Congress is currently considering major legislation related to climate change. Climate change responses have typically been categorized into two broad types: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation measures attempt to slow down the occurrence of climate change by, for example, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation measures, on the other hand, aim to improve an individual or institution's ability to cope with or avoid harmful impacts of climate change, and to take advantage of potential beneficial ones. While much attention has been paid to mitigation efforts, a growing focus on current impacts of climate change has led to specific provisions in several bills that would increase research on and programmatic attention to possible options for adaptation. Climate change mitigation and adaptation activities are not mutually exclusive, and in most cases can actually be complementary. Because the extent of climate change impacts upon different ecosystems, regions, and sectors of the economy will depend not only on the sensitivity of those systems to climate change, but also on the systems' ability to adapt to climate change, both types of activities are considered by many to be an essential part of a comprehensive approach to dealing with the impacts of climate change. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 ( H.R. 2454 ) passed the House on June 26, 2009. The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee approved the Clean Energy, Jobs, and Power Act ( S. 1733 ) on November 5, 2009. Both H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 would establish a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and address energy topics including energy efficiency and renewable energy. Both bills also include adaptation provisions that (1) seek to better assess the impacts of climate change and variability that are occurring now and in the future; and (2) support adaptation activities related to climate change, both domestically and internationally. This report summarizes and compares the adaptation-related provisions in H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 . A side-by-side table in an Appendix to the report compares relevant provisions related to climate change adaptation in both bills. The provisions are grouped into the following headings: International Climate Change Adaptation Domestic Climate Change Adaptation (including the National Climate Change Adaptation Program and the National Climate Services Program) State and Tribal Programs Public Health Natural Resources Adaptation Other Climate Change Adaptation Programs, including Water Resources (in S. 1733 only) Climate-related changes have been observed in the United States and globally. A recent report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provided scientific documentation of the impacts of climate change already occurring in the United States. The report analyzed different sectors and regions of the United States and concluded that climate disruption causes a wide range of damaging impacts in the United States currently, and that these impacts will continue to intensify, depending on the region. The report also found that population growth and increased use of resources will limit the ability of society and natural systems to adapt successfully. Specific findings include increased: stress on water resources, which will amplify regional droughts and reduce water supply, especially in regions dependent on western mountain snowpack; risk for coastal settlements, infrastructure, and ecosystems from sea-level rise and more intense hurricanes and storm surges; numbers of wildfires and areas of forest adversely affected or destroyed by pest outbreaks linked to warming; threats to human health related to heat waves, poor air quality, and insect-borne diseases; challenges to crop and livestock production due to increasing stress on water resources, increasing temperatures, increasing outbreaks of pests and diseases, and the need for new management practices; stress of population growth and overuse of resources, which will limit the ability of society and natural systems to adapt successfully. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its Fourth Assessment Report that "adaptation will be necessary to address impacts resulting from the warming which is already unavoidable due to past emissions." The panel concluded that many industrial sectors and the natural environment, including agriculture, forestry, water resources, human health, coastal settlements, and natural ecosystems, will need to adapt to a changing climate or possibly face diminished productivity, functioning, and health. Adaptation can include a wide range of activities. For agriculture, examples of adaptation can include farmers changing management practices--for example, altering their planting dates and irrigation scheduling--or farmers switching to different crop varieties altogether, in response to changing temperature and rainfall regimes. For coastal regions, strategies to prevent damage from climate change and rising sea levels can include improving shoreline protection measures--for example, installing dikes, levies, other structures, and beach vegetation--or can result in companies relocating key business centers away from coastal areas vulnerable to inundation and hurricanes. The costs of implementing adaptation measures are generally considered in relation to the value of the assets protected, in order to assess the net benefit of adaptation investments. While adaptation as an approach for dealing with the impacts of climate change is gaining increasing attention, few examples exist of concrete actions or strategies dealing with adaptation across different levels of government. According to a recent report by the National Research Council (NRC), individuals and institutions are unprepared both conceptually and practically for meeting the challenges and opportunities that climate change presents. Similarly, at a recent hearing of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, experts testified that current U.S. adaptation efforts are largely ad hoc, uncoordinated, underfunded, and lacking the information needed to make critical