This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-430 
entitled 'Freshwater: Supply Concerns Continue, and Uncertainties 
Complicate Planning' which was released on May 22, 2014. 

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

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

May 2014: 

Freshwater: 

Supply Concerns Continue, and Uncertainties Complicate Planning: 

GAO-14-430: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-430, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The nation's water bodies have long supplied Americans with abundant
freshwater, but recent events, such as the ongoing California drought, 
have focused attention on competing demands for this limited resource. 
In the United States, the states are primarily responsible for managing
freshwater resources, and many federal agencies influence states'
management decisions. In 2003, GAO issued a report providing an overview
of trends in freshwater availability and use, as well as states' views 
on ways the federal government could assist states to help meet future 
water management challenges. 

GAO was asked to report on changes since 2003. This report examines (1)
issues related to freshwater availability and use; (2) expectations 
for water availability and use over the next 10 years and how these 
expectations may affect water planning; (3) steps, if any, states have 
taken to manage freshwater resources; and (4) actions, if any, federal 
agencies have taken to support management of freshwater availability 
and use and perspectives from state water managers, experts, and 
literature on what the federal government can do to enhance its 
support. GAO conducted a survey of 50 state water managers with a
response rate of 100 percent. GAO also reviewed reports and documents
from entities, such as federal agencies and environmental 
organizations, and interviewed federal officials and experts, 
including environmental and industry officials, to understand 
freshwater issues across the nation. 

What GAO Found: 

Key issues related to freshwater availability and use—such as concerns 
about population growth straining water supplies, lack of information 
on water availability and use, and trends in types of water use—remain 
largely unchanged since 2003, according to state water managers, 
experts, and literature. In addition, GAO's review found certain 
issues, such as the impacts of climate change and extreme weather 
events, including droughts and floods, on water resources and the 
effect of the energy sector on water quantity and quality, have
gained prominence. 

According to state water managers, experts, and literature GAO reviewed,
freshwater shortages are expected to continue into the future. In 
particular, 40 of 50 state water managers expected shortages in some 
portion of their states under average conditions in the next 10 years 
(see figure). However, uncertainty stemming from factors, such as 
patterns of economic growth and land use change, is likely to 
complicate future state water managers' planning efforts. 

Figure: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under 
Average Water Conditions, 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

2013: Number of states in each category: 

Shortage category: Statewide: 1: 
Montana. 

Shortage category: Regional: 24: 
Arkansas; 
California; 
Colorado; 
Delaware; 
Florida; 
Hawaii; 
Idaho; 
Illinois; 
Louisiana; 
Michigan; 
Minnesota; 
Mississippi; 
Nebraska; 
Nevada; 
New Mexico; 
North Carolina; 
Oklahoma; 
Oregon; 
Rhode Island; 
South Dakota; 
Texas; 
Washington; 
Wisconsin; 
Wyoming. 

Shortage category: Local: 15: 
Alaska; 
Arizona; 
Iowa; 
Kansas; 
Maine; 
Massachusetts; 
Missouri; 
New Hampshire; 
New Jersey; 
New York; 
Pennsylvania; 
South Carolina; 
Tennessee; 
Virginia; 
West Virginia. 

Shortage category: None: 8: 
Alabama; 
Connecticut; 
Georgia; 
Kentucky; 
Maryland; 
North Dakota; 
Utah; 
Vermont. 

No response or uncertain: 2: 
Indiana; 
Ohio. 

Sources: GAO analysis of state water managers' responses to GAO 
survey; Map Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

GAO's review found that over the last decade states have taken a 
number of steps to improve management of freshwater availability and 
use. These include conducting freshwater resource studies and 
assessments, developing drought preparedness plans, developing water 
management tools, taking conservation actions, and taking steps to 
address climate change impacts on water resources. 

Since 2003, federal agencies have taken various actions to support 
freshwater management. For example, the Department of the Interior's 
U.S. Geological Survey initiated the National Water Census to assess 
water availability and use across the nation. Also, numerous agencies 
participate in the National Drought Resilience Partnership, created in 
2013. In addition, state water managers, experts, and literature GAO 
reviewed identified actions the federal government could take to 
support state water management efforts, including increased 
collaboration among federal agencies and with states and other 
stakeholders, and maintaining and collecting key data. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-430]. For more 
information, contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or 
fennella@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Since 2003, Issues Related to Freshwater Availability and Use Have Not 
Changed Significantly, Although Certain Issues Have Gained Prominence: 

Future Freshwater Shortages Are Expected, but Planning Is Complicated 
by Uncertainty Related to Freshwater Availability and Use: 

States Have Taken Steps to Better Manage Freshwater Resources: 

Since 2003, Federal Agencies Have Taken Actions Supporting Freshwater 
Management; Additional Collaboration and Data Collection Could Enhance 
Support of States, but Federal Agencies Face Challenges: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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

Appendix III: Extent of State Water Shortages in 2003 and 2013 
(Corresponds to Figure 7): 

Appendix IV: Examples of Actions Taken by Federal Agencies Since 2003: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Number of States that Have Assessed Statewide Availability, 
Withdrawals, and Consumption, 2003 and 2013: 

Table 2: Number of States Developing New Water Supplies through 
Reclaimed Water, Recycling Storm Water, and Desalination, 2003 and 
2013: 

Table 3: Number of States Using Interbasin Transfers and Voluntary 
Transfer Markets, 2003 and 2013: 

Table 4: Survey Results for Expected Shortages in the Next 1-10 Years 
under Average Water Conditions, 2003 and 2013: 

Table 5: Examples of Interior Initiatives Related to Water Resources: 

Table 6: Examples of Other Federal Agency Initiatives Since 2003 
Related to Water Resources: 

Table 7: Examples of Multiagency Initiatives Since 2003 Related to 
Water Resources: 

Table 8: Examples of Federal Assessments and Reports Developed Since 
2003 Related to Water Resources: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Overview of Federal Activities Related to Freshwater 
Management: 

Figure 2: Diagram of a U.S. Geological Survey Streamgage: 

Figure 3: Projected U.S. Population Growth by Region, 2000-2030: 

Figure 4: Average Annual Precipitation in the Continental United 
States, 1981-2010: 

Figure 5: Trends in U.S. Water Withdrawals by Use Categories, 1950-
2005: 

Figure 6: U.S. Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, 2012: 

Figure 7: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under 
Average Water Conditions, 2013: 

Figure 8: U.S. Geological Survey's Nationwide Streamgage Network as of 
Fiscal Year 2012: 

Figure 9: Cumulative Number of Discontinued Streamgages with 30 Years 
or More of Data, 1900 to 2012: 

Figure 10: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under 
Average Water Conditions, 2003: 

Figure 11: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under 
Average Water Conditions, 2013: 

Abbreviations: 

Commerce: U.S. Department of Commerce: 

Corps: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 

CWCB: Colorado Water Conservation Board: 

DNR: Department of Natural Resources: 

DOE: U.S. Department of Energy: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service: 

GRACE: Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment: 

IBWC: International Boundary and Water Commission: 

Interior: U.S. Department of the Interior: 

IWRSS: Integrated Water Resources Science and Services: 

LCC: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives: 

mgd: million gallons per day: 

MODIS: Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

NIDIS: National Integrated Drought Information System: 

NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Reclamation: Bureau of Reclamation: 

SMAP: Soil Moisture Active Passive: 

SNOTEL: Snow Telemetry: 

SWOT: Surface Water Ocean Topography: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey: 

WestFAST: Western States Federal Agency Support Team: 

WRIA: Water Resource Inventory and Assessment: 

WWCRA: West-Wide Climate Risk Assessment: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 20, 2014: 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Natural Resources: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey: 
United States Senate: 

The nation's lakes, rivers, streams, and underground aquifers have 
long supplied Americans with abundant freshwater, but due in part to 
climatic variability and population growth, this vital resource is not 
always available when and where it is needed or in the amount or 
quality desired. In the past decade alone, parts of the United States 
have experienced severe and recurrent droughts, while other parts have 
been flooded in powerful storms. In October 2012, for example, while a 
large portion of the Great Plains was experiencing exceptional 
drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor,[Footnote 1] states 
along the eastern seaboard were suffering from intense flooding caused 
by Hurricane Sandy. Moreover, disagreements have erupted over 
dwindling water supplies, particularly among arid western states. In 
times of shortage, competing demands for freshwater--such as for 
irrigation, power production, municipal water supplies, and supporting 
aquatic life--increase, heightening conflicts over limited resources. 

In the United States, the states are primarily responsible for 
managing freshwater resources, and no one federal agency has primary 
oversight of water resource management. Rather, many federal agencies 
influence states' management activities through the implementation and 
enforcement of federal laws, as well as various federal programs. For 
example, the Department of the Interior's (Interior) U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) has primary responsibility for collecting, analyzing, 
and sharing data on water availability and use. Other agencies, such 
as Interior's Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps),[Footnote 2] construct, operate, and 
maintain large water storage infrastructure, such as dams and 
reservoirs. 

In 2003, we issued a report providing a comprehensive overview of 
trends in freshwater availability and use, as well as state views on 
expected shortages and ways the federal government could help states 
meet future challenges.[Footnote 3] Specifically, we reported that 
trends at the time indicated increasing demands on the nation's 
freshwater supplies, and state water managers expected freshwater 
shortages in the near future. The report also noted that, among other 
things, federal collection of water data at more locations and more 
consultation with states would benefit states in meeting their 
freshwater resource needs. Since our 2003 report, competing demands on 
the nation's freshwater resources have elevated the importance of 
carefully managing freshwater supply and prompted renewed interest in 
assessing the status of the nation's freshwater availability and use. 

You asked us to update our 2003 report in light of new and continued 
stresses on water supplies. This report examines (1) issues related to 
freshwater availability and use; (2) expectations for water 
availability and use over the next 10 years and how these expectations 
may affect water planning; (3) steps, if any, states have taken to 
better manage freshwater resources; and (4) actions, if any, federal 
agencies have taken to support management of freshwater availability 
and use and perspectives from state water managers, experts we spoke 
with, and literature we reviewed on what the federal government can do 
to enhance its support of states. 

We analyzed three key sources of information to complete this work for 
all four objectives. First, we conducted a Web-based survey of state 
water managers from all 50 states; the response rate to our survey was 
100 percent. Because not all respondents answered every question, the 
number of states responding to any particular question will be noted 
throughout the report. The survey was largely identical to the survey 
we used in 2003, with the addition of a few new questions. 
Specifically, the survey contained 67 questions about topics such as 
state water management, federal agencies' collection and dissemination 
of water quantity data, and drivers of change that may affect water 
supplies in the next 10 years. Second, we analyzed key documents 
(e.g., peer-reviewed studies and government-sponsored reports) to 
gather information on current and future freshwater conditions. Third, 
we interviewed experts to gather additional perspectives on freshwater 
issues. Experts included representatives from regional entities with 
freshwater knowledge; industry, such as an organization that 
represents municipal water treatment plants; environmental 
organizations; and academia. We identified these experts using an 
iterative approach in which we solicited names from agency officials 
and others we interviewed; we also interviewed experts identified 
during our analysis of reports and key documents. For the purposes of 
reporting the results of our analyses, we used the following 
categories to quantify the responses of state water managers and 
experts: some refers to at least two state water managers or experts, 
several refers to at leave five managers or experts, and many refers 
to eight or more managers or experts. As part of our review, we 
identified three states for inclusion as illustrative examples--
Colorado, Maryland, and Michigan. These states were selected on the 
basis of criteria including variation across the states in their 
responses to our 2003 survey and types of water use within those 
states. We also interviewed agency officials from a number of federal 
agencies--such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Forest 
Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Corps, 
Reclamation, and USGS--to understand steps they have taken to support 
freshwater management and their responses to concerns identified by 
state water managers and experts. Appendix I provides additional 
information on our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to May 2014, in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Water is one of the earth's most abundant resources, covering about 70 
percent of the earth's surface. Freshwater that is available for use 
by humans and ecosystems, however, makes up less than 1 percent of the 
earth's water. While freshwater flows abundantly through the nation's 
lakes, rivers, streams, and underground aquifers, people neither 
always have access to freshwater when and where they need it, nor in 
the amount or quality they need. To make water more available and 
usable throughout the United States, federal agencies have built water 
storage and conveyance projects and have engaged in other water 
development, management, and regulatory activities. Federal agencies 
manage some water use, such as on federal lands or in interstate 
commerce, but water allocation and use are predominantly governed by 
state laws. 

Federal and State Authorities Regarding Water Availability and Use: 

The federal government derives authority to manage certain water 
resources from several constitutional sources but recognizes the 
states' authority to allocate and use water within their 
jurisdictions. The Commerce Clause,[Footnote 4] one source from which 
federal authority is derived, permits federal regulation of water that 
may be involved in or may affect interstate commerce,[Footnote 5] 
including efforts to preserve the navigability of waterways.[Footnote 
6] In addition, the Property Clause[Footnote 7] permits federal 
regulation of water as necessary for the beneficial use of federal 
property.[Footnote 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, Reclamation 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 
Reclamation projects.[Footnote 9] Other federal acts--including the 
Water Supply Act of 1958, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species 
Act--explicitly recognize nonfederal interests in water supply 
development.[Footnote 10] 

Varied state laws govern the allocation and use of surface and 
groundwaters. Specifically, the allocation and use of surface water 
can generally be traced to two basic legal doctrines: (1) the riparian 
doctrine, often used in the eastern United States, and (2) the prior 
appropriation doctrine, often used in the western United States. 
States may rely on either doctrine, a mix of both doctrines or, in a 
few cases, other approaches to allocate water.[Footnote 11] Under the 
riparian doctrine, water rights are linked to land ownership, where 
owners of land bordering a waterway have a right to use the water that 
flows past their land for any reasonable purpose. Landowners may, at 
any time, use water flowing past their 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 prior 
and beneficial water use--parties who obtain water rights first (known 
as senior water rights holders) generally have seniority for the use 
of water over those who obtain rights later (known as junior water 
rights holders), and rights holders must put the water to beneficial 
use or abandon their right to use it. Simply put, first in time, first 
in right and use it or lose it. Because water rights are not tied to 
land, water rights can be bought and sold without any ownership of 
land, although the rights to water may have specific geographic 
limitations. For example, a water right generally provides the ability 
to use water in a specific river basin taken from a specific area of 
the river. When there is a water shortage in prior appropriation 
states, shortages fall first on those who last obtained a legal right 
to use the water. As a result, a shortage can result in junior water 
rights holders losing all access to water, while senior water rights 
holders retain access to their prior entire allotment. 

While groundwater allocation can follow principles of surface water 
management, many states use different approaches. For example, many 
states use the prior appropriation doctrine to allocate groundwater 
rights in a manner similar to surface water. Other approaches to 
groundwater allocation include granting rights to all the water that 
landowners can capture; granting landowners the right to water beneath 
their land, provided the use is restricted to an amount necessary for 
reasonable use; dividing rights among landowners based on acreage; and 
not regulating groundwater allocation. 

Federal Activities Affecting Water Management: 

Many federal agencies play a role in managing the nation's freshwater 
resources through key activities, as shown in figure 1. Specifically, 
federal agencies collect and share water availability and use data; 
assist in developing and implementing water-management agreements and 
treaties; construct, operate, and maintain large water storage and 
distribution facilities; hold water rights for federally managed lands 
and act as trustees for tribal water rights; and administer clean 
water and environmental protection laws. 

Figure 1: Overview of Federal Activities Related to Freshwater 
Management: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Data collection and forecasting: 
Agencies collect and share information on precipitation, snowpack, 
streamflow, groundwater levels, and long-term climate trends. Federal 
agencies involved in this activity include the U.S. Geological Survey, 
the National Weather Service, the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), and the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Water management agreements: 
Agencies play a variety of roles in developing and implementing 
international treaties and interstate compacts. Federal agencies 
involved in this activity include the Bureau of Reclamation 
(Reclamation), the Corps, the International Boundary and Water 
Commission, and the Forest Service. 

Water storage and conveyance facilities: 
Agencies construct, operate, and maintain dams, reservoirs, and water 
distribution facilities. Federal agencies involved in this activity 
include Reclamation, the Corps, and the Forest Service. 

Water rights: 
Agencies hold water rights for lands they manage and act as trustees 
for tribal water rights. Federal agencies involved in this activity 
include the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, 
and the Forest Service. 

Environmental protection: 
Agencies administer and implement laws such as the Endangered Species 
Act and the Clean Water Act. Federal agencies involved in this 
activity include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Corps, 
and the Forest Service. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Data Collection and Forecasting: 

* Several federal agencies maintain a number of water resource data 
collection networks to collect information on streamflows, groundwater 
availability, precipitation, and water use trends and other water 
resources. Agencies may maintain networks through their own programs 
or in partnership with other federal agencies and entities, such as 
state and local governments. In some cases, federal agencies rely on 
states to supply most of the data. Major federal water data collection 
efforts include the following: 

* Streamflow data. USGS's National Streamflow Information Program 
collects surface water availability data through its national 
streamgage network,[Footnote 12] which continuously measures the level 
and flow of rivers and streams at 8,025 active continuous gages 
nationwide for distribution on the Internet. Figure 2 shows a USGS 
streamgage. USGS staff measure streamflow and calibrate the 
streamgages frequently. Other agencies can provide funding to maintain 
streamgages that are important to their specific mission. 

Figure 2: Diagram of a U.S. Geological Survey Streamgage: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph and illustration] 

Depicted on illustration: 

Water surface; 
Intakes; 
Valves; 
Floor; 
Shelf; 
Recorder; 
Satellite radio antenna. 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 

[End of figure] 

* Groundwater data. USGS continuously monitors groundwater levels and 
works with state and local agencies to collect additional groundwater 
data under its National Water Information System. USGS or USGS 
cooperators, such as state agencies, continuously monitor groundwater 
levels at 3,303 wells across the United States. In total, USGS's 
National Water Information System included 27,205 wells where at least 
one measurement was taken in fiscal year 2012. 

* Precipitation data. Federal agencies collect data on snowpack and 
rainfall. USDA's NRCS operates 885 Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites in 
the western United States, which transmit snow depth and climate 
parameters in near real time. Through its snow course network, NRCS 
also conducts manual surveys of snow depth at about 956 sites in the 
United States. The Department of Commerce's (Commerce) National 
Weather Service also collects snowfall and snowpack data and estimates 
rainfall with 155 weather radars and 10,000 gages mostly owned and 
operated by agencies, providing data for weather and climate 
forecasts. The vast majority of those rain gages are owned and 
operated by other federal agencies and state, municipal, and tribal 
governments, with only a few gages owned and operated directly by the 
National Weather Service. 

* Water use trend data and other water resource data. The USGS 
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. States and other entities 
also collect and share water resource data, such as surface water or 
groundwater data, through USGS's Cooperative Water Program. Both 
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 
the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) maintain 
several satellite programs that can be used to collect data for 
managing water resources. For example, NOAA operates a Data Collection 
System on their geostationary satellites that collects and distributes 
the water resource measurements from the streamgages and other 
observation networks operated by USGS, the Forest Service, the 
National Weather Service, and other federal and state government 
agencies.[Footnote 13] In addition, NASA has extensive satellite 
observations, modeling, and research focused on many aspects of the 
water cycle. Examples include (1) the Moderate Resolution Imaging 
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Global Evapotranspiration project,[Footnote 
14] which, among other things, develops evapotranspiration data that 
can be used to calculate information for water resource management, 
such as water balance and drought mapping, and (2) the Gravity 
Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, which have been 
used since 2002 to measure changes in the amount of water stored on 
and beneath Earth's surface, including groundwater, and to quantify 
drought conditions.[Footnote 15] 

Federal agencies also collect water data or conduct research on water 
resources in support of their own specific missions. For example, 
Interior's National Park Service and USDA's Forest Service collect 
streamflow data for the lands they manage to supplement USGS's 
streamgage information; Interior's 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 USDA's Agricultural Research Service conducts and the 
National Institute of Food and Agriculture funds water quantity and 
quality research related to agriculture, natural resources, and the 
environment. In addition to collecting data, federal agencies often 
conduct analyses of water data that can be used by water managers to 
make more informed decisions. For example, the National Weather 
Service and NRCS combine their data with USGS streamgage data to 
forecast water supplies and floods. They post water supply forecasts 
twice a month on the Internet and through other communication 
channels. In addition, the National Weather Service issues sub-daily, 
sometimes hourly, flow forecast information, from low flows for 
navigation to high flows for warnings. 

Water Management Agreements: 

* States can enter into interstate compacts to address water 
allocation, quality, and other issues on rivers and lakes that cross 
state borders. For example, according to Interior's Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS), 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, falling under the agency's purview. An example of an 
interstate compact is the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water 
Resources Compact.[Footnote 16] The compact, which was ratified by 
eight Great Lakes states, approved by the Congress, and signed by the 
President in 2008, was developed to address water withdrawals from the 
Great Lakes Basin.[Footnote 17] The agreement between the states 
established a common framework in which each state would establish its 
own water withdrawal regulation and management programs governing 
Great Lakes Basin water. 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 Congress provided the Secretary of the 
Interior with certain authority regarding the appropriation of 
Colorado River waters under the 1922 Colorado River Compact.[Footnote 
18] Under the compact, the Colorado River Basin is divided into the 
Upper Division (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) and Lower 
Division (Arizona, California, and Nevada). The compact specifies that 
the states of the Upper Division will not cause the flow of the river 
at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75 million acre-feet 
of water for any period of 10 consecutive years. 

The United States can also enter into international treaties that 
affect water availability and use in the United States. Through 
treaties with Canada and Mexico, the United States coordinates 
activities such as water allocation, flood control, water quality, and 
power generation, as well as resolves water-related disputes along the 
nations' international borders. For example, the 1944 Water Treaty 
with Mexico provided the International Boundary and Water Commission 
(IBWC), a binational commission to help the member nations coordinate 
water management activities, monitor water resources, and resolve 
disputes, with the responsibility for carrying out the treaty. 
[Footnote 19] 

Water Storage and Conveyance Facilities: 

* Reclamation and the Corps construct, operate, and maintain large 
projects to store and manage untreated water, including many of the 
largest storage projects in the United States, holding huge quantities 
of water for a wide variety of purposes, such as agricultural, 
industrial, and municipal uses.[Footnote 20] Reclamation's water 
delivery quantities are usually specified under long-term contracts, 
while the Corps provides water storage space in reservoirs, also under 
long-term contracts. Some of these projects serve other purposes, such 
as flood control, energy production, and recreation. Reclamation has 
constructed water storage and distribution infrastructure, as well as 
irrigation projects, throughout the 17 western continental states and 
currently manages 337 reservoirs with a collective storage capacity of 
245 million acre-feet of water.[Footnote 21] In total, Reclamation's 
water management projects provide water for about 10 million acres of 
farmland and nearly 31 million people. The Corps, through its Civil 
Works program, manages 541 reservoirs all across the country with a 
collective storage capacity of 330 million acre-feet of water. The 
Corps also has responsibility for other key water infrastructure that 
can be important for water management, including 14,673 miles of levee 
systems for flood control, 55,390 miles of lakeshore and other 
recreation areas, and 12,000 miles of commercial inland waterways for 
navigation. In addition, the Forest Service permits storage facilities 
that are operated by entities such as municipalities and irrigation 
districts on national forest lands, according to agency officials. 

Water Rights: 

* Numerous federal natural resource management agencies and the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs are trustees for the water rights on federal and 
tribal lands. The states grant the great majority of water rights to 
these agencies, but the agencies also have federal reserved rights--
water rights that are used to fulfill the purposes of federal lands 
such as maintaining national forests, national parks, wildlife 
refuges, and tribal lands. The exact number and amount of federal 
reserved rights are not known,[Footnote 22] although officials from 
Interior's Bureau of Land Management estimate that 20 percent of the 
agency's water rights are federally reserved, largely for underground 
springs. In addition, 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 U.S. Supreme 
Court has found that water rights in a quantity sufficient to fulfill 
the purposes of the reservations are implied when the United States 
establishes reservation lands for a tribe.[Footnote 23] Tribes 
typically use water rights to ensure water is available for domestic 
use, irrigation, industrial development, hydropower, and the 
maintenance of instream flows. 

Environmental Protection: 

* Several federal agencies administer clean water and environmental 
protection laws that affect water resource management. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Clean Water Act 
[Footnote 24]--the nation's principal federal law regulating surface 
water quality. In addition, the Corps administers Section 404 of the 
act, the principal federal program that provides regulatory 
protections for wetlands, which include bogs, swamps, and 
marshes.[Footnote 25] States and localities also play a significant 
role in its implementation. The act can affect available water 
supplies by, for example, reducing offstream use or return flows to 
address water quality concerns. In addition, federal land management 
agencies ensure that water uses on federal land meet the act by 
requiring best management practices in special use permits, according 
to Forest Service officials. 

In addition, FWS and Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS) are responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act. 
[Footnote 26],[Footnote 27] This act requires federal agencies to 
ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species of 
plant or animal or adversely modify or destroy designated critical 
habitat.[Footnote 28] The Endangered Species Act can affect water 
management activities, for example, by necessitating certain stream 
flow levels be maintained to avoid jeopardizing listed species or 
their critical habitats. 

Since 2003, Issues Related to Freshwater Availability and Use Have Not 
Changed Significantly, Although Certain Issues Have Gained Prominence: 

Our review found that, since 2003, key issues related to freshwater 
availability and use--such as concerns about population growth 
straining water supplies, lack of information on water availability 
and use, and trends in types of water use--remain largely unchanged. 
In addition, certain issues--the impacts of climate change and extreme 
weather events on water resources, concerns about maintaining 
ecological and recreational flows, interactions between surface water 
and groundwater, and the effect of the energy sector on water quantity 
and quality--have gained prominence. 

Key Issues Related to Freshwater Availability and Use Continue to Make 
Freshwater Management and Planning Difficult: 

Our review found that key issues surrounding freshwater availability 
and use have not changed significantly over the last decade. In 
particular, concerns about population growth straining water supplies, 
lack of comprehensive information on water availability and use, and 
trends in types of water use remain and continue to make freshwater 
management and planning difficult. As in 2003, population growth 
remains a concern, particularly in certain states where water supplies 
are already limited. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau project that the 
U.S. population will increase by approximately 29 percent between 2000 
and 2030, and the western and southern regions are projected to 
experience the greatest growth during this time (see figure 3). 
According to data from USGS,[Footnote 29] some states in these regions 
have among the highest water withdrawal rates in the United States. 

Figure 3: Projected U.S. Population Growth by Region, 2000-2030: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

United States: 29.2%; 
Northeast: 7.6%; 
Midwest: 9.5%; 
South: 42.9%; 
West: 45.8%. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State 
Population Projections, 2005. 

[End of figure] 

Furthermore, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Nevada and 
Arizona are the two states with the greatest projected growth--
population is projected to more than double between 2000 and 2030. 
Both states, however, are located in the arid Southwest, which has 
historically received some of the lowest annual precipitation amounts 
in the nation, according to data from Oregon State University (see 
figure 4). 

Figure 4: Average Annual Precipitation in the Continental United 
States, 1981-2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Map depicts annual precipitation in inches for geographical areas: 
0; 
Less than 4; 
4-8; 
8-12; 
12-16; 
16-20; 
20-24; 
24-28; 
28-32; 
32-36; 
36-40; 
40-50; 
50-60; 
60-70; 
70-80; 
80-100; 
100-120; 
120-140; 
140-160; 
More than 160. 

Source: Copyright ©2013, PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, 
[hyperlink, http://prism.oregonstate.edu]. Map created Nov. 18, 2013. 

[End of figure] 

Moreover, our review found that population growth can stress 
freshwater supplies in areas that have not historically been concerned 
with limited water availability. For example, while state water 
managers in Maryland told us that they do not expect statewide water 
shortages in the near future, they noted that there are concerns with 
population growth straining water supplies in some parts of the state. 
Specifically, these officials told us that a large number of people 
working in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area have migrated to 
central and southern Maryland counties, thereby putting increased 
pressure on water supplies in those regions. Urban areas within 
central Maryland rely primarily on surface water reservoirs, and rural 
and exurban areas in the region rely on groundwater wells to meet 
their freshwater needs. The officials told us that there is little 
chance of building new surface reservoirs in the long term and 
therefore they expect increased groundwater use in this region; 
however, due to the region's geology, it is not well suited for high-
production groundwater wells. These factors make it possible that some 
towns and small communities in the region may have difficulty finding 
sufficient water supplies to meet the needs of the growing population, 
according to the officials. 

In addition to population growth concerns, our review found that there 
continues to be a dearth of data related to water availability and 
use. Specifically, as we reported in 2003, national water availability 
and use had not been--and still has not been--comprehensively assessed 
since 1978. The U.S. Water Resources Council, established by the Water 
Resources Planning Act in 1965,[Footnote 30] assessed the status of 
the nation's surface water and groundwater resources and reported in 
1968 and 1978 on the resources' 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. Since 2003, the Subcommittee on Water 
Availability and Quality has called for an updated 
assessment.[Footnote 31] However, USGS officials told us that while 
there are related efforts under way to assess water availability and 
use at national and regional scales,[Footnote 32] a comprehensive 
assessment of freshwater availability and use has not been completed 
over the last decade. 

In addition, trends in types of water use have not changed 
significantly in the last few decades. Specifically, as shown in 
figure 5, the majority of water withdrawals have consistently been for 
thermoelectric power and for irrigation.[Footnote 33] According to 
USGS,[Footnote 34] total withdrawals in 2000 and 2005 were the largest 
since 1980 when withdrawals peaked, and thermoelectric power has 
remained the type of use with the largest withdrawals since 1965, 
making up 49 percent of total withdrawals in 2005.[Footnote 35] As our 
past work on the energy-water nexus found,[Footnote 36] water is a key 
component in the production of electricity because thermoelectric 
power plants rely heavily on water for cooling, and plants have 
already reduced electricity production due to limited water 
availability in some areas. The Department of Energy (DOE) is 
projecting that U.S. electricity generation will increase by 
approximately 28 percent from 2013 through 2040, although an agency 
official added that the water use profile of future electricity 
generation will be different than the profile of current generation 
because of projected changes in technology. We noted that limited 
freshwater may make it more difficult to build new power plants, 
particularly in communities concerned about the adequacy of their 
water supply and maintaining the quality of aquatic environments. 

Figure 5: Trends in U.S. Water Withdrawals by Use Categories, 1950-
2005: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked line graph] 

Billion gallons per day: 

Year: 1950; 
Public supply: 14; 
Irrigation: 89; 
Thermoelectric power: 40; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 41. 

Year: 1955; 
Public supply: 17; 
Irrigation: 110; 
Thermoelectric power: 72; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 43. 

Year: 1960; 
Public supply: 21; 
Irrigation: 110; 
Thermoelectric power: 100; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 42. 

Year: 1965; 
Public supply: 24; 
Irrigation: 120; 
Thermoelectric power: 130; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 50. 

Year: 1970; 
Public supply: 27; 
Irrigation: 130; 
Thermoelectric power: 170; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 52. 

Year: 1975; 
Public supply: 29; 
Irrigation: 140; 
Thermoelectric power: 200; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 50. 

Year: 1980; 
Public supply: 33; 
Irrigation: 150; 
Thermoelectric power: 210; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 51. 

Year: 1985; 
Public supply: 36; 
Irrigation: 135; 
Thermoelectric power: 187; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 38. 

Year: 1990; 
Public supply: 39; 
Irrigation: 134; 
Thermoelectric power: 194; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 38. 

Year: 1995; 
Public supply: 40; 
Irrigation: 130; 
Thermoelectric power: 190; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 38. 

Year: 2000; 
Public supply: 43; 
Irrigation: 139; 
Thermoelectric power: 195; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 37. 

Year: 2005; 
Public supply: 44; 
Irrigation: 128; 
Thermoelectric power: 201; 
Other (including rural domestic and livestock, self-supplied 
industrial, mining, commercial, and aquaculture): 37. 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Note: The figure includes USGS's most current (2005) estimated use 
data; USGS has not yet released data for 2010. The data include both 
freshwater and saline water. 

[End of figure] 

Irrigation was the second largest source of withdrawals in 2005, 
accounting for 31 percent of total withdrawals, according to USGS. 
Although irrigation remains a significant use of freshwater, the 
average application rate for irrigation water has declined between 
1950 and 2005 as a result of more targeted irrigation, according to 
USGS. State water managers have concerns with freshwater use for 
irrigation, according to our survey. Specifically, in responding to a 
question about the uses of greatest concern in terms of affecting 
water availability for other uses, state water managers most often 
cited irrigation, with 24 out of 37 state water managers responding as 
such. 

Certain Issues Have Gained Prominence Since 2003: 

Since 2003, certain issues related to freshwater availability and use 
have drawn more attention. Specifically, our review found that 
concerns about impacts of climate change on water resources, 
maintaining ecological and recreational flows, interactions between 
surface water and groundwater, and the effect of energy production on 
water quality and quantity have gained prominence over the last decade. 

Climate Change and Extreme Weather: 

In 2003, we reported that climate change made future supply and demand 
conditions uncertain, and, as part of our current review, many experts 
told us that the impacts from extreme weather events occurring in the 
last 10 years have led to increased attention to the impacts of 
climate change on freshwater resources. In 2009, the United States 
Global Change Research Program reported that the impacts and 
costliness of weather disasters--resulting from floods, drought, and 
other events such as tropical cyclones--are expected to increase in 
significance as previously rare events become more common and intense 
due to anticipated changes in the global climate system.[Footnote 37] 
Moreover, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, which 
tracks and evaluates climate events in the United States that have 
great economic and societal impacts, the two most costly years in 
terms of weather and climate disaster events have occurred over the 
last decade. Specifically, 2005 saw 5 events with losses exceeding $1 
billion for a total of approximately $190 billion (2013 dollars) in 
damages, followed by 2012 with 11 events over $1 billion, resulting in 
over $115 billion in total damages. Figure 6 displays these 11 events 
in 2012. 

Figure 6: U.S. Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Southeast/Ohio Valley tornadoes: March 2-3, 2012; 
Texas tornadoes: April 2-3, 2012; 
Midwest tornadoes: April 13-14, 2012; 
Midwest/Ohio Valley severe weather: April 28-May 1, 2012; 
Southern plains/Midwest/Northeast severe weather: May 25-30, 2012; 
Rockies/Southwest: severe weather; June 6-12, 2012; 
Plains/East/Northeast derecho and severe weather: June 29-July 2, 2012; 
U.S. drought/heat wave (covering over half the U.S.): Summer, 2012; 
Hurricane Isaac: August 2012; 
Western wildfire: Summer-fall, 2012
Superstorm Sandy: October 2012. 

Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Map 
Resources (map). 

Note: A derecho is a widespread, long-lived windstorm associated with 
a band of rapidly moving showers or thunderstorms and must include 
wind gusts of at least 58 miles per hour or greater along most of its 
length. 

[End of figure] 

Drought is one type of weather extreme that has drawn increased 
attention since 2003. According to NOAA, the 2012 drought and heat 
wave was the most extensive in the United States since the 1930s, with 
more than half the country under moderate to extreme drought 
conditions for most of 2012. More recently, the California drought 
caused the state's governor to declare a State of Emergency in January 
2014. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, as of April 22, 2014, 
approximately 77 percent of the state was under extreme drought or 
exceptional drought conditions,[Footnote 38] whereas no portions of 
the state were in those categories at the same time last year. 
Furthermore, this was the first time in the 15-year history of the 
U.S. Drought Monitor that 100 percent of the state was in moderate to 
exceptional drought. Given the projection that 2014 will become the 
driest year on record, the governor directed state officials to take a 
number of actions, including assisting farmers and communities that 
are economically affected and ensuring the state can respond if 
Californians face drinking water shortages. Drought also can impact 
groundwater resources. A recent study using NASA data found that, if 
current drought conditions continue over the next several years, 
groundwater in the Central Valley portion of California, which 
produces one-quarter of the nation's food, will fall to historically 
low levels.[Footnote 39] As the study noted, drought conditions and 
groundwater depletion in the Central Valley have resulted in 
detrimental impacts such as land subsidence, reductions in planted 
acreage, higher food costs, reduced river flows, and ecological 
damage. One expert told us that, during the last 10 years, there has 
been increased awareness that limited water availability caused by 
drought also negatively effects other water uses beyond agricultural 
production, such as producing energy, providing drinking water for 
populations, and maintaining flows necessary to support ecosystems and 
tourism. 

At the other extreme, flooding over the last decade has also increased 
attention given to the impacts of climate change. For example, 
according to the National Climatic Data Center, Hurricane Katrina 
caused over $148 billion (2013 dollars) in damages and over 1,800 
deaths due to severe storm surge, high winds, levee failure in New 
Orleans, and flooding in multiple states in August 2005. More 
recently, Hurricane Sandy was the costliest event in 2012, resulting 
in over $65 billion (2013 dollars) in damages and 159 deaths. Extreme 
events may also have indirect impacts on freshwater resources. For 
example, as we previously reported, climate-related changes will 
likely adversely affect many aspects of the natural environment in the 
United States, including increases in wildfires.[Footnote 40] High-
intensity rainfall in steep, burned watersheds are likely to move 
large amounts of suspended and dissolved material into downstream 
water supplies, resulting in, among other things, increased 
sedimentation and nutrient loading in water supply reservoirs and 
increased cloudiness from suspended materials, which may increase the 
need for chemical treatment, according to USGS. 

Ecological and Recreational Flows: 

In 2003, we reported that the public values leaving water instream for 
endangered species and recreation, which may alter how water is 
allocated for existing uses and the development of new supplies. Many 
experts told us that, over the last decade, more attention has been 
paid to maintaining sufficient flows for these purposes. The events in 
the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin serve as an 
illustration.[Footnote 41] Specifically, water in the basin is needed 
for municipal water supply, hydropower dams, and cooling of 
thermoelectric power plants, among other uses. According to a report 
from the Congressional Research Service, competition among the various 
uses, however, has created conflicts between Alabama, Florida, and 
Georgia due, in part, to the need to maintain sufficient flows to 
support oysters in the Apalachicola Bay. Oysters from Franklin County, 
located on Apalachicola Bay in northwestern Florida, account for more 
than 90 percent of Florida's oysters and 10 percent of the nation's 
oyster supply, according to the Apalachicola Bay Chamber of Commerce. 
Moreover, the basin is home to four species protected under the 
Endangered Species Act: Gulf sturgeon, fat threeridge mussel, Chipola 
slabshell mussel, and purple bankclimber mussel. In November 1997, the 
Congress passed the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin 
Compact, which was ratified by all three states.[Footnote 42] The 
compact was intended to improve relations between the states and 
establish an agreement on how to apportion surface water within the 
basin, among other things, but the states did not reach agreement by 
the August 2003 deadline. Tensions in the basin have continued to 
intensify. In August 2013, Florida filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme 
Court against Georgia, in which Florida claimed that the state's 
fisheries have suffered declines as a result of Georgia's water 
storage and consumption. The case is pending as of the time of this 
report. 

Our review also found that attention has grown over the last decade to 
protecting freshwater resources for recreational purposes. Some 
experts told us that recreational uses contribute enough to the 
economy that the public understands the importance of leaving water in 
the streams for fishing, boating, and other recreational uses. As one 
expert explained, in applying the prior appropriation doctrine in the 
past, recreation was not included among acceptable uses since it was 
not viewed as contributing to the economy. This expert said, however, 
the recreational sector has played a more significant role in the 
economy over time and, therefore, the value of leaving water instream 
for recreational purposes has similarly increased. Reclamation 
officials added that many western states have adopted statutes 
recognizing various beneficial uses associated with leaving water in 
natural waterways, and have established legal mechanisms to administer 
instream flow rights along with the appropriative rights of more 
traditional out-of-stream water uses. 

Interactions Between Surface Water and Groundwater: 

Our review also found that the need to incorporate the links between 
surface water and groundwater into freshwater management has drawn 
increased attention since 2003. Groundwater and surface water are 
interconnected--streams and rivers recharge aquifers, and, conversely, 
groundwater replenishes surface water bodies. According to 
USGS,[Footnote 43] the contribution of groundwater to annual 
streamflow volume may be as large as 90 percent in some parts of the 
country. As a consequence, depletion of lakes and streams can 
negatively affect groundwater and vice versa. Although the two 
resources can be integrally linked, they have historically been 
managed separately due, in part, to a limited understanding of their 
interactions. Our review found, however, that over the last decade 
there have been increased efforts to understand the linkages and to 
manage the resources together. For example, 38 of 47 state water 
managers responding to our 2003 survey reported that their state uses 
conjunctive management--coordinated management of surface water and 
groundwater resources to maximize their availability and reliability; 
in 2013, the number of managers responding that their states manage 
the two resources together increased to 42 of 50 state water managers. 
Some states that reported conjunctively managing surface water and 
groundwater in 2003 have taken steps to increase their focus on this. 
For example, in April 2004, the Nebraska governor signed Legislative 
Bill 962 to better integrate management of hydrologically connected 
groundwater and surface water resources in the state by aiming to 
prevent conflicts between water users and establishing principles and 
guidelines to resolve existing conflicts.[Footnote 44] The bill 
required Nebraska's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to annually 
determine which basins, sub-basins, or reaches in the state are fully 
appropriated or overappropriated.[Footnote 45] If DNR determines that 
the basin, sub-basin, or reach is fully appropriated or 
overappropriated, new groundwater and surface water uses are 
suspended, and the affected natural resource districts and DNR must 
jointly develop and implement an integrated management plan.[Footnote 
46] This plan is to include, among other things, clear goals and 
objectives with a purpose of sustaining a balance between water uses 
and supplies so that the economic viability, social and environmental 
health, safety, and welfare of the basin, sub-basin, or reach can be 
achieved and maintained for both the near term and the long term. 

According to a report from USGS, managing the interactions between 
surface water and groundwater poses challenges that are important for 
water managers to understand.[Footnote 47] For instance, the effect of 
a groundwater withdrawal on the timing, rates, and locations of 
streamflow depletions differs substantially from effects caused by 
surface water withdrawals. Specifically, surface water withdrawals 
have immediate effects on the rate of streamflow at the point of 
withdrawal, but the effect of groundwater withdrawals on surface water 
may lag. For example, the delay between when a well begins to pump and 
when the impact of that pumping on a connected stream is realized 
ranges from days to decades. Managing potential threats to water 
quality also adds complexity to the groundwater and surface water 
links, according to USGS. For example, surface water containing 
chemicals or biological contaminants can infiltrate connected 
groundwater sources, posing a threat to people who may ingest the 
contaminated groundwater. In addition, reductions in streamflow 
stemming from groundwater pumping can result in warmer stream 
temperatures during the summer and cooler temperatures during the 
winter, potentially affecting fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Energy Production: 

Our review found that more attention has been paid over the last 
decade to the impacts of energy production on both water quantity and 
quality. Specifically, after irrigation, energy production was the 
second greatest concern of state water managers in terms of affecting 
water available for other uses, with 14 of the 37 managers who 
responded to the question citing this concern, according to our 
survey. Some of the literature we reviewed and experts we spoke with 
attribute the increased attention to the effects of energy production 
on water resources, in part, to the rise of hydraulic fracturing as a 
production method to extract shale oil and natural gas. Hydraulic 
fracturing involves the injection of water, sand, and chemical 
additives under high pressure to create and maintain fractures in 
underground formations to allow the release of oil and gas. As we 
found in September 2012,[Footnote 48] from 2007 through 2011, annual 
production of shale oil and gas has experienced significant growth. 
Specifically, shale oil production increased more than 5-fold, and 
shale gas production increased approximately 4-fold over this 5-year 
period. 

Also, as we previously found,[Footnote 49] the cumulative effects of 
using surface water or groundwater at multiple oil and gas development 
sites can be significant at the local level, particularly in areas 
experiencing drought conditions. For example, officials from Colorado 
told us that, over the last 10 years, energy production, particularly 
shale oil and gas production, has increased significantly in the 
state, and they are monitoring for its potential impact on water 
resources. Similarly, anticipated increases in energy production could 
further drive demand for water use in the state in the future. 
According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 
although the percentage of state water use for hydraulic fracturing is 
currently small (0.08 percent in 2010), the commission projects that 
the annual demand of water for hydraulic fracturing will increase 
approximately 35 percent between 2010 and 2015. Such use could pose 
problems in certain areas because the state receives 12-16 inches of 
precipitation annually, and drought occurs frequently. Our September 
2012 report found that shale oil and gas development also poses risks 
to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater 
as a result of spills and releases, erosion, and underground migration 
of gases and chemicals used in the fracturing process.[Footnote 50] 
Water quality degradation affects water quantity because if water 
resources are contaminated, they are not readily available for uses 
that require high-quality water, such as for public water supply or 
for ceremonial purposes on tribal lands. 

Between 2009 and 2012, we issued six reports on interdependencies 
between energy and water in which we found that many aspects of energy 
development and delivery, including resource extraction, refining and 
processing, generation, storage, and transportation, can affect water 
resources.[Footnote 51] For example, we reported in November 2009 that 
water supply and quality can be affected by many stages of the biofuel 
life cycle.[Footnote 52] Specifically, to cultivate biofuel 
feedstocks, crops can be either rain-fed, with all needed water 
provided by natural precipitation and soil moisture, or irrigated, 
with at least some portion of their water requirements met through 
water applied from surface or groundwater sources. Water is also used 
in the fermentation, distillation, and cooling processes of converting 
the feedstock into biofuel. 

Future Freshwater Shortages Are Expected, but Planning Is Complicated 
by Uncertainty Related to Freshwater Availability and Use: 

According to state water managers and experts we spoke with, as well 
as the literature we reviewed, freshwater shortages are expected to 
continue into the future and will vary by location. However, 
uncertainty stemming from patterns of economic growth, changes in 
water use patterns, land use change, and climate change is likely to 
complicate state water managers' planning efforts into the future. 

