The Title XVI Water Reuse Program: Implementation and Legislative Issues

CRS Report for Congress
The Title XVI Water Reuse Program:
Implementation and Legislative Issues
October 27, 2006
Betsy A. Cody
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science and Industry Division
Nicole T. Carter
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The Title XVI Water Reuse Program:
Implementation and Legislative Issues
Congress authorized the Department of the Interior (DOI) to undertake a
program to provide limited federal financing for water reuse (i.e., planned beneficial
use of treated wastewater and impaired surface and groundwaters) in Title XVI of
P.L. 102-575 — the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Studies Feasibility
Act of 1992. Title XVI’s implementation by DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation has been
contentious; many Members of Congress, particularly from water-scarce western
states, support both the program and specific projects, but are frustrated by growing
backlogs of projects seeking authorization or awaiting appropriations.
The Bush Administration has generally opposed authorizing additional projects,
citing the backlogs and noting that the projects proposed for authorization generally
do not meet Reclamation’s requirements for a feasibility study. At the same time, the
Administration’s requests for appropriations for Title XVI have been relatively
consistent for several years, with the FY2007 request at $10.1 million, albeit nearly
half of what Congress has appropriated in recent years. The resulting inertia in
implementation has raised congressional interest in possible changes to the program.
Options discussed range from clarifying the program’s criteria (e.g., focus on areas
of most need), to changing the way projects are evaluated (e.g., replacing the
requirement for a Reclamation feasibility study with an evaluation of technical and
financial viability), to expanding and prioritizing Title XVI appropriations.
Views on how to proceed vary based on perspectives of the proper role of the
federal government in water supply, the appropriate priority for the program in the
current fiscal environment, the history and mission of the program, and the urgency
and need for investment and promotion of water reuse technologies. Title XVI’s
genesis includes helping Southern California reduce its reliance on Colorado River
water. As authorizations for projects in other areas and with other purposes were
added, the justification for federal involvement in these projects, which expand
municipal water supply, and the long-term goals and planning for the program came
under increasing scrutiny, particularly by the Administration. At the same time, the
program was increasingly pursued by project sponsors as a route for federal
assistance, which was then leveraged for additional support and financing. Several
project sponsors have directly pursued congressional authorization outside the Title
XVI feasibility study process. It is not clear if this is due to the Administration’s
resistance to pursue Title XVI projects, or due to a combination of other factors.
In the face of decreasing support from the Administration and mounting
dissatisfaction of project sponsors, the 109th Congress has engaged in oversight of the
program and authorized only a limited set of additional Title XVI projects. The issue
for Congress is whether and how to change the program. The challenge for Congress
is that stakeholders’ perspectives on how to improve the program are fundamentally
different. Project sponsors generally prefer a more streamlined project development
process and expanded program appropriations, while the Administration supports a
smaller, more focused program with long-term objectives tied to federal interests.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

In troduction ......................................................1
Title XVI Overview................................................2
Program Establishment.........................................2
Federal Reuse Activities....................................4
Status of the Title XVI Program and Projects........................5
Authorizations ............................................5
Program and Project Funding................................6
Project Status and Characteristics.............................6
Program Performance Evaluation.............................8
Title XVI Issues for Congress........................................8
Broad Policy Issues............................................9
Implementation Issues.........................................10
Program Criteria..........................................10
Project Evaluation and Authorization.........................11
Project Funding Issues.....................................11
Where to Go from Here?...........................................12
Legislative Considerations..........................................13
Overview of Legislative Options.................................13
Conclusion ......................................................15
Appendix: Title XVI Projects.......................................16
Active Projects...........................................16
Inactive Projects..........................................16
Title XVI Federal Contribution..............................17
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location of Title XVI Projects Relative to
Areas of Potential Water Conflict.................................7
List of Tables
Table 1. Title XVI Projects by State: Federal Authorization, Funding,
and Quantity of Reclaimed Water................................18

The Title XVI Water Reuse Program:
Implementation and Legislative Issues
Growing populations and changing values have increased demands on water
supplies and river systems, resulting in water use and management conflicts
throughout the country. These demands are particularly evident in the West, where
population is rapidly increasing and where climate variability and water scarcity1
make managing water supplies especially challenging. In many western states,
agricultural and urban needs conflict, and these demands also compete with water
demand for threatened and endangered species, recreation, and scenic enjoyment.
Debate over western water resources revolves around the issue of how best to
plan for and manage the use of this renewable, yet limited resource. Some observers
advocate enhancing water supplies, through such steps as building new storage or
diversion projects, expanding old ones, and funding water reclamation and reuse
facilities. Others emphasize conservation and policies that provide opportunities for
more efficient use of existing supplies, such as using market mechanisms or
providing better price signals, which theoretically would result in more efficient
water use. In practice, all of these tools are used by western water managers to
varying degrees, and all have been addressed by Congress, again to varying degrees.
To address growing challenges in western water management, Congress in 1992
directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish a federal water reclamation,
recycling, and reuse program (Title XVI of P.L. 102-575, the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Studies and Facilities Act; 43 U.S.C. §390h). The act
directed the Secretary to “investigate and identify” opportunities for water
reclamation and reuse in the West, for design and construction of “demonstration and
permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse wastewater, and to conduct research,
including desalting, for the reclamation of wastewater and naturally impaired ground
and surface waters” (43 U.S.C. §390h(a)).
The Title XVI program appears to be at a crossroad. As reuse2 and desalination
have become more viable options for addressing a variety of water management

1 Five of the country’s fastest-growing states are among the 17 western “reclamation” states.
2 For this report, reuse connotes planned beneficial use (e.g., landscape watering,
agricultural irrigation, and industrial cooling) of treated municipal wastewater. Reclamation
is treatment of wastewater or other impaired surface water (e.g., seawater) or groundwaters
(e.g., groundwater with high levels of contaminants, such as arsenic, or salts) to make it
usable or reusable. Recycling connotes the capture of wastewater and its redirection back
into the same water scheme, such as the multiple reuse of water in a manufacturing facility.