decisions. Specifically, testimony from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), based on its recently released report on nationwide climate change adaptation efforts, concluded that adaptation efforts are often constrained by a lack of site-specific data, such as local projections of expected changes, and by a lack of clear roles and responsibilities among federal, state, and local agencies. The NRC report included recommendations to bolster the capacity of federal programs in the area of climate science and information; to strengthen research on adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability; to initiate a periodic national assessment of climate impacts and responses; and to routinely provide policymakers and the public with the relevant scientific information, tools, and forecasts to make better-informed decisions. Adaptation initiatives are starting to gain traction at the federal and state levels. For instance, the Department of Interior (DOI) recently launched an internal agency initiative to develop a coordinated strategy to address current and future impacts of climate change. The DOI initiative, which was established through secretarial order, establishes a framework through which Interior bureaus will coordinate climate change science and resource management strategies. Also, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments has a program that supports research to meet the adaptation-related information needs of local decision-makers. While federal agencies are beginning to recognize the need to adapt to climate change, there is still a general lack of strategic coordination across agencies, and most efforts to adapt to potential climate change impacts are preliminary. Some states have begun to make progress on adaptation independently and through partnerships with other entities, such as academic institutions. The state of California recently developed and released a draft California Climate Adaptation Strategy. This is the first example of a strategic, operational plan for collaborative action by state agencies to adapt to impacts of global climate disruption and sea-level rise. Maryland has also begun a strategic planning process to better understand the impacts of climate change on the state's economy and natural resources, especially the Chesapeake Bay region, and to coordinate state efforts. In devising these strategic plans for adaptation, states are often calling for more resources, leadership, and coordination from the federal government. Specifically, state agencies such as those in California and Maryland are advocating for: more federal support for state research programs that generate locally relevant data and information related to potential impacts of climate change; an integrated national intergovernmental strategy on adaptation that is coordinated among relevant state and federal agencies, and is multidisciplinary and inclusive of other sectors such as transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry, water resources, and utilities; more dedicated federal funding for adaptation, to carry out programs to protect coastal communities, natural resources, and the national interest from the impacts of climate change. Some are skeptical of implementing wide-scale adaptation measures and argue that adaptation activities should not be comprehensively pursued because attention and resources will detract from mitigation efforts. Others think that adaptation activities are just another way for various interest groups and sectors to seek government subsidies for activities they would already otherwise be doing. This report summarizes and compares the adaptation provisions in S. 1733 , as reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee on November 5, 2009, and H.R. 2454 , as passed by the House on June 26, 2009. Overall, while the two bills would authorize similar adaptation programs, they differ somewhat in scope and emphasis, and they also differ in the distribution of emission allowance allocations, which in effect provide monetary resources for specified programs and activities. Both bills contain provisions that address: international climate change adaptation; domestic climate change adaptation programs, including the National Climate Change Program and the National Climate Service; state and tribal programs; public health; and natural resources adaptation. S. 1733 contains five additional provisions (not contained in the House bill) that deal with: drinking water utilities; water system mitigation and adaptation partnerships; flood control, protection, prevention, and response; wildfire; and coastal Great Lakes state adaptation. Neither the Senate-reported bill ( S. 1733 ) nor the House-passed bill ( H.R. 2454 ) contains a process at the federal level for developing and implementing a national strategic plan to address the full range of sectors expected to be affected by climate change. Neither bill includes explicit provisions that address adaptation in major sectors such as transportation and energy infrastructure, or agriculture, although these activities are allowable under state programs for climate adaptation that are provided for in both bills. It should be noted that while forestry and agriculture are considered extensively in S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 with regard to supplemental emissions reductions, set-asides and allowances, and carbon offsets, these considerations are not specifically related to adaptation. Depending on the nature of the implementation, these programs could potentially assist in forest and agriculture adaptation to climate change. However, they have not been included in this report because emissions mitigation is their primary purpose (not adaptation), and adaptation is not necessarily a consideration in their implementation. Although there are significant differences in how the overall emission allowances are distributed, both bills would allocate allowances or auction revenues to fund various adaptation activities. Table 1 provides an overview of the emission allowances allocated to adaptation-related activities for 2016 and 2030, given as a percentage of total allowances for both bills. One significant difference between the two pieces of