<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:81718.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-663
NATIONAL WATER SUPPLY ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND WATER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 14, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
81-718 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
first session
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
HARRY REID, Nevada JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
BOB GRAHAM, Florida JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
RON WYDEN, Oregon MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
Ken Connolly, Democratic Staff Director
Dave Conover, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
BOB GRAHAM, Florida, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
NOVEMBER 14, 2001
OPENING STATEMENTS
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado....................................................... 7
Corzine, Hon. Jon S., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey.. 15
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 3
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 1
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 4
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 36
WITNESSES
Diester, Ane, associate vice president, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California................................ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Response to additional questions from Senators Graham and
Crapo...................................................... 64
Frederick, Ken, Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future.......... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Hirsch, Robert, Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological
Survey, Department of Interior................................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Keys, John, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of
Interior....................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Responses to additional questions from Senator Graham........ 41
Mink, Leland Roy, director, Idaho Water Resources Research
Institute...................................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Parker, Hon. Mike, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works.......................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Rutherford, Jay, director, Water Supply Division, Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation....................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Weber, Tom, Deputy Chief of Programs, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture................ 16
Prepared statement........................................... 44
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Article, The Loan Arranger....................................... 74
Statement, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
(ASDWA), Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), and Council of Infrastructure
Financing Authorities (CIFA)................................... 72
NATIONAL WATER SUPPLY ISSUES
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Bob Graham (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Graham, Campbell, Corzine, Crapo and
Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GRAHAM, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Senator Graham. Good morning. I call to order the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Drinking Water.
I will give an abbreviated version of my opening statement
and will be followed by our chairman, Senator Jeffords, and
ranking member, Senator Crapo. Then we will proceed to the
first panel.
This hearing today is part of a series of hearings on water
issues facing America. Today's focus is on the role of the
supply of water and the appropriate position of the Federal
Government. Another title for this hearing, which was developed
back in the spring which might be slightly less obvious today,
is ``Drought in America.''
Over the last decade, America has experienced a significant
decrease in water availability. There are numerous potential
causes for this trend, including reduced rainfall, increased
populations and changes in water use patterns. The availability
of clean, fresh water at the time when you need it is something
that most Americans have taken for granted. However, this is
not the case globally. It is not the case in some areas of our
country and it may not be the case in more areas if current
trends continue.
In 1997, the United Nations assessment of the fresh water
resources of the world included some disturbing predictions
about the availability of water resources in our future. The
report states that water use has been growing at more than
twice the rate of population increase during the 20th century.
It goes on to say that by the year 2025 as much as two-thirds
of the world population could be under stress conditions in
terms of the availability of fresh water.
Water shortages can impact public health, limit economic
and agricultural development and damage ecosystems. This
situation affects the United States, as well as other parts of
the world. In 1900, U.S. water withdrawals for all purposes
were 56 cubic kilometers per year. By 1950, total water
withdrawals were 250 cubic kilometers per year. Water use
peaked in the United States in 1980 with total withdrawals of
more than 500 cubic kilometers per year. These changes
represent a tenfold increase in water withdrawals in a period
in which population in the United States increased by a factor
of four.
These statistics do not speak well for our future. The U.S.
Census Bureau estimates that our population today is
approximately 285 million people. The U.S. Bureau of Census
estimates that by the beginning of the next century,
approximately 99 years from now, our population will be 571
million. If our consumption rates continue to grow during the
next 100 years at the pace they did during the last, we will
likely face even more significant water shortages than we are
already feeling.
No part of the country is unaffected by this. In my home
State of Florida, we experienced a severe drought that lasted
for the better part of this year. The lack of rain was part of
a 7-year drought cycle and the State was eventually forced to
implement unprecedented levels of drought mitigation. I know
the members of this committee could cite similar examples from
their States and their regions of the country.
Today, it is our hope to learn more from our witnesses
about these trends and identify any fundamental issues that are
driving them. For example, are we experiencing a cyclical
downturn in rainfall or are there more basic changes in climate
or other natural systems at work? Are the changes we are seeing
due to conditions in our current water supply system that mask
the true cost of a given unit of water to consumers?