issues, legislative proposals for authorizing Title XVI projects have increased. At the
same time, Administration support for the program has changed from full support
prior to enactment in 1992, to the Administration’s current position of generally not
supporting projects proposed for authorization by project sponsors (primarily
municipal water agencies) that have not gone through Reclamation’s feasibility
process. For example, the Administration, when asked, has testified against every
Title XVI bill in the 108th Congress and most of the pending bills in the 109th
Congress, citing mostly budgetary and project feasibility concerns. Further, the
Administration continues to request funding only for projects that have received
funding in prior years. Also during this time, congressional authorization of new
projects has been significantly less than demand. Since 1996, six projects have been
authorized. Of approximately 13 project authorization bills introduced during the
108th Congress, two were enacted; as of August 2006, the 109th Congress has enacted
one bill and has 16 individual project authorizations in pending legislation.
This situation has created frustration and confusion over the existing program,
its future, and to some degree, the future role of the Department of the Interior’s
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in the rapidly growing West. Frustration is
especially apparent among project sponsors whose authorized projects remain
without Title XVI funding or with limited funding, and sponsors of pending project
proposals, resulting in increased pressure on Congress and the Administration to
address program issues. In sum, the resulting backlog of sparsely funded and
unfunded projects, and pent-up demand for federal assistance, have raised the
question of the future of the Title XVI program.
Following is a Title XVI overview covering its genesis, implementation, and
current status. This overview is followed by a brief discussion of a number of policy
options for addressing issues associated with the Title XVI program. The Appendix
provides details on the status of individual Title XVI projects and the overall
program in Table 1.
Title XVI Overview
Program Establishment
Title XVI authorized design and construction of demonstration and permanent
facilities to reclaim and reuse wastewater, and provided authority to conduct
research, including on desalting, for the reclamation of wastewater and naturally
impaired ground and surface waters. Responsibility for undertaking the new program
— commonly referred to as the Title XVI program — was assigned to Reclamation
in the Department of the Interior (DOI). The original statute directed the Secretary
to undertake appraisal investigations to identify opportunities for water reclamation
and reuse, and provided authority to participate with other federal agencies, as well
as state, regional, and local authorities in developing feasibility studies.

Title XVI in a Nutshell
Authority. Title XVI of P.L. 102-575, as amended (43 U.S.C. §390h).
Projects. Congress has authorized 33 Title XVI projects. Three have been completed. Water
reclaimed by Title XVI projects may be used for municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply
(non-potable or indirect potable uses), irrigation supply, groundwater recharge, fish and wildlife
enhancement, or outdoor recreation.
Project Purposes. An original rationale for the program was to help Southern California
reduce its reliance on Colorado River water; however, the act does not include a purposes
section. The general purpose of Title XVI projects appears to be to supplement water supplies
by reclaiming (including via desalination) or recycling/reusing agricultural drainage water,
wastewater, brackish surface and groundwater, and other sources of contaminated or low quality
Financing. Federal financing (i.e., federal grants) is generally limited to 25% of total project
costs. Federal financing for projects authorized after 1996 is limited to a maximum of $20
million, or 25% of total project costs.
Eligibility Requirements. Title XVI is limited to projects in the 17 western states and Hawaii.
Projects may be permanent or for demonstration purposes. Authorized recipients of Title XVI
funds include “legally organized non-federal entities” (e.g., municipalities or irrigation
districts). Construction funding is generally limited to projects for which (1) an appraisal
investigation and feasibility study have been completed and approved by the Secretary; (2) the
Secretary has determined that the project sponsor is capable of funding the non-federal share of
project costs; and (3) the local sponsor has entered into a cost-share agreement with
Reclamation. The Administration has noted in recent budget justifications and hearing
testimony that it will focus on Title XVI projects supported in prior fiscal year budget requests
(i.e., it will not undertake new starts). Congress authorizes each Title XVI project individually.
The genesis for Reclamation’s wastewater reclamation and reuse program was
a six-year western drought in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In particular, the
drought strongly affected California and the Southwest. It led to an intense debate
in Congress over federal water supply policies, including how to address conflicts
between the need and desire for continued operation of the federal Central Valley
Project and the application of state and federal environmental laws that could
potentially limit water deliveries in order to protect certain aquatic species or comply
with water quality standards. The result of several years’ effort in addressing this
conflict was the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992
(P.L. 102-575). While much attention has been given to Title XXXIV of that act (the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act), Title XVI authorized construction of five
specific reclamation water reuse and recycling projects in Arizona and California and
established the reuse program. Title XVI of the act also authorized a comprehensive
reuse study for Southern California, including Colorado River hydrologic regions.
The latter language provides specific statutory authority for activities that were
underway in 1991 in response to then-Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan’s
announcement of a “Comprehensive Water Reuse Initiative” for Southern California3

which spoke to the federal interest in management of the Colorado River.
3 U.S. Department of the Interior, Interior Secretary Lujan Announces Comprehensive Water
Reuse Initiative for Southern California, news release, Office of the Secretary, Aug. 5, 1991.

In addition to increasing the water supplies available to the area [southern
California], this program would also decrease the area’s dependency on water
imports from the Colorado River, California, and Los Angeles Aqueducts, help
restore and protect the quality of existing ground-water reserves, and help meet
environmental water needs. Lujan said ... “Reclaimed water — one of the most
dependable, abundant and underutilized water supplies available — could4
provide as much as 2 million acre-feet of water each year for the area.”
The Southern California study and other reuse studies initiated under the Title
XVI authority, however, became caught in an apparent policy shift to decrease
Administration support for the Title XVI program, a shift that grew out of the5
preparation of the FY2004 Reclamation budget. That FY2004 budget included an
evaluation of the Title XVI’s effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB PART review process, discussed below). The policy shift resulted in an
uncertain future for the studies underway, thus frustrating project sponsors. For
example, the document produced from the Southern California study is a point of
contention with a long history among Southern California stakeholders and6
Federal Reuse Activities. Reclamation’s Title XVI program is the only
active federal program providing localities with financial and technical assistance for
the development and construction of water reclamation and reuse facilities.
However, according to the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), “a broad

4 Ibid., p. 1.
5 See U.S. Department of the Interior, letter from the Secretary of the Interior, Gale A.
Norton, and Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Steven Griles, to the Solicitor, Inspector
General, Assistant Secretaries, and Heads of Bureaus and Offices, stamped Nov. 22, 2002.
Subject: Conclusion of the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Formulation Process. The letter thanks
officials for their efforts in identifying activities that could be scaled back or eliminated and
notes a Reclamation proposal to “devolve significant responsibilities in the Water
Reclamation and Reuse (Title XVI) program” in order to conserve resources to “implement
innovative, new approaches to address long-standing problems such as those relating to
endangered species.”
6 Reclamation undertook the “Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and
Reuse Study,” along with eight state and local agencies in 1992. By October 23, 1991 (prior
to enactment of Title XVI), Reclamation had held its first pre-planning committee meeting
for the Southern California Water Reclamation and Reuse Study. The effort was later
broadened to include 70 Southern California water supply and wastewater treatment
agencies. The study was largely completed by April 2001 and was published as a final
report in July 2002 (2002 Report); however, the report was not officially submitted to
Congress, as required under the act. (Section 1606(c) requires submission of the study
within six years of the first appropriations for the title (by FY2000)). According to an
October 2003 letter to relevant project managers, the Department of the Interior found the
original report contained “more detail than desired for a submittal [sic] to Congress.” The
then-Assistant Secretary for Water and Science asked Reclamation to prepare a “concise,
to-the-point version of that Report.” The Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study, Reclamation Compendium was submitted to Congress
February 20, 2004. However, the word “feasibility” was removed from the “compendium,”
raising the question of whether the submission complies with the directives of §1606 for
feasibility studies.

range of federal agency program activities employ water reuse, recycling, and
reclamation technologies to achieve conservation and other program objectives.”7
Although both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have limited authorities to provide assistance to local
entities for recycling projects (e.g., specific provisions for the Corps in 1992 and
1999 Water Resources Development Acts;8 a pilot program by EPA under the
Alternative Water Sources Act;9 and general Clean Water Act water treatment and
wastewater authorities), neither has an established, regularly funded program
dedicated to such activities. Some of the authorized Corps reuse activities received
funding for FY2003 in Title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation
Act for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7; Division D). The Corps also has authority for design
and construction of Everglades wastewater reuse technology (P.L. 106-541). In all,
it appears $110.5 million in assistance has been authorized for Corps water reuse
activities, with approximately $22.6 million appropriated as of FY2005.
According to the CEQ report (pp. 8 and 9), water reuse, recycling, and
reclamation activities fall within larger EPA program areas of water treatment,
wastewater management, or water resources management (33 U.S.C. §1376).
Funding for water reuse, recycling, and reclamation projects may be accomplished
via Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund programs
(33 U.S.C. §1381 and 42 U.S.C. 300f-300j, respectively). Although funds are not
specifically authorized by Congress or targeted by EPA for such purposes, Congress
periodically earmarks funding for specific reuse projects. For example, according to
CEQ, project-specific reuse funding appropriated to EPA for FY2005 totaled $6.4
Status of the Title XVI Program and Projects
Authorizations. Congress has authorized 33 Title XVI projects (see the
Appendix for additional information). To date, Reclamation has undertaken
planning, design, and/or engineering activities for 21 projects. Nearly half of the 33
authorized projects are concentrated in Southern California. This concentration
reflects the Southern California and Colorado River hydrologic region focus of the
program as first authorized.

7 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, Federal Agency
Water Reuse Programs, A Report to Congress, white paper published October 3, 2005, p.

3. This report confirms earlier findings of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

regarding the scope of reclamation and reuse activities of federal agencies. Hereafter
referred to as the CEQ report. (See also, U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Performance and Management Assessments. Budget of the U.S.
Government, Fiscal Year 2004 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Feb. 2003), p. 173.
Hereafter referred to as OMB PART review. See also PART worksheets for the Department
of the Interior’s Title XVI water reclamation and reuse program at [http://www.whitehouse.
gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pma.html], p. 2.
8 §217 of P.L. 102-580, and §502 of P.L.106-53, respectively.
9 Title VI of P.L. 106-457. The program was never funded and expired in 2004.

Program and Project Funding. The Title XVI contribution is limited to
25% of total project costs. Amendments in 1996 (P.L. 104-266) authorized 18 new
projects (of the current 33) and established new program guidance. The 1996
amendments retained the 25%/75% federal/non-federal cost share, but limited the
federal Title XVI share to no more than $20 million per project. Reclamation has
completed its funding obligations for three projects.10 Title XVI federal funding11
obligations are nearly complete (80% or more) for six other projects.
Total federal Title XVI funding through 2006 is estimated by Reclamation to
be $324.5 million (see Table 1 in the Appendix). The remaining total federal
contribution for all authorized projects is estimated to be $354 million. Non-federal
Title XVI investment as of September 30, 2004, is estimated to be $1.1 billion.12
Title XVI funding for FY2006 is $25.6 million; the budget request for FY2007 is
$10.1 million for program administration and eight projects.13 Congress typically
includes funding for more projects (e.g., 21 projects in FY2006, and 18 projects in
FY2005, compared with funding for eight projects requested by the Administration
in FY2006, and five for FY2005).
Project Status and Characteristics. Using color-coded markers, Figure

1 depicts authorized Title XVI projects in the 17 traditional reclamation states.14

These projects are overlain on DOI’s “hot-spots” illustration, which shows areas
where water conflicts are especially prevalent in the 17 reclamation states.15 Thirty
Title XVI projects have been authorized for construction in eight traditional
reclamation states: Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah,
and Washington (and three more have been authorized in Hawaii, which is not
depicted in Figure 1). The project states depicted in Figure 1 represent many of the

10 The three projects are (1) the Los Angeles (CA) area water reclamation and reuse project;
(2) the Tooele (UT) wastewater treatment and reuse project; and (3) the Port Hueneme (CA)
Desalination project. The demonstration phase of a fourth project, Willow Creek (OR), is
also complete; however, it was not included in the chart provided to CRS from Reclamation.
11 Those projects are San Gabriel Demonstration (CA); North San Diego County (CA);
Orange County Regional (CA); Mission Basin Desalination (CA); Albuquerque
Metropolitan (NM); and the City of El Paso (TX). U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation, Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Funding History,
Reclaimed Water Deliveries and Project Status, January, 2006. Revised Chart provided to
CRS via e-mail February 1, 2006. (Hereafter referred to as 2006 Reclamation Reuse Chart.)
12 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Title XVI Project Costs and
Investment as of Sept. 30, 2004, chart provided to CRS February 2005.
13 The eight projects in the FY2007 budget request were: (1) Calleguas (CA); (2) Long
Beach Area (CA); (3) North San Diego County Area (CA); (4) Orange County (CA); (5)
Phoenix (AZ); (6) San Diego Area (CA); (7) San Gabriel Basin (CA); and (8) San Jose
14 To view Figure 1 in color, congressional users can access the CRS website at
[ h t t p : / / www.c r s . go v/ ] .
15 The DOI’s hot spot illustration, titled “Potential Water Supply Crises by 2025,” without
the overlay is available at [].

states especially active in applying reuse technologies and practices, but not all; two
active states, Florida and Colorado, do not have Title XVI projects.16
Figure 1. Location of Title XVI Projects Relative to Areas of Potential Water Conflict