legislation is the distribution of allowances and proceeds from auction allocations and the subsequent availability of the amounts credited to certain funds. In the Senate bill, several of the adaptation-related provisions provide that the amounts in the funds are automatically available to be obligated (i.e., spent), "without further appropriation," for specified purposes, programs, and activities. In contrast, the analogous adaptation provisions in the House bill provide that the amounts in the funds would become available only by subsequent appropriations. That is, the amounts would not be available automatically, but instead would need to be provided in subsequent appropriations acts. H.R. 2454 both allocates allowances directly and creates several funds for the allocation of proceeds from the sale of allowances. It generally allocates allowances to states and tribes, and proceeds from the auction of allowances to federal government agencies. Authorizations are subject to future appropriations. For the adaptation provisions, the House relies on hortatory language, such as that found in Section 480(b), to support full appropriations for certain natural resources programs: "... such sums as are deposited in the Natural Resources Climate Change Fund, and the amounts appropriated for subsection (c) shall be no less than the total estimated annual deposits in the Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Fund." While the allocations of allowances and of the proceeds from auctions are distributed similarly by S. 1733 , in the Senate bill, in all cases related to adaptation, the auction proceeds for programs or funds would be automatically available to be obligated (i.e., spent) "without further appropriation." The provision of funding "without further appropriation" might be controversial. Comparable language in provisions of the House bill (none related to adaptation programs, however) has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as mandatory spending. Even with mandatory funding, the ultimate funding of specific programs and activities will in many cases be determined by agency, state, and/or tribal decision-makers. Developing countries, especially those that are least developed, and the poorest communities, are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In these vulnerable countries and communities, the impacts of climate change can pose a direct threat to people's very survival. Specific impacts highlighted by the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) include the following. By 2020, yields from the 93% of crop production in Africa that is rain-fed could be reduced by up to 50%. Worldwide, approximately 20%-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5degC -2.5degC. Widespread melting of glaciers and snow cover will reduce melt water from major mountain ranges (e.g., Hindu Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than 1 billion people currently live. Displacement of an estimated 200 million people due to sudden climate-related disasters is projected by 2050; it is estimated that in 2008 more than 20 million people were displaced by sudden climate-related disasters. Increased adverse health impacts and mortality will result from higher frequency and intensity of climate-related diseases such as heat stroke, malaria, dengue, and diarrhea. International assistance for adaptation, especially to help the most vulnerable developing countries, is one of the major commitments of industrialized countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to which the United States is a party. Adaptation assistance is also one of the major issues under negotiation in an effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009 on international cooperation to address climate change beyond the year 2012. Many have asserted that current overseas development aid (ODA) is insufficient to cover the adaptation needs of developing countries. A variety of international institutions and nongovernmental organizations have tried to estimate the costs of adaptation for developing countries and the associated needs for public funding. Figures range from $4 billion to several hundreds of billions of dollars annually by the year 2030, where definitions and scope of adaptation activities often account for many of the differences in funding requirements. The World Bank, in an updated study from September 2009, estimates the average annual adaptation costs from 2010 to 2050 to be between $75 billion to $100 billion annually, while EU leaders agreed in October 2009 that developing nations would need $150 billion annually by 2020 to tackle climate change and to deal with its consequences. Estimates for climate change adaptation by sector made by the UNFCCC are given in Table 2 . Much of the language in the House and Senate bills is identical, but there are several differences regarding programs to support international adaptation to climate change. Both bills establish an International Climate Change Adaptation Program, but S. 1733 would insert "and Global Security" into the title and makes clear that adaptation assistance should protect and promote U.S. interests. In H.R. 2454 , Section 495 provides explicit authority for a variety of activities and aid eligible for support, including research, planning, investments, and capacity-building, among others. S. 1733 does not include a comparable specific list of eligible activities. Both bills direct the Secretary of State or other designee of the President to distribute funding for international climate adaptation bilaterally or multilaterally. However, H.R. 2454 requires that 40% to 60% of funding go to multilateral funds or international institutions that meet given eligibility requirements. H.R. 2454 also specifies that no more than 10% of bilateral assistance may go to any one country; S. 1733 would not set such limits. The House bill also includes language directing that resources provided to this program must supplement, not supplant, other federal, state, or local resources that would similarly support international adaptation activities (i.e., requiring "additionality" of adaptation assistance). H.R. 2454 also does not explicitly provide for bilateral programs in other agencies