I also plan to discuss with each of the witnesses ideas for
appropriate sets of public policy initiatives that the Federal
Government should undertake. I hope to use the results of these
discussions in our subcommittee's work on water infrastructure
legislation over the course of the next few months. In
particular, we will be using information gathered today to
answer questions such as, What is the value of a given unit of
water? How can we assure that our treatment of water
infrastructure cost gives transparent price signals to water
users who can use that information to make good decisions about
the quantity of water they use?
I recognize that some of the recommendations we receive
today could fall outside the immediate jurisdiction of this
subcommittee. Should this occur, Senator Crapo and I will pass
those recommendations on to the appropriate other Senate
committees.
I am particularly pleased to welcome our Federal witnesses
today from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of
Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Waste Water Management.
We will commence the panel after opening statements from,
first, Senator Crapo, then Senator Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I commend your efforts to address this complex issue. I
have maintained for some time that water was going to
increasingly become one of the most critical issues we deal
with in our Nation, and I appreciate the attention that you are
giving to our Nation's water infrastructure needs.
I also appreciate our witnesses joining us here today to
share their thoughts on the subject of water supply and to
discuss ideas related to the appropriate role of the Federal
Government in addressing this issue. Issues of water supply are
critical to Idaho and throughout much of the country, as are
these continuing drought issues that the chairman has
mentioned. I am also a member of the Senate Committee on
Agriculture where we are marking up portions of the Farm bill
today, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize that I am going to have to
leave rather early in this hearing to get to that Ag Farm bill
markup, where we are also dealing with issues directly related
to water. But this morning, please accept my apologies. I will
keep my opening comments brief.
Idaho, like many other regions of the country, is currently
experiencing a severe drought. Numerous Idaho counties were
declared disaster areas this past summer because of the
severity and persistence of this drought. Close coordination
between Federal agencies, State agencies and the power industry
was necessary to reduce adverse impacts to water users, to our
power generation and to natural resource protection. Add to
this the projection that the population in the West is expected
to increase by 30 percent in the next 20 to 25 years, and it is
not hard to envision that these and other water supply issues
will only intensify in the future.
In the past, Congress has repeatedly recognized the primary
jurisdiction of the States and local governments in managing
and developing water supplies. This has been reinforced over
the years in numerous Federal statutes relating to water
resources. I have personally been a strong advocate of the need
to protect the sovereignty of the States in regard to water
right jurisdiction. Therefore, I would encourage all of us to
keep in mind the critical role of the States in managing water
rights when we address the role that the Federal Government
might take in dealing with national water supply issues.
I also recognize the valuable role the Federal Government
has provided and should continue to provide in the form of
technical assistance and expertise to State and local
governments relating to their management of water resources.
The legislation the chairman just mentioned, which deals with
our Clean Water Act and the water infrastructure needs of our
Nation are good examples of the kinds of things the Federal
Government can do to assist without intruding on the
jurisdiction of the States to control the management and
allocation of water rights.
I also want to take this opportunity to specifically
welcome John Keys and Dr. Roy Mink who are both here today.
John Keys is currently the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation at the Department of Interior. Prior to this
assignment, he served as the Regional Administrator for the
Bureau in Boise, ID. His work with irrigators, stakeholders and
local communities was invaluable in helping to resolve many of
the potential conflicts that arise from the competing interests
in water resource issues. We are sorry to see him leave Idaho,
but I am pleased that he has moved on to share his expertise
with the Bureau nationally.
Roy Mink is the past president of the National Institute of
Water Resources and currently serves as the director of the
Idaho Water Resources Research Institute at the University of
Idaho. His research work in hydrology at the University of
Idaho has made that university one of the Nation's leading
institutes in natural resource management, and water resources
in particular. His role as president of the National Institute
was instrumental in helping Congress' reauthorization of the
Water Resources Research Act in the last session. The Institute
provides critical research and expertise to Federal, State and
local governments in the complex issues surrounding water
resource management.
I look forward to hearing their testimony and the testimony
of all the witnesses here. Those who I can't hear personally, I
promise you I will read your testimony as you submit it for the
record.
Mr. Chairman, the Western States Water Council has
submitted written testimony to the subcommittee that I request
be added to the official record of this hearing.
Senator Graham. Without objection.
Senator Crapo. In closing, I would just like to also note
my good friend Mike Parker is here. I served with him in the
House of Representatives and I am glad to see you here now
working with the Corps.