More than two-thirds of the 33 Title XVI projects have received some Title XVI
funding. These projects are depicted in Figure 1 by the darkest blue triangles
(completed projects) and the grayish blue triangles (other projects receiving some
Title XVI funding). The light blue triangles represent authorized projects that had
not received Title XVI funding by the end of FY2005. Reclamation estimates a total
maximum design capacity of Title XVI projects funded to date of 747,558 acre-feet17
of water annually. More information on project status is available in the Appendix.
16 Florida is not eligible for Title XVI support; Florida is not designated as a “reclamation
state,” as defined by the Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended (43 U.S.C. §391), nor has
Congress authorized specific Title XVI activities in the state, as it has for Hawaii.
17 2006 Reclamation Reuse Chart. CRS estimates a total capacity of nearly 800,000 acre-

Program Performance Evaluation. In 2002, during development of the
FY2004 budget, OMB reviewed the Title XVI program using the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) — an analytic tool to assess program strengths and
weaknesses. Although the Title XVI program fared reasonably well on most
evaluation criteria, OMB found it weak in providing a clear link between federal
funding and progress toward specific outcomes, and in long-term planning. OMB’s
supporting documents for the FY2004 PART review describe the program as an
“earmark-driven grant program for local projects” for which there is no competitive18
grant process. These supporting documents state that the program helps
Reclamation “meet its mission to manage and develop water and related resources
in an economically and environmentally sound manner” (and specifically notes the
program’s role in assisting Southern California reduce its reliance on Colorado River
water); however, the summary of the PART review declares that the water
reclamation and reuse activity is “not one of Reclamation’s core functions.” The Title
XVI PART review concludes that the program should be scaled back because it
serves a largely local function that should be a local responsibility. Consistent with
this conclusion, the Administration’s budget request for FY2004 was $12.6 million
— 65% less than the enacted level for FY2002 and 59% less than the enacted level
for FY2003. Congress subsequently appropriated $28.4 million for FY2004. The
Administration requested $11.5 million for FY2005 and $10.2 million for FY2006.
Congress appropriated $23.0 million and $25.6 million for those years, respectively.
The Administration request of $10.1 million for FY2007 is 40% of the enacted level
for FY2006. Administration requests between FY2001 and FY2003 ranged from
$17.1 million to $22 million.
Title XVI Issues for Congress
OMB’s PART review raises several specific policy issues not unique to Title
XVI. First, it highlights the tension between congressional and Administration
priorities. For example, while the PART review concludes congressional earmarks
drive the Title XVI program, congressional supporters express frustration with the
Administration’s lack of participation in the program, and hence seek to fund the
program in line with congressional priorities. Second, the PART review raises
questions regarding the appropriate federal role in water supply development for
municipal and industrial (M&I) uses. For example, is Congress redefining the

17 (...continued)
feet of water annually from projects that have received Title XVI funding and those projects
for which CRS was able to acquire data that have not received Title XVI funding (see Table

1 for more information).

18 OMB PART review, p. 173. See also PART worksheets for the Department of the
Interior’s Title XVI water reclamation and reuse program at [
omb/budget/fy2004/pma/waterreuse.pdf], p. 2. See also Administration testimony on thethth
Title XVI program and individual projects proposed for authorization in the 108 and 109
Congresses, such as the February 28, 2006, testimony by John W. Keys III, Commission of
the Bureau of Reclamation before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee
on Water and Power available at [
?dbname =109_senate_hearings &docid=f:27706.pdf].

federal government’s role in M&I water supply and treatment as it authorizes new
site-specific projects? To what degree should the federal government provide
incentives for water supply development via new technologies, and what geographic,
regional, or social factors should be considered? Third, is coordination or
realignment of certain federal water activities needed to ensure efficient use of scarce
federal resources?
In general, Title XVI policy issues fall into two categories: (1) broad policy
issues and (2) issues specific to the program’s implementation and structure.
Broad Policy Issues
A broad policy issue central to discussions of the future of Title XVI is the
debate over the appropriate federal role in water supply development, particularly for
M&I purposes. Because Title XVI projects are municipal water development project
and the most recent articulated congressional policy on these types of projects is
nearly half a century old, there remains confusion over how to manage the differences
of opinion over the appropriate federal role in water reuse projects that are raised
between Congress and the Administration, and within Congress. At issue for
Congress is the basic question of whether supporting Title XVI’s municipal water
development projects is an appropriate federal role.
Historically, federal water resource agencies’ involvement in water supply was
limited to developing irrigation projects and multiple use projects. Unlike other areas
of water resources management in which the federal role is more prominent (e.g.,
irrigation water supply, flood damage reduction, and navigation; or supporting
wastewater and drinking water treatment investments through revolving loan
programs), the federal role in water supply development for M&I uses largely has
been secondary to the primary role of state and local governments. Water supply
development for M&I purposes generally has been incidental to the primary project
purposes of large, multi-purpose irrigation, flood reduction, hydro power, and
navigation projects, pursuant to congressional policy established in the Water Supply
Act of 1958.19
While as a general matter, local, regional, or state agencies have been
responsible for water supply development, and wary of federal involvement in
allocating water, Congress occasionally has deviated from this policy. For example,
over the last two decades, Congress has increasingly, and incrementally, authorized
the DOI to participate in construction of approximately 13 water supply projects for
small and rural communities, as well as water reclamation and reuse projects under
Title XVI. Although Congress has increasingly passed bills for site specific projects

19 “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to recognize the primary
responsibilities of the States and local interests in developing water supplies for domestic,
municipal, industrial, and other purposes and that the Federal Government should participate
and cooperate with States and local interests in developing such water supplies in
connection with the construction, maintenance, and operation of Federal navigation, flood
control, irrigation, or multiple purpose projects” (Water Supply Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 320;