that may have capacity-building, technological, financing, or other expertise that could be effective in assisting adapting to climate change. While H.R. 2454 gives responsibilities for oversight of funding distributions to the Secretary of State (or other presidential designee) and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), S. 1733 would give that authority to a Strategic Interagency Board on International Climate Investment. Improving adaptation in the United States to climate variability and change could include the following modified or new activities: climate observation and forecast services, such as season to interannual predictions of weather, or multi-decadal forecasts of temperature, precipitation, and other climate parameters; research and analysis on climate change impacts, including the identification of potential risks, benefits, and options for adaptation; development of vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies within and across sectors, localities, states, agencies, and sectors; incorporation of climate variability and change into infrastructure planning and operating procedures; development of a comprehensive climate adaptation strategy that includes cross-sectoral and interagency strategies and plans; testing and demonstration of adaptation measures; and evaluation, training, and information-sharing of successful programs and experiences related to climate adaptation. In general, S. 1733 , as reported by the Senate EPW Committee, and H.R. 2454 , as passed by the House, reflect similar but not identical approaches and identified needs regarding climate change adaptation. Both bills would expand federal efforts to address adaptation to climate change, although the federal role is limited in different ways. The differences between the House and Senate bills reflect differences in priorities, and in determining which entities should be responsible for developing and implementing adaptation strategies. Neither of the bills is comprehensive in terms of authorizing an overarching strategy across sectors and levels of government. Both bills would establish national "climate services" to develop observational data, climate modeling, and access to information for federal, state, local, and private decision-makers, to help them develop and execute adaptation strategies. Both bills apparently place primary responsibility in the states and Indian tribes for developing most strategies and plans for domestic adaptation, financially supported by sales of federal greenhouse gas emission allowances. S. 1733 also would require states to provide a part of their funding to localities for climate change adaptation. Both the House and Senate bills supplement the state responsibilities with requirements to establish sector-specific adaptation plans and activities at the federal level, emphasizing adaptation to protect public health and natural resources. S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 provide authorities for domestic adaptation in three major categories: National Climate Change Adaptation Program; National Climate Service; and state and tribal adaptation programs. At the national level, both H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 authorize expansion of the federal role in adaptation to climate change, although neither of the bills calls for comprehensive assessment and strategy to coordinate across levels of government. S. 1733 , however, would establish a new national adaptation program. The Senate approach, as outlined in S. 1733 , would establish a broad federal authority by directing the President to establish a National Climate Change Adaptation Program to increase "the overall effectiveness of Federal climate change adaptation efforts." The wording leaves wide discretion to the President, although it is seemingly limited to the interests and activities of federal agencies. For example, S. 1733 does not explicitly authorize that this program work with states, localities, and the private sector on cross-cutting strategies or to coordinate among different entities and stakeholders. H.R. 2454 does not explicitly provide similar broad authority to the President to establish a national climate change adaptation program (although some might argue that the President already has such authority). While earlier versions of the House bill also would have established a comprehensive federal adaptation program and strategy, these provisions were not included in the version of H.R. 2454 passed by the House. H.R. 2454 , as passed by the House, expands the focus of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to include climate change adaptation, vulnerability assessments, and policy analysis. While the coordinating committee for the USGCRP would expand beyond the current science agencies and research programs to include agencies representing sectors that have a stake in adapting to climate change, the implication of the H.R. 2454 language is that federal adaptation efforts remain primarily a research, and not a programmatic, effort. These and other USGCRP efforts would be led by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Although S. 1733 would establish a National Climate Change Adaptation Program, it does not provide language authorizing funding or allocating emission allowances to the program. (Funding authorizations and allowance allocations are provided for other adaptation provisions in both bills.) H.R. 2454 increases authorization for interagency coordination of the USGCRP (not just for adaptation) to $10 million annually, approximately doubling recent expenditures. Many scientists and decision-makers agree that in order to adapt effectively to climate change, individuals and institutions need more accurate climate data and information that is specific to their locations and concerns. There is less agreement on the appropriate authorities, the scope of federal programs, and how federal programs should be structured and coordinated to implement plans and activities. Both S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 would establish national programs to develop and provide access to information to assist decision-makers in plannning for adaptation to climate change. The National Climate