamation and several major basin water supply agencies (Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Denver Water) executed a memorandum of understanding to provide funding for voluntary conservation projects and reductions of water use  These activities had the goal of developing new system water , to be applied toward storage in Lake Mead, by the end of 2019  Congress formally authorized federal participation in these efforts in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P L  113-235 , Division D ), with an initial sunset date for the authority at the end of FY2018  The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-244 , Division A ) extended the authority through the end of FY2022, with the stipulation that Upper Basin agreements could not proceed without the participation of the Upper Basin states through the Upper Colorado River Commission  As of mid-2018, Reclamation estimated that the program had resulted in a total of 194,000 AF of system water conserved  These savings were carried out through 64 projects conserving 47,000 AF in the Upper Basin and 11 projects conserving 147,000 AF in the Lower Basin  In 2017, the United States and Mexico signed Minute 323, which extended and replaced elements of a previous agreement, Minute 319, signed in 2012  Minute 323 included, among other things, options for Mexico to hold water in reserve in U S  reservoirs for emergencies and water conservation efforts, as well as U S  commitments for flows to support the ecological health of the Colorado River Delta  It also extended initial Mexican cutback commitments made under Minute 319 (which were similar in structure to the 2007 cutbacks negotiated for Lower Basin states) and established a Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan that included additional cutbacks that would be triggered if drought contingency plans (DCPs) are approved by U S  basin states (see following section, " 2019 Drought Contingency Plans ")  Ongoing drought conditions and the potential for water supply shortages prompted discussions and negotiations focused on how to conserve additional basin water supplies  After several years of negotiations, on March 19, 2019, Reclamation and the Colorado River Basin states finalized DCPs for both the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin  These plans required final authorization by Congress to be implemented  Following House and Senate hearings on the DCPs in early April, on April 16, 2019, Congress authorized the DCP agreements in the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act ( P L  116-14 )  Each of the basin-level DCPs is discussed below in more detail  The Upper Basin DCP aims to protect against Lake Powell reaching critically low elevations; it also authorizes storage of conserved water in the Upper Basin that could help establish the foundation for a water use reduction effort (i e , a "Demand Management Program") that may be developed in the future  Under the Upper Basin DCP, the Upper Basin states agree to operate system units to keep the surface of Lake Powell above 3,525 ft, which is 35 ft above the minimum elevation needed to run the dam's hydroelectric plant  Other large Upper Basin reservoirs (e g , Navajo Reservoir, Blue Mesa Reservoir, and Flaming Gorge Reservoir) would be operated to protect the targeted Lake Powell elevation, potentially through drawdown of their own storage  If established by the states, an Upper Basin DCP Demand Management Program would likely entail willing seller/buyer agreements allowing for temporary paid reductions in water use that would provide for more storage volume in Lake Powell  Reclamation and other observers have stated their belief that these efforts will significantly decrease the risk of Lake Powell's elevation falling below 3,490 ft, an elevation at which significantly reduced hydropower generation is possible  The Lower Basin DCP is designed to require Arizona, California, and Nevada to curtail use and thereby contribute additional water to Lake Mead storage at predetermined "trigger" elevations, while also creating additional flexibility to incentivize voluntary conservation of water to be stored in Lake Mead, thereby increasing lake levels  Under the DCP, Nevada and Arizona (which were already set to have their supplies curtailed beginning at 1,075 ft under the 2007 Interim Guidelines) are to contribute additional supplies to maintain higher lake levels (i e , beyond previous commitments)  The reductions of supply would reach their maximums when reservoir levels drop below 1,045 ft  At the same time, the Lower Basin DCP would, for the first time, include commitments for delivery cutbacks by California  These cutbacks would begin with 200,000 AF (4 5%) in reductions at Lake Mead elevations of 1,040-1,045 ft, and would increase to as much as 350,000 AF (7 9%) at elevations of 1,025 ft or lower  The curtailments in the Lower Basin DCP are in addition to those agreed to under the 2007 Interim Guidelines and under Minute 323 with Mexico  Specific and cumulative reductions are shown in Table 2   In addition to the state-level reductions, under the Lower Basin DCP, Reclamation also would agree to pursue efforts to add 100,000 AF or more of system water within the basin  Some of the largest and most controversial reductions under the Lower Basin DCP would occur in Arizona, where pursuant to previous changes under the 2004 AWSA, a large group of agricultural users would face major cutbacks to their CAP water supplies  Reclamation has noted that the Lower Basin DCP significantly decreases the chance of Lake Mead elevations falling below 1,020 ft, which would be a critically low level  Some parties have pointed out that although the DCP is unlikely to prevent a shortage from being declared at 1,075 ft, it would slow the rate at which the lake recedes thereafter  Combined with the commitments from Mexico, total planned cutbacks under shortage scenarios (i e , all commitments to date, combined) would reduce Lower Basin consumptive use by 241,000 AF to 1 375 MAF per year, depending on Lake Mead's elevation  Although the DCPs and the related negotiations were widely praised, some expressed concerns related to the implementation of the DCPs as they relate to federal and state environmental laws  Most Colorado River contractors supported the agreements, but one major basin contractor, Imperial Irrigation District (IID, a major holder of Colorado River water rights in Southern California), did not approve the DCPs  IID has argued that the DCPs will further degrade the Salton Sea, a shrinking and ecologically degraded water body in southern California that relies on drainage flows from lands irrigated using Colorado River water  Following enactment of the DCPs, IID filed suit in state court alleging that state approval of the DCPs violated the California Environmental Quality Act  Others have questioned whether federal implementation of the DCPs without a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Statement might violate federal law, such as NEPA  The principal role of Congress as it relates to storage facilities on the Colorado River is funding and oversight of facility operations, construction, and programs to protect and restore endangered species (e g , Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Program)  In the Upper Basin, Colorado River facilities include the 17 active participating units in the Colorado River Storage Projects, as well as the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project  In the Lower Basin, major facilities include the Salt River Project and Theodore Roosevelt Dam, Hoover Dam and All-American Canal, Yuma and Gila Projects, Parker-Davis Project, Central Arizona Project, and Robert B  Griffith Project (now Southern Nevada Water System)  Congressional appropriations in support of Colorado River projects and programs typically account for a portion of overall project budgets  For example, the Lower Colorado Region's FY2017 operating budget was $517 million; $119 8 million of this total was provided by discretionary appropriations, and the remainder of funding came from power revenues (which are made available without further appropriation) and nonfederal partners  In recent years, Congress has also authorized and appropriated funding that has targeted the Colorado River Basin in general (i e , the Pilot System Conservation Plan)  Congress may choose to extend or amend these and other authorities specific to the basin  While discretionary appropriations for the Colorado River are of regular interest to Congress, Congress may also be asked to weigh in on Colorado River funding that is not subject to regular appropriations  For instance, in the coming years, the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund is projected to face a decrease in revenues and may thus have less funding available for congressionally established funding priorities for the Development Fund  Congress has previously approved Indian water rights settlements associated with more than 2 MAF of tribal diversion rights on the Colorado River  Only a portion of this water has been developed  Congress likely will face the decision of whether to fund development of previously authorized infrastructure associated with Indian water rights settlements in the Colorado River Basin  For example, the ongoing Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project is being built to serve the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Navajo Nation, and the City of Gallup, New Mexico  Congress may also be asked to consider new settlements that may result in tribal rights to more Colorado River water  For example, in the 116 th Congress, H R  244 would authorize the Navajo Nation Water Settlement in Utah  In addition to development of new tribal water supplies, some states in the Upper Basin have indicated their intent to further develop their Colorado River water entitlements  For example, in the 115 th Congress, Section 4310 of America's Water Infrastructure Act ( P L  115-270 ) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the State of Wyoming whereby the state would fund a project to add erosion control to Fontenelle Reservoir in the Upper Basin  The project would allow the state to potentially utilize an additional 80,000 acre-feet of water storage on the Green River, a tributary of the Colorado River  Congress may remain interested in implementation of the DCPs, including their success or failure at stemming further Colorado River cutbacks and the extent to which the plans comply with federal environmental laws such as NEPA  Similarly, Congress may be interested in the overall hydrologic status of the Colorado River Basin, as well as future efforts to plan for increased demand in the basin and stretch limited basin water supplies 

ground_truth: The Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles in seven U.S. states (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior) manages much of the basin's water supplies. Colorado River water is used primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, but it also is important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses. In recent years, consumptive uses of Colorado River water have exceeded natural flows. This causes an imbalance in the basin's available supplies and competing demands. A drought in the basin dating to 2000 has raised the prospect of water delivery curtailments and decreased hydropower production, among other things. In the future, observers expect that increasing demand for supplies, coupled with the effects of climate change, will further increase the strain on the basin's limited water supplies. River Management The Law of the River is the commonly used shorthand for the multiple laws, court decisions, and other documents governing Colorado River operations. The foundational document of the Law of the River is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Pursuant to the compact, the basin states established a framework to apportion the water supplies between the Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ (near the Utah border). The Upper and Lower Basins each were allocated 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) annually under the Colorado River Compact; an additional 1.5 MAF in annual flows was made available to Mexico under a 1944 treaty. Future agreements and court decisions addressed numerous other issues (including intrastate allocations of flows), and subsequent federal legislation provided authority and funding for federal facilities that allowed users to develop their allocations. A Supreme Court ruling also confirmed that Congress designated the Secretary of the Interior as the water master for the Lower Basin, a role in which the federal government manages the delivery of all water below Hoover Dam. Reclamation and basin stakeholders closely track the status of two large reservoirs—Lake Powell in the Upper Basin and Lake Mead in the Lower Basin—as an indicator of basin storage conditions. Under recent guidelines, dam releases from these facilities are tied to specific water storage levels. For Lake Mead, the first tier of "shortage," under which Arizona's and Nevada's allocations would be decreased, would be triggered if Lake Mead's January 1 elevation is expected to fall below 1,075 feet above mean sea level. As of early 2019, Reclamation projected that there was a 69% chance of a shortage condition at Lake Mead in 2020; there was also a lesser chance of Lake Powell reaching critically low levels. Improved hydrology in early 2019 may decrease the chances of shortage in the immediate future. Drought Contingency Plans Despite previous efforts to alleviate future shortages, the basin's hydrological outlook has generally worsened in recent years. After several years of negotiations, in early 2019 Reclamation and the basin states transmitted to Congress additional plans to alleviate stress on basin water supplies. These plans, known as the drought contingency plans (DCPs) for the Upper and Lower Basins, were authorized by Congress in April 2019 in the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan Authorization Act (P.L. 116-14). The DCPs among other things obligate Lower Basin states to additional water supply cutbacks at specified storage levels (i.e., cutbacks beyond previous curtailment plans), commit Reclamation to additional water conservation efforts, and coordinate Upper Basin operations to protect Lake Powell storage levels and hydropower generation. Congressional Role Congress plays a multifaceted role in federal management of the Colorado River basin. Congress funds and oversees management of basin facilities, including operations and programs to protect and restore endangered species. It has also enacted and continues to consider Indian water rights settlements involving Colorado River waters and development of new water storage facilities in the basin. In addition, Congress has approved funding to mitigate water shortages and conserve basin water supplies and has enacted new authorities to combat drought and its effects on basin water users (i.e., the DCPs and other related efforts).