More Widespread Freshwater Shortages Are Expected and the Extent Will 
Vary by Location: 

State water managers continue to expect widespread freshwater 
shortages in the future, according to our survey. In comparison with 
2003, a slightly greater number of state water managers reported in 
2013 that they expected freshwater shortages within the next 10 years. 
Specifically, 40 of 50 state water managers responding to our 2013 
survey expected shortages in some portion of their states under 
average conditions in the next 10 years, whereas 36 of 47 state water 
managers who responded to our 2003 survey had expected shortages under 
similar conditions over the same time frame (see figure 7, an 
interactive map, and appendix III for additional information). 
Moreover, an increased number of state water managers expect shortages 
over wider geographic areas; specifically, 24 respondents to our 2013 
survey reported that they expected freshwater shortages at regional 
scales, in comparison with 16 respondents who expected shortages at 
regional scales in 2003. 

Figure 7: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under 
Average Water Conditions, 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive graphic] 

Instructions: This base map displays 2013 categories. To view 2003 to 
2013 category comparisons, place your cursor over any individual 
state. For a printable version of the 2003 and 2013 state 
categorizations and maps, see appendix III. 

Sources: GAO analysis of state water managers' responses to GAO 
survey; Map Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

Furthermore, state water managers in 2013 continue to expect shortages 
in the longer term, as compared with respondents in 2003, according to 
our survey. Specifically, 42 of the 50 state water managers responding 
to our 2013 survey expected shortages under average conditions in the 
next 10-20 years; whereas in 2003, 39 of 47 managers responded that 
they expected such shortages. Similarly, literature that we reviewed 
modeling the potential effects of climate change on freshwater 
availability and use highlights growing challenges to the water supply 
over longer periods of time. For example, a Forest Service study found 
that the vulnerability of the water supply is expected to increase 
between 2020 and 2060 as the effects of climate change become more 
prominent, though the extent of the vulnerability depends on the 
specific climate scenario.[Footnote 53] Moreover, from 2005 to 2090, 
most of the continental United States is expected to experience at 
least a 25 percent increase in water withdrawals as a result of 
climate change, according to an academic study.[Footnote 54] 

Drought conditions are expected to increase the probability of future 
shortages, according to the results of our survey and experts with 
whom we spoke. Specifically, all 50 state water managers reported that 
they expect shortages in their state under drought conditions over the 
next 1-10 years, according to our 2013 survey. Similarly, according to 
an expert from the National Drought Mitigation Center, current climate 
models are predicting that there will likely be more extreme droughts 
in the future. The expert also noted that the nation will face 
numerous vulnerabilities due to increased competition for limited 
freshwater supplies; therefore, issues related to allocation of water 
under limited supplies should be anticipated. For example, the 
southern and western United States, which an academic study projects 
will become drier as a result of climate change in the future, 
[Footnote 55] are, as we previously noted, the two areas projected to 
have the greatest growth in population, exacerbating demand for water 
supplies in these areas. 

Several of the experts we interviewed and documents we reviewed also 
highlighted that future freshwater availability and use will vary by 
location and region of the country. For example, states in the western 
and southeastern United States are projected to experience decreases 
in freshwater availability due to increasing temperatures and changing 
patterns of precipitation, according to the 2009 National Climate 
Assessment.[Footnote 56] In contrast, the report also found that 
states located in the Northeast and Midwest are expected to receive 
greater precipitation, thereby increasing their risk of flooding. 
Similarly, western states generally expected more widespread shortages 
under average conditions than eastern states, but some states such as 
Florida ran counter to that general trend in 2013, according to our 
survey. 

Within states, conditions related to freshwater availability and use 
can vary substantially. For example, USGS officials in Maryland told 
us that drought may stress freshwater supplies throughout the state 
while rising sea levels could affect freshwater supplies in the 
state's eastern and southern regions. These regions primarily rely on 
the coastal plain aquifers for their water supplies; sea level rise 
can cause saltwater to infiltrate into shallow, coastal freshwater 
aquifers, making the groundwater unfit for consumption without 
desalination, a costly treatment process. Moreover, water availability 
within a state can vary at a given point in time. For example, in 
September 2013, the governor of Colorado declared a state of disaster 
emergency due to flooding in over 10 counties located in the northern, 
central, and eastern portions of the state. Destruction from the 
flooding included fatalities and damage to a gas distribution 
pipeline, a wastewater treatment system, and buildings on the 
University of Colorado-Boulder campus. During this same time, however, 
much of the southeastern portion of the state was suffering from 
extreme drought or exceptional drought, according to the U.S. Drought 
Monitor. 

Uncertainty Related to Future Freshwater Availability and Use 
Complicates Planning: 

Our review found that uncertainty stemming from economic growth, 
changes in water use patterns, land use change, and climate change is 
likely to complicate state water managers' planning efforts into the 
future. For example, water is integral to many portions of the 
economy, and changes in economic activity can affect water demand. 
Over the last decade, several cities, such as Las Vegas and Phoenix, 
experienced a decrease in water demand as result of foreclosures and 
the economic downturn, according to one expert we spoke with. 
Uncertainty as to whether these changes are short or long term can 
complicate water management planning because, for instance, utilities 
need to decide whether to invest in building new infrastructure or 
repairing existing infrastructure to meet future demands if the 
economy, and related water use, rebound to previous levels, according 
to the expert. 

Changes in water use patterns can further complicate water management 
planning because they add uncertainty about future demands for water. 
For example, the energy sector has the potential to undergo 
significant changes in how it uses water to extract energy resources 
and generate electricity. As we previously found in September 2012, 
[Footnote 57] developing unconventional energy sources, such as oil 
shale, could have significant impacts on the quantity and quality of 
water resources, but the magnitude of these impacts is unknown because 
of uncertainty about the future scale and scope of oil shale 
development. In addition, the specific method used to generate energy 
can lead to substantial differences in water use because different 
energy production approaches require differing amounts of water. For 
example, thermoelectric power generation requires substantial amounts 
of water, while some renewable sources like solar photovoltaic panels 
and wind turbines consume relatively minimal water during normal 
operation, according to our September 2012 report.[Footnote 58] 
Furthermore, studies we reviewed show that accurately predicting water 
use within certain sectors, such as agriculture, can be difficult 
because of challenges with modeling various factors that affect use. 
For example, changes in the amount of farmland irrigated depend on a 
mixture of factors including land prices, crop yields, agricultural 
policies, subsidies, and specific irrigation factors (e.g., energy 
prices, irrigation technologies, and demand for water in other uses), 
making it difficult to accurately model all of these factors, 
according to an academic study we reviewed.[Footnote 59] 

In addition, our review found that uncertainty about land use change 
also poses problems for state water managers. For example, land use 
decisions have a substantial effect on the flow of the Potomac River 
Basin system, which is the major water source for the Washington, 
D.C., metro area, according to experts familiar with water supply 
issues in the basin. Specifically, the basin has experienced an 
increase in impervious surfaces, such as roads and buildings, to 
support growing populations. Increases in impervious surfaces, 
however, lead to increased runoff of precipitation into nearby surface 
water bodies, thereby reducing the amount of precipitation that seeps 
into the ground to replenish aquifers. Moreover, the runoff diminishes 
water quality by transporting pollutants into surface water bodies, 
posing problems for water utilities that draw the water for municipal 
supplies from these sources. 

Uncertainty in climate change projections and limitations in data make 
water resources planning difficult. For example, a 2011 federal 
interagency review of the potential impacts of climate change on water 
resources stated that current down-scaled global climate models have 
significant limitations, and confidence in projections of future 
hydrology conditions is weak.[Footnote 60] The 2009 National Climate 
Assessment noted that climate change has the potential to alter water 
use patterns in the future, but the extent of these changes, such as 
on the agricultural sector, is uncertain.[Footnote 61] Specifically, 
some changes that may result from climate change, such as higher 
temperatures, are expected to increase the need for irrigation. Other 
changes, such as plants being able to use water more 
efficiently,[Footnote 62] may decrease that need. Similarly, state 
officials in Michigan told us that there is the possibility of climate 
change altering the growing season for agriculture, causing 
agriculture to expand into more northern parts of the state. This 
shift in the location of agriculture in the state could create new 
conflicts between water users in those areas. 

Climate uncertainty and extreme weather events can also make water 
infrastructure planning challenging. According to an interagency 
report by USGS, the Corps, Reclamation, and NOAA,[Footnote 63] the 
nation's aging infrastructure may not always be able to meet its 
designed level of performance under current conditions and could be 
more vulnerable to failure under future climate scenarios, such as 
heavy precipitation and high runoff events. For example, extreme 
events, such as floods, have the potential to damage existing water 
infrastructure, as seen in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2010 when the city 
experienced a 1,000 year flood.[Footnote 64] This 2-day event damaged 
two of the city's three wastewater treatment plants and one of its two 
water treatment plants. In response, the city is considering adaptive 
measures--adjustments in natural or human systems to a new or changing 
environment that exploit beneficial opportunities or moderate negative 
effects--for its infrastructure, at an estimated cost of about $39.6 
million, according to a report by the American Water Resources 
Association.[Footnote 65] 

Infrastructure planning challenges related to climate uncertainty are 
exacerbated by concerns about the condition of the existing water 
infrastructure. In our 2013 survey, state water managers cited 
infrastructure challenges as a great or very great concern over the 
next 10 years more frequently than any other factor. Moreover, the 
American Society of Civil Engineers' 2013 infrastructure report card 
rated the nation's existing water resource infrastructure, including 
dams and drinking water infrastructure, at a D or below.[Footnote 66] 
The costs of modernizing infrastructure, however, are substantial, 
according to experts we spoke with and documents we reviewed. For 
example, in 2011, the EPA estimated it would cost $384.2 billion to 
upgrade drinking water infrastructure in the United States over the 
next 20 years.[Footnote 67] In 2012, the American Water Works 
Association estimated it would cost over $1 trillion over the next 25 
years to replace and expand buried water infrastructure.[Footnote 68] 

The high cost of infrastructure replacement is further complicated by 
low water prices, which do not cover all of the costs to supply water. 
Specifically, according to studies we reviewed and some experts we 
spoke with, artificially low water rates can lead to overuse of water 
and general undervaluing of the resource by the public. Low prices 
also present a challenge to many water utilities. Because the reduced 
water prices may not cover the actual costs incurred by the utilities 
to treat and provide the water, some utilities do not generate the 
additional revenue to implement necessary upgrades.[Footnote 69] The 
need for revenue creates a challenge for utilities to balance goals 
like water conservation with generating enough revenue to maintain 
infrastructure and operations without raising water prices, according 
to an expert who represents municipal water utilities. 

States Have Taken Steps to Better Manage Freshwater Resources: 

Our review found that over the last decade states have taken a number 
of steps to improve management of freshwater availability and use. 
These include conducting freshwater resource studies and assessments, 
developing drought preparedness and water supply plans, developing 
water management tools, developing new supplies and conservation 
initiatives, establishing water transfers and voluntary markets, and 
taking steps to address the impacts of climate change on water 
resources. 

Conducting Freshwater Resource Studies and Assessments: 

* A number of states have completed studies and assessments since 2003 
to help better understand their freshwater availability and use. (See 
table 1.) Specifically, since 2003, slightly more states have assessed 
statewide water availability and withdrawals, and approximately the 
same number of states has assessed statewide water consumption. 

Table 1: Number of States That Have Assessed Statewide Availability, 
Withdrawals, and Consumption, 2003 and 2013: 

Type of assessment: Availability; 
Number of states in 2003: 25 out of 47; 
Number of states in 2013: 28 out of 50. 

Type of assessment: Withdrawals; 
Number of states in 2003: 36 out of 47; 
Number of states in 2013: 39 out of 50. 

Type of assessment: Consumption; 
Number of states in 2003: 24 out of 47; 
Number of states in 2013: 25 out of 49[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[A] In 2013, only 49 state water managers responded to this question. 

[End of table] 

For example, a number of studies have been conducted in Maryland to 
better understand water availability and use in the state. In 
particular, a 2005 executive order from the governor called for the 
creation of a committee to advise the state in implementing programs 
and policies related to the management, development, conservation, and 
protection of the state's water resources. As called for in the order, 
the committee issued a report in 2008 (referred to as the Wolman 
report), which urged the state to develop and fund a more robust, 
comprehensive, fully integrated state water resources management 
program. To help the state achieve this goal, the committee developed 
a number of recommendations calling for, among other things, 
development of a statewide water plan; establishment of a broader, 
more reliable monitoring network; and funding for two hydrologic 
studies in the state. According to state officials we spoke with, the 
recommendation calling for the hydrologic studies is particularly 
important because they plan to combine findings from the studies and 
the Wolman report to create a comprehensive water supply plan for the 
state. A statewide plan would help local and county governments 
integrate their water plans with statewide goals and priorities, 
according to state officials. Although the state, in cooperation with 
the USGS Water Science Center of Maryland, began work on the 
hydrologic studies, these efforts were discontinued due to limited 
funding and resources, according to state officials. As a result, 
Maryland does not have a comprehensive strategy that addresses 
statewide water supply needs. 

Developing Drought Preparedness and Water Supply Plans: 

* In 2013, more states reported having drought preparedness plans than 
in 2003. Specifically, in response to our 2013 survey, 38 of 48 state 
water managers responding to a question about drought preparedness 
plans reported that their states have these plans, whereas, in 2003, 
23 of 47 respondents indicated that they had such a plan. An expert we 
spoke with explained that plans should be reassessed and revised, as 
needed, after a drought and highlighted Colorado's drought planning 
efforts as being particularly effective because the state revised its 
plan numerous times since it was created in 1981, most recently in 
2010 and again in 2013. 

In addition, in response to our 2013 survey, 28 of 47 state water 
managers responding to a question about water supply plans indicated 
that their states have such plans.[Footnote 70] Some state water 
officials we spoke with told us that, although their states did not 
currently have water supply plans, they are in the process of 
developing plans or strategies. For example, in May 2013, the governor 
of Colorado issued an executive order directing the Colorado Water 
Conservation Board (CWCB) to begin working on a draft Colorado Water 
Plan.[Footnote 71] According to officials, the plan is intended to 
address a number of issues, including the gap between water supply and 
demand, the state's drought conditions that could affect the water 
supply gap, the link between water quantity and quality, and 
interstate water concerns. The order directs CWCB to develop a draft 
of the plan by December 10, 2014, with a final plan to be completed 
one year later. Similarly, Michigan officials told us that their state 
has also initiated work on a water strategy in response to a November 
2012 request from the governor. This strategy is expected to use an 
ecosystem-based approach that enhances human use while preserving the 
ecological integrity of water resources, according to officials. The 
plan is being developed with input from various stakeholders--such as 
state agencies, environmental organizations, industry, and academia--
and is expected to cover water withdrawal, use, and conflict; invasive 
species; and water quality and infrastructure, among other topics. 
Work on the strategy is under way with a final strategy expected in 
2014, according to officials. 

In addition, over the last decade some states have revised or are in 
the process of revising existing water plans. For example, Oklahoma 
completed an update to its comprehensive water plan in 2011 after 
extensive public input during a 4-year update process. The plan 
projected that between 2010 and 2060 statewide consumptive demand for 
water will increase by 33 percent, and demand for surface water will 
exceed available supply in 55 of the 82 plan basins by 2060. The plan 
also included recommendations to address the findings and other 
important water issues in the state, such as Oklahoma's growing water 
and wastewater infrastructure needs, ecological and recreational 
flows, tribal water claims, and conservation. 

Developing Water Management Tools: 

Some states have also developed new tools to improve their freshwater 
management. For example, Michigan began requiring use of an online 
Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool in 2009 to estimate impacts of new or 
increased large quantity water withdrawals on nearby streamflows and 
fish populations. This tool acts as a screening mechanism for 
potential large-volume water users seeking to make new water 
withdrawals. The prospective water user enters their proposed 
withdrawal information into the tool, which determines whether the 
proposed withdrawal would be likely to have an adverse effect on 
resources, as measured by likely effects of changed streamflow on 
local fish populations. 

Colorado also has developed tools to help manage its water resources. 
In 2005, the state passed the Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act 
that established nine basin roundtables to facilitate discussions 
within and between basins on water management issues, as well as an 
Interbasin Compact Committee to govern and guide negotiations between 
these roundtables.[Footnote 72] The act also calls for the roundtables 
to assess future water supply needs, including for nonconsumptive uses 
such as environmental and recreational uses. As part of this effort, 
CWCB officials told us that they have worked with the roundtables to 
better understand the state's environmental and recreational water 
needs and developed a toolbox to assist in this effort. One tool 
included in the toolbox is the Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool, which 
was developed by the Nature Conservancy to assess the ecological risk 
of changes in streamflow to certain fish species and plant communities 
at basin scales.[Footnote 73] The tool is being used to assess 
locations for streamflow restoration and estimate flow needs for 
restoration, among other uses, according to the CWCB officials. 

In 2011, Wisconsin developed a new water management tool to address 
the quality of freshwater resources. The state, in collaboration with 
NOAA, USDA, and USGS, developed the Wisconsin Manure Management 
Advisory System to reduce contaminants from manure--which can impair 
water quality and may threaten drinking water supplies--flowing into 
rivers and lakes. The tool consists of a model and maps to alert 
farmers to the likelihood of runoff events that may occur on a given 
day and on specific fields, depending on weather, soil, and landscape 
conditions. Farmers generally apply manure and other nutrients in 
spring and early summer, times during which there is a high risk of 
runoff due to snowmelt and spring rains. 

Developing New Supplies and Conservation Initiatives: 

According to our survey, a greater number of states in 2013 are 
developing new water supplies to supplement their existing freshwater 
resources, as compared with 2003 (see table 2). 

Table 2: Number of States Developing New Water Supplies through 
Reclaimed Water, Recycling Storm Water, and Desalination, 2003 and 
2013: 

Type of new supply: Reuse of reclaimed water; 
Number of states in 2003: 23 out of 47; 
Number of states in 2013: 36 out of 50. 

Type of new supply: Recycling of storm water; 
Number of states in 2003: 5 out of 47; 
Number of states in 2013: 19 out of 49[A]. 

Type of new supply: Desalination; 
Number of states in 2003: 9 out of 47; 
Number of states in 2013: 18 out of 50. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[A] In 2013, only 49 state water managers responded to this question. 

[End of table] 

For example, Florida is one of the states pursuing reuse of reclaimed 
water--wastewater that has been treated to meet certain quality 
criteria necessary for beneficial use. According to May 2013 data from 
the state's Department of Environmental Protection, Florida's reuse 
increased 24 percent in a decade, from 584 million gallons per day 
(mgd) in 2002, to 725 mgd in 2012. Moreover, the state's reuse 
capacity grew 47 percent during this time, from 1,162 mgd in 2002, to 
1,711 mgd in 2012. According to the department, reusing 725 mgd of 
reclaimed water is estimated to have avoided using over 141 billion 
gallons of potable water while adding more than 84 billion gallons of 
water back to groundwater supplies. 

States continue to use conservation to address current and future 
water supplies. For example, in our 2013 survey, 43 of 50 state water 
managers responded that their states have encouraged, required, and/or 
provided incentives for water conservation, while in 2003, 40 of 47 
managers reported using conservation initiatives. Since our 2003 
report, some states have enacted legislation that includes 
conservation requirements. For example, in 2009, California enacted 
Senate Bill X7-7 that requires water suppliers to increase water use 
efficiency.[Footnote 74] Among the requirements for urban water 
conservation, the state is to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban 
per capita water use in California by December 31, 2020, with an 
interim requirement of at least a 10 percent reduction on or before 
December 31, 2015.[Footnote 75] In addition, the legislation requires 
agricultural water suppliers to prepare and adopt agricultural water 
management plans by December 31, 2012, and to update those plans by 
December 31, 2015, and every 5 years thereafter.[Footnote 76] 
Agricultural water suppliers are required to implement specified 
efficient water management practices. 

Water Transfers and Voluntary Transfer Markets: 

Since 2003, more states are using interbasin water transfers and 
voluntary transfer markets to address freshwater needs, according to 
our survey (see table 3).[Footnote 77] 

Table 3: Number of States Using Interbasin Transfers and Voluntary 
Transfer Markets, 2003 and 2013: 

Type of action: Interbasin transfers; 
Number of states in 2003: 28 out of 47; 
Number of states in 2013: 36 out of 50. 

Type of action: Voluntary transfer markets; 
Number of states in 2003: 15 out of 47; 
Number of states in 2013: 21 out of 49[A]. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[A] In 2013, only 49 state water managers responded to this question. 

[End of table] 

In the western United States, the Western Governors' Association and 
Western States Water Council reported in 2012 that although water 
markets have been active for decades, the number of transfers has 
generally increased between 2003 and 2008.[Footnote 78] According to 
their report, irrigation accounts for the majority of freshwater use 
in western states. Farmers can sell or lease their water rights to 
other users, at which point the water is no longer available to the 
farmers for irrigation purposes. Many water rights held by farmers are 
senior rights, meaning that these rights are the first to be met in 
times of shortages, according to the report; as a result, agricultural 
water rights are often the source of water transfers to more junior 
uses, such as municipal, industrial, and environmental uses. In 
addition, between 1988 and 2009, Colorado saw the greatest number of 
water transfers (1,977 transfers) of the western states, although the 
transfers were for smaller volumes, according to the report. Officials 
in Colorado told us that intra- and interbasin agricultural transfers 
in the state are common, particularly in eastern portions of the 
state, because municipalities are buying water rights from farmers to 
support growing populations. Moreover, the Western Governors' 
Association and Western States Water Council report stated that, due 
to increasing demands for limited water supplies, 12 of the 17 western 
states surveyed indicated that water transfers are an important 
component of their long-term water planning. 

Although more states have pursued interbasin transfers and voluntary 
transfer markets since 2003, our review found that there can be 
challenges to implementing these approaches such as state policies 
that may restrict such transfers or unintentional impacts may occur 
from such transfers. For example, although many transfers within 
Colorado occur from irrigation use to municipal use, state officials 
told us that concerns exist regarding the declining number of farms 
and the potential adverse impacts on rural communities as farmers sell 
their water rights. To address this issue, the state is encouraging 
alternative approaches, such as interruptible supply agreements and 
temporary, rather than permanent, transfer of water rights, in some 
instances.[Footnote 79] 

Developing Steps to Address the Impacts of Climate Change: 

Over the last decade, a number of states have acted to prepare for 
various climate impacts ranging from severe droughts to increased 
flooding. For example, Maryland's Department of Environment's Water 
Supply Program developed a brochure to assist water utilities in 
planning for the impacts of climate change, such as infrastructure 
damage from increased flooding and more frequent and intense storms, 
saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers, and higher pollutant loads in 
source water stemming from changes in precipitation and increased 
runoff. The brochure includes guidance on steps utilities can take to 
adapt to changes in water availability, such as managing demand 
through water conservation strategies and diversifying water supplies. 

