![handle is hein.crs/goveprv0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congres&on I Research Se
informing I Iej~ I live (V )ate e I~ 14
Updated April 24, 2024
Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for
Federal Investments in Water Resources
The Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for
federal water resource investments largely replaced the
Principles and Guidelines (P&G) for federal water project
evaluations on June 15, 2015, following years in
development (see Table 1). The PR&G direct how federal
agencies plan and evaluate federal water resource
investments, including studies of both new projects and
reinvestment in existing facilities and grant and funding
programs. The PR&G themselves are not regulations; they
are guidance internal to the executive branch. The PR&G
do not supersede requirements established in law.
Agencies subject to the PR&G (see Table 2) are
responsible for developing agency-specific procedures
(ASPs) for implementation and documenting whether
existing processes are equivalent pathways to the PR&G.
Some agencies developed internal documents, such as the
2018 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
instruction, 2017 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
departmental manual, and the 2015 U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) departmental handbook. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) initiated a rulemaking for its
ASP in February 2024. The Army chose to pursue
rulemaking in order to provide codified direction for the
[USACE] project planning process. At issue is whether the
PR&G and the ASPs reflect how Congress wants agencies
to develop and evaluate federal water resource investments.
Origins of the PR&G
Congress and the Administration guide federal water
resource investments. Congressional direction often is
related to specific agencies or projects. One exception was
the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-80),
which attempted coordinated planning of water resources
activities. The act created a Water Resources Council
(WRC) tasked with establishing principles, standards, and
procedures for evaluations of federal water resource
projects (42 U.S.C. §1962a-2). After a controversial effort
to have the WRC's initial guidance (known as the 1973
Principles and Standards) become enforceable rules, the
WRC under the Reagan Administration issued the P&G in
1983 as nonbinding guidelines.
From 1983 until 2015, the P&G provided the framework for
evaluating federal water resource projects. Congress in the
Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114)
directed an update of the 1983 P&G for use by the USACE.
The act required that the update address advancements in
economic and analytic techniques; public safety; low-
income communities; nonstructural solutions; and
integrated, adaptive, and watershed approaches.
Mov ng from 983 P&G to PR G
Table 1 summarizes the update process, which spanned the
George W. Bush and Obama Administrations. In 2009, the
Obama Administration announced that it was updating the
P&G government-wide, rather than only for USACE.
During the PR&G development, the focus shifted from
federal water project studies to federal water investments.
Eight Cabinet secretaries were convened as the WRC
(which has been without appropriations since 1983) for the
purpose of approving PR&G documents.
Table 2 compares the PR&G and the 1983 P&G. The
PR&G apply to a wider set of federal agencies and actions.
The PR&G also provide more flexibility to agencies to
develop, and to decisionmakers to select, alternatives with
trade-offs among economic, environmental, and social
goals. Also under the PR&G, the level of analyses adjusts
to be commensurate with the scale, impacts, costs, scientific
complexities, uncertainties, risks, and other sensitivities
involved in potential decisions. A standard analysis, which
is the full application of the PR&G, is meant to evaluate all
relevant benefits and costs. A scaled analysis may include
fewer alternatives and use a more streamlined formulation
process and justification process, while adhering to the
PR&G.
Public comments on the PR&G varied. Favorable
comments included support for the combined economic and
environmental federal objective; more holistic and flexible
federal agency responses; consideration of nonmonetary
costs and benefits; and greater attention to local priorities
and nonstructural or environmentally focused alternatives.
Common critical comments were overreach in the inclusion
of additional federal entities and activities; concerns with
the clarity of the federal investment selection criteria;
impact of the broadened selection discretion on
decisionmaking and project timelines; and dilution of
federal funds through selection of alternatives less focused
on economic development and infrastructure investment.
Table I. Milestones in PR&G Development
Date Milestone
09/12/08 Federal Register (FR) notice of USACE draft Principles
07/01/09 FR notice that the Obama Administration was
considering government-wide planning standards
12/09/09 FR notice of the draft Principles and Standards
FR notice of the reframed and final Principles and
03/27/13 Requirements for federal investments and draft
Interagency Guidelines
12/24/14 FR notice of final Interagency Guidelines
Source: CRS.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/goveprv0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most