Aspects of Governing Water Allocation in the US

137 Pages·2014·3.46 MB·English

December 2014

Aspects of Governing
Water Allocation in
the U.S.

Report Prepared for
Agência Nacional de Águas

2014-R-04
The Institute for Water Resources (IWR/Institute) is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Field Operating Activity located
within the Washington DC National Capital Region (NCR), in Alexandria, Virginia. Created in 1969, the Institute is the USACE
center of expertise for integrated water resources management, focusing on planning analysis and hydrologic engineering and
on the collection, management and dissemination of Civil Works and navigation information, including the nation’s waterborne
commerce data. It also serves as the USACE center of expertise for collaborative planning and environmental conflict
resolution.
The Institute has several satellite centers: The Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), located in Davis, CA which specializes in
the development, documentation, training, and application of hydrologic engineering and hydrologic models; Navigation and
Civil Works Decision Support Center (NDC) and its Waterborne Commerce Statistical Center (WCSC) in New Orleans, LA, which
is the Corps data collection organization for waterborne commerce, vessel characteristics, port facilities, dredging information,
and information on navigation locks; and the Risk Management Center (RMC) located in Denver, CO and Pittsburgh, PA whose
mission is to manage and assess risks for dams and levee systems across USACE, to support dam and levee safety activities
throughout USACE, and to develop policies, methods, tools, and systems to enhance those activities. Two other enterprise
centers at the Institute’s NCR office include the Conflict Resolution and Public Participation Center of Expertise (CPCX) which
focuses on both the processes associated with conflict resolution and the integration of public participation techniques with
decision support and technical modeling and the International Center for Integrated Water Resources Management (ICIWaRM).
ICIWaRM
ICIWaRM, under the auspices of UNESCO, was established by IWR in 2007 in collaboration with U.S. institutions, various
Universities, and non-Government organizations sharing an interest in the advancement of the science and practice of
integrated water resources management (IWRM) to address water security and other water-related challenges around the
world by regional and global action, through new knowledge, innovative technologies, collaborative interdisciplinary scientific
research, networking, training and capacity development."
ICIWaRM was formalized as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Category 2 water
center in October 2009 with the signing of an agreement between the U.S. Government and UNESCO. The designation greatly
facilitates ICIWaRM's ability to engage the UNESCO water family, serving as a focal point for increasing U.S. contributions to the
International Hydrological Programme (IHP).
Contact Info:
The Director of IWR and ICIWaRM is Mr. Robert A. Pietrowsky, who can be contacted at 703-428-8015, or via e-mail at:
[email protected]. Additional information on IWR can be found at: http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil.
IWR’s NCR mailing address is:

U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources
7701 Telegraph Road, 2nd Floor Casey Building
Alexandria, VA 22315-3868
Water Allocation in the U.S.

Report Prepared for Agencia Nacional de Aguas
in accordance with a 2013 ANA-USACE Agreement Component,
Regulatory Aspects, Task 4, Document 4.1, Technical Report
with emphasis on “Water Rights as a Commodity”

Edited by Maria T. Lantz, Elizabeth C. Bourget, and Joe D. Manous, Jr., PhD

2014-R-04

December 2014

VIEWS, OPINIONS, AND/OR FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS AN OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY POSITION, POLICY, OR DECISION
UNLESS SO DESIGNATED BY OTHER OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION
Disclaimer

The description of the laws and issues contained in this report are for informational purposes
only and do not reflect the formal position or legal determination of the United States with
respect to any matter discussed herein. USACE intends that the select information provided in
this report will promote and facilitate education and communication regarding the challenges of
water management. Nothing in this report, however, is intended to represent any position of the
Federal government in any administrative, judicial or other proceeding to evidence any legal or
policy interpretation. As such, statements contained in this report do not, and shall not, represent
a legal position or interpretation by the U.S. Federal government.
Contents