43 U.S.C. §390b, note).

and established the Title XVI program, it has not re-articulated long-standing
congressional policy regarding the federal role in M&I water supply development
since the 1958 Water Supply Act.
Implementation Issues
On the implementation front, what is at issue for Congress is whether the Title
XVI program’s current implementation inhibits the achievement of congressional
interest in water reuse projects. Recent questions and concerns about the
implementation of the Title XVI program appear to have increased in part because
of the nature of project evaluation and authorization processes and the lack of a clear
program funding process that is typical of federal water quality programs; this is
demonstrated by OMB’s PART review and the Administration’s current positions on
authorizing new projects and its budget requests.
Criticism of Title XVI implementation has spawned discussions of the future
of the program, and comparisons to other federal programs. Other federal water
assistance programs, such as state revolving loan funds for wastewater and drinking
water administered by EPA, and rural water and wastewater disposal programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), have criteria,
regulations, and competitive processes for projects and funding. Congress
appropriates money annually for these programs; however, project funding is not
appropriated by line item, as is the case for Reclamation projects. Instead, depending
on the program, states or federal agencies allocate program funding based on program
and project eligibility criteria. For more information on other federal water
programs, see CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water Supply and
Wastewater Treatment Programs, coordinated by Claudia Copeland.
Other overarching issues include the scope of the program and the degree to
which project assistance should be targeted to certain types of projects or broadened
to include more projects in more areas. Different stakeholder views on these
overarching issues will ultimately affect specific decisions to address broad policy
issues, as well as program criteria, project evaluation, and funding issues discussed
Program Criteria. In contrast to several other federal water programs, there
are no legislatively mandated or promulgated development criteria and no
competitive grant processes for Title XVI projects. Sections 1603 and 1604 of Title
XVI establish a project evaluation process, which directs the Secretary to undertake
appraisal investigations before preparation of feasibility studies on potential reuse
measures and lists several “considerations” that must be addressed.20 However, the
act does not include clear evaluation or decision-making criteria, such as listing
criteria that feasible projects must meet for a project to be recommended for
construction authorization. Nor does the current authority include project ranking or
eligibility criteria.

20 43 U.S.C. §390h-1(a)-(c) and 43 U.S.C. §390h-2(a)-(c).

To implement the program, Reclamation developed guidelines for the
development of Title XVI projects.21 These guidelines provide more explicit
evaluation and feasibility criteria than is provided in the statute; however, again, they
are phrased as things that must be “considered” and as such do not function as
eligibility or decision-making criteria. While OMB in the past has noted
Reclamation’s Title XVI guidelines provide “solid criteria ... to evaluate potential
projects prior to funding, and also to monitor and evaluate projects under
construction,”22 the guidelines provide little guidance on project ranking. Further,
these guidelines have never been officially promulgated as official rules or
regulations; nor do they appear to be binding.
Project Evaluation and Authorization. Under the evaluation process
established in Title XVI of P.L. 102-575 (as amended), Reclamation requires projects
first to pass an appraisal phase, second to pass a feasibility phase, and third to receive
a feasibility recommendation by the Secretary. Positive recommendations are
forwarded to Congress for construction approval via a project-specific authorization.
Authorized projects are then funded (or not) via the annual Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill. However, in practice, many project authorizations
and pending legislative proposals are for projects that have not gone through the
project evaluation process outlined in Title XVI. The reasons for this are varied.
First, it appears that Reclamation itself has initiated few Title XVI appraisal or
feasibility studies in recent years. Second, some sponsors have engaged Reclamation
in a feasibility study, but have found agency support lacking in recent years. Third,
some contend feasibility studies are better suited to traditional, large, multi-purpose
projects that Reclamation used to construct and that the process is ill-suited for
smaller, primarily locally financed water reclamation and reuse projects. In other
words, some view the feasibility process as too cumbersome and costly for the
amount of federal assistance being sought.
It is not clear whether it is the feasibility (evaluation) process itself, funding
levels, a change in Administration policy toward implementing the Title XVI
program, or other reasons that have contributed to a lag in feasibility study
recommendations. Regardless of the cause, it appears that in recent years, relatively
few entities have successfully completed a feasibility process that met with
Reclamation’s approval. Yet, Reclamation will not support legislative proposals for
projects it has not reviewed or studied for feasibility. This situation has contributed
to confusion and frustration over implementation of the Title XVI program.
Project Funding Issues. Funding for Title XVI projects has been
controversial in recent years because of differences in congressional and
Administration priorities. For example, Reclamation has limited its budget request
to projects that have received prior federal funding, while Congress has provided
funding for more projects than have been requested by the Administration. The

21 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Guidelines for Preparing,
Reviewing, and Processing Water Reclamation and Reuse Project Proposals Under Title
XVI of Public Law 102-575, as Amended (Washington DC: Bureau of Reclamation, 1998).
22 PART worksheet for the Department of the Interior’s Title XVI water reclamation and
reuse program at [], p. 6.

budget request for the last three years has been 40%-67% less than the enacted
appropriation for each of the last three years. The Administration’s request of $10.1
million for Title XVI for FY2007 is 40% less than the FY2006 enacted appropriation
of $25.6 million.
While between $1 million and $3 million is devoted to program management
annually, there is no overall program funding per se. Instead, each project receives
appropriations via a separate line item in Reclamation’s Water and Related
Resources budget account. This process is consistent with most water resource
project funding (e.g., Corps of Engineers project funding); however, it is markedly
different from other federally supported water treatment programs, which receive
program funding that is then dispersed by formula or other means by the
administering agency (e.g., by EPA and USDA) or via state agencies. Further, lack
of funding for already authorized projects has led some to oppose new project
The above issues raise several questions:
!Is new or revised program guidance needed, via a formal rule-
making process, congressional action, or both?
!Would new or revised guidance forestall the issue of projects being
authorized by Congress prior to undergoing the Title XVI project
evaluation process?
!Could the Title XVI program be designed to help alleviate funding
issues and controversy over differing administrative and
congressional budget priorities (e.g., by establishing ranking or
prioritization criteria)?
Where to Go from Here?
Growing pressure on water supplies in the West make it likely that the demand
for Title XVI projects and requests for federal assistance, and hence pressure on
Congress to approve more projects, will increase. At the same time, the potential for
future requests to escalate and create an entirely new class of water supply assistance,
appears to have increased congressional, Administration, and traditional Reclamation
stakeholder concerns over the implementation and authorization of new Title XVI
projects. Under the current process, the potential result is an ever-growing list of
pending Title XVI legislative proposals, and for those gaining congressional
approval, a growing list of projects competing for limited appropriations and
Administration support. Currently, almost a third of the 33 authorized projects are
unfunded — a “backlog” the Administration has repeatedly cited as a reason to
oppose new authorizations — and an additional 16 project authorizations are in
legislation pending before the 109th Congress. Some of these proposals have been
pending for multiple Congresses.
Thus, the 109th Congress is faced with the question, what should be the future
of the Title XVI program? Fundamental to deciding the future of the program are
underlying questions related to the federal role in municipal water reclamation and

