a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2003 FRESHWATER 

SUPPLY

States’ Views of How 

Federal Agencies 

Could Help Them 

Meet the Challenges of 

Expected Shortages

GAO-03-514
National water availability and use has not been comprehensively assessed in 

25 years, but current trends indicate that demands on the nation’s supplies are 

growing. In particular, the nation’s capacity for storing surface-water is limited 

and ground-water is being depleted. At the same time, growing population and 

pressures to keep water instream for fisheries and the environment place new 

demands on the freshwater supply. The potential effects of climate change also 

create uncertainty about future water availability and use. 

State water managers expect freshwater shortages in the near future, and the 

consequences may be severe. Even under normal conditions, water managers 

in 36 states anticipate shortages in localities, regions, or statewide in the next 

10 years. Drought conditions will exacerbate shortage impacts. When water 

shortages occur, economic impacts to sectors such as agriculture can be in the 

billions of dollars. Water shortages also harm the environment. For example, 

diminished flows reduced the Florida Everglades to half its original size. Finally, 

water shortages cause social discord when users compete for limited supplies.

State water managers ranked federal actions that could best help states meet 

their water resource needs. They preferred: (1) financial assistance to increase 

storage and distribution capacity; (2) water data from more locations; (3) more 

flexibility in complying with or administering federal environmental laws; 

(4) better coordinated federal participation in water-management agreements; 

and (5) more consultation with states on federal or tribal use of water rights. 

Federal officials identified agency activities that support state preferences. 

While not making recommendations, GAO encourages federal officials to review 

the results of our state survey and consider opportunities to better support state 

water management efforts. We provided copies of this report to the seven 

departments and agencies discussed within. They concurred with our findings 

and provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

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

The widespread drought conditions 

of 2002 focused attention on a 

critical national challenge: ensuring 

a sufficient freshwater supply to 

sustain quality of life and economic 

growth. States have primary 

responsibility for managing the 

allocation and use of water 

resources, but multiple federal 

agencies also play a role. For 

example, Interior’s Bureau of 

Reclamation operates numerous 

water storage facilities, and the 

U.S. Geological Survey collects 

important surface and groundwater information. 

GAO was asked to determine the 

current conditions and future 

trends for U.S. water availability 

and use, the likelihood of shortages 

and their potential consequences, 

and states’ views on how federal 

activities could better support state 

water management efforts to meet 

future demands. 

For this review, GAO conducted 

a web-based survey of water 

managers in the 50 states and 

received responses from 47 states; 

California, Michigan, and New 

Mexico did not participate. 

FRESHWATER SUPPLY

States’ Views of How Federal Agencies 

Could Help Them Meet the Challenges 

of Expected Shortages 

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

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Barry Hill at 

(202) 512-9775 or hillb@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-514, a report to 

Congressional Requesters 

July 2003 
Page i GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Contents

Transmittal Letter 1

Executive Summary 3

Purpose 3

Background 4

Results in Brief 5

Principal Findings 7

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 11

Chapter 1

Introduction

12

Water Is an Abundant and Renewable Resource but Not Always 

Readily Available 12

The Federal Government Has Authority to Manage Water Resources 

but Recognizes State Authorities 19

State Laws Governing Water Allocation and Use Generally Follow 

Two Basic Doctrines 21

Multiple Federal Agencies Have Water

Management Responsibilities 26

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41

Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability 

and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends 

Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

44

National Water Availability and Use Has Not Been Assessed 

in Decades 44

Trends in Water Availability and Use Raise Concerns about the 

Nation’s Ability to Meet Future Needs 48

Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater 

Shortages May 

Harm the Economy, 

the Environment, 

and Communities

64

State Water Managers Expect Shortages within 10 Years 64

Freshwater Shortages Have Severe Economic, Environmental, and 

Social Consequences 67
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4

Federal Activities 

Could Further Support 

State Water 

Management Efforts

76

Conclusions 88

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 89

Appendixes

Appendix I: GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Effects of Federal 

Activities on State Water Availability, Management, 

and Use 90

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of the Interior 109

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 110

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

Total Water 12

Figure 2: The Hydrologic Cycle 14

Figure 3: Percent Time in Severe and Extreme Drought 

Nationwide, 1895 to 1995 16

Figure 4: Drought Conditions across the Nation as of 

July 23, 2002 18

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

Allocation 23

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

Allocation 25

Figure 7: Overview of Federal Activities 27

Figure 8: Reclamation’s Hoover Dam and the Corps’ Eufaula Lake 

Water Storage Facilities 29

Figure 9: USGS’ Nationwide Streamgage Network 33

Figure 10: Number of Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

by State, as of March 2003 36

Figure 11: Colorado River Basin Crosses Seven State Borders 38

Figure 12: Federal and Tribal Lands in the United States 40

Figure 13: Trends in Water Withdrawals by Use Category, 

1950-1995 45

Figure 14: Projections of United States Water Use for 2000 47

Figure 15: Number and Capacity of Large Reservoirs Completed 

by Decade 49
Contents

Page iii GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Population Using Ground-Water 

as Drinking Water in 1995 by State 51

Figure 17: Changes in Ground-Water Levels in the High Plains 

Aquifer from before Irrigation Pumping to 1999 53

Figure 18: Sinkhole in West-Central Florida Caused by Development 

of a New Irrigation Well 54

Figure 19: Land Subsidence in South-Central Arizona 55

Figure 20: States’ Population Growth from 1995 to 2025 58

Figure 21: Total Freshwater Withdrawals by County, 1995 59

Figure 22: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade 

under Average Water Conditions 65

Figure 23: The Everglades—Past and Present 71

Figure 24: Competition for Water in the Klamath Basin 74

Abbreviations

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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.
Contents

Page iv GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply
Page 1 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

July 9, 2003 TranLsmraelti

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici

Chairman

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

The Honorable James M. Jeffords

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Mike Crapo

Chairman

The Honorable Bob Graham

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

In response to your requests, this report identifies current conditions and 

future trends for U.S. water availability and use, the likelihood of shortages 

and their potential consequences, and state views on how federal activities 

could better support state water management efforts to meet future needs. 

While we are not making a specific recommendation, we encourage 

Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Corps, and 

Environmental Protection Agency officials to review the results of our state 

survey and consider modifications to their plans, policies, or activities as 

appropriate to better support state efforts to meet their future water needs.

We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and Interior; the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency. We will also send copies to the states 

that participated in our review. This report will also be available on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

Letter
Letter

Page 2 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Please contact me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions. 

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Barry T. Hill

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 3 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Executive Summary

Purpose The widespread drought conditions of 2002 focused attention on a critical 

challenge for the United States—ensuring a sufficient freshwater supply 

to sustain quality of life and economic growth. Yet droughts are only one 

element of this complex issue. Water availability and use depend on many 

factors, such as the ability to store and distribute water, demographics, and 

social values. Across the nation, there is increasing competition to meet the 

freshwater needs of growing cities and suburbs, farms, industries, 

recreation and wildlife.

States are primarily responsible for managing the allocation and use of 

freshwater supplies. However, federal laws provide for control over the 

use of water in specific cases, such as on federal lands or in interstate 

commerce. Many federal agencies engage in activities, such as operating 

large water storage facilities and administering federal environmental 

protection laws, that influence state decisions. Federal agencies generally 

coordinate their activities with the states and complement state efforts to 

manage water supplies. On occasion, however, these activities conflict 

with state or other user objectives, such as when the need to leave water in 

a river to protect fish under federal environmental laws affects the delivery 

of irrigation water to farmers.

To assist congressional understanding of the range and complexity of 

freshwater supply issues, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, and the Chairman and Ranking Member 

of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, Senate Committee 

on Environment and Public Works asked GAO to identify (1) current 

conditions and future trends for U.S. water availability and use, (2) the 

likelihood of shortages and their potential consequences, and (3) state 

views on how federal activities could better support state water 

management efforts to meet future demands. To conduct this review, we 

focused on water supply and generally assumed a continuation of existing 

quantity allocations and current pricing conditions. Among other things, 

GAO conducted a Web-based 50-state survey of state water managers and 

obtained responses from 47 states; California, Michigan, and New Mexico 

did not participate. GAO also met with state water managers in seven 

geographically dispersed states—Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. GAO’s complete scope and 

methodology is described in chapter 1.
Executive Summary

Page 4 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Background Freshwater flows abundantly in the nation’s lakes, rivers, streams, and 

underground aquifers. However, because of climatic conditions and other 

factors, water is not always available when and where it is needed or in 

the amount desired. Users with different interests and objectives, such as 

agricultural irrigation or municipal water supply, must share the available 

water, and users may not always get the amount of water they need or 

want, particularly in times of shortage. Competition for water and the 

potential for conflict grow as the number of users increases and/or the 

amount of available water decreases, and conflicts can extend across state 

or national borders.

Federal, state, local, tribal, and private interests share responsibility for 

developing and managing the nation’s water resources within a complex 

web of federal and state laws, regulations and contractual obligations. 

State laws predominantly govern the allocation and use of water. The 

federal government has recognized the primacy of states’ laws regarding 

water allocation and use in numerous acts, such as the Reclamation Act 

and the Clean Water Act, and the Supreme Court has ruled that states’ laws 

govern the control, appropriation, use, and distribution of federal 

reclamation project water.

Federal agencies engage in five basic categories of activities that influence 

state water resource management decisions:

• Constructing, operating and maintaining water storage infrastructure, 

primarily through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the 

Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation).

• Collecting and disseminating data on water availability and use, 

primarily through Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

• Administering clean water and wildlife protection laws, primarily 

through agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the 

Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• Assisting in the development and implementation of water management 

compacts and treaties, often involving multiple federal agencies.
Executive Summary

Page 5 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

• Managing water resources on federal lands by, for example, Interior’s 

Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Forest Service, and protecting tribal water rights by Interior’s 

Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Results in Brief The last comprehensive national water availability and use assessment, 

completed 25 years ago, identified critical problems, such as shortages 

and conflicts among users. Future water availability and use is difficult to 

predict. For example, while USDA’s 1999 forecast of future water use—not 

availability—projects a rise in total withdrawals of only 7 percent by 

2040, it also warns of the tenuous nature of such projections. If the most 

important and uncertain assumptions used in USDA’s projection, such as 

a decrease in irrigated acreage, fail to materialize, water use may be 

substantially above the estimate. Current trends indicate that demands on 

the nation’s water resources are growing. While the nation’s capacity for 

storing surface-water is limited and ground-water is being depleted, 

demands for freshwater are growing as the population increases, and 

pressures increase to keep water instream for fisheries, wildlife habitat, 

recreation, and scenic enjoyment. For example, ground-water supplies 

have been significantly depleted in many parts of the country, most notably 

in the High Plains aquifer underlying eight western states, which in some 

areas now holds less than half of the water held prior to commencement of 

ground-water pumping. Meanwhile, according to Bureau of the Census 

projections, the southwestern states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, 

and Nevada, states that are already taxing their current water supplies, are 

each expected to see their population increase by more than 50 percent 

from 1995 to 2025. Furthermore, the potential effects of climate change 

create additional uncertainty about future water availability and use. For 

example, less snow pack as a result of climate change could harm states 

that rely extensively on melted snow runoff for their freshwater supply.

State water managers expect freshwater shortages in the near future, and 

their consequences could be severe. According to the results of GAO’s 

survey, even under normal water conditions, water managers in 36 states 

anticipate water shortages in localities, regions, or statewide within the 

next 10 years. Under drought conditions, 46 managers expect shortages 

in the next 10 years. Such shortages may be accompanied by severe 

economic, environmental, and social impacts. While no studies have 

measured the total economic impact of shortages, recent shortages have 

resulted in damages to specific segments of the economy. For example, in 

the summer of 1998, a drought that ranged from Texas to the Carolinas 
Executive Summary

Page 6 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

resulted in an estimated $6 to $9 billion in losses to the agriculture and 

ranching sectors. Water shortages can also result in environmental losses: 

damages to plant and animal species, wildlife habitat, and water quality. 

For example, diminished flows into the Florida Everglades have resulted in 

significantly reduced habitat for the wildlife population and a 90 percent 

reduction in the population of wading birds. Water shortages can also raise 

social concerns, such as conflicts between water users, reduced quality 

of life, and give rise to the perception of inequities in the distribution of 

disaster relief assistance. Many of these impacts are evident in the 

federally-operated Klamath Project—dams, reservoirs, and associated 

facilities—that sits on the California-Oregon border. Here, under drought 

conditions, several federal agencies—including Reclamation, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service—are trying to 

balance the water needs of, among others, irrigators, who receive water 

from the project, and endangered fish, which must have sufficient water 

to survive. In 2002, thousands of fish died while water was delivered for 

agricultural irrigation; the prior year, farmers experienced crop losses 

while water was used to maintain stream flows for fish.

In responding to our Web-based survey, state water managers identified 

the potential federal actions that would most help them meet their states’ 

water needs. Water managers from 47 states ranked their preferences 

within each of the five basic categories of federal activities. First, state 

water managers favored more federal financial assistance to plan and 

construct additional state water storage and distribution capacity and 

also favored more consultation with the states regarding the operation of 

federal storage facilities. Second, state managers favored having federal 

agencies collect water data in more locations to help them determine 

how much water is available. Third, state managers favored federal 

efforts to provide flexibility in how they comply with or administer federal 

environmental laws as well as consultation on these laws’ development, 

revision, and implementation. Fourth, state managers favored improving 

coordination of federal agencies’ participation with the states in water 

management agreements and increasing technical assistance to states in 

developing and implementing them. Finally, state managers favored more 

consultation with states on how federal agencies or tribal governments 

use their water rights, and increased financial and technical assistance to 

determine the amount of federal water rights. Federal officials identified 

current activities within each of these areas that support state efforts and 

explained that while some state preferences, such as funding for storage 

construction, would require congressional authorization, others can be 
Executive Summary

Page 7 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

addressed through ongoing efforts to enhance communication and 

cooperation. Appendix I contains the results of the survey.

Principal Findings

Water Availability and 

Use Trends Raise Concerns 

about Meeting Future Needs

The U.S. Water Resources Council completed the most recent, 

comprehensive, national water availability and use assessment in 1978.1

That assessment found that parts of the nation had inadequate water 

supplies and growing demand, resulting in water shortages and conflicts 

among users. The most recent forecast of future water use—but not 

availability—is USDA’s 1999 estimate for 2040. This forecast projects a 

rise in total withdrawals of only 7 percent despite a 41-percent increase in 

the nation’s population. Yet the forecast also warns of the tenuous nature 

of such projections. For example, if the most important and uncertain 

assumptions used in USDA’s projection, such as irrigated acreage, fail to 

decrease as assumed, water use may be substantially above the estimate.

Current trends—such as declining ground-water levels and increasing 

population—indicate that the freshwater supply is reaching its limits in 

some locations while freshwater demand is increasing. Specifically, the 

building of new, large reservoir projects has tapered off, limiting the 

amount of surface-water storage, and the storage that exists is threatened 

by age and sedimentation. Significant ground-water depletion has already 

occurred in many areas of the country; in some cases the depletion has 

permanently reduced an aquifer’s storage capacity or allowed saltwater to 

intrude into freshwater sources. Tremendous population growth, driving 

increases in the use of the public water supply, is anticipated in the 

Western and Southern states, areas that are already taxing existing 

supplies. Demand to leave water in streams for environmental, recreational 

and water quality purposes add to supply concerns. Finally, some experts 

expect that climate change will affect water supply conditions in all 

regions of the country, either through increased demands associated with 

higher temperatures or changes in supply because of new precipitation or 

runoff patterns.

1

 The Council, established by the Water Resources Planning Act in 1965 (P.L. 89-80), 

comprising the heads of several federal departments and agencies, such as Interior and 

the Environmental Protection Agency, has not been funded since 1983.
Executive Summary

Page 8 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

State Water Managers 

Expect Freshwater 

Shortages in the Near 

Future, Which May Have 

Severe Consequences

Under normal water conditions, state water managers in 36 states 

anticipate water shortages locally, regionally, or statewide within the 

next 10 years, according to GAO’s survey. Under drought conditions, the 

number grows to 46. Water managers expect these shortages because of 

depleted ground-water, inadequate access to surface-water, and growing 

populations, among other conditions, and despite ongoing actions to 

address their current and future water needs, such as: planning to prepare 

for and respond to droughts; assessing and monitoring water availability 

and withdrawals; and implementing water management strategies, such 

as joint management of surface and ground-water resources. In addition, 

water managers are reducing or reallocating water use, and developing 

or enhancing supplies by increasing water storage capacity, or less 

conventionally, seeding clouds to increase winter precipitation and 

developing saltwater desalination operations to produce freshwater.

If the anticipated water shortages actually occur, they could have severe 

economic, environmental and social impacts. The nationwide economic 

costs of water shortages are not known because the costs of shortages 

are difficult to measure. However, Commerce’s National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration has identified eight water shortages from 

drought or heat waves, each resulting in $1 billion or more in monetary 

losses over the past 20 years. For example, the largest shortage resulted 

in an estimated $40 billion in damages to the economies of the Central and 

Eastern United States in the summer of 1988. Water shortages can also 

have environmental impacts, damaging plant and animal species, wildlife 

habitat, and water quality. The Florida Everglades experience illustrates 

how dramatically reduced water flows can alter an ecological system. 