In addition to states, officials from the National Tribal Water 
Council, an organization that advocates for tribes in matters 
pertaining to water, told us that tribal water managers have also 
devoted more attention to addressing climate change issues. For 
tribes, water has economic, cultural, and spiritual aspects; 
therefore, protecting the resource for future generations is an 
important focus. To help tribes adapt to climate change, the council 
has developed training and curricula, although the officials noted 
that the effort can be difficult because tribes vary in their 
readiness and resources available to take action. Moreover, the impact 
of climate change on freshwater resources experienced by tribes 
varies, depending on where the tribes are located. For example, the 
Hualapai Tribe, located in northwestern Arizona, is projecting that 
they will run out of water by 2035, and they are building rainwater 
harvest systems as a means to adapt to limited water supplies, 
according to the officials. In contrast, the Shishmaref Tribe, located 
in Alaska, is dealing with melting permafrost and coastal villages 
that are at risk of falling into the ocean due to flooding and erosion. 

Since 2003, Federal Agencies Have Taken Actions Supporting Freshwater 
Management; Additional Collaboration and Data Collection Could Enhance 
Support of States, but Federal Agencies Face Challenges: 

Our review found that federal agencies have initiated or updated a 
number of efforts since 2003 to support management of freshwater 
availability and use. In addition, our review identified actions the 
federal government could take to support state water management 
efforts, including increased collaboration among federal agencies and 
with states and other stakeholders, and maintaining and collecting key 
data. Federal agency officials, however, noted that they face 
challenges, such as limited funding, to implement additional actions. 

Federal Agencies Have Taken Various Actions to Support Freshwater 
Management: 

Over the last decade, federal agencies have initiated or updated a 
number of programs to support management of freshwater availability 
and use. These programs include Interior initiatives, other federal 
agency initiatives, multiagency initiatives, and federal assessments 
and reports. For example, USGS initiated the National Water Census to 
assess the nation's water availability and use. As part of this 
effort, USGS plans to consistently quantify water supply and demand 
across the entire country; identify and fill in gaps in existing data; 
enhance understanding of the connection between water availability and 
quality; and make the information available to users, such as state 
agencies with water management responsibilities, according to an 
agency document. USGS anticipates that information gathered through 
the National Water Census will allow water managers to anticipate 
water shortages and develop plans to mitigate the impacts of and 
possibly prevent water shortages, among other benefits. In addition, 
under Interior's WaterSMART program, established in February 2010, the 
agency funds a variety of freshwater projects through competitively 
awarded grants to nonfederal partners, including states, tribes, water 
districts, municipalities, and universities to improve the efficiency 
of water delivery, conserve water, and demonstrate advanced water 
treatment technologies, among other things. For example, under the 
WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant program, a total of $21.4 
million was awarded in 2013 for projects such as installing water flow 
meters and converting open ditches to pipes, which can reduce water 
loss due to evaporation and leakage. 

Other federal agencies have also bolstered data collection efforts 
since 2003. For example, in February 2014 NASA and the Japan Aerospace 
Exploration Agency launched the Global Precipitation Measurement Core 
Observatory, which is a joint earth-observing mission to provide 
frequent next-generation global rain and snow observations. According 
to NASA, data from the mission will be used to quantify when, where, 
and how much it rains or snows around the world, allowing scientists 
to better understand and predict changes in freshwater supply. In 
addition, the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), 
established by the Congress in 2006 and administered by NOAA, provides 
the nation with a drought early warning system. One key component of 
NIDIS is the U.S. Drought Portal, a one-stop shop for drought-related 
information, such as maps and tools, that provides users with 
information about current drought conditions and impacts, as well as 
projections of the length of the drought, which can be used to prepare 
for and mitigate the effects of drought, according to agency officials. 

Multiple federal agencies have also partnered together or with others 
to initiate actions to address freshwater availability and use. For 
example, in response to a November 2013 executive order directing 
federal agencies to prepare the United States for the impacts of 
climate change,[Footnote 80] the National Drought Resilience 
Partnership was created. This USDA and NOAA-led partnership, which 
also includes participation from Interior, EPA, the Corps, and other 
agencies, focuses on increasing the amount of available drought 
information, building a national soil moisture network to help improve 
drought forecasting, and initiating a pilot resilience plan in western 
states. Participating agencies plan to create a Web-based system to 
increase access to federal drought resources, host more regional 
forums to distribute drought information, and create a single federal 
point of contact for drought information for the public, according to 
an agency document. In addition, the Western States Federal Agency 
Support Team (WestFAST), a collaboration of 12 federal agencies, 
states, and other stakeholders, was formed in 2008 to address water 
issues in western states. WestFAST, in collaboration with the Western 
States Water Council, Western Governors' Association, and DOE has 
created a water data exchange to serve as a repository for water data 
maintained by states and federal agencies, according to federal 
officials. 

Moreover, federal agencies have issued a number of assessments and 
reports on various aspects of freshwater availability and use. For 
example, the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality issued 
reports in 2004 and 2007 outlining the need for coordinated science 
and technology efforts to better understand U.S. water supply and 
demand and identifying areas for future emphasis by federal water 
science and technology programs.[Footnote 81] In addition, the 
Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force issued National 
Action Plan: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a 
Changing Climate in October 2011. The plan establishes a national goal 
for government agencies and citizens to collaboratively manage 
freshwater resources, among other things. (See appendix IV for 
additional examples of federal actions taken since 2003.) 

Additional Collaboration and Data Collection Could Enhance Federal 
Support of State Freshwater Management but Poses Challenges for 
Federal Agencies: 

Experts we spoke with, state water managers we surveyed, and 
literature we reviewed identified additional collaboration among 
federal agencies and between federal agencies, states, and other 
stakeholders, as well as enhanced data collection efforts, as actions 
that could bolster state water management activities. Federal agency 
officials, however, noted that they face challenges, such as limited 
funding, to implementing additional actions. 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies: 

Our review found that additional collaboration between federal 
agencies could help states better manage freshwater resources, 
according to literature and experts we spoke with; however, differing 
agency priorities and funding constraints make such collaboration 
challenging. Specifically, our review of literature identified 
concerns with limited coordination among federal agencies regarding 
freshwater resources. As we found in our energy-water nexus and high-
risk work,[Footnote 82] federal agencies often operate in a stovepiped 
manner and do not take a holistic, collaborative approach to 
crosscutting issues, such as freshwater availability and use. 
Similarly, the Congressional Research Service noted that the fractured 
nature of federal water policy has been a recurrent theme for decades. 
Further, a 2011 federal interagency review of the potential impacts of 
climate change on water resources stated that, although significant 
federal efforts are devoted to measuring and monitoring water 
resources, there is a lack of coordination among the efforts, in some 
cases, because of differing data collection purposes, methods, and 
data quality objectives.[Footnote 83] 

Many experts also cited the need for better collaboration among 
federal agencies. For example, several experts explained that numerous 
federal agencies have water oversight responsibilities, each with 
their own specific missions, priorities, and silos of information, 
which can serve as barriers to collaboration. Moreover, these experts 
told us that having water-related programs spread across a number of 
federal agencies makes it difficult to understand how all of the 
programs fit together. 

Although federal agencies have collaboratively addressed some issues 
related to freshwater management, as identified earlier in this 
report, several agency officials told us that differing agency 
priorities and funding constraints are challenges to additional 
collaboration among federal agencies. For example, USGS officials 
explained that many federal agencies consider the assessment of 
freshwater availability and use as a secondary mission to their 
primary mission of protecting water quality and forests, providing 
safe drinking water, or managing rangelands or navigation, among other 
priorities. According to NRCS officials, federal agencies have seen 
their staff sizes diminish over time without efforts to backfill these 
positions. As a result, the officials noted that agencies are 
struggling to meet their core missions and complete their baseline 
work. Moreover, USGS officials added that while more coordination may 
be needed, they reiterated that federal agencies do collaborate with 
one another. Specifically, the officials stated that they hold 
quarterly coordination meetings with other federal agencies with water 
resource responsibilities, such as EPA, the Corps, the National 
Weather Service, and NASA. In addition, NOAA officials pointed to 
collaborative efforts with other federal agencies as part of NIDIS. 
Specifically, the officials noted they leverage existing system 
infrastructure, data, and products from other agencies, such as snow 
depth data from USDA and reservoir level information from Interior and 
the Corps, and added that such collaboration will continue to be an 
important component of future NIDIS work. 

Collaboration between Federal Agencies, States, and Other Stakeholders: 

Better collaboration between federal agencies and other stakeholders 
could enhance federal support for state water management activities, 
according to state water managers we surveyed, experts we spoke with, 
and literature we reviewed, but agencies are limited by legislative 
and regulatory requirements and concerns about overstepping states' 
rights to manage water resources. For example, state water managers 
wanted more input into federal oversight of water resources, according 
to our 2003 and 2013 surveys. Specifically, they want more flexibility 
in implementing environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act and 
the Endangered Species Act. Moreover, some experts from organizations 
composed of water management professionals we interviewed told us that 
federal environmental standards, such as water quality standards, can 
be too restrictive, and the states want more flexibility in 
determining how to meet those standards. 

In addition, in responding to our 2003 and 2013 surveys, state water 
managers identified seeking more state input in the operation of 
federal storage facilities as one of the most useful actions federal 
agencies can take to help states meet their water management goals. 
Moreover, some experts we spoke with told us that states want to be 
treated as collaborators rather than having federal agencies hand down 
directives for them to follow. For example, one expert explained that 
states indicated they are not involved early enough in the process of 
developing regulations; specifically, EPA is charged with oversight of 
the Clean Water Act, but states are usually the primary regulators and 
are generally not made aware of proposed regulatory changes until they 
are posted publicly. While some experts we met with said they see a 
role for federal agencies in water management, such as providing 
funding for water projects and bringing stakeholders to the table, 
some also emphasized the need to ensure that primary management of 
freshwater remains at the state level. For example, one expert we 
interviewed said that while western states want access to federal data 
and funding, these states want to maintain control over the water 
resources in their state and do not want the federal government to 
dictate how they use or allocate those resources. 

Our past work also highlighted concerns about limited collaboration 
between federal agencies and other stakeholders. For example, in 2009, 
we found that the federal government's climate adaptation activities 
were carried out in an ad hoc manner and were not well coordinated 
across federal agencies or with state governments.[Footnote 84] 
Moreover, in 2013,[Footnote 85] we found there is a need for better 
coordination, noting that federal agencies need to work with state and 
local governments, as well as volunteer agencies to produce and 
evaluate information so that they can fully assess risk and make 
appropriate response and recovery decisions related to climate change 
impacts. 

Federal agency officials told us that there are challenges to 
collaborating with states and other stakeholders. For example, some 
officials told us that the amount of flexibility they can provide may 
be limited by the legislation that they are required to implement. For 
example, an official from FWS, which oversees the Endangered Species 
Act along with NMFS, said that unlike the Clean Water Act, which 
allows states to assume primacy in administering the law, the 
Endangered Species Act does not allow for such delegation of 
responsibility to states. The official noted, however, that although 
the Endangered Species Act requires FWS and NMFS to work with state 
and local agencies to resolve water issues in concert with 
conservation needs of protected species, the primary responsibility 
for overseeing the act lies with the federal agencies. Moreover, some 
officials noted that they are limited by funding and logistics. For 
example, according to NASA officials, although the agency works to 
build relationships with and reach out to state water managers on 
issues related to freshwater availability and use, it is difficult to 
do so with 50 states, numerous regional authorities, and constrained 
federal budgets. Similarly, Corps officials noted that declining 
budgets can reduce the time officials have available for collaboration 
with stakeholders to address freshwater availability and use. 

Further, some experts and federal agency officials told us that there 
is great tension between federal agencies and states over management 
of freshwater resources, which can make collaboration difficult. For 
example, NRCS officials told us that there may be historical tension 
between federal and state agencies when it comes to water supply 
management, which is viewed as primarily a state-level responsibility. 
According to the officials, any perceptions that federal agencies may 
be trying to increase the federal presence regarding water 
availability could be met by strong resistance from the states. In 
addition, BLM officials told us that they are bound by law to protect 
federal reserved water rights created by legislation or executive 
order from uses that may harm the purpose for which the reserved right 
was created. These protections may run counter to the decisions of 
state water boards, legislatures, or governors on how best to allocate 
the water resources, resulting in the impression that federal agencies 
are usurping states' authority to manage water resources, according to 
the officials. Similarly, according to a report from the Congressional 
Research Service, at the state level, concern arises when the federal 
government is perceived to be infringing on the concept of state 
primacy in water allocation or controlling water management decisions. 

Despite these challenges, federal officials told us that they do have 
efforts under way to include states and other stakeholders in water 
management decisions. For example, Reclamation officials told us that 
they coordinate with state and local partners in developing resource 
managements plans related to management of fish, wildlife, and 
recreation at Reclamation reservoirs. Reclamation also provides 
technical assistance to states and other nonfederal entities through a 
variety of grant and cost-share programs, such as water treatment 
projects, basin studies, and rural water supply appraisal studies. 
These collaborative efforts enable Reclamation to work with partners 
to increase water use efficiency, improve water management, explore 
innovative technologies, and understand the potential impact of 
climate change on water management and resources, according to the 
officials. 

Data Collection: 

Survey respondents, experts we spoke with, and literature we reviewed 
also identified maintaining and collecting key data related to 
freshwater availability and use as an area in which the federal 
government could better support state water resource management; 
however, federal officials told us their agencies face funding 
challenges that limit their capacity to collect all the data that are 
needed. Some experts told us that providing data is one of the areas 
where the federal government can be most helpful with respect to 
freshwater management. In addition to current data collection efforts, 
state water managers responding to our 2013 survey again reported that 
they would benefit from federal data collection at more sites. 
Specifically, 42 of 49 state water managers responding to a question 
about actions that the federal government could take with respect to 
collection and dissemination of data identified collecting water data 
at more locations as the most useful action. In addition, one expert 
noted that there are not robust federal data collection efforts for 
water use by the end user similar to that for energy, and this hampers 
efforts to advance water efficiency initiatives. Experts we spoke 
with, state water managers we surveyed, and literature we reviewed 
highlighted the following three additional actions federal agencies 
could take to improve water data collection: 

* Maintaining and enhancing streamgage network data. State water 
managers and other experts we interviewed said maintaining the 
streamgage network is critical, especially in light of the uncertain 
impacts of climate change on freshwater resources. Specifically, 40 of 
50 state water managers identified collecting data to determine the 
quantity of available surface water, a function that streamgages 
provide, as very or somewhat important, according to our 2013 survey. 
Moreover, many state water managers reported that increasing the 
number of streamgages to collect water quantity data would be a useful 
action federal agencies could take to assist states' water management 
efforts. USGS works in partnership with more than 850 federal, state, 
tribal, and local agencies to operate and maintain the network of over 
8,000 streamgages around the United States (see figure 8). These data 
can be used to support a wide range of water management activities 
such as administering water rights, mitigating hazards associated with 
floods, determining the timing of reservoir releases, meeting 
requirements of interstate compacts and international treaties, and 
protecting stream ecology, among many others. 

Figure 8: U.S. Geological Survey's Nationwide Streamgage Network as of 
Fiscal Year 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 

[End of figure] 

Although USGS has added streamgages since 2003, several experts and 
USGS officials told us that the agency periodically faces the 
possibility of having to discontinue gages because of budget 
restrictions, which is a concern for data users. For example, one 
expert explained that once data collection at a gage has stopped, the 
lost data cannot be replaced and that, even if the gage is put back 
into operation at a later date, gaps in the data record will exist, 
thereby limiting the usefulness of the data. USGS maintains a list of 
threatened and endangered gages, which currently shows that 
approximately 2 percent of gages in the network have recently been 
discontinued primarily due to a lack of funding to support their 
operation. Recognizing the concerns over the impact of budgetary 
constraints on USGS's monitoring efforts, in November 2012, Interior's 
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science requested advice from the 
Advisory Committee on Water Information in identifying approaches and 
options to sustain and enhance water monitoring and related science, 
including ideas on ways to improve the streamgage program.[Footnote 
86] As of March 2014, a draft report with recommendations has been 
submitted to the Assistant Secretary's office, but a final report has 
not yet been released. 

Several experts we interviewed also emphasized the importance of long-
term streamgage data records and expressed concern over the loss of 
some of these gages. Long-term streamgages are important due to the 
amount of data they make available for assessments of trends over time 
and of the effects of land use, water use, and climate change. As we 
reported in 2009,[Footnote 87] USGS's network of streamflow gages and 
groundwater monitoring stations provide the only national data of 
their kind on water availability over long periods, which state 
officials said are instrumental, for example, in predicting how much 
water is likely to be available in a river under a variety of weather 
conditions. Figure 9 shows the cumulative number of USGS streamgages 
discontinued from 1900 through 2012, with at least 30 years of 
streamflow data when they were discontinued. 

Figure 9: Cumulative Number of Discontinued Streamgages with 30 Years 
or More of Data, 1900 to 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Cumulative number of discontinued streamgages: 

1900: 0; 
1905: 0; 
1910: 0; 
1915: 0; 
1920: 0; 
1925: 0; 
1930: 2; 
1935: 7; 
1940: 11; 
1945: 22; 
1950: 33; 
1955: 68; 
1960: 159; 
1965: 269; 
1970: 429; 
1975: 783; 
1980: 1,112; 
1985: 1,596; 
1990: 1,898; 
1995: 2,451; 
2000: 2,803; 
2001: 2,825; 
2002: 2,863; 
2003: 2,922; 
2004: 2,999; 
2005: 3,093; 
2006: 3,155; 
2007: 3,203; 
2008: 3,246; 
2009: 3,308; 
2010: 3,345; 
2011: 3,398; 
2012: 3,520. 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey. 

[End of figure] 

* Expanding collection of groundwater and precipitation data. State 
water managers noted that groundwater data is necessary to adequately 
manage water resources in their state. Specifically, 34 of 50 state 
water managers indicated that data used to determine the quantity of 
available groundwater are very or somewhat important to freshwater 
management in their state, according to our survey. In addition, 
several experts we spoke with and literature we reviewed said that 
groundwater is far less understood than surface water, and that 
existing groundwater data are either limited or of poor quality. For 
example, one expert explained that using GRACE satellite data, 
researchers can monitor aquifer depletion and replenishment by 
tracking monthly changes, but currently the data resolution is not at 
the level desired. Our past work found there is a need for more data 
and research into groundwater resources and hydrological processes, 
such as aquifer recharge rates.[Footnote 88] Such data and research 
could be used to improve water supply planning, protect tribal waters, 
and better understand the impacts of climate change and hydraulic 
fracturing on water resources, according to experts we spoke with. In 
addition, several experts highlighted the need for additional 
precipitation data, including snowpack data since many western states 
rely on the snowpack for their water supplies. Some experts also told 
us that there is not a good rainfall measurement system in place since 
the current system lacks adequate coverage and rain gauges to be able 
to accurately track precipitation patterns. Other areas that may 
benefit from additional research and data include soil moisture, water 
consumption rates, evapotranspiration, and availability and use of 
alternative water sources. 

* Improving data accuracy and timeliness. State water managers 
responding to our 2013 survey also identified improved federal data 
accuracy and timeliness as actions that could assist their state water 
management efforts. One expert pointed to USGS's publicly available 
estimated use reports, which are not timely as evidenced by USGS's 
2010 data not yet being released. Such delays in reporting data can 
make determining current water use trends across the nation difficult. 

In response to these data concerns, federal officials told us that 
insufficient funding is a primary barrier to expanding their data 
collection efforts. For example, an USGS official told us that the 
agency is committed to expanding data networks, but USGS's ability to 
collect data at more locations, improve timeliness, and conduct 
additional analyses is severely hampered by funding constraints. To 
help address this, the administration has proposed increases in 
funding for the National Streamflow Information Program in the last 
two fiscal year budgets, according to the Council on Environmental 
Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The 
President's fiscal year 2014 budget proposed $7.2 million in increases 
for streamgage funding, with the Congress appropriating $6 million in 
increases in the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus bill over the fiscal year 
2013 budget. In the President's fiscal year 2015 budget, proposed 
funding for the program increases by another $1.2 million, building on 
the increase in fiscal year 2014. This funding is designed to 
stabilize the federal backbone of streamgages included under the 
National Streamflow Information Program, according to the Council on 
Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 
Similarly, NASA officials said that the agency has several concepts 
for missions designed to improve water resources monitoring that are 
awaiting funding. Moreover, some officials noted that budget 
constraints have caused their agencies to limit their data collection 
specifically to mission critical information. For example, Forest 
Service officials told us that steadily declining resources for 
freshwater and hydrologic data collection has led to limiting most of 
the water-related data collection directly supported by the agency to 
activity-related evaluation and monitoring or specific research 
projects. NRCS faces similar reductions to its snow monitoring 
network. Specifically, an NRCS official told us that, due to budget 
limitations, NRCS has reduced the number of Snow Survey Program sites, 
a network of sites where snow measurements are manually collected once 
per month. For example, in fiscal year 2012, the Montana Snow Survey 
Office discontinued measurements at 38 locations to reduce program 
costs. Funding for the program over the last few years has varied--
$10.9 million in fiscal year 2011, $8.55 million in fiscal year 2013, 
and $9.3 million in the 2014 budget. 

According to USGS officials, adequate funding also poses a challenge 
for the National Water Census and estimated water use reports. The 
SECURE Water Act[Footnote 89] authorized $20 million per fiscal year 
for the National Water Census for fiscal years 2009 through 2023, but 
enacted appropriations have been below the authorized amounts with $6 
million appropriated in fiscal year 2012.[Footnote 90] USGS officials 
said the agency intends to fully implement all elements of the 
National Water Census, with implementation taking longer than USGS had 
originally planned given funding constraints. For example, USGS is 
working on an analysis of water use by the public supply sector, which 
an official estimated completing within 3 years but plans to extend 
the time frame to over 5 years due to funding constraints. In 
addition, funding and resource constraints affect the timeliness of 
USGS's estimated use report, according to USGS officials. 
Specifically, the agency gathers water use data from all 50 states and 
other federal agencies, which can be challenging to ensure that the 
data will be consistent and received from the sources in a timely 
manner. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this product to the Departments of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Defense, Energy, the Interior, and State; EPA; NASA; the 
Council on Environmental Quality; and the Office of Science Technology 
and Policy for review and comment. The Department of the Interior, 
NASA, the Department of State, the Council on Environmental Quality, 
and the Office of Science Technology and Policy provided technical 
comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Defense, Energy, the Interior, and State; the Administrators 
of EPA and NASA; the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality; 
the Director of the Office of Science Technology and Policy; and other 
interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Anne-Marie Fennell: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives for this review were to examine changes since 2003 in 
(1) issues related to freshwater availability and use; (2) 
expectations for water availability and use over the next 10 years and 
how these expectations may affect water planning; (3) steps, if any, 
states have taken to better manage freshwater resources; and (4) 
actions, if any, federal agencies have taken to support management of 
freshwater availability and use and perspectives from state water 
managers, experts we spoke with, and literature we reviewed on what 
the federal government can do to enhance its support of states. 