reuse specifically, and perhaps municipal water supply more generally. How urgent
is the problem of water scarcity in West? What are other options to address the
problem? How important is the problem? While the problem may be acute in some
areas, it may be less so in others — should an adjustment to the program
acknowledge such differences and focus federal resources in certain areas? Should
it be a federal responsibility to promote reuse in the West? If so, why, or why not
nationwide? How does reuse contribute to national well-being?
If Congress decides to affirm a federal role for water reuse in the West, a
different set of questions arises:
!How does promoting or facilitating reuse in the West facilitate other
federal goals, objectives, and legal obligations (e.g., protection of
threatened and endangered species)?
!How does, or could, the Title XVI program mesh with other federal
activities (e.g., Interior’s Water 2025 challenge grant initiative or
CALFED water reuse and storage activities)?
!Should the program be tied to alleviating demand or reducing
existing diversions where endangered species or other fish and
wildlife, or water quality concerns are at issue?
! Should it be used to help communities drought-proof their supplies,
or to slow pressure on agricultural water supplies, by possibly
slowing conversion of “agriculture-to-urban” water transfers?
!Will promotion of water reclamation and reuse simply encourage
more growth in already water scarce areas?
!Will growth or development come at the expense of federal
investment in other economically depressed areas with plentiful
water resources?
These questions are just a few that arise when discussing the future of Title XVI.
Legislative Considerations
Oversight hearings have been held on the Title XVI program in both the 108thth
and 109 Congresses; however, only recently have comprehensive bills been
introduced which would amend Title XVI. Stakeholders include local and regional
proponents of new but unauthorized Title XVI projects, proponents of authorized yet
unfunded Title XVI projects, the Administration, congressional sponsors and
committees of jurisdiction, as well as traditional Reclamation stakeholders concerned
about the programs’ potential to siphon funds away from non-Title XVI projects.
Overview of Legislative Options
A wide range of options is available for addressing the Title XVI issues
addressed above. One option currently being pursued focuses on evaluation issues.
Two recently introduced bills, H.R. 5768 and S. 3639, would replace the existing
appraisal and feasibility evaluation process with a more limited technical and
financial viability and review process. The bills also address implementation issues

such as the purpose of the program (to authorize both permanent and demonstration
projects in western states and Hawaii), and clarify that desalination and recycling are
permitted Title XVI activities. The Administration testified that the proposed
legislation would improve the program and make it easier for Reclamation to
administer; however, the Administration supported adjustments to the legislation to
“ensure that project assessment and authorization is prioritized to focus on areas of
greatest need,” and to ensure projects are worthy of federal investment.23 The
Administration stated it could not support S. 3639 in its current form.
Another option would be to focus on program and project eligibility and ranking
criteria. This direction is supported in the Administration’s testimony on S. 3639.
The Administration specifically called for developing ranking criteria that would help
Reclamation, Congress and the Administration prioritize projects. According to
Reclamation, “such ranking criteria would address whether the project actually
alleviates significant water conflict or shortage and whether it would add water
supply in one of the likely crisis areas that we have focused on in efforts like the
Water 2025 program.”24 Under this option, other stakeholder priorities might also be
addressed. These priorities range from assisting communities with drought resilience
to focusing on projects with innovative and new technologies. While S. 3639
includes several factors that must be considered during review of project proposals,
including how the project might serve an identified federal interest, these factors are
not presented as decision-making or ranking criteria.
Another approach would be to evaluate programs using a funding focus.
Funding issues could be addressed via economic or financial prioritization during the
evaluation process, through new program eligibility and ranking criteria, or both. For
example, in order to justify federal investment in local projects, many federal capital
investment programs include requirements for some type of economic analysis of
project alternatives. Federal water resource projects are generally evaluated using
“Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water Resource
Projects” (P&Gs). The focus of the P&Gs is on National Economic Development
(NED) benefits, although analysis of regional economic development (RED) is also
included. Although using the P&Gs is typically a necessary component of
Reclamation’s feasibility study process, Reclamation guidelines explicitly state that
the P&Gs are not used for Title XVI projects because of the project’s local (not
national) scope. Instead, the guidelines require an assessment of a project’s
“economic feasibility” relative to other alternatives the local sponsor could pursue.
Many other federal agencies also require economic analyses of projects via
alternatives analysis. For example, the Federal Transit Administration’s “New
Starts” program requires evaluation of cost-effectiveness (via an alternatives
analysis) as part of its overall financial and project justification evaluation process
(§3011(a) of SAFETEA-LU; 49 U.S.C. §5309(d)). Also, although project-level
decisions under the EPA’s Clean Water Act state revolving fund program are made

23 Statement of Larry Todd, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, before Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Water and Power Subcommittee, July 27, 2006, pp. 1-2.
24 Water 2025 is a relatively new Department of the Interior small grants program for
“innovative” water resource projects.

by the states, the Clean Water Act directs the EPA Administrator to publish
guidelines for evaluation methods, including cost-effectiveness (§212(2)(C) of P.L.
92-500, 33 U.S.C. §1292(2)(C)), such as the “identification and selection of cost
effective alternatives to comply with the objective and goals” of the act (§217).
Further, projects receiving federal financial assistance under the act must be the most
economical and cost-effective (§218(a) and (b)). Relevant Clean Water Act state
revolving fund guidelines are published at 40 CFR 35, Subpart E, Appendix A.
These are just a few of the options to address identified Title XVI
implementation issues. Other legislative options include dismantling or phasing out
the Title XVI program, strengthening the program, or other less drastic adjustments,
such as providing Reclamation with clearer direction on the purpose for it to carry
out these activities. Options that could be pursued administratively include
strengthening agency guidelines, and developing formal rules or regulations with
specific program and project eligibility, funding, and ranking criteria.25 While no
option is likely to garner the support of all stakeholders, an examination of options
may clarify perspectives on the appropriate federal role in reuse and define goals of
federal participation in reuse.
The Title XVI program is at a crossroad. Growing demands on water resources
in the West and elsewhere make it likely that demand for assistance with water
reclamation and reuse projects will continue to increase. Depending on one’s
perception of problems with the Title XVI program, different solutions to resolving
program issues will be sought. Different stakeholders will have different opinions
on the magnitude, importance, and scope of the broad policy, program criteria,
project evaluation, and funding issues identified in this report. Congress and the
Administration have several options to address Title XVI implementation issues.
Resolution of these issues will depend on many factors, including whether or to what
degree congressional and Administration priorities for the program can be articulated
and balanced. For example, it appears from recent testimony that projects sponsors
are generally interested in a more streamlined project development process and
expanded program appropriations, while the Administration supports a more limited
program with long-term objectives focused on federal interests. The challenge for
Congress will be how to proceed in the face of divergent positions.