In 1948, following a major drought and heavy flooding, the Congress 

authorized the Central and Southern Florida Project—an extensive system 

of over 1,700 miles of canals and levees and 16 major pump stations—to 

prevent flooding, provide drainage, and supply water to South Florida 

residents. This re-engineering of the natural hydrologic environment 

reduced the Everglades to about half its original size and resulted in losses 

of native wildlife species and their critical habitat. In social terms, water 

shortages can create conflicts between water users, reduce quality of life, 

and create perceptions of inequities in the distribution of impacts and 

disaster relief. Federal experiences in operating the Klamath Project on the 

California-Oregon border, illustrate the conflicts that can arise when 

shortages occur. Farmers who rely on irrigation water from the project 

claim that Reclamation’s attempts in 2001 to manage water for fish survival 

resulted in crop losses, while environmentalist, fishermen, and tribal 

representatives claim that subsequent actions by Reclamation in 2002 to 
Executive Summary

Page 9 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

provide water for farmers resulted in low river flows, contributing to the 

death of more than 30,000 fish. As a result, litigation over river flows is 

ongoing, and federal and state legislation has been enacted to address the 

financial damages of the various parties.

State Water Managers 

Identified Potential Federal 

Actions to Help Them Meet 

Future Challenges

To identify potential federal actions to help states address their water 

challenges, GAO sought the views and suggestions of state water managers. 

Water managers from 47 states ranked actions federal agencies could take 

within five basic categories of federal activities:

• Planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining water storage 

and distribution facilities. State water managers reported their 

highest priority was more federal financial assistance to plan and 

construct their state’s freshwater storage and distribution systems 

and also favored having more input in federal facilities operations. 

For example, over the next 10 years, 26 states are likely to add storage 

capacity, and 18 are likely to add distribution capacity. Consequently, 

water managers in 22 states said that more federal financial assistance 

would be most useful in helping their state meet its water storage and 

distribution needs. Reclamation and Corps officials understand 

the states’ need for financial assistance for storage and distribution 

projects, and provide financial assistance on a project-by-project basis, 

as Congress authorizes and appropriates funds.

• Collecting and sharing water data. According to 37 states, federal 

agencies’ data are important to their ability to determine the amount 

of available water. Managers in 39 states ranked expanding the number 

of federal data collection points, such as streamgage sites, as the most 

useful federal action to help their state meet its water information 

needs. Officials at USGS, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, and Commerce’s National Weather Service have ongoing efforts 

and/or plans to expand or improve their data collection programs.

• Administering federal environmental protection laws. According 

to 23 state water managers, more flexibility in how they comply with or 

administer federal environmental laws would help states meet their 

obligations under the laws while also meeting their water management 

goals. The managers cited instances in which they believed that federal 

environmental laws had restricted the state’s ability to develop new 

storage capacity, distribute water, or meet the needs of offstream users. 

Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and 
Executive Summary

Page 10 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service said they 

try to accommodate state concerns about federal environmental laws, 

but were obligated to ensure that the laws are complied with and 

administered as Congress intended. However, they also stated that 

their agencies use the flexibility they have under current law to help 

the states administer or comply with federal environmental laws.

• Participating in water-management agreements. In the 29 states 

that participate in an interstate or international water-management 

agreement, state water managers ranked better coordination of federal 

agencies’ participation in the agreements as the most useful among 

potential federal actions to help states develop, enforce, and implement 

such agreements. Seven of these managers said that federal agencies 

had not fulfilled their responsibilities under interstate or international 

agreements during the last 5 years. In these cases, the managers pointed 

out that lack of coordinated federal actions—such as the failure to 

establish federal priorities in a river basin—have created uncertainty 

for state participants in water-management agreements. Reclamation 

and Corps officials stated that in most cases they have fulfilled their 

responsibilities under water-management agreements, but occasionally 

circumstances outside their control, such as funding, prevent them from 

carrying out these responsibilities. Nevertheless, these officials stated, 

their participation in water-management agreements could be 

improved through their ongoing efforts to enhance coordination and 

communication with states and other water resource stakeholders, thus 

assisting in the implementation of water-management agreements.

• Managing water rights for federal and tribal lands. Of the 31 state 

managers reporting that federal agencies or tribal governments claim or 

hold water rights (either state granted or federal reserved) in their state, 

12 reported that the most helpful potential federal action would be to 

consult more with the states on federal or tribal use of these rights, and 

16 indicated that their state had experienced a conflict within the last 

5 years between a federal agency’s use of its water rights and the state’s 

water management goals. For example, a federal agency had challenged 

the state over ground-water rights the state had issued to users because 

the withdrawals threatened federal surface-water rights. Disputes 

related to a federal agency’s use of state-granted rights are typically 

heard in state water courts, where the federal agency receives no 

preference over any other water right holder.
Executive Summary

Page 11 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

While states have principal authority for water management, federal 

activities and laws affect or influence virtually every water management 

activity undertaken by states. Although the state managers value the many 

contributions of federal agencies to their efforts to ensure adequate water 

supplies, they also indicate that federal activities could better support their 

efforts in a number of areas. The information we collected from state water 

managers should be useful to the federal agencies in determining how their 

activities affect states and how they can be more supportive of state 

efforts to meet their future water needs. While we are not making a 

specific recommendation, we encourage Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, 

Homeland Security, Interior, Corps, and Environmental Protection 

Agency officials to review the results of our state survey and consider 

modifications to their plans, policies, or activities as appropriate to better 

support state efforts to meet their future water needs.

Appendix I contains the full survey results.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Interior; the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The 

Department of the Interior concurred with our findings and provided 

technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Interior’s complete letter is in appendix II. The other departments and 

agencies concurred with our findings and provided technical clarifications, 

which we incorporated as appropriate. They did not provide formal, 

written comments.
Page 12 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 1

Introduction Cha1pert

Freshwater flows abundantly through the nation’s lakes, rivers, streams 

and underground aquifers. Nature regularly renews this precious resource, 

but users do not always have access to freshwater when and where they 

need it, and in the amount they need. To make more water available and 

usable throughout the United States, federal agencies have built 

massive water storage projects and engage in other water development, 

management, and regulatory activities. Federal agencies have control 

over water use in some cases, such as on federal lands or in interstate 

commerce, but state laws predominantly govern water allocation and use.

Water Is an Abundant 

and Renewable 

Resource but 

Not Always 

Readily Available

Water is one of the earth’s most abundant resources—covering about 

70 percent of the earth’s surface. However, accessible freshwater makes 

up less than 1 percent of the earth’s water. As shown in figure 1, about 

97 percent of the water on the planet is in the oceans and too salty to drink 

or to use to grow crops. Another 2 percent is locked away in glaciers and 

icecaps, virtually inaccessible for human use.

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

Introduction

Page 13 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Water is also a renewable resource—the water that was here a million 

years ago is still here today, continuously moving back and forth between 

the earth’s surface and atmosphere through the hydrologic cycle, as 

figure 2 shows. In this cycle, evaporation occurs when the sun heats water 

in rivers, lakes, or the oceans, turning it into vapor or steam that enters the 

atmosphere and forms clouds. The evaporative process removes salts and 

other impurities that may be picked up either naturally or as a result of 

human use. When the water returns to earth as rain, it runs into streams, 

rivers, lakes, and finally the ocean. Some of the rain soaks below the earth’s 

surface into aquifers composed of water-saturated permeable material such 

as sand, gravel, and soil, where it is stored as ground-water. When water 

returns to earth from the atmosphere as snow, it usually remains atop the 

ground until it melts, and then it follows the same path as rain. Some snow 

may turn into ice and glaciers, which can hold the water for hundreds 

of years before melting. The replenishment rates for these sources vary 

considerably—water in rivers is completely renewed every 16 days on 

average, but the renewal periods for glaciers, ground-water, and the largest 

lakes can run to hundreds or thousands of years.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 14 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 2: The Hydrologic Cycle
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 15 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

The United States has plentiful water resources. Rainfall averages 

nearly 30 inches annually, or 4,200 billion gallons per day throughout the 

continental 48 states. Two-thirds of the rainfall rapidly evaporates back 

to the atmosphere, but the remaining one-third flows into the nation’s 

lakes, rivers, aquifers, and eventually to the ocean. These flows provide 

a potential renewable supply of about 1,400 billion gallons per day, or 

about 14 times the U. S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) most recent estimate 

of daily consumptive use—the amount of water withdrawn from, but not 

immediately returned to, a usable water source.1

 Much larger quantities 

of freshwater are stored in the nation’s surface and ground-water 

reservoirs. Reservoirs created by the damming of rivers can store about 

280,000 billion gallons of water, lakes can hold larger quantities, and 

aquifers within 2,500 feet of the earth’s surface hold water estimated to 

be at least 100 times reservoir capacity.

Despite the abundance and renewability of the water supply, variability 

in the hydrologic cycle creates uncertainty in the timing, location and 

reliability of supplies. For example, while rainfall averages 30 inches 

annually nationwide, the average for specific areas of the country 

generally increases from west to east, from less than 1 inch in some desert 

areas in the Southwest to more than 60 inches in parts of the Southeast. 

Drought and flood are a normal, recurring part of the hydrologic cycle. 

Meteorological droughts, identified by a lack of measured precipitation, 

are difficult to predict and can last months, years, or decades.2

 As shown in 

figure 3, at least some part of the United States has experienced severe or 

extreme drought conditions every year since 1896. Therefore, regions will 

encounter periods when supplies are relatively plentiful, or even excessive, 

as well as periods of shortage or extreme drought.

1

 USGS fully defines consumptive use as water that has evaporated, transpired (e.g., from 

vegetation), incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or 

otherwise removed from the immediate water environment.

2

 While meteorological measurements are the first indicators of drought, other definitions of 

drought exist. For example, agricultural drought occurs when there is not enough moisture 

in the soil to meet the needs of a particular crop at a particular time, hydrological drought 

refers to deficiencies in water supplies, and socioeconomic drought is associated with 

supply and demand for water as an economic good.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 16 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 3: Percent Time in Severe and Extreme Drought Nationwide, 1895 to 1995
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 17 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

The variability in water availability was evident during 2002, when the 

United States had warmer than normal temperatures and below-average 

precipitation, which led to persistent or worsening drought throughout 

much of the nation. As the year began, moderate to extreme drought 

covered one-third of the nation and expanded to cover more than half of 

the nation during the summer, as shown in figure 4. Subsequently, heavy 

rainfall during July in Texas alleviated some of the drought conditions but 

led to widespread flooding. In addition, above average rainfall from 

September through November brought significant drought relief to the 

Southeast, where more than 4 years of drought had affected much of the 

region from Georgia to Virginia. However, severe drought conditions 

persisted over most of the interior Western states and the central and 

northern plains, with abnormal dryness across the Midwest through the 

end of the year.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 18 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 4: Drought Conditions across the Nation as of July 23, 2002
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 19 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Water resource issues tend to be local or regional. Water flows naturally 

within river basins. USGS recognizes 352 river-basins in the United States 

that typically encompass 5,000 to 20,000 square miles. However, even 

within river basins, the availability of water resources varies. Sharing the 

water within basins is usually possible, but poses challenges because 

water ignores jurisdictional boundaries and these jurisdictions may have 

competing interests. Therefore, distributing water from where it is to 

where it is needed may require the coordination of local, regional, state, 

federal, and even foreign interests.

Transferring water from one basin to another is even more complicated, 

since water generally cannot be moved between basins unless transfer 

facilities (i.e., canals, pipelines, and pumps) are constructed. Moreover, 

in most cases, river basin boundaries do not coincide with those of major 

underground aquifer systems. For this reason, numerous entities are 

involved in the many aspects of water resource planning, management, 

regulation, and development, and solutions to water-management problems 

are often not easily found.

The Federal 

Government Has 

Authority to Manage 

Water Resources 

but Recognizes 

State Authorities

The federal government has authority to manage water resources, but it 

recognizes the states’ authority to allocate and use water within their 

jurisdictions. Federal authority is derived from several constitutional 

sources, among them the Commerce Clause3

 and the Property Clause.4 The 

Commerce Clause permits federal regulation of water that may be involved 

in or may affect interstate commerce,5

 including efforts to preserve the 

navigability of waterways.6 The Property Clause permits federal regulation 

of water as necessary for the beneficial use of federal property.7 In addition,

3

 U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 3.

4

 U.S. Const. art. IV, §3, cl. 2.

5 See e.g., United States v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204, 1210 (7th Cir. 1977); Utah v. Marsh, 

740 F. 2d 799, 803 (10th Cir. 1984).

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

7 Id.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 20 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

under the Compact Clause of the Constitution, states cannot enter into 

agreements, or compacts, with each other—including those for the 

management of interstate waters—without the consent of Congress.8

Federal laws often require federal agencies engaged in water resource 

management activities to defer to state laws or cooperate with state 

officials in implementing federal laws. For example, under the Reclamation 

Act, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), within the Department of 

the Interior, must defer to and comply with state laws governing the 

control, appropriation, use, or distribution of water unless applying the 

state’s law would be inconsistent with an explicit congressional directive 

regarding the project.9

 Similarly, the Water Supply Act of 1958 recognizes 

nonfederal interests in water supply development. The act states:

“It is declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the primary responsibilities of 

the States and local interests in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal, 

industrial, and other purposes and that the Federal Government should participate and 

cooperate with States and local interests in developing such water supplies in connection 

with...Federal navigation, flood control, irrigation, or multiple purpose projects.”10

Other federal laws have affirmed this recognition.11

8

 U.S. Const. art. I, §10, cl. 3.

9

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

10 43 U.S.C. § 390b.

11 See, e.g., the McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666, which waives U.S. sovereign 

immunity and allows the federal government to be sued in state court to determine 

its rights to the use of water in a river system or other source. Both the Clean Water Act, as 

amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1251(g) et seq., and the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 

et seq., state that it is the policy of Congress that federal agencies cooperate with state and 

local agencies to resolve water resource issues.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 21 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Consequently, federal agencies have traditionally followed a policy of 

deferring to the states for managing and allocating water resources. 

Officials of federal agencies involved in water resources management 

recently reiterated that their role is providing assistance while recognizing 

state primacy for water allocation. For example, in November 2001 

testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works stated:

“I want to emphasize that Corps involvement in water supply is founded in deference to 

state water rights. During the enactment of the Flood Control Act of 1944, Congress made 

clear that we do not own the water stored in our projects...Our policy is to continue our 

commitment to consistency with state water law...we must respect the primacy of state 

water law.”

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation echoed this approach 

in his testimony at the same hearing, stating that it is important to 

emphasize the primary responsibility of local water users in developing 

and financing water projects, with Reclamation playing the important 

roles of maintaining infrastructure and applying expertise to help locals 

meet water needs. Specifically addressing Western water challenges in 

August 2002, he stated:

“As in the past, Reclamation will continue to honor State water rights...working with 

the states, our partners and all water users to leverage resources, to work at collaborative 

problem solving and to develop long-term solutions.”

State Laws Governing 

Water Allocation and 

Use Generally Follow 

Two Basic Doctrines

The variety of state water laws relating to the allocation and use of water 

can generally be traced to two basic doctrines: the riparian doctrine and 

the prior appropriation doctrine. Under the riparian doctrine, water rights 

are linked to land ownership—owners of land bordering a waterway have 

a right to use the water that flows past the land for any reasonable purpose. 

Landowners may, at any time, use water flowing past the land even if they 

have never done so before; all landowners have an equal right to use the 

water and no one gains a greater right through prior use. In contrast, 

the prior appropriation doctrine does not link water rights with land 

ownership. Water rights are instead linked to priority and beneficial water 

use—parties who obtain water rights first generally have seniority for the 

use of water over those who obtain rights later, and rights holders must put 

the water to beneficial use or abandon their right to use the water. Simply 

put, “first in time, first in right” and “use it or lose it.” When there is a water 

shortage, under the riparian doctrine all water users share the shortage in 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 22 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

proportion to their rights, while under the prior appropriation doctrine, 

shortages fall on those who last obtained a legal right to use the water.

For managing surface-water allocation and use, Eastern states generally 

adhere to riparian doctrine principles and Western states generally adhere 

to prior appropriation doctrine principles. We obtained information on the 

water management doctrines of 47 states from our 50-state Web-based 

survey of state water managers. As shown in figure 5, 16 states follow 

either common-law riparian or regulated riparian (state permitted) 

doctrine, 15 states follow prior appropriation doctrine, 13 states follow 

other doctrines, and 2 states do not regulate surface-water allocation.12

12 Three states did not respond to our survey, and one state was uncertain.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 23 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

Source: GAO analysis of state water managers' responses to GAO survey.