Acknowledgements and Authorship ............................................................................................................. 7
Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 9
2. WATER LAW AND ALLOCATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL .................................................... 13
2.1 The Federal and National Perspective ........................................................................................ 13
2.1.1 Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .................................................... 15
2.1.2 Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................................... 16
2.1.3 Department of the Interior ................................................................................................... 16
2.1.4 Department of Agriculture .................................................................................................. 17
2.1.5 Department of Energy, Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission ................................ 18
2.1.6 Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ................ 18
2.1.7 Coordination across Agencies ............................................................................................. 19
2.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ........................................................................................... 20
2.3.2 Bureau of Reclamation ........................................................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Riparian Rights & Water Allocation in the East ................................................................. 23
3.3.2 Prior Appropriation & Water Allocation in the West ......................................................... 26
4. WATER ALLOCATION AT THE INTERSTATE LEVEL .................................................................. 36
4.2.1 Hydrologic Standards .......................................................................................................... 40
4.2.2 Time Scale .......................................................................................................................... 41
5. THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION AND NEW YORK CITY CASE STUDY ..... 49
5.1.1 Introduction to the Delaware River Basin ........................................................................... 49
5.1.2 The Formation of the Delaware River Basin Commission ................................................. 51
5.1.3 About the Delaware River Basin Commission ................................................................... 51
5.1.4 DRBC Regulations and Authorities .................................................................................... 52
5.1.5 Dispute Resolution in the Delaware River Basin ................................................................ 53
5.1.6 DRBC’s Permitting Program (Project Review) .................................................................. 53
5.1.7 Water Supply Charging Program ........................................................................................ 55
5.1.8 DRBC Water Conservation Initiatives ................................................................................ 57
5.1.9 DRBC Drought Management Program ............................................................................... 57
5.2.1 New York City and the Delaware River Basin ................................................................... 60
5.2.2 The Case before the U.S. Supreme Court ........................................................................... 62
4
5.2.3 The Difference between the DRBC and the Decree Parties................................................ 63
5.2.4 Modifications to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court Decree ...................................................... 64
5.3 New York City’s Water Supply .................................................................................................. 65
5.3.1 New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Regulatory
Environment ........................................................................................................................................ 65
5.3.2 New York City Water Supply System Background ............................................................ 66
5.3.3 The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) ........................................................................... 68
5.3.4 NYCDEP Relationship to stakeholders and optimizing multiple demands ........................ 70
5.3.5 Management of the NYC Water Supply System through Green Infrastructure, Engineering
Solutions, Demand Side Tools, and Water for the Future .................................................................. 71
5.3.6 Operating the New York City Water Supply System: The Operations Support Tool ........ 73
5.3.7 Adapting to Changes ........................................................................................................... 74
5.4 Reflections and Lessons Learned ................................................................................................ 75
6. COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY .......................................... 76
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 77
6.2 Allocation of the Colorado River: the Law of the River ............................................................. 78
6.3 Insights and Observations from the Law of the River ................................................................ 79
6.4 Current Colorado River Basin Management ............................................................................... 81
6.5 State of Colorado ........................................................................................................................ 85
6.6 Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District ......................................................................... 87
7. COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY CASE STUDY .................................................................................... 89
7.1 Columbia River Treaty................................................................................................................ 89
7.1.1 History & Background ........................................................................................................ 89
7.1.2 Treaty Operations ................................................................................................................ 90
7.1.3 How Disputes are Resolved ................................................................................................ 94
7.1.4 Upcoming and Potential Changes to the CRT .................................................................... 95
7.2 Oregon and its State Water Law ................................................................................................. 96
7.2.1 Oregon Water Code ............................................................................................................ 96
7.2.2 How Oregon’s Water Code and the CRT Integrate ............................................................ 97
7.2.3 Sharing Basins between States ............................................................................................ 98
7.2.4 Dealing with Scarcity .......................................................................................................... 99
7.3 Water Markets in Oregon .......................................................................................................... 100
7.3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 100
7.3.2 Deschutes River Basin and the Deschutes Water Alliance Water Bank ........................... 102
5
7.4 Conclusion/Summary/Synthesis ............................................................................................... 104
8. LESSONS LEARNED ...................................................................................................................... 106
10. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 113
Appendix 1: Report Focus ........................................................................................................................ 122
Appendix 2: Annotated Tables and Interstate Compacts .......................................................................... 124
Appendix Table 1. Water Allocation Compacts in the U.S.: Allocation Formulas .............................. 124
Appendix Table 2. Water Allocation Compacts in the U.S.: Administrative Arrangements................ 128
Appendix Table 3. Water Allocation Compacts in the U.S.: Inclusions and Omissions ...................... 130
Interstate Compacts ............................................................................................................................... 131
Appendix 4: Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. 132
Appendix 5: Suggested Further Reading .................................................................................................. 134