To address these objectives, we used three primary methods. First, we 
conducted a Web-based survey of state water managers from all 50 
states; the response rate to our survey was 100 percent. Because not 
all respondents answered every question, the number of states 
responding to any particular question we are reporting on is noted 
throughout the report. The survey was largely identical to the survey 
we used in 2003, with the addition of a few questions. In order to 
maintain the validity of comparing survey results from the 2003 and 
2013 survey, the majority of the new questions were added to the end 
of the survey. Minor changes to select survey questions were tested 
and expertly reviewed in order to ensure comparisons between the 2003 
and 2013 surveys. Specifically, the 2013 survey contained 67 questions 
compared with 56 questions in our 2003 survey. The questions covered 
various topics relevant to water availability and use including state 
water management; federal agencies' collection and dissemination of 
state water quantity data; federal water storage and conveyance within 
states; the effects of federal environmental laws on state water 
management; the effects of interstate compacts and international 
treaties on state water management; the effects of federal and tribal 
rights to water on state water management; and drivers of change that 
may affect water supplies in the next 10 years. We pretested the 
content and format of the survey with state water managers in 
Colorado, Maryland, and Washington. During the pretest, we asked the 
state water managers questions to determine whether (1) the survey 
questions were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) the survey 
placed an undue burden on the respondents, and (4) the questions were 
unbiased. We incorporated their suggested changes, as appropriate. 

We posted the survey on GAO's survey website. 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 survey. To maximize 
our response rate, we sent reminder e-mails and contacted 
nonrespondents by telephone and e-mail resulting in a 100 percent 
response rate. We performed analyses to identify inconsistencies and 
potential errors in the data and contacted respondents via telephone 
to resolve discrepancies. A technical specialist reviewed all computer 
programs for analyses of the survey data. 

We analyzed open-ended survey responses using different approaches, 
depending on the nature of the question. For example, for a question 
asking the respondent to name federal agencies which provide water 
data used by their state, we counted the number of times each agency 
was mentioned. For other more general open-ended questions, we 
conducted a content analysis of the responses. Content analysis is a 
methodology for structuring and analyzing written material. To conduct 
this content analysis, we developed codes to characterize the state 
water managers' responses. The coding was conducted independently by 
two GAO analysts after checking for intercoder reliability. We 
developed agreement statistics and discussed and resolved any 
discrepancies in coding. Aggregated responses of the survey are in 
appendix II. 

Second, we analyzed key documents (e.g., peer-reviewed studies and 
government-sponsored reports) to gather information on current and 
future freshwater conditions. To identify relevant documents, we 
searched several databases, such as ProQuest and Academic OneFile, 
using key words and phrases developed by the team. Search terms 
included freshwater, groundwater, shortage, drought, and withdrawal, 
among others. In addition, the team identified and collected documents 
throughout the engagement as new reports were issued and interview 
subjects mentioned reports of interest. From these documents, we 
identified over 40 key studies for review and included those studies 
that are dated from 2003 to the present; peer-reviewed studies, 
government-sponsored reports, and reports from other credible 
organizations; relevant to our research objectives; and address water 
issues within the United States, among other criteria. A methodologist 
reviewed the research studies used in this report to ensure they met 
sufficient quality standards. We analyzed these documents and 
developed summaries of key findings for each research objective. 

Third, we conducted semistructured interviews with a range of 
individuals that we identified as having expertise on freshwater 
availability and use issues. We identified these experts using an 
iterative approach in which we solicited names from agency officials 
and others we interviewed; we also interviewed experts identified 
during our analysis of key documents. These experts represented a 
variety of organizations including representatives from water industry 
associations, such as the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, 
which represents municipal water treatment plants; representatives 
from regional organizations, such as the Western States Water Council, 
an organization consisting of representatives appointed by 18 western 
governors to address water issues of concern to the governors; 
academics; and relevant nongovernment organizations, such as the 
Pacific Institute, a nonpartisan research institute that works to 
advance environmental protection, economic development, and social 
equity. We also interviewed officials from federal agencies that have 
responsibilities related to freshwater issues. The agencies included 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the Forest Service and 
Natural Resources Conservation Service; the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; the Department of Energy; the Department of the Interior, 
including the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS); the Environmental Protection Agency; the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality within the 
Executive Office of the President; the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration; and the Department of State. We used the 
following categories to quantify the literature and responses of 
experts: some refers to at least two studies or experts, several 
refers to at least five studies or experts, and many refers to eight 
or more studies or experts. 

In addition, we collected and analyzed information on three states 
(Colorado, Maryland, and Michigan) to serve as illustrative examples 
of state water management issues. We selected these states on the 
basis of criteria including variation across the states in their 
responses to our 2003 survey and types of water use within the states. 
To better understand freshwater issues in each state, we analyzed 
reports and other documents on state water issues and conducted 
semistructured interviews with individuals knowledgeable about state 
and regional issues. These interviews included state water managers; 
USGS Water Science Center officials from each state; academics; and 
representatives from other organizations relevant to the local 
situation, such as the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River 
Basin, an organization that works with the Potomac River Basin states, 
including Maryland, and the federal government to enhance, protect, 
and conserve the water and associated land resources of the basin. We 
identified interview subjects in an iterative fashion using referrals 
from prior interview subjects, as well as through our review of 
documents from the states. 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to May 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

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

To obtain states' views on how federal activities could better support 
state water management efforts to meet future demands, we conducted a 
Web-based survey of state water managers in the 50 states with a 
response rate of 100 percent. The survey was largely identical to the 
survey we used in 2003, with the addition of a few questions. 
Specifically, the survey contained 67 questions compared with 56 
questions in our 2003 survey. The questions covered various topics 
relevant to water availability and use including state water 
management; federal agencies' collection and dissemination of water 
quantity data; 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; the effects of federal and tribal 
rights to water on state water management; and drivers of change that 
may affect water supplies in the next 10 years. 

1. Has your state conducted any of the following assessments?[Footnote 
91] 

a. Water availability assessment; 

Yes, statewide (most or all regions of your state): 28; 
Yes, only for some regions or localities within your state: 18; 
No: 3; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

b. Water withdrawals assessment; 
Yes, statewide (most or all regions of your state): 39; 
Yes, only for some regions or localities within your state: 9; 
No: 2; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

c. Water consumption assessment; 
Yes, statewide (most or all regions of your state): 25; 
Yes, only for some regions or localities within your state: 15; 
No: 9; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

2. Has your state conducted any of the following assessments, either 
for all of your state or for portions of your state? 

a. Actual economic effects of recent water shortages, including 
drought; 
Yes: 11; 
No: 28; 
Uncertain: 10; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

b. Potential economic effects of future water shortages, including 
drought; 
Yes: 16; 
No: 24; 
Uncertain: 9; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

c. Actual environmental effects of recent water shortages, including 
drought; 
Yes: 18; 
No: 20; 
Uncertain: 11; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

d. Potential environmental effects of future water shortages, 
including drought; 
Yes: 17; 
No: 21; 
Uncertain: 11; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

3. Does your state have any of the following plans? 

a. Water supply plan; 
Yes: 28; 
No: 18; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

b. Drought preparedness plan; 
Yes: 38; 
No: 5; 
Uncertain: 5; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

c. Drought response plan; 
Yes: 39; 
No: 4; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

If yes, did your state receive any federal funds for the following 
plans? 

a. Water supply plan; 
Yes: 7; 
No: 19; 
Uncertain: 2; 
Total number of respondents: 28. 

b. Drought preparedness plan; 
Yes: 2; 
No: 30; 
Uncertain: 6; 
Total number of respondents: 38. 

c. Drought response plan; 
Yes: 5; 
No: 28; 
Uncertain: 6; 
Total number of respondents: 39. 

[End of table] 

4. In the next 1-10 years which, if any, portions of your state, are 
likely to experience water shortages under average water 
conditions?[Footnote 92] 

Entire state (most, or all, of your state): 1; 
One or more regions within your state: 24; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 15; 
None of the above: 8; 
Uncertain: 2; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

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

Entire state (most, or all, of your state): 13; 
One or more regions within your state: 28; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 9; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

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

Entire state (most, or all, of your state): 3; 
One or more regions within your state: 23; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 16; 
None of the above: 5; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

7. 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): 14; 
One or more regions within your state: 28; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

8. In the last 1-10 years which, if any, portions of your state, 
experienced water shortages under average water conditions?[Footnote 
93] 

a. Same as 2003 survey response; 
Entire state (most, or all, of your state): 1; 
One or more regions within your state: 14; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 13; 
None of the above: 7; 
Uncertain: N/A; 
Total number of respondents: 35. 

b. Different from 2003 survey response; 
Entire state (most, or all, of your state): 0; 
One or more regions within your state: 1; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 3; 
None of the above: 4; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 9. 

c. No 2003 survey response provided; 
Entire state (most, or all, of your state): 0; 
One or more regions within your state: 3; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 1; 
None of the above: 1; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 5. 

If your expectation in 2003 did not match what your state experienced, 
please briefly describe the factors that may have contributed to the 
difference between estimated and actual conditions, and whether these 
factors continue to affect your state's estimates of future water 
conditions. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

9. In the last 1-10 years which, if any, portions of your state, 
experienced water shortages under drought water conditions?[Footnote 
94] 

Same as 2003 survey response; 
Entire state (most, or all, of your state): 6; 
One or more regions within your state: 26; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 5; 
None of the above: 0; 
Uncertain: N/A; 
Total number of respondents: 37. 

Different from 2003 survey response; 
Entire state (most, or all, of your state): 1; 
One or more regions within your state: 5; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 2; 
None of the above: 1; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 9. 

No 2003 survey response provided; 
Entire state (most, or all, of your state): 1; 
One or more regions within your state: 2; 
One or more small localized areas within your state: 0; 
None of the above: 1; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 4. 

If your expectation in 2003 did not match what your state experienced, 
please briefly describe the factors that may have contributed to the 
difference between estimated and actual conditions, and whether these 
factors continue to affect your state's estimates of future water 
conditions. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

10. Are any of the following actions being taken by your state 
government and/or by regional or local authorities to address current 
and future water needs in your state? 

a. Developing markets to allow voluntary water transfers among users; 
Yes: 21; 
No: 22; 
Uncertain: 6; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

b. Developing new water supplies through reuse of reclaimed water; 
Yes: 36; 
No: 10; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

c. Developing new water supplies through recycling of storm water; 
Yes: 19; 
No: 22; 
Uncertain: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

d. Developing new water supplies using desalination (seawater or 
brackish groundwater); 
Yes: 18; 
No: 29; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

e. Encouraging, requiring, and/or providing incentives for water 
conservation; 
Yes: 43; 
No: 4; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

f. Improving vegetation management along streams and rivers to 
increase stream flow; 
Yes: 28; 
No: 10; 
Uncertain: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

g. Improving riparian buffers to enhance water quality and increase 
water quantity; 
Yes: 42; 
No: 2; 
Uncertain: 5; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

h. Increasing storage capacity, including surface storage reservoirs 
or artificial groundwater recharge; 
Yes: 39; 
No: 6; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

i. Managing surface and groundwater together (conjunctive management) 
so that these sources can be used in combination or alternately; 
Yes: 42; 
No: 5; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

j. Monitoring water availability and withdrawals within the state; 
Yes: 49; 
No: 1; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

k. Pursuing water price restructuring; 
Yes: 27; 
No: 14; 
Uncertain: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

l. Requiring local water agencies to conduct water availability 
assessments before approving new development or changes in land use; 
Yes: 22; 
No: 23; 
Uncertain: 5; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

m. Using cloud seeding to induce precipitation where it might not 
occur naturally, or in greater quantities than might occur naturally; 
Yes: 8; 
No: 39; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

n. Using inter-basin transfer of water; 
Yes: 36; 
No: 10; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

o. Other actions being taken to address water needs; 
Yes: 18; 
No: 7; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 28. 

[End of table] 

If you checked other (above), please provide a brief description in 
the textbox below. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

If you indicated that your state encourages, requires, and/or provides 
incentives for water conservation (i.e., checked yes to Question 10e 
above), please describe the key actions your state takes below. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

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

Prior appropriation: 17; 
Common-law riparian: 5; 
Regulated riparian: 16; 
A combination of prior appropriation and riparian: 4; 
State does not regulate surface water allocation: 2; 
Other: 5; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

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

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

12. In general, what is the legal doctrine used by your state to 
govern the allocation of groundwater? 

Correlative rights: 1; 
Reasonable use: 18; 
Prior appropriation: 12; 
Absolute ownership: 1; 
State does not regulate groundwater allocation: 3; 
Other: 14; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

If you checked other (above), please describe how your state governs 
the allocation and use of groundwater. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

13. Overall, about how much of your state's data on water availability 
and withdrawals is provided by federal agencies?[Footnote 95] 

a. Data on groundwater availability; 
Little or none: 12; 
Less than half: 20; 
About half: 8; 
More than half: 8; 
All or almost all: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

b. Data on groundwater withdrawals; 
Little or none: 35; 
Less than half: 8; 
About half: 4; 
More than half: 2; 
All or almost all: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

c. Data on surface water availability; 
Little or none: 8; 
Less than half: 10; 
About half: 9; 
More than half: 17; 
All or almost all: 6; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

d. Data on surface water withdrawals; 
Little or none: 35; 
Less than half: 6; 
About half: 5; 
More than half: 2; 
All or almost all: 2; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

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

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

15. Overall, how important are data provided by federal agencies to 
your state's ability to complete each of the following activities? 
(Note: If your state does not use data from a federal agency for this 
activity or your state does not conduct an activity, please check Not 
applicable.) 

a. To determine the quantity of available groundwater; 
Very important: 19; 
Somewhat important: 15; 
Equally important and unimportant: 2; 
Somewhat unimportant: 7; 
Very unimportant: 4; 
Not applicable: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

b. To determine the quantity of groundwater withdrawals; 
Very important: 2; 
Somewhat important: 11; 
Equally important and unimportant: 5; 
Somewhat unimportant: 15; 
Very unimportant: 9; 
Not applicable: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

c. To determine the quantity of available surface water; 
Very important: 32; 
Somewhat important: 8; 
Equally important and unimportant: 6; 
Somewhat unimportant: 2; 
Very unimportant: 1; 
Not applicable: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

d. To determine the quantity of surface water withdrawals; 
Very important: 2; 
Somewhat important: 13; 
Equally important and unimportant: 9; 
Somewhat unimportant: 5; 
Very unimportant: 11; 
Not applicable: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

e. To determine the quantity of consumptive water use; 
Very important: 3; 
Somewhat important: 12; 
Equally important and unimportant: 8; 
Somewhat unimportant: 7; 
Very unimportant: 12; 
Not applicable: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

f. To assess the economic effects of water withdrawals; 
Very important: 2; 
Somewhat important: 11; 
Equally important and unimportant: 4; 
Somewhat unimportant: 2; 
Very unimportant: 12; 
Not applicable: 15; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

g. To assess the environmental effects of water withdrawals; 
Very important: 8; 
Somewhat important: 16; 
Equally important and unimportant: 7; 
Somewhat unimportant: 8; 
Very unimportant: 5; 
Not applicable: 6; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

h. To plan environmental mitigation or restoration; 
Very important: 6; 
Somewhat important: 15; 
Equally important and unimportant: 8; 
Somewhat unimportant: 5; 
Very unimportant: 6; 
Not applicable: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

i. To monitor the terms of water allocation agreements that distribute 
water among multiple parties (such as states); 
Very important: 10; 
Somewhat important: 12; 
Equally important and unimportant: 6; 
Somewhat unimportant: 2; 
Very unimportant: 7; 
Not applicable: 13; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

16. 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? 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

17. 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). 
(Select the action you think would be most useful and rank this action 
1st by entering the number 1 in the box provided next to that action. 
Select the next most useful action and rank it second by entering the 
number 2 in the box provided. Do the same for all the remaining 
actions, ranking them 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th.) 

a. Collect data at more locations; 
1: 42; 
2: 4; 
3: 1; 
4: 0; 
5: 2; 
6: 0; 
Mean ranking: 1.29; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

b. Improve the accuracy of data currently being collected; 
1: 2; 
2: 9; 
3: 9; 
4: 7; 
5: 9; 
6: 12; 
Mean ranking: 4.00; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

c. Improve the timeliness of dissemination; 
1: 0; 
2: 11; 
3: 10; 
4: 12; 
5: 9; 
6: 6; 
Mean ranking: 3.77; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

d. Improve access to data previously collected (for example, 
historical); 
1: 1; 
2: 10; 
3: 15; 
4: 10; 
5: 10; 
6: 2; 
Mean ranking: 3.50; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

e. Provide data in a more usable format; 
1: 1; 
2: 5; 
3: 5; 
4: 10; 
5: 16; 
6: 11; 
Mean ranking: 4.42; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

f. Provide more analyses of data; 
1: 3; 
2: 10; 
3: 8; 
4: 9; 
5: 2; 
6: 17; 
Mean ranking: 3.98; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

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

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

19. Has your state incorporated ecosystem services[Footnote 96] and 
ecological flows[Footnote 97] into your water management? 

Yes: 33; 
No: 13; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

Respondents who answered no, uncertain, or no response to this 
question skipped to question 21: 

20. If you answered yes to Question 19 above, what ecosystem services 
or ecological flows data collected by federal agencies does your state 
use in its water management? Please also indicate the source(s) of the 
data. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

21. Does your state have ecosystem services or ecological flows data 
needs? 

Yes: 34; 
No: 3; 
Uncertain: 12; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

Respondents who answered no, uncertain, or no response to this 
question skipped to question 23: 

22. If you answered yes to Question 21 above, what ecosystem services 
or ecological flows data currently not collected by federal agencies 
would be most useful to help your state's water management? 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

23. How much of your state's water is stored using facilities 
constructed, operated, or maintained by the federal government? 
[Footnote 98] 

Little or none: 14;
Less than half: 14; 
About half: 3; 
More than half: 7; 
All or almost all: 9; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

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

Very likely: 15; 
Somewhat likely: 7; 
Equally likely and unlikely: 4; 
Somewhat unlikely: 10; 
Very unlikely: 10; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

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

Yes: 14; 
No: 24; 
Uncertain: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

If you checked yes (above), please provide the year the estimate was 
made. 

1980: 1; 
2008: 1; 
2010: 4; 
2011: 2; 
2012: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 12. 

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

Definitely yes: 5; 
Probably yes: 12; 
Probably no: 17; 
Definitely no: 3; 
Uncertain: 12; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

[End of table] 

27. Have federal agencies participated in any of the following 
activities during the past 5 years with respect to non-federal storage 
infrastructure in your state? 

a. Planning of facilities; 
Yes: 22; 
No: 18; 
Uncertain: 9; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

b. Reviewing plans for facilities; 
Yes: 22; 
No: 20; 
Uncertain: 7; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

c. Operating and/or maintaining facilities; 
Yes: 9; 
No: 33; 
Uncertain: 7; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

d. Constructing facilities; 
Yes: 6; 
No: 34; 
Uncertain: 9; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

28. 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? 

(Note: A federal storage facility is one that is owned and/or 
operated, either jointly or fully, by the federal government.) 

Yes, many times: 6; 
Yes, a few times: 19; 
Yes, but only once or twice: 7; 
No: 10; 
Our state does not have any federal storage facilities: 4; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

If you checked yes (#1, #2, or #3, above), please provide some 
examples of the types of changes requested and the agencies that you 
requested make the changes. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

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

Little or none: 32; 
Less than half: 8; 
About half: 2; 
More than half: 4; 
All or almost all: 1; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

[End of table] 

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

Very likely: 11; 
Somewhat likely: 12; 
Equally likely and unlikely: 2; 
Somewhat unlikely: 11; 
Very unlikely: 13; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

[End of table] 

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

Yes: 11; 
No: 30; 
Uncertain: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

[End of table] 

If you checked yes (above), please provide the year the estimate was 
made. 

2003: 1; 
2007: 1; 
2010: 2; 
2011: 2; 
2012: 2; 
2013: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 9. 

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

Definitely yes: 5; 
Probably yes: 14; 
Probably no: 17; 
Definitely no: 6; 
Uncertain: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

33. Have federal agencies participated in any of the following 
activities during the past 5 years with respect to non-federal 
conveyance infrastructure in your state? 

a. Planning of facilities; 
Yes: 9; 
No: 22; 
Uncertain: 18; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

b. Reviewing plans for facilities; 
Yes: 9; 
No: 21; 
Uncertain: 19; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

c. Operating and/or maintaining facilities; 
Yes: 2; 
No: 30; 
Uncertain: 17; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

d. Constructing facilities; 
Yes: 2; 
No: 33; 
Uncertain: 14; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

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

Yes, many times: 4; 
Yes, a few times: 5; 
Yes, but only once or twice: 3; 
No: 19; 
Our state does not have any federal storage or conveyance facilities: 
7; 
Uncertain: 12; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

If you checked yes (#1, #2, or #3, above), please provide example(s) 
of poor maintenance and how it affected water availability in your 
state. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

35. 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). (Select the action you think would be most useful 
and rank this action 1st by entering the number 1 in the box provided 
next to that action. Select the next most useful action and rank it 
second by entering the number 2 in the box provided. Do the same for 
all the remaining actions, ranking them 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th.) 

a. Improve the maintenance of federal facilities; 
1: 0; 
2: 2; 
3: 6; 
4: 8; 
5: 7; 
6: 22; 
Mean ranking: 4.91; 
Total number of respondents: 45. 

b. Increase federal technical assistance for the planning, 
construction, operation, or maintenance of state storage and 
conveyance infrastructure; 
1: 6; 
2: 4; 
3: 10; 
4: 10; 
5: 9; 
6: 5; 
Mean ranking: 3.61; 
Total number of respondents: 44. 

c. Increase federal financial assistance for the planning and 
construction of state storage and conveyance infrastructure; 
1: 16; 
2: 14; 
3: 6; 
4: 4; 
5: 3; 
6: 2; 
Mean ranking: 2.33; 
Total number of respondents: 45. 

d. Increase federal financial assistance for the operation and 
maintenance of state storage and conveyance infrastructure; 
1: 6; 
2: 11; 
3: 10; 
4: 6; 
5: 6; 
6: 7; 
Mean ranking: 3.35; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

e. Seek more state input in the operation of federal storage 
facilities; 
1: 12; 
2: 6; 
3: 8; 
4: 4; 
5: 11; 
6: 4; 
Mean ranking: 3.18; 
Total number of respondents: 45. 

f. Streamline federal review processes of proposed state storage and 
conveyance facilities; 
1: 7; 
2: 9; 
3: 5; 
4: 12; 
5: 8; 
6: 4; 
Mean ranking: 3.38; 
Total number of respondents: 45. 