Service in H.R. 2454 would be established within the USGCRP. The language in S. 1733 is terse and broadly defined, while H.R. 2454 includes much more detail, authorizes several subsidiary programs, and specifies the organizations to manage them. The bills differ on the design and location of the National Climate Service (NCS) office. S. 1733 places it within the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), while H.R. 2454 would establish a new interagency entity called the National Climate Service, plus a NOAA Climate Services Office, but leaves the evaluation of options, and design and location of the National Climate Service program, to the President. In H.R. 2454 , the ultimate relationship of the NOAA Climate Services Office to the National Climate Service is left to be determined. The implementation plan of the NCS would be coordinated by the Director of OSTP. Key recipients of climate services in both bills would be states, localities, and tribal governments, as well as the public, to enable the development and implementation of adaptation strategies to reduce vulnerability to climate variability and change. Stakeholders might need training in how to use more extensive climate information, as well as in dealing effectively with the wide uncertainty that is likely to continue to surround projections of climate, especially at more refined temporal and spatial scales. Many policies and programs that influence the impacts of climate change on people, businesses, and natural resources are under the primary authority of states, who may in turn delegate authorities to local governments and may to some extent coordinate intergovernmental authorities at the local level. Both H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 appear to leave most authority and responsibility for addressing climate change adaptation to the states. Both bills do provide a role for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which will facilitate the process of reviewing and approving state plans and disseminating "lessons learned" across states and tribes. Both bills would require and help fund state and tribal adaptation programs. The Senate bill would require states to use the proceeds from the sales of allocated emission allowances exclusively for listed activities and as included in approved state climate change response plans, while the House bill identifies uses but provides a broader range of allowable activities that can be in compliance with approved state and tribal adaptation plans. Both bills use detailed and substantially identical language specifying the roles that states and tribes must play in developing and carrying out climate change adaptation plans. S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 would provide financial resources to the states and tribes to support their adaptation planning, strategies, and implementation of certain measures through emission allowance allocations. Potential public health impacts of climate change include a wide range of risks including: a decline in air quality and an increase in allergenic pollen; more extreme temperatures; more frequent wildfires; altered conditions that foster the spread of communicable diseases and vector-borne diseases; events that threaten basic life support systems, such as droughts and floods which could adversely affect water, sanitation, and food systems. The public health provisions in S. 1733 are essentially identical to those in H.R. 2454 . Both bills mandate measures to assist health professionals in adapting to the health effects of climate change, including "the development, implementation, and support of State, regional, tribal and local preparedness, communication, and response plans to anticipate and reduce the threats of climate change." Both bills would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop a national strategy for public health adaptation, based on regular needs assessments and with input from an advisory board, to be updated every four years. Both bills would establish a Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Fund. The primary difference between the two bills is related to program funding and the use of the emission allowance allocations. S. 1733 would make funds obtained through revenue generated by emission allocation allowances available to the Secretary of HHS "without further appropriation," while H.R. 2454 makes funds available to the Secretary of HHS subject to further appropriation. Adaptation of natural resources to climate change is a difficult concept to define, and determining a strategy to support it is complicated. To some extent, adaptation is occurring already: Trees in Alaska now grow much farther north than they did only 30 years ago. Small rodents in the Rockies are found at higher elevations than in the past. Freshwater marshes are being supplanted by salt-tolerant species. Fires are removing trees that cannot tolerate repeated droughts, and beetles that can now complete two generations in a year are speeding destruction of timber. Ecosystems lose species that are no longer able to find suitable habitat, or are unable to move rapidly enough to find it. Many of these changes are not considered desirable, and some constitute serious threats from an economic, public health, or aesthetic standpoint. Approaches by many parties have focused on lessening the negative effects of climate change, but more recently, planners have begun to plant different trees, map coastal areas to determine changes in tides and resulting vegetation, consider likely future ranges of species, and examine whether current use land patterns will permit species to reach more suitable habitats. Both the House-passed and Senate-reported bills attempt to encourage federal and state strategies that can be adopted to support the resilience of species and the ecosystems on which they depend in the face of relatively rapid climate change. Within the provisions relating to natural resources, there are only a few major differences between the two bills. Both bills provide for federal, state, tribal, and local programs. Considerable emphasis at both levels is on planning, and within plans, on a tremendous number of factors to be developed, researched, or