25 While the Administration developed guidelines for the Title XVI program in the mid-

1990s, the guidelines have not been revised and were never formally promulgated as rules.

Nor have other administrative options been actively pursued.

Appendix: Title XVI Projects
Title XVI has been amended multiple times since 1992,26 resulting in a total of
33 authorized projects (see Table 1).27 For accounting purposes, Reclamation has
deemed the 12 authorized projects that have not yet received funding from
Reclamation, or received minor amounts, as inactive. These projects are shown in
italics in Table 1. The other Title XVI projects are considered active.
Active Projects. As noted earlier, Title XVI funding obligations for three
projects are complete, and nearly complete for five additional projects. Title XVI
projects were yielding an estimated 121,678 acre-feet of water annually as of
September 20, 2005 — nearly 25% of the 525,000 acre-feet of water reused in
California in 2001 — and they are expected to yield 163,243 acre-feet by the end of
FY2006.28 Because water yield figures are based on total design capacity, actual
water yield will likely be slightly less.
Inactive Projects. Except for the one Oregon project, the other inactive
projects have received no Title XVI funding; however, some of the inactive projects
have received funding from EPA, and in one case from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
To determine the status of the 12 inactive projects, CRS contacted the project
sponsors and determined that at least six inactive projects are moving forward in
some manner with local funding. Of the 12 projects, CRS completed interviews with
seven project managers and found that three projects have started construction. One
of these is complete, and another is expected to be completed in 2006. The third
involves two sub-projects, one of which is 10% complete. Three other projects have
not yet started construction, but appear to be moving forward. These projects are in
various stages of planning, pre-feasibility, and permitting/environmental analysis.
The seventh project, for the City of Tracy (San Joaquin Area Water Reclamation and

26 P.L. 104-266 (1996 amendments) authorized specific construction projects in California,
Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas (see Table 1); P.L. 105-321 (1998) authorized a
project in Oregon (Willow Lake); P.L. 106-554 (2000) authorized an additional project in
Nevada (Sparks); P.L. 106-566 (2000) extended the Secretary’s research and planning
authority to include project investigations in Hawaii; P.L. 107-344 (2002) authorized a
project in Washington state (Lakehaven); P.L. 108-7 (2003) authorized an additional project
in Nevada (North Las Vegas); P.L. 108-233 (2004) authorized an additional project in
California (Irvine Basin); 108-316 (2004) authorized an additional project in Texas
(Williamson County); and, P.L. 109-70 (2005) authorized three projects in Hawaii (Kalaeloa
(desalination), Kealakehe, and Lahaina).
27 CRS reports 33 projects have been authorized, while Reclamation reports 32 projects.
The discrepancy can be explained by the way CRS and Reclamation count one project and
one project authorization bill. CRS initially counted the Hawaii project authorization as one
project, resulting in a total of 31 projects; however, the legislation authorizes 3 projects.
Further, Reclamation does not include the Port Hueneme project in its list of congressionally
authorized projects because it is authorized under standing authority. However, because
Reclamation includes Port Hueneme (CA) in budget totals for project XVI funding, CRS
includes the Port Hueneme project in its count.
28 2006 Reclamation Reuse Chart.

Reuse Project, CA), is no longer being pursued. Most project sponsors appear to be
seeking alternative funding; some have been more successful than others. Most
project managers expressed desire for engagement with Reclamation and, not
surprisingly, felt that their projects would be farther along with federal funding.
Some had begun working with Reclamation in the early stages of the project (e.g.,
during the pre-feasibility/planning stage), but have not received assistance in recent
years. All in all, it appears six of the seven projects for which CRS completed
interviews are either moving or attempting to move forward with local funding. CRS
was unable to secure information on all 12 projects.
Title XVI Federal Contribution. Title XVI projects authorized prior to 1996
ranged in total costs from $152 million ($38 million for Reclamation’s share), to
$690 million ($172 million for Reclamation’s share), with 25% of the total project
costs eligible for Title XVI funding. In 1996, the program’s authorization was
amended to limit the federal share to no more than $20 million per project. The three
costliest Title XVI projects were authorized in 1992, before federal contributions
were capped at $20 million. Post-1996 projects have been smaller in scale, ranging
from $10 million ($2 million for Reclamation’s share) to $280 million ($20 million
for Reclamation’s share).

Table 1. Title XVI Projects by State: Federal Authorization, Funding, and Quantity of Reclaimed Water29
Reclaimed Water
Project Name and Authorization Estimated TitleXVI ContributionTitle XVI FundingFY1994-FY2006Title XVI Fundingas a % EstimateEstimatedProject(N/A=not available)
(Public Law Number)($ in thousands)($ in thousands)ContributionCompletion Date
By 2006Max. ProjectCapacity
iki/CRS-RL33707oenix Metropolitan Water Reclamationd Reuse, AZ $20,0001,2606%2010-20150100,000
g/w. 102-575; P.L. 106-53 repealed study
s.orst-share limit)
otal Arizona$20,000$1,2600100,000
httplif o r nia
uas Municipal Water District20,0008,85344%20109,50010,000
cling, CA (P.L. 104-266)
gh Desert Wastewater Collection andN/A0N/AN/A01,100-5,500

e (Yucca Valley, CA)
. 104-266)
29 Projects in italics are considered “inactive” by Reclamation for budgeting purposes. According to Reclamation, projects are
generally considered inactive if they are both incomplete and not currently receiving federal funding, or have received only minor
federal funding (e.g., Willow Lake, OR, project) in prior years.