36. 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? 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

37. What effect has each of the federal laws listed below had on water 
availability, for instream purposes, in your state within the past 5 
years?[Footnote 99] 

a. Clean Water Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 3; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 19; 
Had no effect on water availability: 11; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 6; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 8; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

b. Coastal Zone Management Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 2; 
Had no effect on water availability: 24; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 4; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 11; 
Total number of respondents: 41. 

c. Endangered Species Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 1; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 21; 
Had no effect on water availability: 9; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 8; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 3; 
Uncertain: 5; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

d. Energy Policy Act of 2005; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 1; 
Had no effect on water availability: 14; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 2; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 29; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

e. Federal Land Policy and Management Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 0; 
Had no effect on water availability: 13; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 2; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 31; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

f. Federal Power Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 1; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 6; 
Had no effect on water availability: 11; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 4; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 23; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

g. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 7; 
Had no effect on water availability: 14; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 2; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 23; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

h. Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 3; 
Had no effect on water availability: 14; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 1; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 27; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

i. National Forest Management; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 5; 
Had no effect on water availability: 11; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 3; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 27; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

j. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 2; 
Had no effect on water availability: 20; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 1; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 22; 
Total number of respondents: 45. 

k. Safe Drinking Water Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 2; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 13; 
Had no effect on water availability: 20; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 4; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 9; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

l. Secure Water Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 5; 
Had no effect on water availability: 16; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 0; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 26; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

m. Water Resources Development Act of 2007; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 8; 
Had no effect on water availability: 16; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 1; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 23; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

n. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 12; 
Had no effect on water availability: 15; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 5; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 14; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

o. Wilderness Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 3; 
Had no effect on water availability: 14; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 4; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 24; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

p. Other federal law(s); 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 5; 
Had no effect on water availability: 7; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 0; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 22; 
Total number of respondents: 35. 

If you checked Other federal law(s) above, please specify the law(s) 
below. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

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

a. Clean Water Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 3; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 8; 
Had no effect on water availability: 13; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 15; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 7; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

b. Coastal Zone Management Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 2; 
Had no effect on water availability: 25; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 2; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 14; 
Total number of respondents: 43. 

c. Endangered Species Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 3; 
Had no effect on water availability: 9; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 24; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 5; 
Uncertain: 6; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

d. Energy Policy Act of 2005; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 0; 
Had no effect on water availability: 16; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 3; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 28; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

e. Federal Land Policy and Management Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 1; 
Had no effect on water availability: 15; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 2; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 29; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

f. Federal Power Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 1; 
Had no effect on water availability: 13; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 6; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 27; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

g. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 1; 
Had no effect on water availability: 15; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 5; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 25; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

h. Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 3; 
Had no effect on water availability: 12; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 1; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 30; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

i. National Forest Management; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 4; 
Had no effect on water availability: 15; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 3; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 23; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

j. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 1; 
Had no effect on water availability: 19; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 2; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 23; 
Total number of respondents: 45. 

k. Safe Drinking Water Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 1; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 10; 
Had no effect on water availability: 17; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 9; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 0; 
Uncertain: 11; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

l. Secure Water Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 4; 
Had no effect on water availability: 18; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 1; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 24; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

m. Water Resources Development Act of 2007; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 5; 
Had no effect on water availability: 16; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 1; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 1; 
Uncertain: 25; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

n. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 3; 
Had no effect on water availability: 14; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 10; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 2; 
Uncertain: 17; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

o. Wilderness Act; 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 1; 
Had no effect on water availability: 16; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 6; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 3; 
Uncertain: 20; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

p. Other federal law(s); 
Greatly increased water availability: 0; 
Somewhat increased water availability: 2; 
Had no effect on water availability: 6; 
Somewhat decreased water availability: 1; 
Greatly decreased water availability: 3; 
Uncertain: 19; 
Total number of respondents: 31. 

If you checked Other federal law(s) above, please specify the law(s) 
below. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

39. 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). (Select the action you think would be 
most useful and rank this action 1st by entering the number 1 in the 
box provided next to that action. Select the next most useful action 
and rank it second by entering the number 2 in the box provided. Do 
the same for all the remaining actions, ranking them 3rd, 4th, 5th, 
and 6th.) 

a. Charge for the use of water from federal storage and conveyance 
facilities and use funds to help mitigate damage to environment from 
projects; 
1: 2; 
2: 2; 
3: 4; 
4: 38; 
Mean Ranking: 3.7; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

b. Give the states more flexibility in compliance or administration of 
federal environmental laws; 
1: 24; 
2: 11; 
3: 9; 
4: 3; 
Mean Ranking: 1.81; 
Total number of respondents: 47. 

c. Improve coordination among federal agencies in implementing 
environmental laws; 
1: 8; 
2: 12; 
3: 27; 
4: 2; 
Mean Ranking: 2.47; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

d. Seek more state input into development, revision and implementation 
of federal environmental laws; 
1: 15; 
2: 23; 
3: 7; 
4: 3; 
Mean Ranking: 1.96; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

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

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

41. Does your state participate in an interstate compact or 
international treaty to allocate water among multiple 
parties?[Footnote 100] 

Yes: 34; 
No: 14; 
Uncertain: 2; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

Respondents who answered no, uncertain, or no response to this 
question skipped to question 48: 

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

Little or none: 3; 
Less than half: 19; 
About half: 2; 
More than half: 6; 
All or almost all: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 34. 

[End of table] 

43. Within the last 5 years, have any federal agencies participated in 
any of the following activities affecting water availability in your 
state? 

Interstate Compact(s): 

a. Development; 
Yes: 7; 
No: 24; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 34. 

b. Implementation; 
Yes: 22; 
No: 8; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 33. 

c. Enforcement; 
Yes: 12; 
No: 18; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 34. 

International Treaty(ies): 

a. Development; 
Yes: 6; 
No: 22; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 29. 

b. Implementation; 
Yes: 14; 
No: 14; 
Uncertain: 2; 
Total number of respondents: 30. 

c. Enforcement; 
Yes: 9; 
No: 17; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 30. 

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

All agencies have fulfilled all responsibilities: 11; 
One or more agencies have not fulfilled their responsibilities (Please 
specify the agency(ies) and frequency in the textbox below): 9; 
Not applicable (no federal participation): 5; 
Uncertain: 6; 
Total number of respondents: 31. 

If you checked #2 (above), please specify the agency(ies) and briefly 
describe how often responsibilities have not been fulfilled. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

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

Definitely yes: 1; 
Probably yes: 4; 
Probably no: 16; 
Definitely no: 8; 
Uncertain: 5; 
Total number of respondents: 34. 

46. 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 the most useful (1st) to the least useful 
(6th). (Select the action you think would be most useful and rank this 
action 1st by entering the number 1 in the box provided next to that 
action. Select the next most useful action and rank it second by 
entering the number 2 in the box provided. Do the same for all the 
remaining actions, ranking them 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th. ): 

a. Better coordinate federal participation with the state; 
1: 12; 
2: 10; 
3: 6; 
4: 2; 
5: 2; 
6: 0; 
Mean ranking: 2.13; 
Total number of respondents: 32. 

b. Better coordinate participation among federal agencies; 
1: 3; 
2: 9; 
3: 8; 
4: 6; 
5: 6; 
6: 0; 
Mean ranking: 3.09; 
Total number of respondents: 32. 

c. Create a market-based allocation system for water shared by states; 
1: 0; 
2: 1; 
3: 1; 
4: 2; 
5: 5; 
6: 20; 
Mean ranking: 5.45; 
Total number of respondents: 29. 

d. Develop alternative tools for resolving water allocation conflicts 
among the states; 
1: 3; 
2: 6; 
3: 6; 
4: 7; 
5: 6; 
6: 3; 
Mean ranking: 3.52; 
Total number of respondents: 31. 

e. Increase technical assistance to assist the states with development 
or implementation; 
1: 12; 
2: 4; 
3: 10; 
4: 5; 
5: 1; 
6: 2; 
Mean ranking: 2.56; 
Total number of respondents: 34. 

f. Make it easier to amend or revise existing agreements; 
1: 4; 
2: 3; 
3: 1; 
4: 9; 
5: 10; 
6: 4; 
Mean ranking: 3.97; 
Total number of respondents: 31. 

47. 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? 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

48. Do any federal agencies hold or claim water rights in your 
state?[Footnote 101] 

Yes: 27; 
No: 14; 
Uncertain: 9; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

Respondents who answered no, uncertain, or no response to this 
question skipped to question 53: 

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

Little or none: 13; 
Less than half: 10; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 27. 

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

Little or none: 11; 
Less than half: 9; 
About half: 1; 
Uncertain: 6; 
Total number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table] 

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

Very important: 6; 
Somewhat important: 8; 
Equally important and unimportant: 3; 
Somewhat unimportant: 5; 
Very unimportant: 4; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 27. 

[End of table] 

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

Yes, many times (Please specify the agency(ies) in the textbox below): 
4; 
Yes, a few times (Please specify the agency(ies) in the textbox 
below): 4; 
Yes, but only once or twice (Please specify the agency(ies) in the 
textbox below): 5; 
No, our state has not experienced any conflict: 9; 
Uncertain: 5; 
Total number of respondents: 27. 

If you checked yes (#1, #2, or #3, above), please specify the 
agency(ies) in the textbox below. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

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

Yes: 24; 
No: 20; 
Uncertain: 5; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

Respondents who answered no, uncertain, or no response to this 
question skipped to question 58. 

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

Little or none: 13; 
Less than half: 9; 
Uncertain: 2; 
Total number of respondents: 24. 

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

Little or none: 7; 
Less than half: 8; 
More than half: 1; 
Uncertain: 7; 
Total number of respondents: 23. 

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

Very important: 8; 
Somewhat important: 5; 
Equally important and unimportant: 3; 
Somewhat unimportant: 2; 
Very unimportant: 4; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 23. 

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

Yes, many times (Please specify the tribal government(s) in the 
textbox below): 1; 
Yes, a few times (Please specify the tribal government(s) in the 
textbox below): 5; 
Yes, but only once or twice (Please specify the tribal government(s) 
in the textbox below): 3; 
No, our state has not experienced any conflict: 11; 
Uncertain: 3; 
Total number of respondents: 23. 

If you checked yes (#1, #2, or #3, above), please specify the tribal 
government(s) in the textbox below. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

58. If you have indicated that no federal agencies or tribal 
governments claim water rights in your state, you can skip Questions 
59 and 60, by clicking on Go to Question 61 below. Otherwise continue 
to Question 59. 

Skip Questions 59 and 60.: 19; 
Continue: 20; 
Total number of respondents: 39. 

Respondents who selected skip questions 59 and 60 skipped to question 
61. 

59. 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). (Select the action you think would be 
most useful and rank this action 1st by entering the number 1 in the 
box provided next to that action. Select the next most useful action 
and rank it second by entering the number 2 in the box provided. Do 
the same for all the remaining actions, ranking them 3rd, 4th, 5th, 
and 6th.) 

a. Better coordinate participation among federal agencies in the 
establishment and use of federal or tribal water rights; 
1: 2; 
2: 1; 
3: 7; 
4: 1; 
5: 2; 
6: 4; 
Mean ranking: 3.71; 
Total number of respondents: 17. 

b. Clarify federal policy on tribal governments' authority to sell 
water rights; 
1: 0; 
2: 1; 
3: 2; 
4: 5; 
5: 3; 
6: 6; 
Mean ranking: 4.65; 
Total number of respondents: 17. 

c. Improve the efficiency of water use, including increasing 
conservation when applicable, on federal and tribal lands; 
1: 3; 
2: 4; 
3: 1; 
4: 4; 
5: 3; 
6: 3; 
Mean ranking: 3.50; 
Total number of respondents: 18. 

d. Increase financial and technical assistance to states for 
adjudication of federal and tribal water rights; 
1: 1; 
2: 3; 
3: 2; 
4: 4; 
5: 5; 
6: 2; 
Mean ranking: 3.88; 
Total number of respondents: 17. 

e. Seek more state input into the use of federal or tribal water 
rights and potential effects on state water management goals; 
1: 10; 
2: 4; 
3: 1; 
4: 2; 
5: 1; 
6: 1; 
Mean ranking: 2.11; 
Total number of respondents: 19. 

f. Streamline federal processes to quantify federal or tribal water 
rights; 
1: 3; 
2: 5; 
3: 4; 
4: 1; 
5: 3; 
6: 3; 
Mean ranking: 2.94; 
Total number of respondents: 17. 

60. 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? 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

61. How much of a concern to your state are the following drivers of 
change in terms of anticipated impact on water supplies in the next 10 
years? 

a. Climate change; 
Very great concern: 6; 
Great concern: 9; 
Moderate concern: 23; 
Slight concern: 7; 
Not a concern: 1; 
Uncertain: 2; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

b. Drought; 
Very great concern: 18; 
Great concern: 14; 
Moderate concern: 17; 
Slight concern: 1; 
Not a concern: 0; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

c. Population growth; 
Very great concern: 5; 
Great concern: 12; 
Moderate concern: 23; 
Slight concern: 8; 
Not a concern: 0; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 48. 

d. Infrastructure challenges; 
Very great concern: 17; 
Great concern: 19; 
Moderate concern: 13; 
Slight concern: 1; 
Not a concern: 0; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

e. Loss of storage due to sedimentation of reservoirs or over pumping 
of aquifers; 
Very great concern: 3; 
Great concern: 14; 
Moderate concern: 18; 
Slight concern: 15; 
Not a concern: 0; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

f. Increased use of freshwater for energy production; 
Very great concern: 3; 
Great concern: 7; 
Moderate concern: 24; 
Slight concern: 11; 
Not a concern: 4; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

g. Increased use of freshwater for irrigation; 
Very great concern: 8; 
Great concern: 9; 
Moderate concern: 18; 
Slight concern: 10; 
Not a concern: 4; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

h. Deteriorating quality of freshwater resources; 
Very great concern: 4; 
Great concern: 12; 
Moderate concern: 16; 
Slight concern: 14; 
Not a concern: 3; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

i. Maintenance of ecosystem services or ecological flows; 
Very great concern: 4; 
Great concern: 18; 
Moderate concern: 14; 
Slight concern: 8; 
Not a concern: 1; 
Uncertain: 4; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

j. Land use change; 
Very great concern: 6; 
Great concern: 15; 
Moderate concern: 16; 
Slight concern: 10; 
Not a concern: 2; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

k. Increased interbasin transfers; 
Very great concern: 1; 
Great concern: 10; 
Moderate concern: 16; 
Slight concern: 13; 
Not a concern: 8; 
Uncertain: 1; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

l. Tribal water rights; 
Very great concern: 2; 
Great concern: 7; 
Moderate concern: 6; 
Slight concern: 5; 
Not a concern: 26; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 46. 

m. Other (Please specify below); 
Very great concern: 2; 
Great concern: 1; 
Moderate concern: 2; 
Slight concern: 0; 
Not a concern: 1; 
Uncertain: 0; 
Total number of respondents: 6. 

If you checked other (above), please specify the other driver(s) of 
change that are currently of greatest concern regarding water supplies. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

62. To what extent is degraded water quality impacting your state's 
overall water availability? 

Great extent: 2; 
Moderate extent: 17; 
Some extent: 22; 
Little to no extent: 9; 
Total number of respondents: 50. 

63. Is your state currently using, or planning to use in the future, 
alternative sources of water to meet water needs? 

(Examples of alternative sources of water may include saline 
groundwater or reclaimed wastewater, among others.) 

Yes: 29; 
No: 11; 
Uncertain: 9; 
Total number of respondents: 49. 

Respondents who answered no, uncertain, or no response to this 
question skipped to question 65. 

64. If yes, please describe the alternative water source(s) you are 
currently using or plan to use. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

65. Are there particular types of water use (e.g., irrigation, 
thermoelectric power production, etc.) that are of greatest concern 
for your state in terms of impacting water availability for other 
uses? If so, please describe below. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

66. Are there particular types of water use (e.g., irrigation, 
thermoelectric power production, etc.) that would be most vulnerable 
to restricted water availability in your state? If so, please describe 
below. 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

67. If you would like to make additional comments concerning any topic 
related to water availability, management, or use, please feel free to 
use the space below, or, if you would prefer, send an email message: 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Extent of State Water Shortages in 2003 and 2013 
(Corresponds to figure 7): 

This appendix provides additional details on state water shortages, 
including rollover information, on interactive figure 7. Table 4 shows 
whether states expected local, regional, statewide, or no shortages in 
the next 1-10 years under average water conditions, as reported by our 
2003 and 2013 surveys. 

Table 4: Survey Results for Expected Shortages in the Next 1-10 Years 
under Average Water Conditions, 2003 and 2013: 

State: Alabama; 
2003 Survey results: No response or uncertain; 
2013 Survey results: None. 

State: Alaska; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Arizona; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Arkansas; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: California; 
2003 Survey results: No response or uncertain; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Colorado; 
2003 Survey results: Statewide; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Connecticut; 
2003 Survey results: None; 
2013 Survey results: None. 

State: Delaware; 
2003 Survey results: None; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Florida; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Georgia; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: None. 

State: Hawaii; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Idaho; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Illinois; 
2003 Survey results: None; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Indiana; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: No response or uncertain. 

State: Iowa; 
2003 Survey results: None; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Kansas; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Kentucky; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: None. 

State: Louisiana; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Maine; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Maryland; 
2003 Survey results: None; 
2013 Survey results: None. 

State: Massachusetts; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Michigan; 
2003 Survey results: No response or uncertain; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Minnesota; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Mississippi; 
2003 Survey results: None; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Missouri; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Montana; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Statewide. 

State: Nebraska; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Nevada; 
2003 Survey results: No response or uncertain; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: New Hampshire; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: New Jersey; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: New Mexico; 
2003 Survey results: No response or uncertain; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: New York; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: North Carolina; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: North Dakota; 
2003 Survey results: None; 
2013 Survey results: None. 

State: Ohio; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: No response or uncertain. 

State: Oklahoma; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Oregon; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Rhode Island; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: South Carolina; 
2003 Survey results: Statewide; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: South Dakota; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Tennessee; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Texas; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Utah; 
2003 Survey results: None; 
2013 Survey results: None. 

State: Vermont; 
2003 Survey results: None; 
2013 Survey results: None. 

State: Virginia; 
2003 Survey results: Local; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Washington; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: West Virginia; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Local. 

State: Wisconsin; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

State: Wyoming; 
2003 Survey results: Regional; 
2013 Survey results: Regional. 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[End of table] 

Below are the maps of state shortages likely over the next decade 
under average water conditions for 2003 (see figure 10) and 2013 (see 
figure 11). 

Figure 10: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under 
Average Water Conditions, 2003: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

2003: Number of states in each category: 

Shortage category: Statewide: 2: 
Colorado; 
South Carolina. 

Shortage category: Regional: 16: 
Alaska; 
Arkansas; 
Hawaii; 
Idaho; 
Kentucky; 
Minnesota; 
Montana; 
Nebraska; 
New Hampshire; 
Oregon; 
South Dakota; 
Texas; 
West Virginia; 
Washington; 
Wisconsin; 
Wyoming. 

Shortage category: Local: 18: 
Arizona; 
Florida; 
Georgia; 
Indiana; 
Kansas; 
Louisiana; 
Maine; 
Massachusetts; 
Missouri; 
New Jersey; 
New York; 
North Carolina; 
Ohio; 
Oklahoma; 
Pennsylvania; 
Rhode Island; 
Tennessee; 
Virginia. 

Shortage category: None: 9: 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
Illinois; 
Iowa; 
Maryland; 
Mississippi; 
North Dakota; 
Utah; 
Vermont. 

No response or uncertain: 5: 
Alabama; 
California; 
Michigan; 
Nevada; 
New Mexico. 

Sources: GAO analysis of state water managers' responses to GAO 
survey; Map Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

Figure 11: Extent of State Shortages Likely over the Next Decade under 
Average Water Conditions, 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

2013: Number of states in each category: 

Shortage category: Statewide: 1: 
Montana. 

Shortage category: Regional: 24: 
Arkansas; 
California; 
Colorado; 
Delaware; 
Florida; 
Hawaii; 
Idaho; 
Illinois; 
Louisiana; 
Michigan; 
Minnesota; 
Mississippi; 
Nebraska; 
Nevada; 
New Mexico; 
North Carolina; 
Oklahoma; 
Oregon; 
Rhode Island; 
South Dakota; 
Texas; 
Washington; 
Wisconsin; 
Wyoming. 

Shortage category: Local: 15: 
Alaska; 
Arizona; 
Iowa; 
Kansas; 
Maine; 
Massachusetts; 
Missouri; 
New Hampshire; 
New Jersey; 
New York; 
Pennsylvania; 
South Carolina; 
Tennessee; 
Virginia; 
West Virginia. 

Shortage category: None: 8: 
Alabama; 
Connecticut; 
Georgia; 
Kentucky; 
Maryland; 
North Dakota; 
Utah; 
Vermont. 

No response or uncertain: 2: 
Indiana; 
Ohio. 

Sources: GAO analysis of state water managers' responses to GAO 
survey; Map Resources (map). 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Examples of Actions Taken by Federal Agencies Since 2003: 

Over the last decade, federal agencies have initiated or updated a 
number of programs to support the management of freshwater 
availability and use. These programs include (1) initiatives of the 
Department of the Interior (Interior), (2) other federal agency 
initiatives, (3) multiagency initiatives, and (4) federal assessments 
and reports. 

Interior Initiatives: 

Interior has taken a number of actions, some of which were in response 
to the SECURE Water Act, as well as additional actions not related to 
the act (see table 5).[Footnote 102] 

Table 5: Examples of Interior Initiatives Related to Water Resources: 

Program name: National Water Census; 
Description: In 2009,[A] Congress authorized the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) to establish a national water availability and use 
assessment program to provide a more accurate assessment of the status 
of the water resources of the United States, among other things.b 
Through the National Water Census, USGS plans to consistently quantify 
water supply and demand across the entire country; identify and fill 
in gaps in existing data; enhance understanding of the connection 
between water availability and quality; and make the information 
available to users, such as state agencies with water management 
responsibilities, according to an agency document. USGS anticipates 
that information gathered through the National Water Census will allow 
water managers to make more effective decisions; anticipate water 
shortages; and develop plans and make investments to adapt to, 
mitigate the impacts of, and possibly prevent water shortages, among 
other benefits; 
Examples of activities: Currently, USGS is developing plans for and 
conducting the National Water Census in collaboration with other 
federal and nonfederal agencies, universities, and other 
organizations. This collaborative effort is intended to ensure that 
information produced by the National Water Census is compatible with 
other data relevant to water availability--such as population 
statistics, land use, water costs and pricing, and ecosystem water 
requirements--and to allow for aggregation and analysis of the data by 
users, according to an agency document. The long-term objective of the 
National Water Census is to make data available on a monthly basis in 
order to capture seasonal variations that affect water availability 
and use. As part of the National Water Census, USGS is conducting 
Geographic Focus Area Studies to report on issues in different areas 
of the United States where competition over water resources between 
human and ecological needs is already occurring. The geographic areas 
initially selected for study are the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, 
Colorado, and Delaware River Basins. In addition, as part of the 
National Water Census, USGS is developing a means to estimate flows at 
ungaged surface water stations and has developed models used to 
estimate flows for selected basins, according to an agency document. 
To better understand groundwater resources, USGS plans to conduct a 
water availability study on each of the nation's principal aquifers 
and to consolidate all groundwater monitoring information into a 
centralized location using a uniform format. As of October 2013, 
studies of 8 of the nation's 62 principal aquifers have been 
completed, and 5 more are under way. 