MN

OK

IL

MO

AR

TX

IN

KY

LA

GA

SC

NC

VA

VT

NY

WV

NJ

MD

DE

AZ

ID

NH

RI

CT

MA

CA

AL

CO

FL

IA

KS

ME

MI

MS

MT ND

NE

NM

NV OH

OR

PA

SD

TN

UT

WI

WY

WA

AK

HI

Category Number of states in category

Does not regulate (2)

No response or uncertain (4)

Other doctrine (13)

Prior appropriation (15)

Riparian (16)
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 24 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Special rules apply to allocating ground-water rights, but most state 

approaches reflect the principals of prior appropriation or riparian 

doctrines, with some modifications that recognize the unique nature of 

ground-water. As shown in figure 6, 18 states follow the riparian-derived 

doctrine of reasonable use; 12 states follow the prior appropriation 

doctrine; 13 states follow other approaches, such as granting rights to 

water beneath property to the landowners (absolute ownership) or dividing 

rights among landowners based on acreage (correlative rights); and 

3 states do not regulate ground-water allocation.13

13 Three states did not respond to our survey, and one state was uncertain.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 25 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 6: Doctrines Used by States to Govern Ground-Water Allocation
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 26 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Multiple Federal 

Agencies Have Water

Management 

Responsibilities

Many federal agencies play a role in managing the nation’s freshwater 

resources, as shown in figure 7. They build, operate and maintain large 

storage and distribution facilities; collect and share water availability and 

use data; administer clean water and environmental protection laws; assist 

in developing and implementing water-management agreements and 

treaties; and act as trustees for federal and tribal water rights. In 

performing these activities, each federal agency attempts to coordinate 

with other federal agencies and state water managers and users.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 27 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 7: Overview of Federal Activities

Bedrock

Water table

Aquifer

Data collection:

Agencies collect and share 

information on streamflow, 

groundwater levels, precipitation, 

snowpack, and long-term climate 

trends.

Water storage facilities:

Agencies construct, operate, and 

maintain dams, reservoirs, and 

water distribution facilities.

Environmental protection:

Agencies administer and 

implement laws such as the 

Endangered Species Act and the 

Clean Water Act.

Water management 

agreements:

Agencies play a variety of roles 

in developing and implementing 

international treaties and 

interstate compacts.

Water rights:

Agencies hold water rights for 

lands they manage and act as 

trustees for tribal water rights.

State

or international boundary

Tribal lands

Federal lands

Source: GAO.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 28 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Reclamation and the Corps 

of Engineers Manage Large 

Water Storage Facilities

Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers construct, operate, and maintain 

large facilities to store and manage untreated water, such as Reclamation’s 

Hoover Dam in Arizona and the Corps’ Eufaula Lake in Oklahoma 

(see fig. 8).14 While federal facilities compose only about 5 percent of the 

estimated 80,000 dams in the nation, they include many of the largest 

storage facilities, holding huge quantities of water for a wide variety of 

purposes, such as irrigation, industrial and municipal uses.15 Reclamation’s 

water delivery quantities are usually specified under long-term contracts at 

subsidized prices, while the Corps provides water storage space in 

reservoirs under long-term contracts.

14 For information on national needs for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, see 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Water Infrastructure: Information on Financing, Capital 

Planning, and Privatization, GAO-02-764 (Washington, D.C., May 5, 1999).

15 Other federal agencies have facility management responsibilities not directly related to 

water storage and distribution. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

within the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for coordinating dam safety 

efforts, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—an independent five-member 

commission appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate—licenses and 

regulates non-federal hydropower projects.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 29 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

Indicates the location of the

identified dams and lakes within

each state.

Las Vegas

Hoover Dam

Lake Meade

NV

OK

Tulsa

Eufaula Lake

Sources: Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (photos and captions); MapArt and Art Explosion (topographical and U.S. maps).

(A)

(B)

(A) The Bureau of Reclamation completed Hoover Dam, located on the

Colorado River at the Nevada-Arizona border, in 1936. The dam and Lake 

Mead provide flood control protection, navigation improvement, water storage 

and delivery, and hydroelectric power production. 

(B) The Army Corps of Engineers completed the dam and powerhouse at

Eufaula Lake, located on the Canadian River in eastern Oklahoma, in 1964. 

The dam and Eufala Lake provide flood control protection, navigation 

improvement, water storage, and hydropower production.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 30 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Reclamation has constructed irrigation, water storage, and distribution 

facilities throughout the 17 Western states. Today, these facilities serve 

many additional purposes, including municipal and industrial water 

supplies, power generation, recreation, and flood control. Reclamation 

manages about 348 reservoirs, with a total storage capacity of 245 million 

acre-feet of water, and approximately 250 diversion dams that provide 

water to approximately 9 million acres of farmland and nearly 31 million 

people.16 Reclamation also manages about 18,000 miles of water delivery 

facilities and operates a variety of additional facilities, such as pumps and 

structures for fish passage, to meet the needs of water users.

Reclamation no longer operates and maintains all of the facilities that it 

has built. It has transferred operation and maintenance responsibilities for 

many of the facilities it owns—primarily to irrigation districts.17 Typically, 

Reclamation has retained operation and maintenance responsibilities for 

water facilities that are large, serve multiple purposes, or control water 

diversions across state or international boundaries. Reclamation currently 

has only one ongoing water storage or distribution construction project: 

the Animas-La Plata project in Southwest Colorado and Northwest 

New Mexico, which will store and deliver water to two Indian tribes 

and others for irrigation, municipal and industrial uses.18 Congress has 

authorized but not funded additional Reclamation water resources 

projects, such as the Dixie Project in Utah, which was originally authorized 

in 1964.

Through its Civil Works Program, the Corps constructed and now operates 

and maintains water storage facilities across the nation.19 Corps projects 

originally were intended to control floods and provide for navigation, but 

Congress has since expanded the agency’s mandate to store water for some 

municipal, industrial, irrigation, recreation, and/or hydropower uses. 

Today, the Corps manages 541 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 

16 An acre-foot is the amount needed to cover an acre of land with 1 foot of water, sufficient 

to meet the needs of a family of four for 1 year.

17 According to the Reclamation officials, the agency has transferred operation and 

maintenance responsibilities for 415 water storage and delivery facilities since Reclamation 

constructed them.

18 For more information, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Animas-La Plata Project: 

Status and Legislative Framework, GAO/RCED-96-1 (Washington, D.C., Nov. 17, 1995).

19 Unlike Reclamation, the Corps does not own or operate water distribution facilities.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 31 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

330 million acre-feet, of which about 15 percent is jointly used for irrigation 

and other purposes, and another 3 percent for municipal and industrial 

uses. Although municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply storage 

is a small portion of total storage capacity, the Corps estimates that the 

facilities supply water to nearly 10 million people in 115 cities. The Corps 

has rarely undertaken construction of new water storage facilities since 

the 1980s. In accordance with the 1986 Water Resources Development 

Act, the Corps has transferred to non-federal interests the operation and 

maintenance responsibilities for the one storage facility it has constructed 

since 1986.

In addition to Reclamation and the Corps, federal agencies responsible for 

managing natural resources—such as USDA’s Forest Service, and Interior’s 

Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park 

Service—also construct water facilities on their lands to support their 

agencies’ objectives, and authorize the construction of facilities by other 

parties on their lands.20 Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, acting as trustee 

for tribal interests, authorizes similar facilities on tribal lands. The dams on 

these federal or tribal lands are typically much smaller than those operated 

by Reclamation and the Corps; many are not inventoried unless they meet 

certain size or hazard criteria. More specifically:

• Forest Service lands contain about 2,350 inventoried dams to provide 

water for many purposes such as fire suppression, livestock, recreation, 

and fish habitat;

• Bureau of Land Management lands contain about 1,160 dams, primarily 

providing water for livestock and wildlife;

• the Fish and Wildlife Service has an estimated 15,000 water storage and 

distribution facilities, primarily to provide water for fisheries as well as 

for waterfowl and migratory bird habitat;

• the National Park Service has 451 dams within its boundaries to manage 

water for habitat, fire suppression, flood control and recreation; and

20 Non-federal parties also construct and operate water storage projects on federal lands. 

Federal natural resource agencies issue permits for these activities. For example, the 

National Park Service issued a permit to the City of San Francisco to construct and operate, 

within the Yosemite National Park, Hetch Hetchy reservoir, the primary water source for 

the city.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 32 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

• the Bureau of Indian Affairs owns an estimated 500 to 1,000 dams that 

control flood and erosion and manage water for irrigation, flood control, 

stockwater, and recreation.

Several Agencies Collect 

and Share Water Data

Several federal agencies collect and distribute information on water 

availability and use including surface-water, ground-water, rainfall, and 

snowpack. Interior’s USGS is primarily responsible for collecting, 

analyzing, and sharing data on water availability and use. It collects, 

analyzes, and shares information on surface-water availability, 

ground-water availability, and water use through four programs:

• The National Streamflow Information Program collects surface-water 

availability data through its national streamgage network, which 

continuously measures the level and flow of rivers and streams at 

7,000 stations nationwide, as shown in figure 9, for distribution on 

the Internet.

• The Ground-Water Resources Program collects information from about 

600 continuous ground-water-monitoring stations in 39 states and 

Puerto Rico for distribution on the Internet. In addition, the agency 

manually collects ground-water data intermittently in thousands of 

locations; compiling and reporting this data can take months.

• The National Water Use Information Program compiles extensive 

national water use data collected from states every 5 years for the 

purpose of establishing long-term water use trends.

• The Cooperative Water Program is a collaborative program with states 

and other entities to collect and share surface and ground-water data.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 33 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 9: USGS’ Nationwide Streamgage Network

Commerce’s National Weather Service and USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service combine their data, together with USGS streamgage 

data, to forecast water supplies and floods. They post water supply 

forecasts twice a month on the Internet, and they provide daily, and 

sometimes hourly, flood forecast information to water storage facility 

management agencies and other interested parties through arranged 

communication channels. The National Weather Service measures rainfall 

with over 10,000 gages nationwide, providing data for weather and climate 

forecasts; it also collects snowfall data in cities and rural areas. The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service operates 670 automated, high-elevation 

snow and climate measurement sites in 12 states; these sites use advanced 

radio technology to report data on the Internet about once each day. The 

agency also periodically conducts manual surveys at about 1,000 other 

stations; it supplies data from these sites to federal and non-federal water 

managers who request it.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 34 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Federal agencies often collect water data or conduct water resources 

research in support of their own responsibilities. For example, both the 

National Park Service and the Forest Service collect streamflow data to 

supplement USGS’ streamgage information; the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

conducts some research on water availability on tribal lands as a part of 

the agency’s trust responsibilities to tribes; Reclamation and the Corps 

collect data on reservoir levels and water flows through their facilities; 

and Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service and Cooperative State 

Research Education and Extension Service conduct and fund water 

quantity and quality research.

Several Agencies 

Administer Clean Water 

and Environmental 

Protection Laws

Several federal agencies administer clean water and environmental 

protection laws that affect water resource management. The 

Environmental Protection Agency administers the Clean Water Act, as 

amended—the nation’s principal federal law regulating surface-water 

quality. States and localities play a significant role in its implementation. 

Under the act, among other things, municipal or industrial parties that 

discharge pollutants must meet the regulatory requirements for pollution 

control.21 The Environmental Protection Agency administers a permit 

system that requires control of discharges to meet technology and/or 

water quality based requirements. In addition, the act requires parties that 

dispose of dredge or fill material in the nation’s waters, including wetlands, 

to obtain a permit from the Corps.22 Furthermore, the act requires states to 

develop and implement programs to control non-point sources of pollution, 

which include run off from chemicals used in agriculture and from urban 

areas.23 The Clean Water Act can affect available water supplies, for 

example, by reducing offstream use or return flows to address water 

quality concerns.

21 33 U.S.C. §1311(a).

22 33 U.S.C. §1344(a), (d).

23 33 U.S.C. §1329.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 35 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service and Commerce’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service are responsible for administering the Endangered 

Species Act. This act requires federal agencies to ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any listed species of plant or animal or adversely modify 

or destroy designated critical habitat.24 The Fish and Wildlife Service is 

responsible for administering the act for land and freshwater species, and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service is responsible for marine species, 

including Pacific salmon, which spend part of their lifespans in freshwater. 

To implement the act, the agencies identify endangered or threatened 

species and their critical habitats, develop and implement recovery plans 

for those species, and consult with other federal agencies on the impact 

that their proposed activities may have on those species. If the Fish and 

Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service finds that an agency’s 

proposed activity will jeopardize an endangered or threatened species, 

then a “reasonable and prudent alternative” must be identified to ensure 

the species is not jeopardized.25 Numerous endangered species rely on the 

nation’s waters, as shown in figure 10. The Endangered Species Act can 

affect water management activities, for example, by necessitating certain 

stream flow levels to avoid jeopardizing listed species or critical habitat.

24 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(2).

25 16 U.S.C. §1536(a)(3)(a).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 36 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

as of March 2003

(18)

(13)

Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (data) and GAO (analysis).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 37 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Agencies Help Develop 

and Implement 

Water-Management 

Agreements

States enter into agreements—interstate compacts—to address water 

allocation, quality, and other issues on rivers and lakes that cross state 

borders. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, at least 26 interstate 

compacts address river water allocation between two or more states; 

7 address water pollution issues; and 7 address general water resource 

issues, including flood control. Federal agencies may assist in developing 

and implementing these compacts, provide technical assistance, 

participate in and consult with oversight bodies, develop river operating 

plans, act as stewards of tribal and public natural resources, and enforce 

compacts. For example, the Supreme Court appointed the Secretary of 

Interior as the River Master responsible for implementing the water 

allocation formula of the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Under the 

compact, the states of the Upper Colorado River Basin (Colorado, 

New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming), as shown in figure 11, are required to 

deliver to the states of the Lower Basin (Arizona, California, and Nevada) a 

minimum of 75 million acre-feet of water over 10-year periods.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 38 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 11: Colorado River Basin Crosses Seven State Borders

Source: Bureau of Reclamation.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 39 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Through international treaties with Canada and Mexico, the United States 

can coordinate activities such as water allocation, flood control, water 

quality, and power generation activities, as well as resolve water related 

disputes along the nations’ international borders. The 1909 Boundary Water 

Treaty established the International Joint Commission of the United States 

and Canada, and the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico provided the 

International Boundary and Water Commission with the authority to carry 

out the treaty. These bi-national commissions help the member nations 

coordinate water management activities, monitor water resources, and 

resolve disputes. For example, the International Boundary Water 

Commission recently facilitated an agreement between Mexico and the 

United States regarding Mexico’s water debt under the treaty.

Agencies Are Responsible 

for Federal and Tribal 

Water Rights

Numerous federal natural resources management agencies and the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs are trustees for the water rights of federal and tribal lands. 

The states grant the great majority of water rights to these agencies, but the 

agencies also have federal reserved rights. The federal government has 

reserved water rights to fulfill the purposes of federal lands such as 

national forests, national parks, and wildlife refuges and for tribal lands. 

Federal lands account for 655 million acres, or 29 percent, of U.S. lands, 

primarily in the Western states as shown in figure 12.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 40 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 12: Federal and Tribal Lands in the United States

VERMONT MAINE

NEW

HAMPSHIRE

NEW YORK MASSACHUSETTS

CONNECTICUT PENNSYLVANIA

NEW

JERSEY

DELAWARE

MARYLAND

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

OHIO INDIANA ILLINOIS

MICHIGAN

WISCONSIN

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

GEORGIA ALABAMA

FLORIDA

MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

TEXAS

ARKANSAS

MISSOURI

IOWA

MINNESOTA

NORTH DAKOTA

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

NEW MEXICO

COLORADO

WYOMING

MONTANA

IDAHO

UTAH

ARIZONA

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

OREGON

WASHINGTON

DC

RHODE ISLAND

ALASKA

ALASKAHAWAII

Source: National Atlas of the United States.

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, 

National Park Service, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Research Service, Department of Energy, and Department of Transportation
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 41 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

The exact number and amount of federal reserved rights are not known. 

However, Bureau of Land Management officials estimate that 20 percent 

of the agency’s water rights are federally reserved, largely for underground 

springs. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that it has very few 

federally reserved rights: almost all water rights for their activities are 

state granted. A Forest Service official estimated that half of the service’s 

water rights are federally reserved. The National Park Service relies on 

both federal reserved and state granted rights, depending on the specific 

park circumstances.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, as trustee for tribal resources in the 

United States, has the primary statutory responsibility for protecting tribal 

water rights. The Supreme Court has found that water rights in a quantity 

sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the reservations are implied when the 

United States establishes reservation lands for a tribe.26 Tribes typically use 

water rights to ensure water is available for irrigation, hydropower, 

domestic use, stockwatering, industrial development and the maintenance 

of instream flows for rivers.

Objectives, Scope, 

and Methodology

To assist congressional deliberations on freshwater supply issues, we 

identified (1) the current conditions and future trends for U.S. water 

availability and use, (2) the likelihood of shortages and their potential 

consequences, and (3) state views on how federal activities could better 

support state water management efforts to meet future demands.

To identify the current conditions and future trends for U.S. water 

availability and use, we met with federal officials and collected and 

analyzed documentation from Reclamation, USGS, the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish 

and Wildlife Services within the Department of the Interior; the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, Rural Utilities Service, 

Agriculture Research Service, Economic Research Service, and 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service within 

the Department of Agriculture; the National Weather Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service within the Department of Commerce; 

the Army Corps of Engineers within the Department of Defense; the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of 

26 Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 42 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Homeland Security; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Although rising demands and 

environmental pressures have encouraged discussions of market based 

solutions, we assumed a continuation of current pricing and quantity 

allocation practices in our discussion of supply and demand trends and 

water shortages.