6
Acknowledgements and Authorship

This report was prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for
Water Resources (IWR). Special thanks are due to the following invited authors:
Section 4. “Water Allocation at the Interstate Level”
Dr. Doug Kenney (Director, Western Water Policy Program, Getches-Wilkinson Center for
Natural Resources, Energy and the Environment, University of Colorado Law School)
Section 5. “The Delaware River Basin Commission and New York City Case Study”
Dr. Allan Frei (Chair, Department of Geography, Hunter College, CUNY Institute for
Sustainable Cities)
Kate Schmidt (Communications Assistant, Delaware River Basin Commission)
Section 6. “Colorado River Basin Water Management Case Study”
John Berggren (Ph.D. Candidate, Environmental Studies, University of Colorado – Boulder)
Section 7. “Columbia River Treaty Case Study”
Kim Ogren (Ph.D. Candidate, Geography, Oregon State University)
Primary authors from IWR include Maria Lantz (Sections 2 and 3), Lisa Bourget, Dr. Joe
Manous, and Dr. Jerome Delli Priscoli.
Recognition is due to those who reviewed select sections of the draft report. Reviewers include
Dr. Jeffrey Mitchell Brideau (University of Maryland), Dr. Daniel P. Loucks (Cornell
University), Dr. Jay Lund (University of California – Davis), Dr. Leonard Shabman (Resources
for the Future), Hilary Adams, Nathan Bracken and Tony Willardson (Western States Water
Council), and staff from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Their well-grounded suggestions and
observations, often provided under tight time constraints, were much appreciated.
The report was prepared in English units of measurement. Approximate metric conversions have
been added to provide a sense of scale for the intended international audience, but in all instances
the English units are authoritative.

7
Preface

The country of Brazil is confronting significant and increasing water resources challenges.
Decreasing water availability and competing demands on water are placing increased pressures
on state and national governments to more effectively manage available water resources.
An agency charged with management and sustainable use of water resources at the national level
is the Agência Nacional de Aguas (ANA). Created in 2000 to help implement a new national
water policy and system of water resources management, ANA continues to investigate ways to
improve the planning, monitoring, allocation, and regulation of Brazil's water resources. As part
of that effort, ANA requested assistance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
through a government-to-government agreement on several water resources planning and
management topics.
One of these requests was a summary of U.S. water allocation policies. USACE’s Mobile
District, as project manager of ANA’s request for USACE assistance, passed this request to the
Institute for Water Resources (IWR) to develop a response. The following report is the result.
Since surface and ground water allocation in the U.S. is managed at the state level, the methods
used in the U.S. vary between each state and territory. As a result, the following report does not
attempt to provide a holistic report or assessment of U.S. water allocation policies, but rather
describes the two dominant philosophies guiding U.S. water allocation: riparianism and prior
appropriation. Using these philosophies, individual state water allocation practices (e.g.,
monitoring, allocation, regulation, etc.) within watersheds of interest to ANA were reviewed to
provide notable water allocation examples from different parts of the country.
While the examples selected for this report were chosen to address situations of likely interest to
Brazil, the substance of the report is not specific to Brazil, and as such may be of interest to
others experiencing challenges in water allocation. For this reason, this report is being made
available to the broader international community through IWR’s UNESCO-affiliated
International Center for Integrated Water Resources Management (ICIWaRM).

8
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview and U.S. Facts and Figures

In the United States, water availability and demand are becoming increasingly important issues.
Responding to changes in the nation’s demographic, economic, and political landscapes, water
resources managers are adjusting water management practices in ways that address changed
priorities, physical conditions, consumption rates, and allocations. These changed practices are
underscored by an evolving set of legal, institutional, and technological conditions.
In 1950, the federal government began to regularly compile data on freshwater withdrawals.
These records indicate that, between 1950 and 1980, withdrawals increased with national
population size; however, despite steady population growth after 1980, water withdrawals have
remained relatively stable (see Figure 1). This stabilization has been attributed to more efficient
uses of water resources.
1
Figure 1 Water Use in the United States, 1950-2005

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior (2013).
Today’s U.S. population is approximately 317,941,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014), and the
mean center of population continues to shift south and west (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) toward
the country’s more arid regions. As of 2005, approximately 349 billion gallons per day
[approximately 1.32 million ML/day] of fresh water are withdrawn (Kenny et al., 2009); major
uses include thermoelectric power generation (primarily for once-through cooling at power

1 Available online at http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wateruse-trends.html, along with other U.S. information.
9