Program name: National Groundwater Monitoring Network; 
Description: USGS is spearheading the National Groundwater Monitoring 
Network. According to USGS officials, the network's pilot phase 
successfully demonstrated a collaborative approach to compile 
groundwater level and groundwater quality data from federal, state, 
and local monitoring agencies. The network is intended to provide 
vital groundwater data that can be used to evaluate the status and 
trends of groundwater levels and quality, according to the officials; 
Examples of activities: In June 2011, a portal for the network came 
online, consisting of a map-based tool that provides current and 
historic groundwater levels and groundwater quality. The National 
Groundwater Monitoring Network is awaiting funding to transition from 
the pilot phase to full implementation. 

Program name: WaterSMART grants; 
Description: Interior established the WaterSMART program in February 
2010 to pursue a sustainable water supply for the nation by 
establishing a framework that provides federal leadership and 
assistance for efficiently using water, integrating water and energy 
policies to support the sustainable use of all natural resources, and 
coordinating the water conservation activities of various Interior 
offices.[C] Under WaterSMART, there are several programs that fund a 
variety of freshwater projects through grants to improve the 
efficiency of water delivery, conserve water, develop climate analysis 
tools, and demonstrate advanced water treatment technologies; 
Examples of activities: Under the WaterSMART Water and Energy 
Efficiency Grant program, a total of $21.4 million was awarded for 42 
projects in fiscal year 2013. The projects, for example, install water 
flow meters and convert open ditches to pipes, which can reduce water 
loss due to evaporation and leakage. Since establishment in 2010, 
WaterSMART grants have provided more than $161 million in 
competitively-awarded funding to nonfederal partners, including 
states, tribes, water districts, municipalities, and universities. 

Program name: The Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) climate change 
impact assessments; 
Description: As we reported in November 2013,[D] Reclamation has 
broadly assessed how climate change may affect water resources in the 
western United States as part of the Basin Study Program it 
established to meet the requirements of the SECURE Water Act. It is 
primarily doing so through two programs--West-Wide Climate Risk 
Assessments (WWCRA) and Basin Studies; 
* WWCRAs. These assessments are high-level, baseline assessments of 
the potential impacts of climate change on future water supplies--
including impacts on Reclamation's ability to deliver water and 
hydropower--for each major river basin where Reclamation owns and 
operates water management infrastructure[E]; 
* Basin studies. Reclamation is partnering with nonfederal entities, 
including state and local partners, to conduct more focused 
assessments, known as Basin Studies, to identify specific water 
resource vulnerabilities and to implement the SECURE Water Act's 
requirement that Reclamation consider and develop strategies to 
mitigate climate change impacts on water supplies.[F] Each study 
includes projections of future supply and demand by river basin, 
analyses of how the basin's existing water and power operations and 
infrastructure will perform in response to the projections for future 
supply and demand, and development of options to improve operations 
and infrastructure to supply adequate water in the future; 
and trade-off analyses of the options identified, findings, and 
recommendations as appropriate; 
Examples of activities: 
* WWCRAs. Reclamation is now conducting WWCRAs that focus on future 
water demand and will combine this information with its water supply 
assessments to form a more complete picture of the potential impacts 
of climate change on its water infrastructure. Reclamation officials 
told us that these combined assessments will be included in 
Reclamation's next SECURE Water Act report that is due in 2016; 
* Basin studies. As of January 2014, 5 Basin Studies have been 
completed, and an additional 12 studies have been funded and are under 
way. Some of the Basin Studies cover entire river basins--such as the 
Colorado River Basin--while other studies cover sub-basins or 
tributaries within the boundaries of the major river basins--such as a 
tributary of the Columbia River. Reclamation officials told us that 
they next intend to initiate feasibility studies for adaptation 
strategies identified in completed Basin Studies by making funds 
available to nonfederal partners, beginning with an initial 
feasibility study in 2013. 

Program name: The Water Resource Inventory and Assessment (WRIA); 
Description: Initiated in 2010, WRIA is a multiyear project led by the 
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that collects information on water 
features, water rights, water monitoring, water quality, water-related 
infrastructure, and hydroclimate for FWS refuges and hatcheries. WRIA 
also provides an assessment of threats to the water resources on FWS 
lands; 
Examples of activities: As part of the program, FWS is developing a 
centralized database application to store and retrieve WRIA 
information. According to FWS, the WRIA effort helps FWS more 
effectively manage water resources on federal lands managed by the 
agency by, among other things, providing the agency with an inventory 
and assessment of water quantity and quality necessary to identify 
needs and threats and to prioritize its work. 

Program name: Interim Guidelines for the Operation of Lake Powell and 
Lake Mead; 
Description: In 2007, after an extensive public comment process and 
collaboration with the seven Colorado River Basin states,[G] 
Reclamation released guidelines for the operation of the Lake Powell 
and Lake Mead reservoirs in the Colorado River Basin. The guidelines 
were developed, in part, in response to the multiyear drought dating 
back to 2000 that has continued into 2014. Each year, the Secretary of 
the Interior is required to declare the Colorado River water supply 
availability conditions for the lower basin states as Normal, Surplus, 
or Shortage; 
Examples of activities: While regulations and operations criteria had 
previously been developed for Normal and Surplus conditions, detailed 
guidelines for Shortage conditions had not been established prior to 
developing interim guidelines. According to a Reclamation document, 
the interim guidelines will allow the Secretary, through Reclamation, 
to better manage and operate the basin's key reservoirs while also 
providing water users and managers with a greater degree of certainty 
regarding the amount of annual water deliveries in the future, 
particularly under drought and low reservoir conditions. Barring any 
modification to the guidelines, they will remain in effect through 
2025. 

Program name: USGS Water Science Centers; 
Description: USGS operates 47 Water Science Centers located throughout 
the United States. Through the Water Science Centers, USGS provides 
technical assistance--such as data collection and analyses--and works 
with state and local officials, among other partners, on water 
management activities; 
Examples of activities: Since 2003, the Water Science Centers have 
worked with state, tribal, and local officials on various water 
activities. For example, an agency official told us that the USGS 
Michigan Water Science Center frequently works with state agencies and 
local communities on water supply and quality issues. The official 
told us that the center worked with Kalamazoo County to issue a 2004 
report on the county's water use and management. Moreover, the center 
has also worked with utilities in Eaton, Ingham, and Clinton counties 
to refine an existing groundwater flow model and issue a 2010 report 
about the process. The refined model and associated report have been 
used to aid planning, develop protection areas for wells, and 
interpret observed changes in groundwater quality in the area. 

Program name: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC); 
Description: In FY 2011, Reclamation and FWS established the Desert 
and Southern Rockies LCCs--partnerships between federal and state 
agencies, tribes, universities, nongovernmental organizations, 
international entities, and local governments, formed to develop and 
share applied science tools and approaches that support resource 
management at the landscape scale. These two LCCs span the upper and 
lower Colorado River Basin and together include portions of Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Texas; 
Examples of activities: According to agency officials, Reclamation and 
FWS work with LCC partners to evaluate the science and technical 
capabilities needed to support the Desert and Southern Rockies LCCs. 
These efforts include: (1) building and expanding on existing applied 
science tools and capabilities to identify gaps that can be addressed 
through Interior's Climate Science Centers, universities, and other 
sources; 
(2) providing support for ongoing adaptation and conservation efforts 
in the LCCs, including facilitating data sharing, developing and 
implementing adaptive management techniques and monitoring plans; 
and (3) identifying and implementing potential new adaptation 
strategies to address climate change impacts. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[A] The SECURE Water Act authorized the Water Census in 2009, but USGS 
did not receive the first appropriation until fiscal year 2011. 

[B] USGS initiated the National Water Census to fulfill the reporting 
requirements in section 9508(d) of the SECURE Water Act, which 
requires the Secretary to submit a report to the Congress not later 
than December 31, 2012, and every 5 years thereafter, that provides a 
detailed assessment of the current availability of water resources in 
the United States and significant trends affecting water availability, 
including each documented or projected impact to the availability of 
water as a result of global climate change, among other issues. See 42 
U.S.C. § 10368(d). 

[C] Section 9504 of the SECURE Water Act authorizes the Secretary to 
provide grants or enter into agreements with eligible applicants to 
assist them in planning, designing, or constructing any improvement to 
conserve water, to increase water use efficiency, and to enhance water 
management, including increasing the use of renewable energy in the 
management and delivery of water, among other things. 42 U.S.C. § 
10364(a). 

[D] GAO, Climate Change: Federal Efforts Under Way to Assess Water 
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities and Address Adaptation Challenges, GAO-
14-23 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2013). 

[E] Section 9503(b)(2) of the SECURE Water Act requires the Secretary 
to assess specific risks to water supplies. 42 U.S.C. § 10363(b)(2). 

[F] Section 9503(b)(4) of the SECURE Water Act requires the Secretary 
to, in consultation with appropriate non-federal participants, 
consider and develop appropriate strategies to mitigate each impact of 
water supply changes analyzed. 42 U.S.C. § 10363(b)(4). 

[G] The Colorado River Basin states are divided into lower and upper 
basin states. Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming make up the 
upper basin states, whereas Arizona, California, and Nevada make up 
the lower basin states. 

[End of table] 

Other Federal Agency Initiatives: 

Other federal agencies also have initiated or updated efforts to 
support freshwater management (see table 6). 

Table 6: Examples of Other Federal Agency Initiatives Since 2003 
Related to Water Resources: 

Initiative name: National Integrated Drought Information System 
(NIDIS); 
Description: Established by the Congress in 2006, the Department of 
Commerce's (Commerce) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) administers NIDIS, a program to provide the nation with a 
drought early warning system.[A] According to NOAA officials, the 
primary goals of NIDIS are to improve (1) public awareness of drought 
and its impacts and (2) the coordination and ability of states, 
watersheds, and counties to proactively reduce the risks of drought; 
Examples of activities: One key component of NIDIS is the U.S. Drought 
Portal, a one-stop-shop for drought-related information--such as maps 
and tools--that provides users with information about current drought 
conditions and impacts and projections of the length of drought, which 
can be used to prepare for and mitigate the effects of drought, 
according to agency officials. To accomplish the goals of NIDIS, NOAA 
relies on the participation of agencies and institutions that have 
historically focused on drought risk assessment and response, 
including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of 
Energy (DOE), Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), among others. 

Initiative name: WaterSense; 
Description: Initiated in 2006, WaterSense is a voluntary conservation 
program administered by EPA that works with a variety of stakeholders 
to reduce municipal water use across the country by labeling products 
that use 20 percent less water and perform as well as--or better than--
conventional product models. The program also has specifications to 
label water-efficient new homes and professional services, such as 
irrigation design; 
Examples of activities: Since the program's inception, EPA officials 
told us that they have worked with more than 1,400 partners, including 
manufacturers, retailers, builders, and water utilities, to promote 
water-efficient products and practices. The officials estimate that 
such products have saved more than 487 billion gallons of water, and 
saved $8.9 billion on water and energy bills through 2012. WaterSense 
also works with local partners, such as state and local governments, 
to promote water conservation by providing outreach and educational 
tools that the partners can use to promote water efficiency both 
indoors and outdoors. EPA officials told us that WaterSense has 
several efforts underway to expand its work, including adding products 
and local partners to the program. EPA is also working to involve 
commercial sector entities, such as hotels, in the program by 
promoting best management practices for water users. 

Initiative name: Federal Support Toolbox; 
Description: As we reported in November 2013,[B] the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers (Corps) and NOAA have developed a federal Internet portal 
to provide current, relevant, and high-quality information on water 
resources as well as climate change data applications and tools for 
assessing the vulnerability of water programs and facilities to 
climate change; 
Examples of activities: Referred to as the Federal Support Toolbox, 
this Corps-hosted online data portal allows agencies to share water 
resources information and tools for planning and management and has 
direct links to valuable databases, innovative programs and 
initiatives, and state-of-the-art models and tools. Corps officials 
said that the information-sharing and learning facilitated by the 
website can promote data utilization, support critical water needs 
nationwide and internationally, and foster domestic and international 
partnerships. 

Initiative name: Landsat 8; 
Description: In 2013, NASA launched Landsat 8,[C] a remote sensing 
satellite system that collects image and thermal data used by water 
managers to administer water rights, manage interstate compacts, 
monitor water use for irrigated agriculture, and assess drought 
conditions. Landsats 7 and 8 are operated by the USGS, which downloads 
Landsat data, archives it, and makes all of the 41-year Landsat data 
freely available for all users in the world; 
Examples of activities: USGS and state and local agencies use Landsat 
data in combination with streamflow and other data to estimate 
evapotranspiration across the nation. According to USGS officials, 
evapotranspiration data are not well quantified at spatial and 
temporal scales, but are essential in water resources management in 
improving understanding of climate and land change and in improving 
the ability of resource managers to quantify runoff to reservoirs and 
recharge of aquifers. USGS is developing the capability to provide 
regular evapotranspiration estimates at a 1 kilometer grid scale for 
the continental United States, starting in 2014. Additional regular 
Landsat-based products in development include snow-covered extent and 
burned area extent. 

Initiative name: The Surface Water Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission; 
Description: NASA is working on the SWOT mission, which aims to make 
the first global survey of Earth's surface water and measure how water 
bodies change over time. Officials said this mission will provide 
significant improvements to the knowledge of river, wetlands, and lake 
dynamics. For example, officials told us that data from the satellite 
could be used to estimate changes in water storage in rivers that will 
be helpful in providing data for those areas that do not have 
streamgages in place; 
Examples of activities: NASA is currently planning to launch the SWOT 
mission in 2020. 

Initiative name: Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP); 
Description: NASA is working to launch SMAP, which will provide global 
measurements of soil moisture and its freeze/thaw state. These 
measurements will be used to enhance understanding of processes that 
link the water, energy, and carbon cycles, and to extend the 
capabilities of weather and climate prediction models. SMAP data will 
also improve short-term weather forecasts and long-term climate change 
projections, the ability to monitor droughts and predict floods to 
mitigate the impacts of such events, and predictions of plant growth 
and agricultural productivity, according to agency documents; 
Examples of activities: NASA is currently planning to launch SMAP in 
November 2014. 

Initiative name: Global Precipitation Measurement Core Observatory; 
Description: The Global Precipitation Measurement Core Observatory is 
a joint earth-observing mission between NASA and the Japan Aerospace 
Exploration Agency to provide next-generation global rain and snow 
observations every 3 hours. According to agency officials, the data 
provided will be used to unify precipitation measurements made by an 
international network of partner satellites to quantify when, where, 
and how much it rains or snows around the world; 
Examples of activities: The mission was launched on February 27, 2014. 
GPM is performing checkout activities and internal calibrations in 
preparation for full operations, according to officials. 

Initiative name: DOE Energy-Water Nexus Program; 
Description: As we reported in September 2012,[D] the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 directed DOE to carry out a program to address the energy-
water nexus and assess the effectiveness of existing DOE and other 
federal programs that address the nexus.e Our report found, however, 
that DOE had not established the program; therefore, we recommended 
that DOE implement the program as called for in the act; 
Examples of activities: In response to our recommendation, DOE 
officials told us in January 2014 that DOE is currently scoping 
program activity and drafting a program plan. DOE also told us that 
the agency has been strengthening its relationships with other 
agencies on topics related to the energy-water nexus. In addition, 
over the last decade, DOE and its national laboratories have issued a 
number of reports on various aspects of the energy-water nexus, such 
as DOE's 2006 report to the Congress that discussed the use of water 
in thermoelectric, biofuel, and renewable energy production. 

Initiative name: Minute 319; 
Description: In November 2012, officials from the United States and 
Mexico signed Minute 319,[F] an agreement that provides for 
cooperation between the two countries regarding water management 
operations within the Colorado River Basin.g Key components of the 
agreement include a shared surplus provision, whereby Mexico has the 
right to share surplus waters from Nevada's Lake Mead; a shared 
shortage provision, whereby Mexico would accept cuts to its annual 
allocation under certain low reservoir level conditions; and the 
Intentionally Created Mexican Allocation, whereby Mexico may store 
water in the United States until Mexico determines that it needs to 
withdraw the water. In addition, the agreement identified conservation 
incentives and put into place environmental restoration measures, 
which specify that a certain quantity of water reach the southernmost 
end of the Colorado River to support ecological processes that depend 
on the river's flow; 
Examples of activities: Minute 319 is currently in its second year of 
a 5-year interim period, which U.S. officials said is intended to test 
whether such proactive reservoir management works, and whether a more 
permanent approach is warranted. 

Initiative name: Forests to Faucets Project; 
Description: The Forest Service's Forests to Faucets Project 
identifies land areas that are most important to public water supplies 
and threatened, for example, by wildland fire impacts or development. 
According to an agency document, a partnership project can be used to 
protect public surface drinking water quality and to educate the 
public about the link between forests and the provision of surface 
drinking water--a key watershed-based ecosystem service; 
Examples of activities: The Forest Service has initiated a number of 
partnerships since 2003. For example, the Forest Service and Denver 
Water, the public water utility for the city of Denver and many 
surrounding suburbs, initiated a partnership in August 2010. This 
partnership was intended to improve the health and resiliency of 
forests and watersheds in areas critical for providing water to the 
city and county of Denver. According to the Forest Service, under the 
program, forest restoration efforts will help protect water resources 
for Denver's residents as well as millions of downstream 
beneficiaries, including businesses and agriculture. The restoration 
efforts will also help the forests become more resistant to future 
insect and disease epidemics, reduce wildfire risks for communities, 
and improve habitat for fish and wildlife. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[A] NIDIS was established under the National Integrated Drought 
Information System Act of 2006. Pub. L. No. 109-430, § 3, 120 Stat. 
2918, 2918 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 313d). 

[B] GAO-14-23. 

[C] Landsat 8 was launched in February of 2013 by NASA, but USGS will 
manage the satellite's operations and data. 

[D] GAO-12-880. 

[E] Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 979, 119 Stat. 594, 905 (codified at 42 
U.S.C. § 16319). 

[F] The agreement is officially titled the Interim International 
Cooperative Measures in the Colorado River Basin through 2017 and 
Extension of Minute 318 Cooperative Measures to Address the Continued 
Effects of the April 2010 Earthquake in the Mexicali Valley, Baja 
California, but it is often referred to as Minute 319. The agreement 
was administered by the International Boundary and Water Commission 
(IBWC), an international body with responsibility for applying the 
boundary and water treaties between the United States and Mexico and 
settling differences that may arise in their application. IBWC has a 
U.S. Section and a Mexico Section, which are administered 
independently of each other. According to an IBWC official, the U.S. 
Section of IBWC is a stand-alone federal agency, but it receives 
funding from Title I of the Department of State's Foreign Operations 
budget. 

[G] Minute 319 only covers surface water; it does not include 
groundwater. 

[End of table] 

Multiagency Initiatives: 

Over the last decade, a number of efforts involving multiple federal 
agencies have been initiated to address freshwater availability and 
use (see table 7). 

Table 7: Examples of Multiagency Initiatives Since 2003 Related to 
Water Resources: 

Initiative name: Integrated Water Resources Sciences and Services 
(IWRSS); 
Description: Formalized in 2011, IWRSS is a multiagency federal 
initiative between NOAA, USGS, and the Corps to collaboratively 
support water-related planning and preparedness and response 
activities through a national water resources information system; 
Examples of activities: According to USGS officials, recent 
accomplishments of IWRSS include holding four river basin stakeholder 
meetings to inform stakeholders about IWRSS activities, identify 
information gaps that IWRSS could potentially fill, and discuss pilot 
projects. Additional meetings are scheduled for 2014 for the Ohio and 
Russian River Basins. In addition, under the initiative, officials 
have established requirements for producing, sharing and disseminating 
flood inundation maps, and they made improvements to water-related 
models that will, for example, allow weather forecasts and groundwater 
pumping information to be integrated into a flow-forecasting model 
when completed. 

Initiative name: Western States Federal Agency Support Team (WestFAST); 
Description: Established in 2008, WestFAST is a collaboration of 12 
federal agencies, states, and other stakeholders formed to address 
water issues in western states.[A] WestFAST was established to support 
the Western States Water Council and the Western Governors' 
Association in coordinating federal water resource efforts in areas 
such as water availability, water use, and climate change; 
Examples of activities: Currently, WestFAST, in collaboration with the 
Western States Water Council, Western Governors' Association, and DOE 
and its national laboratories, has created a water data exchange to 
serve as a repository for water data maintained by states and federal 
agencies, according to federal officials. 

Initiative name: Western Watershed Enhancement Partnership; 
Description: In July 2013, Interior and USDA established a partnership 
to work with local water users in identifying and mitigating risks to 
water supplies and hydroelectric facilities from wildfire in western 
states. Flows of sediment, debris, and ash into streams and rivers 
after wildfires can impair water quality and often require millions of 
dollars to repair damage to habitat, reservoirs, and facilities. The 
partnership aims to restore forests and watersheds and to proactively 
plan for post-wildfire actions to protect municipal and agricultural 
water supplies, according to an agency document; 
Examples of activities: Six pilot projects are currently under 
development as part of the partnership, according to Reclamation 
officials. 

Initiative name: National Drought Resilience Partnership; 
Description: In response to a November 2013 Executive Order directing 
federal agencies to prepare the United States for the impacts of 
climate change,[B] a USDA and NOAA-led partnership focused on drought 
resilience was created. The partnership, which also includes 
participation from Interior, EPA, the Corps, DOE, and the Department 
of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency, will focus 
on increasing the amount of available drought information, building a 
national soil moisture monitoring network to help improve drought 
forecasting, and initiating a pilot drought resilience plan in western 
states; 
Examples of activities: Through the partnership, participating 
agencies plan to create a Web-based system to increase access to 
federal drought resources, host more regional forums to distribute 
drought information, and create a single federal point of contact for 
drought information for the public, according to an agency document. 

Initiative name: Joint Reclamation-USDA's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS) Agricultural Conservation Projects; 
Description: In 2011, Reclamation and NRCS began a new partnership to 
leverage funding for water delivery agencies and agricultural 
producers in California. The joint effort is in response to the 2009 
Interim Federal Action Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta. Through a competitive process, Reclamation makes 
funding available to irrigation districts so that improvements that 
save water or improve water management can be made in the systems that 
deliver water to farmers. NRCS, in turn, provides funding to farmers 
who receive water from those districts so that on-farm conservation 
improvements can also be made throughout those districts; 
Examples of activities: Funding for the partnership has been made 
available each year since 2011. Reclamation and NRCS are extending 
that partnership beyond California to other western states. Applicants 
for Reclamation's WaterSMART Grants receive additional funding 
consideration if proposals would result in water delivery improvements 
that also facilitate future on-farm improvements that could be funded 
through NRCS programs. In February 2014, Reclamation and NRCS 
announced that they will provide up to $14 million in FY 2014 funding 
for water districts and associated growers to conserve water and 
improve water management in California. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[A] The 12 federal agencies participating in WestFAST are Interior's 
Bureau of Land Management, the Corps, the Department of Defense, DOE, 
EPA, NASA, NOAA, NRCS, Reclamation, FWS, Forest Service, and USGS. 

[B] Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, 
Exec. Order No. 13,653, 78 Fed. Reg. 66,819 (Nov. 1, 2013). 