We analyzed the reports of past federal water commissions, including 

the U.S. Water Resources Council, National Water Commission, and the 

Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, and nonfederal 

organizations, such as the Western States Water Council and American 

Water Works Association. We also analyzed National Research Council, 

Congressional Research Service, and our own reports.

To determine the likelihood of shortages and their potential consequences, 

we analyzed water shortage impact information from the National Drought 

Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data 

Center, and from the states. We did not assess the accuracy of the 

various estimates of the economic impacts of water shortages. We 

obtained information from Congressional Research Service reports, our 

own reports, and analyzed media accounts of water shortages. We obtained 

the views of state water managers regarding the likelihood of water 

shortages using a Web-based survey of managers in the 50 states.

To obtain states’ views on how federal activities could better support 

state water management efforts to meet future demands, we conducted a 

Web-based survey of state water managers in the 50 states. We developed 

the survey questions by reviewing documents and by talking with officials 

from the federal agencies listed above and the state water managers in 

three state offices—Arizona, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The questionnaire 

contained 56 questions that asked about state water management; 

collection and dissemination of state water quantity data by federal 

agencies; federal water storage and conveyance within their state; the 

effects of federal environmental laws on state water management; the 

effects of interstate compacts and international treaties on state water 

management; and the effects of federal and tribal rights to water on state 

water management.

We pretested the content and format of the questionnaire with state 

water managers in Georgia, Florida, Virginia, and Washington. During the 

pretest we asked the state managers questions to determine whether 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 43 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

(1) the survey questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, 

(3) the questionnaire placed an undue burden on the respondents, 

and (4) the questions were unbiased. We also assessed the usability of the 

Web-based format. We made changes to the content and format of the final 

questionnaire based on pretest results.

We posted the questionnaire on GAO’s survey Web site. State water 

managers were notified of the survey with an E-mail message sent before 

the survey was available. When the survey was activated, an E-mail 

message informed the state water managers of its availability and provided 

a link that respondents could click on to access the survey. This E-mail 

message also contained a unique user name and password that allowed 

each respondent to log on and fill out their own questionnaire. To maximize 

our response rate we sent reminder E-mails, contacted non-respondents 

by telephone, and mailed follow-up letters to non-respondents.

Questionnaires were completed by state water officials in 47 states 

(California, Michigan, and New Mexico did not participate) for a response 

rate of 94 percent. We performed analyses to identify inconsistencies and 

potential errors in the data and contacted respondents via telephone and 

E-mail to resolve these discrepancies. We did not conduct in-depth 

assessments of the state water official’s responses. A technical 

specialist reviewed all computer programs for analyses of the survey 

data. Aggregated responses of the survey are in appendix I.

We conducted our work from March 2002 through May 2003 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 44 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs Cha2pert

No federal entity has comprehensively assessed the availability and use of 

freshwater to meet the nation’s needs in 25 years. While forecasting water 

use is notoriously difficult, numerous signs indicate that our freshwater 

supply is reaching its limits. Surface-water storage capacity is strained and 

ground-water is being depleted as demands for freshwater increase 

because of population growth and pressures to keep water instream for 

environmental protection purposes. The potential effects of climate change 

create additional uncertainty about the future availability and use of water.

National Water 

Availability and 

Use Has Not Been 

Assessed in Decades

National water availability and use was last comprehensively assessed 

in 1978.1

 The U.S. Water Resources Council, established by the Water 

Resources Planning Act in 1965,2 assessed the status of the nation’s water 

resources—both surface-water and ground-water—and reported in 1968 

and 1978 on their adequacy to meet present and future water requirements. 

The 1978 assessment described how the nation’s freshwater resources 

were extensively developed to satisfy a wide variety of users and how 

competition for water had created critical problems, such as shortages 

resulting from poorly distributed supplies and conflicts among users. 

The Council has not been funded since 1983.

While water availability shortages have occurred as expected, total water 

use actually declined nearly 9 percent between 1980 and 1995, according to 

USGS. 3

 As figure 13 shows, after continual increases in use from 1960 to 

1980, total use began declining in 1980.

1

 In its 2002 report to Congress, USGS described the concepts for a national assessment of 

freshwater availability and use. (Report to Congress: Concepts for National Assessment of 

Water Availability and Use, Circular 1223, 2002.)

2

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

3

 1995 is the most recent data available; USGS’ 2000 national water use information is not yet 

ready for publication.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 45 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

Million gallons per day

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Industrial

Irrigation

Public supply

Rural

Total water use is water that is removed from the ground

or diverted from a surface water source for use.

Sources: USGS (chart data and top photo), Natural Resources Conservation Service (photos), and GAO (analysis). 

Industrial:

Water used for fabrication, processing,

washing, and cooling in industries

such as power generation, steel,

mining, and petroleum refining.

Rural:

Water used on farms or rural areas,

such as drinking water for livestock.

Irrigation:

Water used to grow crops and

pastures, and to maintain parks and

golf courses.

Public supply:

Water used for domestic and

commercial uses, such as drinking,

bathing, watering lawns, and gardens.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 46 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

The reasons for the decrease in actual use illustrate why forecasting water 

use is so difficult. According to USGS, most of the increase from 1950 to 

1980 was due to expanded irrigation and hydropower generation. In the 

1980s, more efficient irrigation techniques, coupled with new technologies 

that lowered industrial use, helped ease demand more than anticipated 

and returned more water to the nation’s waterways and aquifers. Water 

use also declined because of enhanced public awareness and many states’ 

conservation programs. Only public supply and rural use, driven by 

population growth and livestock needs, respectively, continued to grow 

after 1980. Accordingly, a 1999 USDA study found that past water use 

projections for 2000 show consistently large differences among the 

forecasts and large discrepancies between projected and actual water use 

(fig. 14).4

 Key factors influencing some of the excessive projections include 

overestimating population increases, not accounting for technological 

advances, not anticipating the introduction of environmental laws, and 

underestimating the impact of conservation efforts.5

4

 Brown, Thomas C. 1999. Past and Future Freshwater Use in the United States: 

A Technical Document Supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment.

5

 Various agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, have programs that 

provide technical assistance to states, water districts, and water users for efficiency, 

conservation, and reuse efforts.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 47 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 14: Projections of United States Water Use for 2000

The most recent water use—but not availability—forecast is the USDA’s 

1999 projection for 2040, which identifies a rise in total water use of only 

7 percent despite a 41-percent increase in the nation’s population. 

However, the agency includes a warning about the tenuous nature of such 

projections. For example, irrigated acreage is one of the most important yet 

uncertain assumptions in the projection. If irrigated acreage does not drop 

in most Western river basins as assumed, use may be substantially above 

the estimate. As such, there are compelling reasons for concern regarding 

the future availability of freshwater to meet the nation’s growing demands.

Projected water use for year 2000 (in billion gallons per day)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1961 1968 1973 1978 1989 1995

USGS estimate for 1995 water use 

888

804

1,000

306 385 341

Senate Select

Committee

Water Resources

Council

National Water

Commission

Water Resources

Council

U.S. Forest

Service

USGS

estimated use

Forecaster and year in which the projection was made

Sources: U.S. Forest Service (data), USGS (data), and GAO (analysis).
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 48 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Trends in Water 

Availability and Use 

Raise Concerns about 

the Nation’s Ability to 

Meet Future Needs

While the nation does not have a current assessment of water availability 

and use, current trends raise concerns about the nation’s ability to meet 

future needs. Numerous signs point to the danger that our freshwater 

supply is reaching its limits. These indicators include constraints on 

surface storage capacity and depletion of ground-water resources at the 

same time as demands for freshwater are on the rise. Increased demand 

comes from a growing population and pressures to keep water instream for 

fisheries, wildlife habitat, recreation, and scenic enjoyment. The potential 

effects of climate change create additional uncertainty about future water 

availability and use.

Surface Storage 

Construction 

and Maintenance 

Is Declining

The construction of large reservoirs in the United States has slowed 

markedly since peaking during the 1960s, as shown in figure 15. 

Reclamation has only one large water storage project underway—AnimasLa Plata in Colorado and New Mexico; the Corps has none. Furthermore, 

because of the high cost and ecological impact of reservoirs and dams, 

researchers and agency officials generally agree that it is unlikely that the 

construction of such large-scale projects will be at the forefront in meeting 

future water needs.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 49 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

Available evidence also indicates that existing reservoirs may not able to 

continue storing water at current levels. Many of the federal and nonfederal 

dams that support storage reservoirs are aging and in need of repair. The 

American Society of Engineers has rated over 2,000 dams as unsafe, and 

nearly 10,000 as having high hazard potential, according to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency’s fiscal year 2001-2002 report to Congress 

on the National Dam Safety Program. According to Reclamation officials, 

approximately 50 percent of Reclamation’s dams were built before 1950, 

and many of these before the development of current engineering 

standards. Reclamation recognizes that upgrading and maintaining existing 

infrastructure is vital to ensuring dependable supplies of water, and 

anticipates that future costs to rehabilitate Reclamation’s infrastructure 

will be substantial. The Corps estimates it has a critical maintenance 

Number of reservoirs
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 50 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

backlog of $884 million, largely for dredging waterways and repairing 

structures such as locks, dams, and breakwaters. While the direct impact 

on water supply is not clear, extensive maintenance and repair will be 

needed in future years to ensure the continued viability of the water 

management infrastructure.

Moreover, the amount of water available for use from these reservoirs is 

continually being reduced by sedimentation—the flow of soil, rock and 

other natural materials into reservoirs. Over time, sedimentation can 

significantly reduce reservoir water storage capacities. According to a 

1995 Resources for the Future report,6

 the total reduction resulting from 

the buildup of sediment is estimated at about 1.5 million acre-feet per year. 

For example, USGS’ reservoir sedimentation studies in Kansas found that 

decreases in water-storage capacity from sedimentation ranged from less 

than 5 percent to about 50 percent at various locations.

Ground-Water Is 

Being Depleted

As shown in figure 16, ground-water is a major source of drinking water 

in every state. It provides about 40 percent of the nation’s public water 

supply, and more than 40 million people—including 97 percent of the 

rural population—supply their own drinking water from domestic wells. 

Ground-water is also the source of about 37 percent of the water used for 

irrigation and livestock, is a major contributor to flow in many streams and 

rivers, and has a strong influence on river and wetland habitats for plants 

and animals.

6

 Resources for the Future, established in 1952, conducts independent research on 

environmental and natural resource issues.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 51 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 16: Estimated Percentage of Population Using Ground-Water as Drinking 

Water in 1995 by State

Ground-water depletion is occurring across the nation. According to USGS, 

ground-water depletion may be related to the slowed construction of 

surface reservoirs in recent years—as surface-water resources become 

fully developed and allocated, ground-water commonly offers the only 

available source for new development. USGS has documented significant 

ground-water depletion in particular areas of the Southwest; the Sparta 

aquifer of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; the Cambrian-Ordovician 

aquifer of the Chicago-Milwaukee area; and the High Plains aquifer 

(consisting largely of the Ogallala aquifer). The High Plains aquifer 

underlies a 174,000-square-mile region including parts of eight states 

(Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Sources: USGS (data) and GAO (analysis).
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 52 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Texas, and Wyoming) and supplies about 30 percent of all ground-water 

used nationwide for irrigation.

Ongoing water-level monitoring in the High Plains aquifer provides a 

well-documented example of the long-term depletion of ground-water 

resources. Ongoing monitoring, initiated in 1988, found that the intense use 

of ground-water has caused major declines in the water level and reduced 

the ground-water remaining in storage in some areas to a level that makes 

the aquifer no longer economical to use. As shown in figure 17, the changes 

are particularly evident in the central and southern High Plains, where 

more than half of the ground-water that was available before pumping 

started has been depleted. Through 1999, an estimated 220 million acre-feet 

have been removed from storage in the aquifer—or more than half the 

volume of water in Lake Erie. Water levels continue to decline in many 

areas of the aquifer, but the rate of decline has slowed during the past 

2 decades in some areas. The decline is attributed to decreases in irrigated 

acreage, improvements in irrigation and cultivation practices, and 

above-normal precipitation and groundwater recharge during the period.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 53 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

Water-level change, in feet

Boundary of the

High Plains aquifer

More than 10

Rises

Less than 10-foot change

Minimal change

10 to 50

Declines

More than 150

100 to 150

50 to 100

Cumulative change in ground-water storage since 1987

(in millions of acre-feet)

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

19981999

Approximate location and boundary of

the High Plains aquifer.

(A) The High Plains Aquifer is a 174,000

square-mile area underlying parts of

eight states from South Dakota to

Texas. This figure shows changes in

ground-water levels in the High Plains

aquifer from before ground-water

development to 1997.

(B) Shows the cumulative change in

ground-water storage in the aquifer

from 1987 to 1999. Through 1999,

the total net amount of water removed

from storage in the aquifer is estimated

to have been 220 million acre-feet. This

volume of water equals more than 

half the volume of water in Lake Erie.

(B)

(A)

Sources: USGS (data) and GAO (analysis).
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 54 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Ground-water depletion has, in some cases, resulted in land subsidence 

and a permanent reduction of an aquifer’s water storage capacity. 

According to USGS, many areas across the United States have experienced 

subsidence, a decline in land-surface elevation caused by the removal of 

subsurface support through the withdrawal of ground-water. Subsidence 

can severely damage structures such as wells, buildings, and highways, 

and creates problems in the design and operation of facilities for drainage, 

flood protection, and water distribution. Furthermore, the compaction 

of aquifer materials that causes subsidence can result in a permanent 

reduction of 10 to 30 percent of the storage capacity of some aquifer 

systems. In the arid Southwest, subsidence shows as deep fissures or 

“cracks” in the earth’s surface, while in the humid East, subsidence is 

evidenced by “sinkholes.” Figure 18 shows a sinkhole in west-central 

Florida caused by drilling for a new irrigation well.

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

New Irrigation Well

Development of a new irrigation well in west-central Florida (B) triggered the sinkhole in the photo 

above (A). A person (near the white arrow) stands next to this sinkhole to give an idea as to its 

relative size.

Orlando

Tampa

St. Petersburg

Sources: USGS (photo and caption), Map Art (map), and GAO (analysis).

(A))

(B)
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 55 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

USGS has extensively examined land subsidence in south-central Arizona. 

Ground-water pumping for agriculture in the aquifers serving the basins of 

south-central Arizona began in the late 1800s, and by the 1940s many of 

the basins had undergone intensive ground-water pumping. Ground-water 

depletion has been widespread over these basins, as shown in figure 19, 

and some water-level declines have exceeded 300 feet. These declines have 

resulted in regional subsidence, exceeding 10 feet in some areas.

Figure 19: Land Subsidence in South-Central Arizona
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 56 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Depleting aquifers in many coastal areas may also result in saltwater 

intrusion, making the water unusable for drinking, irrigation, and other 

purposes requiring freshwater. According to USGS, incidences of saltwater 

intrusion have been documented in almost all coastal states, especially 

along the Atlantic coast—affecting areas from Miami, Florida, to Cape 

Cod, Massachusetts. In particular, saltwater intrusion is occurring in:

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

• Georgia and South Carolina, in the Brunswick and Savannah areas, and 

on Hilton Head Island, respectively; and

• New Jersey, in parts of Atlantic, Gloucester, Monmouth, Cape May, 

Ocean, and Salem Counties.

The threat of saltwater intrusion is also present in much of the interior of 

the country, where deep saline water underlies the freshwater. For 

example, ground-water withdrawals from the alluvial aquifer for irrigation 

near Brinkley, Arkansas, have caused upward movement of saline water 

from the underlying Sparta aquifer into the alluvial aquifer.

Projected Population 

Growth Will Increase 

Freshwater Demands

The U.S. Bureau of the Census projects substantial population growth 

by 2025 in areas of the nation where demand is already stressing the 

water supply. This growth could threaten the water supply even further. 

According to USGS, population growth drives increases in the use of the 

public water supply.7

 Indeed, public use increased by 4 percent while 

population increased by 7 percent from 1990 to 1995. The difference in 

rates indicates the success of conservation in lowering per-capita use, 

from 184 gallons per day in 1990 to 179 gallons per day 1995. Whether 

conservation will continue to lower per capita use and at what rate 

is unknown.

7

 Other factors that influence the demand for water include the price of water, the price of 

other goods (such as, the price of energy used in water pumps and the price of goods 

produced using water), income, instream demands for habitat and other ecological needs, 

and climate.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 57 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

According to the Bureau of the Census’ 1997 projections, net population 

change through 2025 will be most evident in three states—California, 

Texas, and Florida—each of which is projected to gain more than 6 million 

persons.8

 These three states will account for 45 percent of the net 

population change in the United States. California, the most populous 

state, with 12 percent of the nation’s population in 1995, is expected to have 

15 percent of the nation’s population by 2025. As shown in figure 20, 

Western and Southern states will not only have the largest net growth but 

will also grow at the fastest rates. California is expected to grow faster 

than any other state after 2000, with an estimated 56-percent growth rate 

between 1995 and 2025.