evaluated. In addition, both bills would create or facilitate the dissemination of new information sources. Both create a new National Climate Service, for example. The natural resource adaptation activities in both bills would be funded through emission allowances, either through direct allocations or through revenues generated via auctioned allowances. The Senate bill would include a provision for land acquisition under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with funding available "without further appropriations," as has been proposed several times in the past. Such LWCF proposals have had considerable support from the scientific and environmental communities to protect rare ecosystems and/or recreational opportunities. However, opponents of LWCF--especially of LWCF proposals not subjected to annual appropriations oversight--have argued that the supervision of the appropriations process is necessary to protect property rights and landowners. In addition, those that seek to limit federal spending in general may argue against allocation of money to any of the funds in S. 1733 in the absence of annual control by the appropriations and budget committees. H.R. 2454 , on the other hand, requires that funds for natural resource adaptation programs be made available subject to annual appropriations. In addition, both bills mandate the creation of new programs to disseminate data via geospatial information systems (GIS). While some data concerning wildlife already exist in GIS databases around the country, and considerable cooperation already exists among many agencies and academia, federal agencies and other levels of government might find the data useful for a variety of additional purposes, such as finding suitable locations for energy development and transportation infrastructure. Moreover, many see further coordination of geospatial data as essential for interagency and cross-sector coordination and planning. In both the House and Senate bills, there is little consideration of soils outside of carbon sequestration, biofuels, and alternative energy in relation to adaptation. Agricultural adaptation is also essentially absent from both bills. For example, at least six agencies within DOI are mentioned specifically, as is NOAA within the Department of Commerce, but within USDA, only the Forest Service figures prominently. USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is not mentioned in either bill, even though the agency's major responsibilities involve preventing soil erosion, protecting watersheds, and cooperating at multiple levels of government to control runoff and ease the effects of drought. In addition, S. 1733 would address climate-change-exacerbated wildfire threats in several ways. It would define fire-ready communities, authorize cost-share grants to such communities, and direct cost-share agreements to encourage states and communities to become fire-ready. It also would direct mapping of fire risk in priority areas for fuel reduction treatments. Wildfires are not covered in the House-passed bill. Climate change is anticipated to affect water availability and use regionally, and may alter the frequency or intensity of water-related hazards, such as droughts and floods. Potential impacts of climate change are of great interest to utility officials, federal agencies, and others concerned with water management and use. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), higher water temperatures, increased precipitation intensity, and longer periods of low flows will exacerbate many forms of water pollution, with impacts on water system reliability and operating costs, human health, and ecosystems. Similarly, climate change affects the function and operation of existing water infrastructure, as well as water management practices. Temperature change drives other changes in natural environmental processes that, in turn, affect the quality and quantity of water resources. A range of impacts are anticipated, although they are likely to vary by region, including warmer water, precipitation changes, loss of reservoir storage and snowpack, sea level rise, increases in storm intensity, increased risk of flood damage, water treatment and distribution challenges, increased wastewater treatment needs and costs due to heavier runoff, and increased demand in response to heat waves and dry spells. Water-related adaptation is likely to incorporate a range of measures: demand management and conservation, difficult land use choices in at-risk areas, investments in infrastructure, and aquatic ecosystem protection and restoration. Adapting to climate's water-related effects presents significant challenges, in part because of the wide variety of entities involved in managing and using water, and the ecosystems and species that depend on its availability, variability, and quality. Responsibilities for, and funding of, different water adaptation measures are at issue as Congress considers climate change legislation. S. 1733 would include provisions specific to water-related adaptation; no similar provisions are included in H.R. 2454 . To assist adaptation by water utilities, S. 1733 (in Division A) would establish a research program to assist drinking water utilities (Section 211) and a program of grants to states and Indian tribes for water system adaptation projects (Section 381). S. 1733 would also include two other water-specific adaptation provisions--Section 382, which would establish a grants program to states and Indian tribes for adapting to climate-related flood impacts, and Section 384, which would provide assistance to coastal (including Great Lakes) states for adapting to climate change. No specific provisions were included for drought or for adaptation of agricultural or energy sector water use to changed water resource availability and quality. Sections 381, 382, and 384 would be funded through the state climate change response account (Section 210 of Division B); Section 211 of Division A includes only an authorization of appropriations. These provisions focus to a greater extent on adapting to water quantity challenges of climate change (e.g., ensuring utilities' reliable delivery of water supply) than water quality (e.g., changes in dissolved