[End of table] 

Federal Assessments and Reports: 

Since 2003, federal agencies have issued numerous assessments and 
reports on various aspects of freshwater availability and use (see 
table 8). 

Table 8: Examples of Federal Assessments and Reports Developed Since 
2003 Related to Water Resources: 

Report name: Estimated use reports; 
Description: Every 5 years since 1950, USGS has published reports that 
include estimates of water withdrawals broken down by state; source of 
water such as fresh or saline; and category of use such as 
thermoelectric power, irrigation, or public supply. The most recent 
report, presenting 2005 water use data, was published in 2009, and 
USGS officials said they expect that the next report presenting 2010 
data will be issued in 2014. 

Report name: Farm and Ranch Irrigation Surveys; 
Description: USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service conducts 
an irrigation survey every 5 years, as authorized by the Census of 
Agriculture Act of 1997.[A] The report includes information on 
estimated quantities of water applied to irrigated land, the number of 
irrigation wells on farms, and barriers to making water conservation 
and energy reduction improvements, among other information. The 
National Agricultural Statistics Service published a report presenting 
2008 results in November 2009 and plans to release results of the 2013 
irrigation survey in October 2014. 

Report name: 2010 Resources Planning Act assessments; 
Description: The Forest Service prepares an assessment of renewable 
natural resources, including water resources, every 10 years, as 
required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 
of 1974.[B] The most recent report for 2010 was published in 2012, and 
it includes information on the relationship between water resources 
and climate change and increased competition between water users, 
among other topics. Forest Service officials said that research for a 
mid-cycle update is in progress with an anticipated 2015 release, and 
they are beginning to examine options, such as working with other 
agencies on developing scenarios, for the 2020 assessment. 

Report name: The Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality 
reports; 
Description: In November 2004, the Subcommittee on Water Availability 
and Quality issued a report outlining the need for coordinated science 
and technology efforts to better understand water supply and demand in 
the United States.[C] In addition, the directors of the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget 
issued a joint memorandum requesting federal agencies, through the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy's National Science and 
Technology Council, to develop a coordinated, multiyear plan to 
improve research on processes affecting water availability and 
quality. In response to the memorandum, the subcommittee issued a 
second report in September 2007 that identified areas for future 
emphasis by federal water science and technology programs.d The report 
focused on topics that would benefit from increased collaboration 
between agencies and with other stakeholders, such as private entities 
and tribes. 

Report name: The Importance of Water to the U.S. Economy synthesis 
report; 
Description: In November 2013, EPA issued a synthesis report 
highlighting the findings of its study on the importance of water to 
the U.S. economy. The report identified key water data gaps and 
described the implications of the study's findings for future 
research. EPA officials said that while they do not have any concrete 
next steps to meet the needs highlighted in the report, they are 
hoping the report will be a catalyst for more discussion and work on 
the issues identified in the report. 

Report name: Watershed Condition Framework; 
Description: The Forest Service's Watershed Condition Framework is an 
approach for implementing integrated restoration on priority 
watersheds on national forests and grasslands. According to agency 
documents, the framework will help focus agency efforts in a 
consistent and accountable manner and facilitate new investments in 
watershed restoration that will provide economic and environmental 
benefits to local communities. The agency also produced a technical 
guide that provided the protocol for the agency's first national 
assessment of watershed condition across all 193 million acres of 
National Forest System lands. 

Report name: National Action Plan - Freshwater Resources; 
Description: In October 2011, the Interagency Climate Change 
Adaptation Task Force issued National Action Plan: Priorities for 
Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate. According to the 
plan, the Task Force used the latest science on climate risks to 
freshwater resources to establish a national goal for government 
agencies and citizens to collaboratively manage freshwater resources 
in response to a changing climate to ensure adequate water supplies; 
to safeguard human life, health, and property; and to protect water 
quality and aquatic ecosystems. To accomplish the goal, the plan made 
six recommendations, including establishing a planning process to 
adapt water resources management to a changing climate, improving 
water resources and climate change information for decision-making, 
and expanding water use efficiency. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

[A] Pub. L. No. 105-113, § 2, 111 Stat. 2274, 2274 (1997) (codified as 
amended at 7 U.S.C. § 2204g). 

[B] Pub. L. No. 93-378, 88 Stat. 476 (1974) (codified as amended at 16 
U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614). 

[C] National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment 
and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, 
Science and Technology to Support Fresh Water Availability in the 
United States (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2004). 

[D] National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment 
and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, 
A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water 
Availability and Quality in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
4, 2007). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Elizabeth Erdmann, 
Assistant Director; Eric Charles; Melinda Cordero; E.E. Eischen; 
Kirsten B. Lauber; Patricia Moye; Dan C. Royer; Rebecca Shea; Lisa 
Vojta; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report. 
Antoinette Capaccio, Nirmal Chaudhary, Ellen W. Chu, John Delicath, 
Mehrzad Nadji, Carol Patey, and Stephen Sanford provided additional 
technical assistance. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Nationwide drought data are reported weekly by the U.S. Drought 
Monitor, which is produced in partnership between the National Drought 
Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Commerce's 
(Commerce) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In 
addition, the U.S. Drought Monitor uses the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration's (NASA) remote sensing data to develop these 
weekly reports. 

[2] The Corps has Military and Civil Works programs. The Military 
program provides, among other things, engineering and construction 
services to other U.S. government agencies and foreign governments, 
and the Civil Works program plans and manages water for 
transportation, recreation, energy, wildlife habitat, aquatic 
ecosystems, and water supply, among other things. This report only 
discusses the Civil Works program. 

[3] GAO, Freshwater Supply: States' Views of How Federal Agencies 
Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Shortages, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-514] (Washington, D.C.: July 9, 
2003). 

[4] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. 

[5] See e.g., Utah v. Marsh, 740 F.2d 799, 803 (10th Cir. 1984); 
United States v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204, 1210 (7th Cir. 1979). 

[6] United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. 690, 
703 (1899). 

[7] U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. 

[8] Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U.S. at 703. 

[9] 43 U.S.C. § 383; see California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 
(1978). 

[10] The Water Supply Act of 1958 states that it is 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 the construction, 
maintenance, and operation of federal navigation, flood control, 
irrigation, or multiple purpose projects. 43 U.S.C. § 390b. The Clean 
Water Act states that it is the policy of the Congress that the 
authority of each state to allocate quantities of water within its 
jurisdiction shall not be superseded, abrogated, or otherwise impaired 
by the act, and that federal agencies shall cooperate with state and 
local agencies to develop comprehensive pollution solutions in concert 
with programs for managing water resources. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(g). The 
Endangered Species Act states that it is the policy of the Congress 
that federal agencies cooperate with state and local agencies to 
resolve water resource issues in concert with conservation of 
endangered species. 16 U.S.C. § 1531(c)(2). 

[11] Other approaches can include no regulation of water allocation by 
the state. 

[12] USGS's National Streamflow Information Program defines a 
streamgage as an active, continuously functioning device placed in a 
river or stream to measure water levels to aid in the estimation of 
mean daily streamflow throughout the year. 

[13] Geostationary satellites have been used by the United States 
since the 1970s to provide meteorological data for weather 
observation, research, and forecasting. 

[14] Evapotranspiration is water lost through evaporation from the 
soil and plants. 

[15] GRACE's mission has been extended past its 5-year mission life, 
and NASA officials expect that it will remain in operation until at 
least 2015. A follow-on mission, GRACE-FO, is scheduled for a 2017 
launch. 

[16] Pub. L. No. 110-342, 122 Stat. 3739 (2008). 

[17] Id. 

[18] See Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, 45 Stat. 1057 (1928). The 
U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Secretary of the Interior's authority to 
carry out the allocation of the waters of the Colorado River, within 
the bounds of the act, in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963). 

[19] Treaty Relating to the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and 
Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, U.S.-Mex., Feb. 3, 1944, 59 
Stat. 1219. 

[20] 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 nonfederal hydropower projects. 

[21] An acre-foot of water is the volume of water required to cover 1 
acre of land to a depth of 1 foot. An acre-foot is equivalent to 
approximately 326,000 gallons. 

[22] Interior officials told us that the Bureau of Land Management's 
offices collect data on these rights, but the data were not 
consolidated at its state offices and, therefore, were not able to be 
readily provided to officials in headquarters. 

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

[24] 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387. 

[25] 33 U.S.C. § 1344. 

[26] 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544. 

[27] FWS is responsible for administering the act for land and 
freshwater species, and NMFS is responsible for marine species, 
including Pacific salmon, which spend part of their life spans in 
freshwater. 

[28] 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). 

[29] J.F. Kenny, N.L. Barber, S.S. Hutson, K.S. Linsey, J.K. Lovelace, 
and M.A. Maupin, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005, 
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344 (2009). 

[30] Pub. L. No. 89-80, 79 Stat. 244 (1965). Although the act has not 
been repealed, the council has not been funded since fiscal year 1983. 

[31] This subcommittee is made up of 25 federal agencies that 
collectively are responsible for all aspects of federal water research 
and water resource management. It is under the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy's National Science and Technology Council. 

[32] One such effort is the National Water Census, a USGS-led research 
program designed to comprehensively assess water availability and use 
across the nation. 

[33] Freshwater can be withdrawn or consumed by users. Freshwater 
withdrawal refers to water removed from the ground or diverted from a 
surface water source, such as a river or lake. Freshwater consumption 
refers to the portion of the water withdrawn that is no longer 
available to be returned to the water source, such as when it has 
evaporated. For the purposes of this report, we distinguish between 
withdrawal and consumption, when necessary. 

[34] Kenny et al., Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005. 

[35] The 2005 data are USGS's most current estimated use data; USGS 
has not yet released data for 2010. 

[36] GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: Improvements to Federal Water Use Data 
Would Increase Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-23] (Washington, D.C.: 
Oct. 16, 2009). 

[37] Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, eds. 
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (New York, NY: 
Cambridge University Press, 2009). This document, referred to as the 
2009 National Climate Assessment, is a publication of the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program. The program coordinates and integrates the 
activities of 13 federal agencies that conduct research on changes in 
the global environment and their implications for society. During our 
review, the 2009 National Climate Assessment was in the process of 
being updated, as the Global Change Research Act of 1990 requires that 
a scientific assessment be provided to the President and the Congress 
not less frequently than every 4 years. Pub. L. No. 101-606, § 106, 
104 Stat. 3096, 3101 (1990) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2936). On May 6, 
2014, the administration released the third U.S. National Climate 
Assessment. 

[38] The U.S. Drought Monitor uses five categories to classify drought 
severity. The categories, ranging from least to most severe, are 
abnormally dry, moderate drought, severe drought, extreme drought, and 
exceptional drought. 

[39] UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling, Water Storage Changes in 
California's Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins from GRACE: 
Preliminary Updated Results for 2003-2013, Water for California, Feb. 
3, 2014, [hyperlink, http://www.ucchm.org/publications/]. 

[40] GAO, Climate Change: Various Adaptation Efforts Are Under Way at 
Key Natural Resource Management Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-253] (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 
2013). 

[41] The basin is located in the southeastern United States and flows 
through the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. 

[42] Pub. L. No. 105-104, 111 Stat. 2219 (1997). 

[43] P.M. Barlow and S.A. Leake, Streamflow depletion by wells--
Understanding and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on 
streamflow, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1376 (2012). 

[44] 2004 Neb. Laws, L.B. 962 (codified as amended at Neb. Rev. Stat. 
§§ 46-701--753 (Cum. Supp. 2004)). 

[45] In general, a reach is a section of a river. 

[46] In Nebraska, DNR regulates surface water and some aspects of 
groundwater, and 23 Natural Resource Districts regulate groundwater 
within their respective jurisdictions. 

[47] Barlow and Leake, Streamflow depletion by wells. 

[48] GAO, Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, 
and Environmental and Public Health Risks, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-732] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 
2012). 

[49] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-732]. 

[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-732]. 

[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-23]; GAO, Energy-
Water Nexus: Many Uncertainties Remain about National and Regional 
Effects of Increased Biofuel Production on Water Resources, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-116] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 30, 2009); GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: Amount of Energy Needed to 
Supply, Use, and Treat Water Is Location-Specific and Can Be Reduced 
by Certain Technologies and Approaches, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-225] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 
2011); GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: A Better and Coordinated Understanding 
of Water Resources Could Help Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil 
Shale Development, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-35] 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2010); GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: 
Information on the Quantity, Quality, and Management of Water Produced 
during Oil and Gas Production, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-156] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9, 
2012); and GAO, Energy-Water Nexus: Coordinated Federal Approach 
Needed to Better Manage Energy and Water Tradeoffs, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-880] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 
2012). 

[52] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-116]. 

[53] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Future Of 
America's Forests and Rangelands: Forest Service 2010 Resources 
Planning Act Assessment, Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-87 (Washington, D.C.: 
August 2012). 

[54] T.C. Brown, R. Foti, and J.A. Ramirez, Projected Freshwater 
Withdrawals in the United States Under a Changing Climate, Water 
Resources Research 49 (2013). 

[55] Mark Cowell and Michael A. Urban,The Changing Geography of the 
U.S. Water Budget: Twentieth-Century Patterns and Twenty-First-Century 
Projections, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100, 
no. 4 (2010). 

[56] Karl et al., Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

[57] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-880]. 

[58] Solar photovoltaic panels and wind turbines use small amounts of 
water for panel and blade washing, respectively. However, 
concentrating solar power plants that use wet cooling could 
significantly increase water demand, consuming up to twice as much 
water per unit of electricity produced as traditional fossil fuel 
power plants. 

[59] Brown et al., Projected Freshwater Withdrawals. 

[60] Global climate models are numerical models representing physical 
processes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and land surface. They 
are the most advanced tools currently available for simulating the 
response of the global climate system to increasing greenhouse gas 
concentrations. Federal Interagency Panel on Climate Change and Water 
Data and Information, Report to Congress--Strengthening the scientific 
understanding of climate change impacts on freshwater resources of the 
United States (August 2011). 

[61] Karl et al., Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

[62] Carbon dioxide also makes some plants more water-use efficient, 
meaning they produce more plant material, such as grain, on less 
water. Karl et al., Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 
States. J. Hatfield, K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B.A. 
Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, and D. 
Wolfe, 2008: Agriculture. In: The Effects of Climate Change on 
Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the 
United States [P. Backlund, A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. 
Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B.A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. 
Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M.G. Ryan, S.R. 
Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. 
Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. 
Lettenmaier, D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B.P. 
Kelly, L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, and R. Shaw (eds.)]. Synthesis and 
Assessment Product 4.3, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington, 
D.C.: 2008). 

[63] L.D. Brekke, J.E. Kiang, J.R. Olsen, R.S. Pulwarty, D.A. Raff, 
D.P. Turnipseed, R.S. Webb, and K.D. White, Climate change and water 
resources management--A federal perspective, U.S. Geological Survey 
Circular 1331 (2009). 

[64] A 1,000 year flood refers to the return period of a given flood, 
or the average number of years between floods of a certain size. The 
actual number of years between floods of any given size varies a lot 
because of the naturally changing climate. 

[65] AWRA is a nonprofit professional association for professionals 
working in water resources management, research, and education. 
American Water Resources Association, Policy Committee, Proactive 
Flood and Drought Management: A Selection of Applied Strategies & 
Lessons Learned from around the United States (Middleburg, VA, 2013). 

[66] A report card grade of a D means that the infrastructure is in 
poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements 
approaching the end of their service life. Specifically, wastewater, 
drinking water, and dam infrastructure all received D grades, while 
levees and inland waterways received D-grades. American Society of 
Civil Engineers, 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure (2013). 

[67] For the purposes of this survey, EPA only includes projects 
eligible for, but not necessarily financed by, Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund monies. The fund is designed to supplement, not 
replace, investment funding by states and localities, as well as rate 
payers. Projects eligible for funding include the installation of new 
infrastructure and the rehabilitation, expansion, or replacement of 
existing infrastructure. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking 
Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fifth Report to 
Congress, EPA 816-R-13-006 (Washington, D.C.: April 2013) 

[68] The American Water Works Association is a scientific and 
educational association focused on water management and treatment 
issues. American Water Works Association, Buried No Longer: 
Confronting America's Water Infrastructure Challenge, 2012, 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.awwa.org/portals/0/files/legreg/documents/buriednolonger.pdf]

[69] We have also previously found that many drinking water and 
wastewater utilities do not cover the full cost of service--including 
needed capital investments and operation and maintenance costs--
through their user charges. GAO, Water Infrastructure: Comprehensive 
Asset Management Has Potential to Help Utilities Better Identify Needs 
and Plan Future Investments, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-461] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 
2004). 

[70] We did not ask state water managers whether they had such plans 
in our 2003 survey. 

[71] CWCB is an agency whose mission is to conserve, develop, protect, 
and manage Colorado's water for present and future generations. The 
board's responsibilities include protecting the state's streams and 
lakes, water conservation, drought and water supply planning, and 
protecting the state's water apportionments, among others. 

[72] 2005 Colo. Sess. Laws ch. 314 (codified as amended at Colo. Rev. 
Stat. §§ 37-75-101-107). 

[73] The Nature Conservancy is an environmental nonprofit organization 
working to protect ecologically important lands and water around the 
world. 

[74] 2009 Cal. Stat., S.B. 7 (codified in scattered sections of div. 6 
of the Cal. Water Code). 

[75] Cal. Water Code § 10608.16. 

[76] Cal. Water Code § 10820(a). The legislation defines an 
agricultural water supplier as a water supplier, either publicly or 
privately owned, providing water to 10,000 or more irrigated acres, 
excluding recycled water, and includes a supplier or contractor for 
water, regardless of the basis of right, that distributes or sells 
water for ultimate resale to customers. Cal. Water Code §§ 10812, 
10608.12(a). 

[77] Water transfers are voluntary agreements that result in a 
temporary or permanent change in the type, time, or place of use of 
water and/or a water right. Interbasin transfers are transfers of 
surface or groundwater between water basins. 

[78] Western Governors' Association and Western States Water Council, 
Water Transfers in the West: Projects, Trends, and Leading Practices 
in Voluntary Water Trading (December 2012).The report cautioned that 
the data illustrate general trends in water transfers, and the numbers 
represent the minimum number of transfers that have occurred as the 
data do not include all transfers. The Western Governors' Association 
is an independent, nonpartisan organization of governors from 19 
western states, 2 Pacific-flag territories, and 1 commonwealth, that 
addresses policy and governance in natural resources, the environment, 
human services, economic development, international relations, 
transportation, and public management. The Western States Water 
Council is an organization consisting of representatives appointed by 
18 western governors and works closely with the Western Governors' 
Association on water issues of concern to the governors. 

[79] Interruptible supply agreements are temporary arrangements in 
which water available under a particular water right is transferred 
for a specified time for use in another location while use is 
suspended by the owner of this water right at the original location. 

[80] Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, 
Exec. Order No. 13,653, 78 Fed. Reg. 66,819 (Nov. 1, 2013). 

[81] National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment 
and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, 
Science and Technology to Support Fresh Water Availability in the 
United States (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2004). National Science and 
Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, 
Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, A Strategy for Federal 
Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in 
the United States (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4, 2007). 

[82] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-880] and GAO, High-
Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2013). 

[83] Federal Interagency Panel on Climate Change and Water Data and 
Information, Report to Congress--Strengthening the scientific 
understanding of climate change impacts on freshwater resources of the 
United States. 

[84] GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could 
Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-113] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 
2009). 

[85] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283]. 

[86] The Advisory Committee on Water Information is a working group 
composed of various member organizations, including federal agencies, 
nongovernmental organizations, industry, and states. According to 
organization documents, the committee works to improve water 
information for decision making about the management of natural 
resources and environmental protection. 

[87] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-23]. 

[88] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-880]. 

[89] Pub. L. No. 111-11, tit. IX, subtit. F, 123 Stat. 991, 1329 
(2009) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 10361-10370). 

[90] The first appropriation for the National Water Census was $4 
million in fiscal year 2011. 

[91] Questions 1-12 asked about water management in each state. Some 
questions asked about water availability and/or water withdrawal. 
Water availability refers to the total quantity of water available in 
streams, rivers, snowpacks, and groundwater basins, including 
reclaimed water. Water withdrawal refers to the quantity of surface 
water diverted or groundwater withdrawn for use. 

[92] For questions 4, 5, 6, and 7, respondents were instructed to use 
the last 10-20 years to determine average water conditions for their 
state. In addition, drought refers to a deficiency of precipitation, 
including snow, over several consecutive years. 

[93] This question is a simplified version of the questions asked to 
respondents in our survey because respondents received different 
versions of this question depending on whether and how they responded 
to our 2003 survey. 

[94] This question is a simplified version of the questions asked to 
respondents in our survey because respondents received different 
versions of this question depending on whether and how they responded 
to our 2003 survey. 

[95] For questions 13-22, federal agencies refers to all federal 
entities that provide data to your state, including, for example, 
agencies, offices, and commissions. 

[96] Ecosystem services refer to natural processes that benefit human 
populations by, for example, purifying water and cycling and 
dispersing nutrients. 

[97] Ecological flows refer to the maintenance of water levels and 
volumes to support robust animal, plant, and microbial populations in 
water bodies. 

[98] Questions 23-36 asked about the infrastructure for storage and 
conveyance of raw (untreated) water. Respondents were instructed to 
exclude infrastructure related to the treatment or delivery of treated 
water, wastewater treatment, desalination or infrastructure with the 
sole purpose of flood-control. 

[99] Questions 37-40 asked about federal laws concerning the 
environment and how these laws may affect the ability of your state to 
develop, manage, use, and protect its water. Instream use is defined 
by the U.S. Geological Survey as water that is used, but not 
withdrawn, from a surface water source for such purposes as 
hydroelectric power generation, navigation, water quality improvement, 
fish propagation, and recreation. Instream water use estimates for 
hydroelectric power were included in some previous water use circulars 
but were omitted for 2000 to present. Offstream use is defined by USGS 
as water withdrawn or diverted from a groundwater or surface water 
source for aquaculture, commercial, domestic self supply, industrial, 
irrigation, livestock, mining, public supply, thermoelectric power, 
and other uses. 

[100] Questions 41-47 asked about interstate compacts and 
international treaties and the effects they have on your state's 
ability to manage its water supplies. For purposes of this 
questionnaire, an interstate compact or international treaty is an 
agreement to distribute water among multiple parties (such as states) 
that has been ratified by the U.S. Congress or issued by a federal 
court. 

[101] Questions 48-60 asked about the role of federal agencies in the 
implementation and enforcement of federal and tribal rights to water. 
Federal agencies refers to all federal entities that manage lands with 
reserved water rights. 

[102] Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-11, 
tit. IX, subtit. F, 123 Stat. 991, 1329 (2009) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 
§§ 10361-10370). The SECURE Water Act noted that, although states bear 
the primary responsibility and authority for managing water resources 
in the United States, the federal government should support states, as 
well as regional, local, and tribal governments by carrying out a 
number of actions, including nationwide data collection and 
monitoring, research, and taking a lead role in assessing risks to 
water resources, among other actions. 42 U.S.C. § 10361. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability 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 GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]