8

 Net population change is births minus deaths plus net migration.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 58 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 20: States’ Population Growth from 1995 to 2025

Many of the states that are growing the most or at the fastest rates are 

also those that are currently stressing freshwater supplies. Figure 21 

shows total freshwater use in the United States in 1995, by county, 

in million gallons used per day, and illustrates that many of the states that 

are expected to grow the most or the fastest—California, Nevada, Arizona, 

New Mexico, Florida, and Texas—also include significant areas that are 

already using water at among the greatest daily rates in the nation. In some 

of these same areas of high water use, the consumptive use of water nears 

or exceeds the renewable water supply, indicating that all or most of the 

water that is available is used. For example, according to USGS, in the 

Lower Colorado River basin, covering most of Arizona and significant parts 

of Nevada and New Mexico, the population consumed 10.6 billion gallons 

per day, but the renewable supply is only 10.3 billion gallons per day.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

MN

OK

IL

MO

AR

TX

IN

KY

LA

GA

SC

NC

VA

VT

NY

WV

NJ

MD

DE

AZ

ID

NH

RI

CT

MA

CA

AL

CO

FL

IA

KS

ME

MI

MS

MT ND

NE

NM

NV OH

OR

PA

SD

TN

UT

WI

WY

WA

AK

HI

Number of states in each category

10% or less (6)

Between 11% and 30% (29)

Between 31% and 50% (10)

More than 50% (5)

Category percent population growth
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 59 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 21: Total Freshwater Withdrawals by County, 1995

Western states are already experiencing the effects of this anticipated 

growth. For example, due to ongoing population growth and the effects of 

recent drought, several Colorado River basin states, such as New Mexico 

and Arizona, are demanding that California, one of the biggest users of 

Colorado River water, adhere to the 1922 Colorado River Compact. For 

many years Southern California had been using Colorado River water that 

was not used by the other states, and had come to rely on this water to 

meet the demands of its users. After prolonged negotiations, the California 

users, such as irrigation and municipal water districts, could not agree on a 

plan to reduce their Colorado River water use. As a result, Reclamation has 

begun limiting California to its legal entitlement of 4.4 million acre feet of 

Source: USGS.

Less than 200

200-500

500-3910

Million gallons per day
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 60 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Colorado River water annually. State users are continuing to discuss a 

potential water-sharing agreement, and stored water is expected to prevent 

immediate severe impacts. However, Southern California water users have 

begun considering alternative supplies, such as obtaining water from 

Northern California water right holders, storing water in surface reservoirs 

and underground aquifers, and building desalination facilities to turn ocean 

water into freshwater.

Based on recent media reports, many metropolitan areas in other parts of 

the nation are also experiencing the impact of population growth on water 

supply. For example:

• Atlanta, Georgia, the fourth fastest growing metropolitan area in the 

United States from 1990 to 2000, is recovering from a prolonged 

drought and is exploring ways to meet increased demand due to 

population growth.

• Chicago, Illinois, the seventh fastest growing metropolitan area between 

1990 and 2000, has experienced significant ground-water depletion.

• Tampa, Florida, another area experiencing high population 

growth, began operating a new desalination plant in early 2003 to 

produce 25 million gallons of drinking water daily. This technology is 

seldom used in the United States owing to the relatively high cost of 

desalting water.

• Denver, Colorado, officials have proposed strict water conservation 

measures for 2003 because of anticipated water shortages; measures 

include limits on landscape watering and the amount of grass that can 

be planted at new homes.

• New York City’s water supply reached its most worrisome levels in more 

than 30 years during 2002, resulting in a drought emergency declaration 

for the city and four upstate counties. More than 9 million residents 

experienced water restrictions. The states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Maryland, Maine, and New Hampshire also enacted water restrictions.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 61 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Growing Demand to Leave 

Water Instream Affects 

Offstream Availability

Over the past 30 years, the nation has increasingly emphasized protecting 

the environment. Among other things, the public places higher value on 

leaving water instream for endangered species, recreation, and scenic 

enjoyment, which may limit the use of existing water supplies and the 

development of new supplies. Federal laws such as the Endangered 

Species Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act reflect these environmental 

values. However, when water is left instream to protect wetlands, fisheries, 

and endangered species or to preserve the wild and scenic status of a river, 

it cannot be simultaneously available for traditional offstream uses such as 

irrigation and municipal and industrial supply.

Under the Endangered Species Act, plants and animals may be listed as 

threatened or endangered, depending on the risk of extinction. Once a 

species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to help the species 

recover and to protect its habitat. Implementation of the Endangered 

Species Act resulted in immediate challenges for water resource managers. 

For example, the Tellico Dam, on the Little Tennessee River was already 

under construction when Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act in 

1973. Construction of the dam, which provides flood control, hydropower 

and water supply, was challenged under the act to prevent jeopardizing the 

endangered snail darter—a species of fish. In 1979, Congress specifically 

exempted the project from the Endangered Species Act, allowing the 

project to be completed.9

 Subsequently, the snail darter was found in other 

locations and reclassified as threatened.

More recently, in the Klamath River Basin on the California-Oregon border, 

Reclamation’s actions to comply with the Endangered Species Act by 

leaving water instream resulted in losses to traditional offstream users. 

After consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service about the operation of the Klamath Project in 2001, an 

acute drought year, Reclamation allocated nearly all the project water to 

the protection of endangered species in the Klamath River (Coho salmon) 

and the reservoir (two species of sucker fish). While this action met 

Reclamation’s obligations under the Endangered Species Act not to 

jeopardize any endangered species, Reclamation could not then meet its 

contractual water delivery obligations to irrigators, who consequently 

experienced crop losses. The potential for future conflicts over the 

9

 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 96-69, 93 Stat. 437 (1980).
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 62 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

implementation of the Endangered Species Act is strong as competition 

grows between instream and offstream water demands.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides protection for a designated river 

or segment by limiting the future licensing of dams, reservoirs and other 

water projects on, or adversely affecting, protected segments.10 Conflict 

can arise over how much water should remain in rivers to maintain their 

wild and scenic values and over whom should decide the proper amount of 

water. Environmentalists and boaters may prefer high, strong flows in wild 

and scenic stretches, while others stress the need for water to be available 

above and below wild and scenic segments for farming and other economic 

development, potentially reducing flows. For example, in August 2002, 

addressing the issue of water in the Salmon River, the Idaho Supreme 

Court ordered federal and state officials to participate in formal mediation, 

with consultation from environmental, industry and local government 

representatives, to determine the quantities of water to be legally reserved 

for all six wild and scenic rivers in Idaho. The court ordered the state and 

the Forest Service to reach a compromise on water allocation; if they do 

not, the case will be returned to state water court.

Climate Change Makes 

Future Supply and Demand 

Conditions Uncertain

Uncertainties regarding potential reductions in water availability also 

result from the natural variations of the hydrologic cycle and the possibility 

that greenhouse gasses, such as man-made concentrations of carbon 

dioxide and other gasses in the atmosphere, might warm the earth and 

thereby alter the cycle. According to the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, composed of federal and nonfederal representatives, water 

supply conditions in all regions of the United States are likely to be 

affected by climate change in the future, either through increased 

demands associated with higher temperatures or changes in supply 

because of changes in precipitation and runoff patterns.

A 2002 federal interagency report summarized climate and precipitation 

changes for the contiguous United States during the past century and 

expected changes over the next century.11 The report noted that for the 

past century, warming amounted to about 1 degree Fahrenheit, and that 

10 The National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Fish and 

Wildlife Service, all manage designated rivers.

11 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, Washington, D.C., May 2002.
Chapter 2

Freshwater Availability and Use Is Difficult 

to Forecast, but Trends Raise Concerns about 

Meeting Future Needs

Page 63 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

total annual precipitation increased by an estimated 5 to 10 percent. 

While most regions experienced greater precipitation, parts of the upper 

Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains had less precipitation. For the 

next century, the report noted the following likely changes—average 

temperature increases of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit across the nation, 

increased precipitation and evaporation, and more frequent occurrences 

of unusual warmth and extreme wet and dry conditions.

The U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates federal 

agencies’ climate research activities, concludes that climate change 

will pose many challenges to water supply management in future years. 

Program research indicates that changes in the amount, timing, and 

distribution of rain, snowfall and runoff are probable, leading to changes 

in water availability as well as in competition for water resources. 

Precipitation is very likely to continue to increase on average, especially 

in the nation’s middle and northern areas, with much of the increase 

coming in the form of heavy downpours, which are not as easily absorbed 

for storage in underground aquifers. Snowpack, which serves as natural 

water storage in mountainous regions and northern portions of the 

United States, gradually releases its water in spring and summer; however, 

snowpack is very likely to decrease as the climate warms, despite 

increasing precipitation. It is very likely that more precipitation will fall 

as rain, and that snowpack will develop later and melt earlier. As a result, 

peak stream flows will very likely come earlier in the spring, and summer 

flows will be reduced. Potential impacts of these changes include an 

increased possibility of flooding in winter and early spring and more 

shortages in the summer.
Page 64 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May 

Harm the Economy, the Environment, 

and Communities Cha3pert

Freshwater shortages are likely in the near future and their impact on the 

economy, environment, and communities may be severe.1

 Under normal 

water conditions, state water managers in 36 states anticipate water 

shortages in localities, regions, or statewide within the next 10 years. 

Under drought conditions, 46 state water managers expect shortages. 

While no studies have measured the total economic impacts of shortages, 

recent shortages have resulted in billions of dollars in damages to specific 

segments of the economy, such as agriculture. Water shortages can also 

damage plant and animal species, wildlife habitat, and water quality. 

Moreover, water shortages can harm the nation’s social fabric, for example, 

by creating conflicts between water users, reducing the quality of life, and 

creating perceptions of inequitable treatment among communities due to 

varying levels of water availability or relief for water shortage impacts.

State Water Managers 

Expect Shortages 

within 10 Years

Consistent with the water availability and use trends, state water managers 

expect water shortages in the near future. According to our survey of state 

water managers, 36 of 47 states expect some portion of their state to 

experience shortages under average water conditions within the next 

10 years.2

 As shown in figure 22, 18 state managers expect shortages to 

occur in one or more localized areas, while 18 state managers expect 

regional or statewide shortages. Water managers indicated that their states 

are vulnerable to shortages because they do not always have the 

infrastructure to store and distribute water where and when it is needed, 

they rely on diminishing ground-water resources, or because population 

growth has outpaced existing storage capacity in some regions of the state.

1

 Shortages are at prevailing water prices; we did not consider the potential effects of 

changes in water prices for this review.

2

 Based on discussions with state water managers during survey pretests, we asked 

managers to use the last 10 to 20 years to determine average water conditions for their state.
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 65 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

Water Conditions

The probability of shortages increases and the effects broaden under 

drought conditions. According to 46 of the 47 water managers, their states 

are likely to experience shortages within the next 10 years under drought 

conditions. Water managers in 6 states predict the shortages to occur in 

one or more localized areas within their state, 29 managers predict 

shortages in one or more regions in their state, and 11 managers predict 

statewide shortages.
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 66 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

States expect these shortages despite their efforts to prepare. Recognizing 

the challenges ahead, state water managers reported that state, regional, 

and/or local authorities are planning for their current and future 

water needs:

• Drought preparedness and response planning. Twenty-three states 

have a drought preparedness plan to reduce drought vulnerability, and 

41 states have a drought response plan to provide assistance to those 

affected by drought.

• Assessing and monitoring water availability and use.

Forty-four states are monitoring water availability and use by, for 

example, measuring streamflows or water withdrawals.

• Implementing water management strategies. Thirty-eight states are 

coordinating the management of surface and ground-water resources to 

help meet their current and future water needs.

• Reducing or reallocating water use. Forty states are taking actions 

to conserve water, and 15 states are allowing voluntary water transfers 

among users, allowing water to be bought and sold or leased.

• Developing or enhancing supplies. Some states are undertaking 

scientific or technological approaches—eight western states are using 

cloud seeding to increase precipitation within the state, and nine 

coastal states are developing saltwater desalination operations to 

make freshwater.
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 67 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Freshwater 

Shortages Have 

Severe Economic, 

Environmental, and 

Social Consequences

Shortages of freshwater may harm not only a local area, but also multiple 

regions and sectors of the economy for many years. Water shortages can 

also damage the environment and create conflicts between water users.

Water Shortages Can 

Cause Billions of Dollars in 

Economic Damages

No estimates are available on the total economic costs of water shortages 

to the nation. However, adequate supplies of water must be available to 

produce goods and provide services, and shortages can create both direct 

and indirect problems. For example, shortages reduce crop, rangeland, 

and forest productivity; increase fire hazards; increase mortality rates for 

livestock and wildlife; and damage wildlife and fish habitat. In 2003, alone, 

Congress provided an additional $3.1 billion in appropriations to offset 

agricultural losses. Water shortages also have indirect impacts. For 

example, reductions in crop, rangeland, and forest productivity reduces 

income for farmers and agribusiness, increases prices for food, contributes 

to higher unemployment, increases foreclosures on banks loans to farmers 

and businesses, and requires more spending for disaster relief.

While national estimates are not available, regional and state estimates 

provide some insight into the severity of water shortages. According to a 

2000 report on extreme weather events from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration,3

 eight water shortages from drought or heat 

waves had each resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses over the 

past 20 years in various states. The more significant of the economic 

impacts included were:

• $6 to $9 billion in losses for the agriculture and ranching sectors of 

Texas/Oklahoma and eastward to the Carolinas in the summer of 1998,

• $5 billion in economic damages in Texas and Oklahoma from fall 1995 to 

summer 1996,

3

 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center 

is responsible for monitoring and assessing the earth’s climate and is the world’s largest 

repository of weather data. The center gathers water shortage related information including 

economic impact data.
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 68 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

• $40 billion in damages to the economies of the Central and Eastern 

United States in summer 1988, and

• $20 billion in economic damages to the Central and Eastern 

United States from June to September 1980.

River basin commissions and states also reported recent drought-related 

economic losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. For example, the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission,4

 reported that, as a result of the 

1999 drought, 34 counties in New York State declared an agricultural 

disaster with losses of about $2.5 billion, and it estimated Pennsylvania 

crop losses at $500 million, with some farmers losing as much as 70 to 

100 percent of their crops. The Commission also reported that other 

water-dependent industries, such as nurseries, suffered significant losses 

and electrical power plants had trouble getting sufficient water supplies 

to meet operational needs because of low stream flows. Similarly, in 

December 2001, the Washington State Department of Ecology estimated 

that the 2001 drought cost between $270 million to $400 million in damages 

to agricultural production, a loss of 4,600 to 7,500 agricultural jobs, and 

placed at risk an additional 950 to 1,400 jobs in the food processing, 

wholesaling, trucking, warehousing, and transportation services sectors. 

Finally, persistent drought conditions could also put at risk another 4,500 to 

6,000 jobs in the construction, retail, and service sectors, among others.

In addition to lost economic productivity, droughts also increase federal 

and state government expenditures. For example, Washington State paid 

almost $8 million in drought related expenditures to obtain water for 

several irrigation districts, maintain stream flow in critical fish-bearing 

streams, and to monitor stream flows. In addition, the state paid $1 million 

to the Bonneville Power Administration, which markets electrical power in 

the Pacific Northwest, to offset losses in power-generating revenues.

While the most commonly estimated economic impacts of water shortages 

occur in agriculture and related sectors, less obvious sectors of the 

economy are also affected.

4

 The Susquehanna River Basin Commission coordinates water resources efforts of 

the states of Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania and the federal government to 

administer water resources in the Susquehanna River Basin.
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 69 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

• In March 2002, New Jersey declared a state of water emergency (rainfall 

in 35 of the past 49 months had been below normal, with 8 of the last 

12 significantly below normal). Among other things, the state suspended 

the distribution of water for construction or use by any new building, 

dwelling, or structure in three south New Jersey townships. The pace of 

development in these townships threatened to damage the ecological 

and water supply capability of the local aquifer system. The monetary 

losses resulting from this suspension are difficult to quantify, but, at a 

minimum, building suppliers and other construction-related sectors lost 

revenues, and local municipalities lost tax revenues.

• In February 2003, the Southern Nevada Water Authority approved a plan 

to restrict water use in the Las Vegas Valley during an ongoing drought. 

Residents and businesses, such as golf courses, will be required to 

curtail water use. For example, golf courses will be required to use no 

more than 7 acre-feet of water per year. According to an operator of 

three golf courses, he will have to remove 90 acres of grass at an 

estimated cost of $500,000.

Some organizations are developing estimates of the economic impacts of 

droughts. For example:

• University of Georgia researchers have developed an economic model 

to measure the potential economic impacts of a drought for the 

20-county regional economy in southwest Georgia. Using this model, the 

researchers estimated that each $1 million decline in agricultural 

production results in an additional $700,000 decline in other economic 

segments, for a total loss of $1.7 million. In addition, for each job lost in 

agriculture, 1.4 jobs are lost in other economic sectors, for a total of 2.4 

jobs lost.