Reclaimed Water
Project Name and Authorization Estimated TitleXVI ContributionTitle XVI FundingFY1994-FY2006Title XVI Fundingas a % EstimateEstimatedProject(N/A=not available)
(Public Law Number)($ in thousands)($ in thousands)ContributionCompletion Date
By 2006Max. ProjectCapacity
ne Basin Project, CA 12,7100N/AN/AN/A4,000
. 108-233)
ng Beach Area Water Reclamation, CA 18,8369,85752%201110,00018,000
. 104-266)
g/wng Beach Desalination Demo, CA (P.L.20,0004,59923%201408,960
leaks Angeles Area Water Reclamation and69,97069,970100%Completed35,640102,000
://wikiuse, CA (P.L. 102-575)
httpission Basin Brackish Groundwater3,1122,54382%20063,3603,360
salting Demo, CA (P.L. 104-266)
rth San Diego County Water20,00017,06385%20084,91613,532
cling, CA (P.L. 104-266)
ange County Regional Water20,00016,16481%20085,04072,000
amation, CA (P.L. 104-266)
sadena Reclaimed Water, CA (P.L.5,7603456%N/A02,015


Reclaimed Water
Project Name and Authorization Estimated TitleXVI ContributionTitle XVI FundingFY1994-FY2006Title XVI Fundingas a % EstimateEstimatedProject(N/A=not available)
(Public Law Number)($ in thousands)($ in thousands)ContributionCompletion Date
By 2006Max. ProjectCapacity
rt Hueneme Brackish Water, CA (P.L.4,0004,000 100%Completed3,9704,370
Diego Area Water Reclamation, CA172,59080,43747%201223,05080,880
. 102-575)
g/wn Gabriel Basin, CA(P.L. 102-575)38,09030,93581%201041,13575,580
s.orn Area Water Reuse andN/A0N/AN/A00
leakity of Tracy, CA
://wiki. 104-266)
http Jose Area Water Reclamation &109,95927,08025%20117,53736,000
use, CA (P.L. 102-575)
atsonville Area Water Recycling, CA17,9752,87016%200804,000
. 104-266)

30 Sponsor indicated to CRS that the project is not currently being pursued.

Reclaimed Water
Project Name and Authorization Estimated TitleXVI ContributionTitle XVI FundingFY1994-FY2006Title XVI Fundingas a % EstimateEstimatedProject(N/A=not available)
(Public Law Number)($ in thousands)($ in thousands)ContributionCompletion Date
By 2006Max. ProjectCapacity
aii (Hawaii Water Resources Act Projects)
laeloa Desal, HI (P.L. 109-70)N/A0N/AN/AN/AN/A
alakehe Recycling, HI (P.L. 109-70)N/A0N/AN/AN/AN/A
g/wP.L. 109-70)N/A0N/AN/AN/AN/A
s.orotal HawaiiN/A0N/AN/AN/AN/A
https Vegas Shallow Aquifer Desalination20,0005403%N/A020,000
. 104-266)
rth Las Vegas Water Reuse, NV (P.L.20,0004,10521%N/A072,810
266; P.L. 108-7)
uthern Nevada Water Recycling, NV20,00020,000100%20069,391113,000
. 104-266)
uckee Watershed Reclamation ProjectN/A0N/AN/A0N/A

. 106-554)

Reclaimed Water
Project Name and Authorization Estimated TitleXVI ContributionTitle XVI FundingFY1994-FY2006Title XVI Fundingas a % EstimateEstimatedProject(N/A=not available)
(Public Law Number)($ in thousands)($ in thousands)ContributionCompletion Date
By 2006Max. ProjectCapacity
otal Nevada$60,000$24,6459,391205,810
buquerque Metropolitan WRRP,11,68711,687100%20075,7306,181
iki/CRS-RL33707(P.L. 104-266; P.L. 105-62)
g/wotal New Mexico$11,687$11,6875,7306,181
://wikiillow Lake / City of Salem Natural950032N/A2006 112600-1,200
httpeatment, OR (P.L. 105-321)31(demo phase)
otal Oregon$9500112600-1,200
xa s
aso Water Reclamation and Reuse,8,6918,67099.8%N/A2,4742,514

(Northwest Area)
. 104-266)
31 This project is listed here as inactive because it is not listed as a financially active project in the 2006 Reclamation Chart. However,
it may be counted by Reclamation in other lists of “active” projects, as it meets other “active” criteria.
32 Actual funding for this project has been approximately $270,000; however, it is not reported by Reclamation in funding tables
provided to CRS because the project does not meet other “active” project budget criteria. In order to keep this column consistent with
Reclamation estimates, we do not include the $270,000 in actual funding totals.

Reclaimed Water
Project Name and Authorization Estimated TitleXVI ContributionTitle XVI FundingFY1994-FY2006Title XVI Fundingas a % EstimateEstimatedProject(N/A=not available)
(Public Law Number)($ in thousands)($ in thousands)ContributionCompletion Date
By 2006Max. ProjectCapacity
illiamson County Water Reclamation20,000950.5%N/AN/A5,000
d Reuse, TX
. 108-361)
otal Texas$28,691$8,7652,4747,514
s.orntral Valley Water Recycling, UT (P.L.7,750 0N/AN/A09,000
://wikige Area Water Recycling, UT3,000033N/AN/AN/A3,900-11,700
http. 104-266)
ater Reclamation and Reuse, UT3,4093,409100.00%Completed1,5002,537
. 104-266)
est Jordan Water Reclamation andN/A0N/AN/A0N/A
e, UT (P.L. 104-266)
total Utah$14,159$3,4091,50015,437 -

33 The project has not received Title XVI funding via Reclamation; however, it received $5.5 million from DOI’s Bureau of Indian
Affairs for the Shivwits Band portion of the project (to provide 200 acre-feet annually to the Tribe), as part of an Indian settlement
agreement. EPA provided a grant of $0.2 million via the State of Utah.

Reclaimed Water
Project Name and Authorization Estimated TitleXVI ContributionTitle XVI FundingFY1994-FY2006Title XVI Fundingas a % EstimateEstimatedProject(N/A=not available)
(Public Law Number)($ in thousands)($ in thousands)ContributionCompletion Date
By 2006Max. ProjectCapacity
a shington
WA (P.L. 107-344)9,500340N/AN/A06,717 -
iki/CRS-RL33707otal Washington$9,50006,717 -
g/w13,435 AF
s.orTAL$677,989$324,48235163,35536 778,056 -
leak 797,574
http: Data supplied to CRS by Reclamation in January and February 2005; 2006 Reclamation Reuse Chart; and CRS interviews with project sponsors, November 2005 - January
ubtotals and totals represent minimum estimated federal costs because some funds are not accounted for due to missing data. Water to be Reclaimed column represents
imum project design capacity (or range for multi-phase projects). Numbers are based on project design capacity upon completion; they may not correspond to eventual amounts
ed or sold, which will likely be less. Subtotals and totals for water to be reclaimed often indicate a lower bound estimate of water to be reclaimed, as water quantity information
not available for all projects.

34 Based on estimated construction cost of $38 million.
35 Total shown here is slightly more than sum of the column listings due to rounding.
36 Total reclaimed by end of FY2006 may be more than reported by Reclamation; this total includes estimates from interviews with
project sponsors.