oxygen levels or water chemistry resulting from warmer temperatures). Water-related adaptation planning and measures also are covered under broader provisions, most notably federal assistance for state adaptation efforts, federal research and assessment, and natural resources adaptation efforts by designated federal agencies. The bills would provide funding for select federal agencies to undertake aquatic ecosystem restoration activities and other water-related natural resource adaptation actions using allocations established for natural resources adaptation; otherwise, they do not specifically allocate funding for federal agencies to undertake climate change adaptation for water infrastructure (e.g., dams, levees, navigation improvements) or other water-related programs under their jurisdiction. The bills would direct federal water resource agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers, to adapt their plans, programs, and activities. Because most water resource projects typically receive project-specific authorization from Congress, it is unclear how much authority and funding these agencies would have to implement adaptation actions. S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 largely focus their federal natural resources adaptation provisions on the agencies responsible for managing and protecting water resources, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, not the agencies working with the users that depend on water resources. For example, neither U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies (e.g., Natural Resources Conservation Service) nor Department of Energy entities (e.g., power marketing administrations) are included. Agriculture, particularly in the West, is the largest consumer of water. The energy sector also withdraws significant quantities during extraction, processing, and generation. Water-related independent entities, like the Tennessee Valley Authority, also are not specifically addressed in the natural resources adaptation provisions. One exception is that S. 1733 would include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the natural resources adaptation panel proposed in the bill (Section 365). FEMA manages flood hazard mitigation programs and the national flood insurance program; FEMA is not included in a similar provision of H.R. 2454 (Section 475). In summary, the water-specific provisions of S. 1733 , which have no comparable provisions in H.R. 2454 , would be focused largely on issues arising from water quantity changes (e.g., reduced municipal water supplies, increased flooding, higher sea levels). While broad natural resource provisions of the bills include water resource agencies and funding for aquatic ecosystem restoration, less attention is given in S. 1733 or H.R. 2454 to the adaptation of federal water resources infrastructure to changes in water resource quantity and quality; similarly, while S. 1733 would address some of the adaptation challenges faced by municipal water providers, little attention is given in either bill to managing adaptation in two of the largest water use sectors--agriculture and energy.

Summary:
This report summarizes and compares climate change adaptation-related provisions in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) and the Clean Energy, Jobs, and Power Act (S. 1733). H.R. 2454 was introduced by Representatives Waxman and Markey and passed the House on June 26, 2009. S. 1733 was introduced to the Senate by Senators Boxer and Kerry and, after subsequent revisions made in the form of a manager's substitution amendment, was reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on November 5, 2009. Adaptation measures aim to improve an individual's or institution's ability to cope with or avoid harmful impacts of climate change, and to take advantage of potential beneficial ones. Both H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 include adaptation provisions that (1) seek to better assess the impacts of climate change and variability that are occurring now and in the future; and (2) support adaptation activities related to climate change, both domestically and internationally. Overall, while the two bills would authorize similar adaptation programs, they differ somewhat in scope and emphasis, and they also differ in the distribution of emission allowance allocations over time. Both bills contain provisions that address international climate change adaptation; domestic climate change adaptation programs, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the National Climate Service, and state and tribal programs; public health; and natural resources adaptation. S. 1733 includes five additional provisions not provided for in the House bill that deal with drinking water utilities; water system mitigation and adaptation partnerships; flood control, protection, prevention, and response; wildfire; and coastal Great Lakes states' adaptation. Neither the Senate-reported bill (S. 1733) nor the House-passed bill (H.R. 2454) contains a process at the federal level for developing and implementing a national strategic plan to address the full range of sectors expected to be affected by climate change. Neither bill includes provisions that explicitly address adaptation in major sectors such as transportation and energy infrastructure, or agriculture. Another difference between S. 1733 and H.R. 2454 is the distribution of allowance allocations over time, and the subsequent availability of the amounts credited to certain funds. The relative distribution of allowances to adaptation-related activities is slightly higher in the House bill than in the Senate bill, and the difference increases over time, but the actual amounts of revenue generated would be contingent on the number and price of emission allowances. The Senate bill provides that funds for many adaptation-related provisions, such as for natural resources and public health, are made available "without further appropriations." In contrast, the analogous provisions in the House bill provide that the funds would become available only by subsequent appropriations. A side-by-side table is included in an appendix to the report that compares adaptation-related provisions in H.R. 2454 and S. 1733.