The civic record
Read. Follow. Verify.Senate Hearing on Army Corps Water Regulation and States' Rights
Record date · January 1, 2018
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
What This Bill Does
This Senate subcommittee hearing examined how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates '' in federal reservoirs. The discussion focused on the balance between federal authority and state control over water rights, specifically regarding a 2016 proposed rule that sought to define key terms in the Flood Control Act of 1944.
The hearing addresses whether the federal government or state governments have the primary authority to manage and allocate water stored in Army Corps reservoirs, which directly impacts municipal and industrial water access for local communities.
Who It Affects
Groups the bill's text affects, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.
Municipalities
These entities rely on water stored in Army Corps reservoirs for industrial and domestic supply.
State Governments
States assert primary responsibility for water rights and are impacted by federal regulatory definitions of water usage.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The agency is responsible for implementing reservoir regulations and defining terms under the Flood Control Act.
Key Facts
- The hearing was held on June 13, 2018, by the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight.
- The primary subject is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulation of 'surplus water' stored in federal reservoirs.
- Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 authorizes the Corps to provide surplus water to states and municipalities for industrial and municipal use.
- The Flood Control Act of 1944 establishes a policy of recognizing state and local responsibility for water supply.
Show all 7 facts
- In December 2016, the Army Corps published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to define 'surplus water' and other terms under the 1944 and 1958 Acts.
- The Corps historically declined to define 'surplus water' for decades prior to the 2016 proposal.
- The hearing included testimony from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Western Governors' Association, and the Congressional Research Service.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is 'surplus water' in this context?
Why is the definition of 'surplus water' controversial?
What else do you want to know?
News Coverage
Follow the record
Votes, people, money & the original sourceFull breakdown
Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Change in Regulatory Approach
The document notes that the Army Corps historically declined to define 'surplus water' for decades until a shift in policy during the 2016 administration.
Connected Entities
Sources
www.govinfo.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance65How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy50Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment10Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz15Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools