The setting is directed towards the constitutional battle between President Donald Trump and the federal watchdog over the scope of presidential authorities on spending as President Trump seeks to cut federal spending and personnel.
Trump and administration officials want to reduce existing restrictions on the president’s water storage rights.
According to Trump, the 1974 Water Storage Management Act requires the president to ask for permission to withdraw the separation between constitution and power or officially terminate it.
Specifically, Trump argues that the CEO has broad authority to interpret and determine the spending required by Congress, including the decision not to pay the funds.
Meanwhile, his critics say the White House is violating the power of Congress’ wallets.
Since taking office, Trump Department and Government Efficiency (DOGE) have sought to identify and implement budget cuts through actions such as federal agencies, mass staff reductions, and actions such as block funds.
In response, the Government’s Accountability Office (GAO) (Watchdog that oversees the Water Storage Management Act) has launched dozens of investigations into the administrative sector.
A series of lawsuits relating to the issue are also pending in federal courts. This could mean that this issue could advance to the Supreme Court.
Here’s what you need to know about legal disputes and potential court showdowns:
Water storage use
Legally speaking, a reservoir refers to a situation in which the president refuses to spend the money allocated by Congress.
It has been used frequently by the president throughout history beginning with President Thomas Jefferson.
In that example, Congress called for the construction of 15 new gunboats at a cost of $50,000. Jefferson objected to it. In October 1803, in his third annual speech, he told Congress that the boats remained unconstructed and that the money was not on hand.
The law did what Jefferson was “approved and empowered” to build “numbers that do not exceed 15 gunboats.”
Supporters of the president’s closure point to a unilateral decision as a basis for practice in US law.
Kendallv. UsEx rel. Stokes, the Supreme Court ruled that there are restrictions on the doctrine. The president could not unilaterally refuse to delegate funds if Congress’ intentions were clear, the court found.
Since then, the issue has been barely litigated. Many of the questions involved mean that they have not yet been defined by the court. These questions primarily concern the separation of power.
Water storage management method
During President Richard Nixon’s tenure, the reservoir attracted more attention.
The 1972 Clean Water Act approved federal funding for municipalities, including New York City, to combat water pollution.
Nixon initially rejected the law. Congress overturned his veto with two-thirds of votes.
After the law was enacted, Nixon attempted to block funds for New York City, urging the city to appeal.
On Train vs. New York City, the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon replaced his authority by refusing to pay the funds 8-0.
Congress said Nixon’s actions have gone from executive function to policy-making function, or Congress’ privileges.
In response, it passed the Water Storage Management Act. This was the first legislative effort to define restrictions between Congress and the President on the issue of water storage.
“The (reservoir) wasn’t an issue until Nixon made it a problem,” former federal prosecutor Neema Ramani told the Epoch Times.
Watkins said the reservoir’s perception of policy decisions was a major factor behind the 1974 law, and that Congress imposed new restrictions on the president’s power.
The law requires the president to send a request for withdrawal to Congress if he wishes to reduce or change the spending that Congress had previously requested. The council will then hold a 45-day continuous session to accommodate requests.
Within that time, Congress will approve the President’s request and either withdraw or reject the funds, or in that case the President will be obliged to use the funds that were originally allocated.
GAO investigation and litigation
GAO says it is investigating various moves Trump has made that could violate the law.
If any of these investigations provide evidence of violations of the Water Storage Control Act, GAO could file a lawsuit against the administration.
In the past, Watkins said there have been frequent water storage management law disputes between the GAO and the Office of Control and Budget (OMB).
Trump’s OMB director, Russ Vert, was an outspoken critic of the Water Reservoir Control Act, which he vowed to strengthen the President’s reservoir in Trump’s second term.
However, water storage problems are rarely tested.
In the 1970s, GAO was Staatsv. He filed a lawsuit against President Gerald Ford over the use of the reservoir at Ford. However, the case was resolved before filing a lawsuit.
GAO did not file a lawsuit, but the law was referenced in the first perpetual proceedings against Trump.
GAO’s May 22nd report shows the first escalation of the conflict.
The report centers on the February 6th announcement of the Transportation Division (DOT) of the freeze on new electric vehicle infrastructure grants under the Infrastructure Investment and Employment Act 2021.
GAO is MOVE cancelling funds allocated by Congress violates the 1974 law. The 2021 Infrastructure Act includes “expenditure obligations,” and the department said it was not permitted to withhold these funds from spending and DOT.
The report said the administration needs to reopen funds to comply with the law, but the department also suggested that it could send a request for withdrawal to Congress.
Most of these failed to lead to court cases.
One exception is Rhode Island vs Trump, a continuing case that includes lawsuits from 21 attorney generals, claiming that Trump’s fundamental executives are violating the separation of water storage control laws and other power laws to reduce the federal bureaucracy.
The judge granted a preliminary injunction in the case.
In this case, both temporary restraining and injunctions were denied.
Wallet strings and executive body
Trump has argued for a wide range of presidential water storage authorities, stating that the president is merely a way to monitor taxpayer funding.
But Democrats and other critics say Trump is violating Congressional authority over the use of the reservoir.
“From day one, President Trump has unilaterally frozen or violated our bipartisan law,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-wash.) said at the April Senate hearing where Dodaro testified.
“That’s not really what the Constitution envisioned. Congress has the power of wallet period. Our presidents cannot choose which part of the law they can follow.”
Ramani said that reflects Malay’s perspective and disagrees with the argument that water storage management unfairly arbitrates the administrative authorities.
“The bottom line is… Congress will pass the law. The president cannot choose to ignore the law, especially when it comes to diverting funds. So this is a pretty clear question,” Ramani said.
He suggested that it would not be much open to Democrats who use such power over funds by Republicans.
In contrast, Watkins argued for a broader interpretation, noting that throughout American history the president refused to spend the money allocated for a variety of reasons.
The 1974 law could be interpreted as a change in the balance of power between the legislative and administrative departments, he said.
Watkins argued that the 1974 law was a legislative over-urgent correction “with important interpretative challenges,” and proposed that the water storage standard was based on whether Congress would explicitly set conditions regarding the use of funds.
In many cases, when Congress allocates funds, it “doesn’t specify either the amount of money or who the money should go to, or when it should be spent,” he said.
If it’s not that clear, he said the presumption should be in favour of the presidential authorities.
But it faces long odds in the Senate, with at least seven Democrats likely to need to sign on to pass the law.