• Texas requires regional water planning groups to evaluate the social and 

economic impacts of not meeting regional needs for water supply. For 

example, a regional group for Northeastern Texas projected that by 

2010 unmet regional water needs would result in 93,000 fewer jobs, 

199,000 fewer people, and about a 13 percent loss in personal income. 

Based on these regional reports, in 2002, the Texas Water Development 

Board reported that if the state does not ensure it has enough water to 

meet projected needs, it will have 7.4 million fewer jobs, 13.8 million 

fewer people, and 38 percent less income within the state by 2050.
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 70 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Water Shortages Damage 

the Environment

Water shortages can result in environmental losses—damages to plant 

and animal species, wildlife habitat and air and water quality. Following 

a water shortage, some conditions quickly return to normal, while other 

effects may linger or change conditions permanently. The Florida 

Everglades experience illustrates the effects that reduced water flows 

can have on an ecological system.

Following periods of major drought in the 1930s and 1940s and heavy 

flooding in 1947, Congress authorized in 1948 the Central and Southern 

Florida Project—an extensive system of over 1,700 miles of canals and 

levees and 16 major pump stations—to prevent flooding and saltwater 

intrusion into the aquifer underlying the wetlands, as well as to provide 

drainage and supply water to the residents of South Florida. Some drained 

areas became farmland, while others became heavily urbanized. These 

engineering changes, coupled with agricultural and industrial activities 

and urbanization, have reduced the Everglades to about half its original 

size, as shown in figure 23, and damaged the environment. For example, 

the population of wading birds once numbered in the millions, has fallen 

by 90 percent in recent decades. Moreover, some scientists believe that 

the reduced flow of freshwater into Florida Bay may be hastening its 

environmental decline. An effort to restore the Everglades is currently 

underway involving numerous federal, state, tribal and local entities. The 

current estimated costs, which are shared equally by federal agencies and 

the state, for activities in the South Florida ecosystem restoration 

initiative—including the three goals of getting the water right, restoring, 

preserving and protecting natural habitats, and fostering the compatibility 

of the built and natural systems—are $14.8 billion.
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 71 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 23: The Everglades—Past and Present

a

Other smaller natural areas are dispersed throughout South Florida, such as national wildlife refuges 

and state, local, or privately owned lands, but are not shown in the figure.

Source: South Florida Water Management District.

Past 

Historically, the natural areas of the 

Everglades extended well north of Lake 

Okeechobee and south to Florida Bay and 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

Present

Today, the bulk of the natural areas 

remaining in the ecosystem primarily 

include the Everglades National Park and 

Big Cypress National Preserve, as well as 

state water conservation areas.a

Location of the Everglades.

Natural areas of the Everglades

Lake

Okeechobee

Lake

Okeechobee
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 72 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Water Shortages Can Cause 

Social Discord

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

• Conflicts arising between various water users, managers, and 

government entities due to competition for scarce water resources;

• Threats to the lifestyles of individuals whose livelihoods depend on 

water, such as farmers and commercial fishermen; and

• Feelings of undue burden from a shortage, such as feelings of unfair 

treatment in the amount or timing of relief efforts by government 

entities.

The experiences in the Klamath River Basin, on the California-Oregon 

border, illustrate how these concerns can play out. In 2001, severe 

drought in the Klamath River Basin exacerbated conflicts among numerous 

interests: farmers who rely on water for irrigation, commercial fishermen 

who rely on salmon spawned in the river for their livelihood, environmental 

groups interested in protecting endangered species, and Native American 

tribes with long-standing cultural, fishing and water rights interests. In 

April 2001, Reclamation announced that it would not be able to supply 

water to farmers in the majority of the basin so that the limited supplies 

could be used to protect endangered or threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act.5

 Many farmers claimed to have suffered crop 

losses as a result of restricted water deliveries and protested the decision 

in public demonstrations; some individuals unlawfully opened water 

control gates. Farmers viewed the diversion of water as breaking the 

federal government’s long-standing promise to provide water and land for 

farming and as harming the agriculture based culture that had developed 

in the area since the project was initiated in the early 1900s.

Subsequent to the National Academy of Sciences’ February 2002 review 

of the scientific support for minimum lake and river flows, Reclamation 

developed a 10-year operating plan to comply with the requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act while also allowing water deliveries to irrigators. 

However, in September 2002 as many as 30,000 adult salmon and steelhead 

died while returning to the Klamath and Trinity Rivers to spawn. California 

State Department of Fish and Game officials and others argue that low 

5

 Reclamation operates a federal water supply project in the Upper Basin that has provided 

water for irrigation to farmers for nearly 100 years.
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 73 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

river flows and high water temperature may have stressed the salmon 

and made them more susceptible to disease. Consequently, according to 

local media accounts, the environmentalists, Indian tribal leaders, and 

commercial fishermen now claim that the government is catering to 

farmers and ignoring their concerns (see fig. 24). The result has been on 

going litigation over river flows and legislation to address the financial 

damages of the various parties. Although the Klamath water supply issues 

were made more acute by the severe drought, the conflicts over who gets 

water will continue because demands are greater than current supplies.
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 74 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Figure 24: Competition for Water in the Klamath Basin

CA

OR

(B)

(B)

Sources: (A) California Farm Bureau Federation (photo and caption). (B) Bureau of Reclamation (photos and caption). GAO analysi s. 

(A) In May 2001, supporters of

 Klamath Basin farmers 

 formed a "bucket brigade" 

 by standing shoulder to 

 shoulder and passing 

 buckets of water from the 

 Link River to a canal used 

 to deliver water for irrigation.

(B) In April 2002, supporters of

 providing water for fish and 

 wildlife within the Klamath 

 Basin advocate their position.

(A)
Chapter 3

Expected Freshwater Shortages May Harm the 

Economy, the Environment, and Communities

Page 75 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

The competition for water is by no means unique to the Klamath Basin. 

Similar conflicts are brewing in other areas, such as the Columbia and 

Snake River System in the Northwest, the San Joaquin and Sacramento 

Basins in California, the Missouri River System in the Northern 

Plains states, the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico, and the Florida 

Everglades. Recognizing the potential for conflict due to water shortages, 

in May 2003, Interior proposed concentrating federal financial and 

technical assistance in key western watersheds and in critical research 

and development such as conservation and desalination to help predict, 

prevent, and alleviate future water supply conflicts.6

6

 U.S. Department of Interior, Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict, 

Washington, D.C., May 2003.
Page 76 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts Cha4pert

To identify potential federal actions to help states address their water 

management challenges, we sought the views and suggestions of state 

water managers. We also asked federal officials to identify their current 

activities in each of these categories and the extent to which they can 

support state preferences for assistance. Water managers from 47 states 

ranked actions federal agencies could take within five basic categories 

of activities:1

• Planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining water storage 

and distribution facilities. The most helpful potential federal action 

was to provide more federal financial assistance to plan and construct 

additional state water storage and distribution capacity; states also 

favored more consultation on the operation of federal water storage and 

distribution systems.

• Collecting and sharing water data. Collecting water data at more 

locations would be most useful, compared with actions to improve the 

accuracy, timeliness, access, format, or analyses of the data.

• Administering federal environmental protection laws. The most 

beneficial potential federal actions were (1) more state flexibility in how 

they comply with or administer federal environmental laws and 

(2) more consultation with the states on these laws’ development, 

revision, and implementation.

• Participating in water-management agreements. The highest 

preferences were increasing federal agencies’ coordination with, 

and technical assistance to, the states in developing and implementing 

these agreements.

• Managing water rights for federal and tribal lands. The most 

helpful potential actions were (1) more consultation with states on 

how federal agencies or tribal governments use their water rights, 

(2) increased financial and technical assistance to determine how 

much water federal agencies and tribes are entitled to, and (3) better 

coordinated participation among federal agencies and tribes in the 

establishment and use of their water rights.

1

 State water managers in 47 states responded to our survey; California, Michigan, and 

New Mexico did not participate.
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 77 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Appendix I contains the detailed results of the survey.

States Preferred More 

Financial Assistance to 

Increase Water Storage and 

Distribution Capacity and 

Consultation on Federal 

Storage Operations

In terms of water storage and distribution capacity, state water managers 

reported their highest priority was more federal financial assistance to 

plan and construct the state’s freshwater storage and distribution systems. 

According to our survey, over the next 10 years, 26 states are likely to 

add storage capacity, and 18 are likely to add distribution capacity. The 

additional storage and distribution capacity will be used to meet a variety 

of needs, such as augmenting local supplies, connecting water systems, 

and developing ground-water storage. Consequently, water managers in 

22 states said that more federal financial assistance would be most useful 

in helping their state meet its water storage and distribution needs. For 

example, of the 26 states that are likely to add storage capacity, 16 plan 

to seek federal assistance, as do 14 of the 18 states that are likely to add 

distribution capacity. Estimated costs to add this storage and conveyance 

capacity could be in the billions of dollars for each state if built as planned. 

For example, Texas estimated in its 2002 State Water Plan the capital costs 

of water supply projects over the next 50 years, including the addition of 

8 major reservoirs, to be $17.9 billion.

Reclamation and Corps officials understand the states’ need for financial 

assistance for storage and distribution projects, and provide financial 

assistance on a project-by-project basis, as the Congress authorizes and 

appropriates funds. Current authorized and funded water projects include 

Reclamation’s Animas-La Plata project in southwest Colorado and 

northwest New Mexico for storing and distributing water in these states at 

a cost of about $700 million, and the Corps’ and the state of Florida’s 

participation in the estimated $14.8 billion effort to restore the Florida 

Everglades. Reclamation and Corps officials were not aware of any state 

requests directly to them to provide financial assistance to plan or 

construct new state storage or distribution projects, with the exception of 

projects under the ongoing CALFED program.2

State water managers also favored more consultation on the operation of 

federal water storage facilities. While federal agencies develop plans to 

2

 In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $23 million in funding to Reclamation’s Central 

Valley Project for activities that support the California Bay-Delta Restoration Program 

(CALFED), including investigations of water storage opportunities and ongoing reservoir 

planning activities.
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 78 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

govern the operations of each facility, changes in water availability, such 

as a drought, and new or changing demands for water, such as a new 

endangered species listing or residential development, can alter the 

state’s water management goals in a river basin. State managers sometimes 

pursue a change in the operations of a federal water storage facility to 

better help the state meet its multiple water management goals. State 

water managers in 29 states said they had worked with federal water 

project managers within the last 5 years to obtain changes in federal 

operations to better meet their state’s water management goals. The state 

managers requested changes in federal operations to help balance instream 

water uses—-that is, environmental, recreation, hydropower production, 

and navigation uses—-with offstream water uses, such as municipal water 

supply and irrigation. For example, one western state asked Reclamation to 

modify facility operations to benefit fish spawning, while several states 

requested changes to Corps facility operations to support the states’ water 

management goals—for example, to improve water quality, recreation, and 

minimize flooding impacts.

Reclamation and Corps officials told us their agencies currently work with 

state water managers on a daily basis to meet the needs of water users 

affected by their facilities. Furthermore, they are making efforts to consult 

more with the states and thereby prevent future conflicts related to their 

operations. According to a Reclamation official, operators at the agency’s 

facilities annually share operations plans with state water managers and 

other stakeholders to review the previous year’s operations and solicit their 

views on the need for changes to meet new or increased demands. 

Furthermore, Reclamation plans to identify river basins with the greatest 

potential for future conflict between water users and environmental needs 

and to develop future operating plans with input from all users. Officials 

said they are trying to prevent water management crises on the scale of 

those that have occurred in the Klamath, Columbia, Middle Rio Grande, 

and Colorado River basins and avoid costly litigation. A Corps’ official 

stated that the Portland, Oregon, district office holds a daily public briefing 

in its reservoir control room to describe conditions in the entire Columbia 

Basin, and the Corps shares its operating plans annually with the states.

While Reclamation and Corps officials welcome state water managers’ 

views on operations, the agencies are not always able to accommodate 

state requests when the request would prevent or limit the agency’s ability 

to meet its obligations under laws or contracts. For example, Reclamation 

officials said they must consider the authorized purpose of the facility, the 

agency’s contractual obligations for water delivery, environmental 
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 79 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

regulations, and the requirements of state law when considering a state 

request. In addition, federal officials said they could not honor some 

requests because modifying facility operations to meet the needs of one 

water user may adversely affect water availability for other water users. 

For example, Reclamation received a request from one state to change 

facility operations to increase water flows for downstream rafting in 

the spring; however, another state said the additional release would 

decrease the quality of recreational fishing. Once the states agreed on a 

compromise, Reclamation modified its releases to meet the water needs 

of both users. Corps officials shared similar experiences. For example, a 

state requested that the Corps store more water in a flood control reservoir. 

The Corps asked the state if it was willing to accept responsibility for the 

environmental impacts of flooding more area behind the reservoir. The 

state agreed and the Corps adjusted the annual operating plan.

States Believe They 

Would Benefit from 

Federal Data Collection 

in More Locations

State water managers placed a high value on data collected under federal 

programs to support the states’ ability to complete specific water 

management activities. For example:

• 37 states reported that federal agencies’ data are important to their 

ability to determine the amount of available surface-water,

• 22 states reported that the federal data are important to their planning 

for environmental mitigation or restoration activities, and

• 14 of the 29 states that participate in interstate or international watermanagement agreements reported that federal data are important to 

monitoring the terms of the agreements.

To supplement the data collected under federal programs, some states 

also collect their own water data. However, in some circumstances, 

data collected under federal programs may be more credible and 

consistent than the state data, according to state water managers. 

For example, one state water manager said his state participates in the 

USGS Cooperative Program because other states with which it manages 

shared waters consider USGS-collected information more credible than 

the state-collected information. Another state manager said that consistent, 

long-term, federal data collection is extremely valuable and cannot be 

replicated by the state. Furthermore, according to USGS and state officials, 

state and locally collected data is not always comparable because 

collection practices are not standardized.
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 80 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Water managers in 39 states ranked expanding the number of data 

collection points for federal agencies as the most useful action to help 

their state meet its water information needs. Specifically, state managers 

reported that the addition of more monitoring stations to measure 

stream flow, aquifer levels, and snow pack depths would help states 

decide, for example, whether to allow additional water withdrawals from 

particular sources. State managers suggested more monitoring locations 

are particularly needed in rural areas, where water is shared among 

multiple states, or areas needing increased water flows to meet 

environmental protection needs. For example, one state manager said 

more monitoring stations are needed on the smaller tributaries, where the 

needs of endangered or threatened fish are in conflict with traditional 

offstream uses.

Officials at the USGS, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and 

the National Weather Service, each have ongoing efforts and/or plans to 

improve their data collection programs. However, they need to do so within 

current funding levels. USGS—the agency primarily responsible for water 

data collection and analysis—officials said the agency continually 

examines how to allocate its resources to meet its national responsibilities 

while also helping states. According to agency officials, USGS and 

the states generally agree on which water sources to monitor; however, the 

agency and the states sometimes differ on how many locations to monitor 

for a particular source. Disagreement occurs because USGS’ monitoring 

stations are widely distributed to meet its nationwide responsibilities, 

rather than concentrated to benefit a particular state. 

To meet demand for more data and more sophisticated water supply 

forecasts, Natural Resources Conservation Service officials say they need 

to double the current number of snow pack monitoring stations and water 

supply forecasting activities. Specifically, the agency has identified the 

need to automate and expand reporting on snow pack data in the Great 

Lakes and the Northeast, as it does for the West. Finally, officials at the 

National Weather Service said they plan to automate rainfall data reporting, 

which will make these data more readily accessible, but they have no plans 

to expand data collection locations.

According to USGS, Natural Resources Conservation Service and National 

Weather Service officials, obtaining additional funding is their primary 

barrier to expanding or automating data collection. To address funding 

limitations, they have developed collaborative relationships to accept data 

from other entities, including states and universities, and make these data 
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 81 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

available to users on their web sites. Because data quality is a concern 

under this process, the federal agencies must verify that the entities’ data 

collection practices meet federal standards before accepting the data. To 

help ensure quality, the agencies participate in interagency work groups 

that set standards for federal water data collection and dissemination, such 

as the Advisory Committee on Water Information.

States Favor More 

Flexibility in How They 

Comply with or Administer 

Federal Environmental 

Laws and More 

Opportunities for Comment

Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water 

Act provide important protections to the nation’s wildlife and natural 

resources. The Endangered Species Act provides protection and assists 

the recovery of threatened or endangered plant and animal species and 

their critical habitat, and the Clean Water Act requires improvements to 

water quality and the prevention of discharges of pollutants into our 

nation’s waters.

The implementation of these laws can also affect state water management 

goals and objectives. For example, the Endangered Species Act can create 

a demand to leave water instream to ensure that species or critical habitat 

are not jeopardized, thus competing with traditional offstream water 

demands, such as irrigation, municipal, and industrial uses. When demand 

is high among traditional users or supplies are limited, fulfilling the 

demands created by federal environmental laws can be challenging for 

some state managers.

According to our survey, the impacts of federal environmental protection 

laws on state water managers vary, depending on the particular water 

demands and uses within each state. For example, while 25 state water 

managers reported that the Clean Water Act increased water availability 

for instream purposes, managers offered diverse views of the law’s effects 

on offstream availability. Managers in 11 states reported that the Clean 

Water Act’s water quality impacts increased water availability for offstream 

uses, such as drinking water, while managers in 18 states reported that the 

law decreased offstream water availability, for example, because of the 

need to leave water instream to maintain water quality standards. Similarly, 

26 state managers reported that the Endangered Species Act tended to 

decrease the amount of water available for offstream uses, but managers 

were more evenly divided on whether the law has made more water 

available for instream uses. For example, managers in 16 states reported 

that the Endangered Species Act has helped increase water availability for 

instream uses, such as maintaining fish habitat, while 9 managers reported 
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 82 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

decreased availability because the law limited water availability for 

hydropower production, another instream water use.

Overall, 23 state water managers ranked having more flexibility in how they 

comply with or administer federal environmental laws as the most useful 

among potential actions that would help states meet the requirements of 

federal environmental protection laws while also meeting water 

management goals. Because the effects of the laws are so varied, we did 

not identify a consensus regarding the specific elements of compliance or 

administration of these laws that required more flexibility. However, state 

water managers described instances in which they believed that federal 

environmental laws restricted the state’s ability to develop new water 

storage capacity, distribute water, or meet the needs of offstream users.

Federal officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, agreed that 

while they try to accommodate state concerns about federal environmental 

laws, the amount of flexibility they can provide is limited by their 

obligation to ensure that the laws are complied with and administered as 

Congress intended. However, officials cited examples of current and 

planned efforts to use the flexibility they have under current law to help 

the states comply with or administer federal environmental laws likes the 

Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. For example, Environmental 

Protection Agency officials said they are assessing ways to make their 

water quality programs more efficient and effective, which may result in 

more flexibility for the states. National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish 

and Wildlife Service officials said they already have considerable flexibility 

under the Endangered Species Act to accommodate state-developed water 

management plans that also meet the needs of listed threatened or 

endangered species. Officials of both the services said they 

encourage states to work cooperatively with them to develop water 

management plans.
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 83 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

In 17 states, water managers also said they would like federal agencies to 

seek more state advice on developing, revising, and implementing federal 

environmental laws. Specifically, three state managers made the 

following suggestions:

• Congress and federal agencies should seek states’ input when 

reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act.3

• Federal agencies should recognize and support states’ species recovery 

plans; this could help agencies to develop federal recovery plans that are 

better coordinated with state activities.

• States should peer review federal agencies’ science and decisions, thus 

better balancing state and federal viewpoints.

Regarding federal actions to seek more state advice, federal agency 

officials cited several examples of ongoing and planned efforts to enhance 

their working relationships and reduce conflicts with state agencies and 

other stakeholders. The Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service have existing joint policies to use the expertise and solicit 

the participation of states in the recovery planning process, and to solicit 

peer review of draft recovery plans. Agency officials commonly cited the 

use of river basin-wide agreements as an example of efforts to formally 

bring together state, federal, and other stakeholders to address important 

issues, such as providing certainty in water supplies while protecting 

wildlife habitats and preventing additional threatened or endangered 

species listings or protecting water quality. Officials of several agencies 

cited examples of successful cooperative agreements used in the California 

Bay-Delta, Upper Colorado River Basin, Snake River Basin, and in the 

Lemhi and Upper Salmon River Basins. According to a Fish and Wildlife 

Service official, such agreements signal enhanced efforts at developing 

relationships, sharing information, and getting advice from the states. 

According to officials, the Environmental Protection Agency hopes to 

facilitate cooperative relationships, for example, by awarding grants 

to states to explore comprehensive solutions at the watershed level. 

Reclamation officials cited planned actions to prevent federal/state 

conflicts regarding environmental issues. For example, the agency plans 

3

 Endangered Species Act reauthorization has been on the legislative agenda since 

authorization expired in 1992, and bills have been introduced in each Congress to address 

various aspects of endangered species protection.
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 84 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

to provide more staff training on the purpose, processes, and requirements 

of the Endangered Species Act in order to ensure clarity regarding the act’s 

requirements and the agency’s responsibilities.

State Managers Would 

Gain from Improved 

Coordination of Federal 

Participation in Interstate 

or International 

Water-Management 

Agreements

State water managers in the 29 of 47 states that participate in an interstate 

or international water-management agreement ranked better coordination 

of federal agency participation with the state in the agreements as most 

useful among potential federal actions to help states in the development, 

enforcement, and implementation of such agreements. While many states 

said that federal agencies had fulfilled their responsibilities under 

interstate or international agreements during the last 5 years, seven state 

managers said that one or more agencies had not. These seven managers, 

and others, described instances in which they believe that federal agencies 

have not met their responsibilities under water-management agreements, 

such as:

• Ignoring obligations under participation agreements, such as the Corps 

not paying its river basin commission membership dues.

• Mismanaging existing river management facilities and failing to 

construct needed water storage facilities, such as projects for storing 

Colorado River water.

• Inadequately enforcing the water allocation terms of 

international treaties by not vigorously enforcing the terms of 

the U.S. water-management treaty with Mexico.

• Not resolving federal river basin priorities, thus creating uncertainty for 

state compact participants regarding federal actions.

Officials from Reclamation and the Corps stated that in most cases they 

have fulfilled their responsibilities under water-management agreements, 

but occasionally circumstances outside their control prevent them from 

carrying out their responsibilities. For example, in the case of the Corps 

not paying its river basin commission dues, Corps officials indicated 

that congressional appropriations language specifies that the federal 

government should no longer contribute financially to the annual expenses 

of these commissions. A Corps official stated that the agency has little 

funding available for efforts to coordinate activities under compacts, and 

moreover, other federal agencies have not approached the Corps to engage 

in coordination efforts. A Reclamation official acknowledged that he had 
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 85 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

encountered barriers to coordination with other federal agencies—for 

example, federal agency officials are sometimes unwilling to sacrifice 

relationships they have developed with stakeholders in the interest of 

improving coordination among all parties.

Nevertheless, Reclamation and Corps officials stated that their 

participation in water-management agreements could be improved through 

their ongoing efforts to enhance coordination and communication 

with states and other water resource stakeholders. For example, 

Reclamation plans to facilitate meetings and assist water management 

projects in basins where the greatest potential for conflict exists among 

water users and environmental uses, thus laying the groundwork for the 

development of future water-management agreements. These efforts are 

similar to those officials described to assist the states and other 

stakeholders to allow more input into the operation of federal 

storage facilities.

States also ranked as important increased technical assistance to develop 

or implement water-management agreements. Of the 29 states in our 

survey that already participate in water-management agreements, 11 said 

they plan to propose, negotiate, or participate in a new water-management 

agreement within the next 5 years. For example, one state manager 

suggested federal assistance would be helpful in establishing a compact 

for managing water from an underground aquifer with another state. 

Another state water manager suggested that the state would benefit from 

assistance in the form of federal studies on water availability, use, and 

demand on sources shared between the United States and Canada.

Water management agencies do not have specific programs or funds 

to assist states in developing or implementing water-management 

agreements, according to agency officials. However, Reclamation and 

Corps officials pointed out that the federal agencies do assist in 

implementing agreements through the ongoing operation of federal 

water projects within the compact river basins, helping to ensure that the 

agreement terms are met. For example, Corps officials pointed to efforts 

by 10 federal agencies to assist in implementing agreements in the 

Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river 

basins located in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Furthermore, to help 

implement the water management treaty with Mexico, a National Weather 

Service official said the agency provides forecasting tools to Mexico to help 

facilitate accurate water supply forecasting on both sides of the border.
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 86 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

States Favored Having More 

Influence on the Use of 

Federal and Tribal Water 

Rights as Well as Greater 

Federal Efforts to Define 

These Rights

Of the 31 state managers reporting that federal agencies or tribal 

governments claim or hold water rights (either state granted or federal 

reserved) in their state, 12 reported that the most helpful potential federal 

action would be to consult more with the states on federal or tribal use of 

these rights. Sixteen of these water managers indicated that their state had 

experienced a conflict within the last 5 years between how a federal agency 

used its water rights and the state’s water management goals. State water 

managers reported conflicts with 13 different agencies, such as 

Reclamation, the Forest Service, the Park Service, and the Bureau of Land 

Management. State managers also described instances of federal agencies 

challenging state decisions to grant water rights to others. For example:

• In one state, Reclamation challenged the state over ground-water rights 

it had issued to users because the withdrawals threatened federal 

surface-water rights.

• Similarly, a tribe sued the same state to stop issuance of ground-water 

rights potentially impacting water availability for tribal lands. According 

to state officials, both cases were settled by agreement.

• Another manager reported that the state and a federal agency disagreed 

on whether a federal lands leaseholder or the federal agency should 

hold the water right for water held in small storage facilities on federal 

lands. The court awarded the right to the leaseholder, despite federal 

concerns over future use of the water on its lands.

According to officials from the federal resource management agencies 

and Reclamation, the agencies exercise their state-granted water rights in 

accordance with state water laws and the agencies try to coordinate with 

the states over their use of water under federal reserved rights. National 

Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service officials 

said their agencies typically seek state-granted water rights for offstream 

uses of water on their lands, such as camp and picnic grounds or livestock 

watering. Typically, disputes related to federal agency use of state-granted 

rights are heard in state water courts where the federal agencies receive no 

preference over any other water right holder. Officials provided several 

examples of how their agencies work with the states and non-federal water 

users to minimize disputes. A National Park Service official said his agency 

seeks to reach mutually acceptable compromises with other water users, 

even though the other users’ rights are often junior to the federal reserved 

rights. A Bureau of Land Management official said while his agency has 

federal reserved rights to water in a certain state, the agency also applies 
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 87 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

for state rights because the state does not recognize the agency’s federal 

reserved water right.

State water managers also favored increased financial and technical 

assistance to states to adjudicate water rights (the determination of the 

legal rights and priorities of all persons for a particular source as of a 

certain time) for federal agencies and tribal governments. Federal 

agencies and tribes may be entitled to water rights that would deprive 

others of water they have been using for many years. Until adjudicated 

or determined by the courts, the extent of such rights is unknown. 

Consequently, water managers, particularly those in Western states, are 

concerned about the unquantified water rights for federal and tribal lands, 

as well as the costs of quantifying these rights through adjudication. For 

example, 14 state water managers said quantifying federal reserved water 

rights is important to their state’s ability to manage its water; similarly, 

12 state water managers said quantifying tribal water rights is important.

To reduce uncertainty regarding water rights, some western states are 

conducting general adjudications to formally quantify and order by priority 

all rights claimed. These adjudications include determinations of federal 

water rights, which, since the McCarran Amendment was enacted in 1952, 

have been within the states’ jurisdictions.4

 This process of establishing the 

priority system is complicated and costly, and federal claims are often the 

largest and most difficult to adjudicate. For example, according to the 

Western States Water Council, 400 of the 700 claims being adjudicated in 

the Klamath Basin are federal claims. While all other water users claiming 

rights must pay filing fees to the state for the adjudication of these rights, 

the federal government does not, according to a Supreme Court ruling.

4

 Pub. L. No. 82-495, §208, 66 Stat. 549, 560 (1952); see chapter 1, footnote 11, for more 

information on the McCarran Amendment.
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 88 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Federal agency officials confirmed that the total quantity of water rights 

for federal and tribal lands is not known. While state and federal courts 

have settled some federal claims since the McCarran Amendment was 

enacted, a substantial majority of tribal and federal water rights have not 

yet been quantified. Currently, adjudications of tribal, federal, and other 

parties’ water rights are underway in many states.5

 For example, the 

U.S. Forest Service is participating in 43 adjudications and the National 

Park Service in 45, according to agency officials. As of March 2003, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs reported it has settled 20 water rights cases, but 

most tribal rights are still unquantified.

According to officials, the federal resource management agencies file 

claims in accordance with state rules and abide by the results of the state 

adjudications. However, federal law prohibits the agencies from paying 

adjudication filing fees. A National Park Service official said it might be 

preferable to have a compromise between the two extremes of having the 

federal government pay millions of dollars to adjudicate every one of its 

water rights and paying nothing. This official notes that adjudications are in 

the federal interest—having water rights quantified creates more certainty 

for federal planning and decision-making.

Conclusions While states have principal authority for water management, federal 

activities and laws affect or influence virtually every water management 

activity undertaken by states. With limited supplies and growing demands, 

state water managers face the challenge of future water shortages and their 

potentially severe consequences. Although the state managers value the 

many contributions of federal agencies to their efforts to ensure adequate 

water supplies, they also indicate that federal activities could better 

support their efforts in a number of areas. In some of these areas—such as 

providing funding for more state storage and distribution capacity or more 

flexibility in how states comply with federal environmental laws—federal 

agencies are limited in what they can do. However, in other areas—such as 

seeking increased state input to federal facility operations or enhancing 

coordination with states—more supportive federal actions may not 

necessarily involve new authority or significant expenditures. Slight shifts 

of federal priorities or renewed emphasis on matters that impact state 

efforts might be sufficient to help states better manage their water 

5

 For any water right holder, including federal agencies, participation in adjudication 

involves submitting a claim for the amount, location, and use of water.
Chapter 4

Federal Activities Could Further Support 

State Water Management Efforts

Page 89 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

resources. The information we collected from state water managers should 

be useful to agencies in determining how their activities affect states and 

how they can be more supportive of state efforts to meet their future water 

needs. While we are not making a specific recommendation, we encourage 

Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Corps, and 

Environmental Protection Agency officials to review the results of our state 

survey and consider modifications to their plans, policies, or activities as 

appropriate to better support state efforts to meet their future water needs.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Interior; the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The 

Department of the Interior concurred with our findings and wrote that the 

report provides valuable information to federal agencies for improving 

interactions with state water managers and will be helpful to state and local 

resource managers in identifying federal activities and plans that support 

water management efforts at all levels of government. Interior also 

provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Interior’s complete letter is in appendix II. The other departments and 

agencies concurred with our findings and provided technical clarifications, 

which we incorporated as appropriate. They did not provide formal, 

written comments.
Page 90 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the Apendxeis

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use ApenIdxi

To obtain states' views on how federal activities could better support state water management efforts to meet future demands, we 

conducted a Web-based survey of state water managers in the 50 states. We developed the survey questions by reviewing documents and 

by talking with officials from the federal agencies listed on pages 42 and 43 and the state water managers in three state offices-Arizona, 

Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The questionnaire contained 56 questions that asked about state water management; collection and 

dissemination of state water quantity data by federal agencies; federal water storage and conveyance within their state; the effects of 

federal environmental laws on state water management; the effects of interstate compacts and international treaties on state water 

management; and the effects of federal and tribal rights to water on state water management.

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

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

Q2. Has your state conducted an assessment, either for all of your state or for portions of your state, of the economic and/or environmental 

effects of water shortages, including drought? 

Checked

(percent)

Number of

respondents

1. Water availability statewide 

(most or all regions of your state) 53.2 47

2. Water availability only for 

some regions or localities within 

your state 29.8 47

3. Water withdrawals statewide 

(most or all regions of your state) 76.6 47

4. Water withdrawals only for 

some regions or localities within 

your state 10.6 47

5. Water consumption statewide 

(most or all regions of your state) 51.1 47

6. Water consumption only for 

some regions or localities within 

your state 17.0 47

7. None of the above 8.5 47

Checked

(percent)

Number of

respondents

1. Actual economic effects of 

recent water shortages, 

including drought 25.5 47

2. Potential economic effects of 

future water shortages, including 

drought 25.5 47
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 91 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

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

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

3. Actual environmental effects 

of recent water shortages, 

including drought 17.0 47

4. Potential environmental 

effects of future water shortages, 

including drought 23.4 47

5. None of the above 53.2 47

Checked

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

1. Drought preparedness plan(s) 48.9 47

2. Drought response plan(s) 87.2 47

3. State does not have either of 

the above plans 8.5 47

4. Uncertain about state plans 2.1 47

Yes

(percent)

No

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

11.9 76.2 9.5 41

Entire state 

(most, or all, 

of your state)

(percent)

One or more 

regions within 

your state

(percent)

One or more 

small 

localized 

areas within 

your state

(percent)

None of the 

above

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

4.3 34.0 38.3 19.1 4.3 47

Checked 

(percent)

Number of 

respondents
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 92 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

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

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

Entire state 

(most, or all, 

of your state)

(percent)

One or more 

regions within 

your state

(percent)

One or more 

small 

localized 

areas within 

your state

(percent)

None of the 

above

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

23.4 61.7 12.8 0.0 2.1 47

Entire state 

(most, or all, 

of your state)

(percent)

One or more 

regions within 

your state

(percent)

One or more 

small 

localized 

areas within 

your state

(percent)

None of the 

above

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

4.3 44.7 34.0 12.8 4.3 47

Entire state 

(most, or all, 

of your state)

(percent)

One or more 

regions within 

your state

(percent)

One or more 

small 

localized 

areas within 

your state

(percent)

None of the 

above

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

25.5 68.1 4.3 0.0 2.1 47
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 93 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

current and future water needs in your state?

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

water needs).

Checked

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

1. Developing markets to allow voluntary water 

transfers among users 31.9 47

2. Developing new water supplies through reuse 

of reclaimed water 48.9 47

3. Developing new water supplies through 

recycling of storm water 10.6 47

4. Developing new water supplies using 

desalination (seawater or brackish ground water) 19.1 47

5. Encouraging, requiring, and/or providing 

incentives for water conservation 85.1 47

6. Improving vegetation management along 

streams and rivers to increase stream flow 42.6 47

7. Improving riparian buffers to enhance water 

quality and increase water quantity 70.2 47

8. Increasing storage capacity, including surface 

storage reservoirs or artificial groundwater 

recharge 63.8 47

9. Managing surface and ground water together 

(conjunctive management) so that these sources 

can be used in combination or alternately 80.9 47

10. Monitoring water availability and withdrawals 

within the state 93.6 47

11. Pursuing water price restructuring 29.8 47

12. Requiring local water agencies to conduct 

water availability assessments before approving 

new development or changes in land use 29.8 47

13. Using cloud seeding to induce precipitation 

where it might not occur naturally, or in greater 

quantities than might occur naturally 17.0 47

14. Using inter-basin transfer of water 59.6 47

15. Other actions being taken to address water 

needs (Please specify below.) 34.0 47

Providing 

description

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

100 16
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 94 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

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

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

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

Prior 

appropriation

(percent)

Common-law 

riparian

(percent)

Regulated 

riparian

(percent)

A combination 

of prior 

appropriation 

and riparian

(percent)

State does not 

regulate 

surface water 

allocation

(percent)

Other

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

31.9 14.9 19.1 6.4 4.3 21.3 2.1 47

Providing 

description

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

100 10

Correlative 

rights

(percent)

Reasonable 

use

(percent)

Prior 

appropriation

(percent)

Absolute 

ownership

(percent)

State does not 

regulate 

ground water 

allocation

(percent)

Other

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

6.4 38.3 25.5 2.1 6.4 19.1 2.1 47

Providing 

description

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

100 9
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 95 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

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

Little or none

(percent)

Less than half

(percent)

About half

(percent)

More than half

(percent)

All or almost 

all

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Data on 

ground water 

availability 26.7 40.0 11.1 11.1 11.1 0.0 45

b. Data on 

ground water 

withdrawals 59.6 27.7 4.3 8.5 0.0 0.0 47

c. Data on 

surface water 

availability 13.0 10.9 28.3 30.4 15.2 2.2 46

d. Data on 

surface water 

withdrawals 63.8 21.3 6.4 6.4 2.1 0.0 47

Provided 

agency 

name(s)

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

89.4 47
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 96 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

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

state with its water management?

Very 

important

(percent)

Somewhat 

important

(percent)

Equally 

important and 

unimportant

(percent)

Somewhat 

unimportant

(percent)

Very 

unimportant

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. To determine the quantity of 

available ground water 34.9 34.9 16.3 9.3 4.7 43

b. To determine the quantity of 

ground water withdrawals 13.2 15.8 18.4 28.9 23.7 38

c. To determine the quantity of 

available surface water 53.3 28.9 13.3 0.0 4.4 45

d. To determine the quantity of 

surface water withdrawals 8.1 18.9 21.6 27.0 24.3 37

e. To determine the quantity of 

consumptive water use 10.3 12.8 25.6 25.6 25.6 39

f. To assess the economic effects 

of water withdrawals 3.8 15.4 23.1 23.1 34.6 26

g. To assess the environmental 

effects of water withdrawals 17.5 32.5 15.0 25.0 10.0 40

h. To plan environmental 

mitigation or restoration 27.0 32.4 18.9 16.2 5.4 37

i. To monitor the terms of water 

allocation agreements that 

distribute water among multiple 

parties (such as states) 35.5 22.6 6.5 12.9 22.6 31

Providing 

answer

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

74.5 47
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 97 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Q16. Which actions, with respect to federal collection and dissemination of data, would be most useful to your state? Rank each of the 

following actions from most useful (1st) to least useful (6th).

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

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

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

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

Mean Ranking

Number

of 

respondents

a. Collect data at more locations 1.3 45

b. Improve the accuracy of data 

currently being collected 3.8 45

c. Improve the timeliness of 

dissemination 3.3 45

d. Improve access to data 

previously collected (for 

example, historical) 3.8 45

e. Provide data in a more usable 

format 4.4 45

f. Provide more analyses of data 4.3 45

Providing 

answer

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

57.4 47

Little or none

(percent)

Less than half

(percent)

About half

(percent)

More than half

(percent)

All or almost 

all

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

36.2 23.4 8.5 25.5 2.1 4.3 47

Very likely

(percent)

Somewhat 

likely

(percent)

Equally likely 

and unlikely

(percent)

Somewhat 

unlikely

(percent)

Very unlikely

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

36.2 19.1 10.6 12.8 21.3 0.0 47

Yes

(percent)

No

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

27.7 57.4 14.9 47
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 98 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

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

your state?

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

the state's water management goals?

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

make the changes.

Definitely yes

(percent)

Probably yes

(percent)

Probably no

(percent)

Definitely no

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

23.9 30.4 23.9 4.3 17.4 46

Checked

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

1. Planning of facilities 29.8 47

2. Reviewing plans for facilities 29.8 47

3. Operating and/or maintaining 

facilities 17.0 47

4. Constructing facilities 12.8 47

5. None of these activities 31.9 47

6. Uncertain 23.4 47

Yes, many 

times

(percent)

Yes, a few 

times

(percent)

Yes, but only 

once or twice

(percent)

No

(percent)

Our state 

does not have 

any federal 

storage 

facilities

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

23.4 23.4 14.9 23.4 8.5 6.4 47

Providing 

examples

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

86.2 29
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 99 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

by the federal government?

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

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

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

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

your state?

Little or none

(percent)

Less than half

(percent)

About half

(percent)

More than half

(percent)

All or almost 

all

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

68.1 19.1 2.1 8.5 0.0 2.1 47

Very likely

(percent)

Somewhat 

likely

(percent)

Equally likely 

and unlikely

(percent)

Somewhat 

unlikely

(percent)

Very unlikely

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

25.5 12.8 2.1 10.6 36.2 12.8 47

Yes

(percent)

No

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

19.1 74.5 6.4 47

Definitely yes

(percent)

Probably yes

(percent)

Probably no

(percent)

Definitely no

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

19.1 12.8 40.4 6.4 21.3 47

Checked

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

1. Planning of facilities 29.8 47

2. Reviewing plans for facilities 31.9 47

3. Operating and/or maintaining 

facilities 4.3 47

4. Constructing facilities 10.6 47

5. None of these activities 44.7 47

6. Uncertain 17.0 47
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 100 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

state within the last 5 years? 

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

Q30. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state meet its water management goals with respect to the storage and 

conveyance of water? Rank each of the following actions from most useful (1st) to least useful (6th).

Yes, many 

times

(percent)

Yes, a few 

times

(percent)

Yes, but only 

once or twice

(percent)

No

(percent)

Our state 

does not have 

any federal 

storage or 

conveyance 

facilities

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

6.4 0.0 8.5 53.2 14.9 17.0 47

Providing 

examples

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

85.7 7

Mean Ranking

Number

of 

respondents

a. Improve the maintenance of federal facilities 4.8 44

b. Increase federal technical assistance for the 

planning, construction, operation, or maintenance 

of state storage and conveyance infrastructure 3.5 44

c. Increase federal financial assistance for the 

planning and construction of state storage and 

conveyance infrastructure 1.9 44

d. Increase federal financial assistance for the 

operation and maintenance of state storage and 

conveyance infrastructure 3.4 44

e. Seek more state input in operation of federal 

storage facilities 3.4 44

f. Streamline federal review processes of 

proposed state storage and conveyance facilities 4.0 44
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 101 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Q31. Are there other actions federal agencies could take to improve their participation in the planning, review, construction, operation, 

and/or maintenance of federal water storage and conveyance infrastructure?

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

5 years?

Providing 

answer

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

44.7 47

Greatly 

increased 

water 

availability

(percent)

Somewhat 

increased 

water 

availability

(percent)

Had no effect 

on water 

availability

(percent)

Somewhat 

decreased 

water 

availability

(percent)

Greatly 

decreased 

water 

availability

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Clean Water 

Act 14.9 38.3 29.8 6.4 0.0 10.6 47

b. Coastal 

Zone 

Management 

Act 2.5 15.0 65.0 2.5 0.0 15.0 40

c. Endangered 

Species Act 0.0 34.0 27.7 14.9 4.3 19.1 47

d. Federal 

Power Act 2.2 24.4 33.3 15.6 0.0 24.4 45

e. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Coordination 

Act 0.0 21.7 37.0 8.7 2.2 30.4 46

f. Rivers and 

Harbors 

Appropriation 

Act 0.0 7.3 56.1 7.3 0.0 29.3 41

g. Safe 

Drinking Water 

Act 6.4 19.1 44.7 14.9 0.0 14.9 47

h. Wild and 

Scenic Rivers 

Acts 0.0 10.9 56.5 6.5 4.3 21.7 46

i. Wilderness 

Act 0.0 2.2 68.9 2.2 2.2 24.4 45
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 102 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

5 years?

Greatly 

increased 

water 

availability

(percent)

Somewhat 

increased 

water 

availability

(percent)

Had no effect 

on water 

availability

(percent)

Somewhat 

decreased 

water 

availability

(percent)

Greatly 

decreased 

water 

availability

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

a. Clean Water 

Act 6.5 17.4 23.9 37.0 2.2 13.0 46

b. Coastal 

Zone 

Management 

Act 0.0 7.7 64.1 10.3 0.0 17.9 39

c. Endangered 

Species Act 0.0 2.2 26.1 50.0 6.5 15.2 46

d. Federal 

Power Act 0.0 8.9 40.0 22.2 0.0 28.9 45

e. Fish and 

Wildlife 

Coordination 

Act 0.0 2.3 32.6 30.2 2.3 32.6 43

f. Rivers and 

Harbors 

Appropriation 

Act 0.0 4.9 56.1 7.3 2.4 29.3 41

g. Safe 

Drinking Water 

Act 8.7 19.6 43.5 10.9 2.2 15.2 46

h. Wild and 

Scenic Rivers 

Act 0.0 2.3 52.3 18.2 4.5 22.7 44

i. Wilderness 

Act 0.0 0.0 66.7 2.4 2.4 28.6 42
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 103 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Q34. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state fulfill the requirements of federal environmental laws while meeting its water 

management goals? Rank each of the following actions from most useful (1st) to least useful (4th).

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

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

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

Mean Ranking

Number

of 

respondents

a. Charge for the use of water from federal storage 

and conveyance facilities and use funds to help 

mitigate damage to environment from projects 4.0 46

b. Give the states more flexibility in compliance or 

administration of federal environmental laws 1.8 46

c. Improve coordination among federal agencies in 

implementing environmental laws 2.5 46

d. Seek more state input into development, 

revision and implementation of federal 

environmental laws 1.8 46

Providing 

answer

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

40.4 47

Yes

(percent)

No

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

61.7 36.2 2.1 47

Little or none

(percent)

Less than half

(percent)

About half

(percent)

More than half

(percent)

All or almost 

all

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

20.7 44.8 0.0 31.0 3.4 0.0 29
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 104 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Q38. Within the last 5 years, have any federal agencies participated in the development, implementation or enforcement of an interstate 

compact affecting water availability in your state?

Q39. Within the last 5 years, have any federal agencies participated in the development, implementation or enforcement of an international 

treaty affecting water availability in your state?

Q40. Within the last 5 years, have federal agencies participating in the development, implementation, or enforcement of an interstate 

compact(s) and/or international treaty(ies) affecting water allocation fulfilled their responsibilities?

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

been fulfilled.

Checked

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

1. Federal agency or agencies have participated in 

the development of an interstate compact(s) 17.2 29

2. Federal agency or agencies have participated in 

the implementation of an interstate compact(s) 58.6 29

3. Federal agency or agencies have participated in 

the enforcement of an interstate compact(s) 31.0 29

4. None of the above 17.2 29

Checked

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

1. Federal agency or agencies have participated in 

the development of an international treaty(ies) 13.8 29

2. Federal agency or agencies have participated in 

the implementation of an international treaty(ies) 27.6 29

3. Federal agency or agencies have participated in 

the enforcement of an international treaty(ies) 27.6 29

4. None of the above 55.2 29

All agencies 

have fulfilled all 

responsibilities

(percent)

One or more 

agencies have 

not fulfilled 

their 

responsibilities

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

50.0 26.9 23.1 26

Providing 

answer

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

100 7
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 105 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

Q42. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state with respect to the development, enforcement, and implementation of 

interstate compacts and international treaties? Rank order each of the following actions from most useful (1st) to least to the least 

useful (6th).

Q43. Are there other actions that would be useful in helping your state with respect to the development, enforcement, and implementation 

of interstate compacts and international treaties?

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

Definitely yes

(percent)

Probably yes

(percent)

Probably no

(percent)

Definitely no

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

13.8 24.1 37.9 13.8 10.3 29

Mean Ranking

Number

of 

respondents

a. Better coordinate federal participation with the 

state 2.6 28

b. Better coordinate participation among federal 

agencies 2.8 28

c. Create a market-based allocation system for 

water shared by states 5.3 28

d. Develop alternative tools for resolving water 

allocation conflicts among states 3.0 28

e. Increase technical assistance to assist the 

states with development or implementation 2.8 28

f. Make it easier to amend or revise existing 

agreements 4.5 28

Providing 

answer

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

41.4 29

Yes No Uncertain

Number

of 

respondents

51.1 31.9 17.0 47
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 106 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

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

rights?

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

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

state's water management goals?

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

Little or none

(percent)

Less than half

(percent)

About half

(percent)

More than half

(percent)

All or almost 

all

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

50.0 37.5 0.0 4.2 0.0 8.3 24

Little or none

(percent)

Less than half

(percent)

About half

(percent)

More than half

(percent)

All or almost 

all

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

37.5 29.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 20.8 24

Very 

important

(percent)

Somewhat 

important

(percent)

Equally 

important and 

unimportant

(percent)

Somewhat 

unimportant

(percent)

Very 

unimportant

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

29.2 29.2 12.5 12.5 16.7 0.0 24

Yes, many 

times

(percent)

Yes, a few 

times

(percent)

Yes, but only 

once or twice

(percent)

No, our state 

has not 

experienced 

any conflict

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

13.6 40.9 18.2 27.3 0.0 22

Providing 

answer

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

93.8 16
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 107 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

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

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

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

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

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

state's water management goals?

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

Yes

(percent)

No

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

52.2 41.3 6.5 46

Little or none

(percent)

Less than half

(percent)

About half

(percent)

More than half

(percent)

All or almost 

all

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

73.9 26.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23

Little or none

(percent)

Less than half

(percent)

About half

(percent)

More than half

(percent)

All or almost 

all

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

45.8 25.0 0.0 4.2 4.2 20.8 24

Very 

important

(percent)

Somewhat 

important

(percent)

Equally 

important and 

unimportant

(percent)

Somewhat 

unimportant

(percent)

Very 

unimportant

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

37.5 12.5 12.5 8.3 25.0 4.2 24

Yes, many 

times

(percent)

Yes, a few 

times

(percent)

Yes, but only 

once or twice

(percent)

No, our state 

has not 

experienced 

any conflict

(percent)

Uncertain

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

4.3 26.1 21.7 39.1 8.7 23

Writing 

comment

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

83.3 12
Appendix I

GAO Analysis of Our Survey of the 

Effects of Federal Activities on State 

Water Availability, Management, and Use

Page 108 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Q55. Which actions would be most useful in helping your state fulfill federal and tribal rights to water while meeting your state's water 

management goals? Rank each of the following actions from most useful (1st) to least useful (6th).

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

state's water management goals?

Additional Comments: If you would like to make additional comments concerning any topic related to water availability, management, or 

use, please feel free to do so in the space provided.

Note: Question 54 was not included because it was used only for navigation purposes in the 

Web-based questionnaire.

Mean Ranking

Number

of 

respondents

a. Better coordinate participation among federal 

agencies in the establishment and use of federal 

or tribal water rights 3.0 25

b. Clarify federal policy on tribal governments' 

authority to sell water rights 4.1 25

c. Improve the efficiency of water use, including 

increasing conservation when applicable, on 

federal and tribal lands 4.7 25

d. Increase financial and technical assistance to 

states for adjudication of federal and tribal water 

rights 2.9 25

e. Seek more state input into the use of federal or 

tribal water rights and potential effects on state 

water management goals 2.2 25

f. Streamline federal processes to quantify federal 

or tribal water rights 4.1 25

Providing 

answer

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

38.7 31

Providing 

answer

(percent)

Number

of 

respondents

36.2 47
Page 109 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of 

the Interior ApenIdxi
Page 110 GAO-03-514 Freshwater Supply

Appendix III

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApenIdxi

GAO Contacts Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841

Keith Oleson (415) 904-2218

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Brad Dobbins, Elizabeth Fan, John 

Kalmar, Katherine Kousser, Janet Lewis, and Lynn Musser made key 

contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were Charles 

Bausell, Robert Crystal, Kim Raheb, Carol Shulman, and Don Yamada.

(360185)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00