With that, I once again thank all of our witnesses for
joining us today to provide testimony on this important issue,
and I thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the
importance of your participation in the committee markup.
Whenever it is necessary for you to leave, you will be missed,
but we know you are doing your duty.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
Senator Graham. Senator Jeffords.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate being here today. I am looking forward to the
testimony, and I want to thank the witnesses also for being
here.
When we think of water supply issues, we most often think
of agriculture and the West or Midwest. However, I suspect that
we will hear today that water supply issues, whether the issue
is too little water or too much water, impact all areas of the
country.
Right now, Vermont is in its sixth month of very dry,
drought-like conditions. The municipal water system serving the
largest population centers generally have adequate supply--like
Lake Champlain. However, the large majority of rural Vermonters
draw their water from individual wells. Many, many of these
wells are stressed by drought. Well-drillers are booked solid
through the end of the year.
With winter fast approaching, it is that much more
difficult to deal with water supply issues and there is little
hope of wells or springs recharging once the ground freezes.
There are no established programs through which the State can
assist these individuals, many of whom are economically
challenged. The USDA Rural Development Program does have some
assistance available to rural homeowners, but this program is
often not ideally structured to meet the needs of Vermonters. I
am deeply concerned about the rural families of Vermont and
their well-being over the long winter. I believe that if some
action is not taken, portions of the State will truly be facing
a crisis in the coming months.
I want to share with the committee and our witnesses the
story of one Vermonter that is reminiscent of the pioneering
days of westward expansion in our Nation. An elderly woman who
lives alone in rural Vermont is faced with an almost
insurmountable burden in the coming winter. Her well has run
dry, and like many Vermonters she may not be able to get a new
well drilled before the winter sets in. To survive the winter
and gather water for the most basic of bathing, cooking and
cleaning needs, she will be traveling half a mile to her
nearest neighbor's home and carry water through the snow back
to her house.
I plan to work over the next few weeks with my colleagues
in the subcommittee and in the full Congress to ensure that
USDA's Rural Development Program has the resources and the
ability to provide assistance to those in crisis due to water
shortages this winter.
I also plan to work with my colleagues to make emergency
grants, if required, through the Environmental Protection
Agency to ensure that the people of Vermont have access to the
most basic services that every American enjoys. I am pleased
that this subcommittee is taking a thorough look at the water
policy issues facing our Nation before proceeding with water
infrastructure legislation in January.
I want to take a few minutes to introduce Mr. Jay
Rutherford who is one of the witnesses today on our second
panel, and hails from Waterbury, VT. Jay is director of the
Water Supply Division for the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation, a position he has held since 1992.
In this capacity, Jay is responsible for management of the
State's Drinking Water Program, Groundwater Protection Program,
and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. He administers the
State's Comprehensive Source Protection Plan.
Prior to assuming the directorship of the department, Jay
oversaw the administration of both the drinking water and waste
water grant and loan programs for the State. He was also
responsible for the development and implementation of these
programs' information management systems. Jay has also had
experience as an engineer consultant, a software author, a
public school teacher and a Peace Corps volunteer. He received
his BS in civil engineering from the University of Vermont and
is a registered professional engineer.
I am very pleased that Jay can be here with us today to
offer the benefit of his expertise on water issues in Vermont,
as well as the cumulative knowledge of the association. I also
hope that we will continue to utilize his expertise in
administration of the water and waste water grant and loan
programs for Vermont as we proceed with the water
infrastructure legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Rutherford, for joining us. I am sorry that
I have to depart for other obligations.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing today before the
Subcommittee to discuss this critical issue with us. When we think of
water supply issues, we most often think of agriculture in the arid
west or Midwest. However, I suspect that we will hear today that water
supply issues, whether the issue is too little water or too much water,
impact all areas of the country.
Right now, Vermont is in the 6th month of very dry, drought-like
conditions. The municipal water systems serving the largest population
centers generally have adequate capacity. However, the large majority
of rural Vermonters draw their water from individual wells.
Many, many of these wells are stressed by drought. Well--drillers
are booked solid through the end of the year. With winter fast
approaching, it is that much more difficult to deal with water supply
issues and there is little hope of well or springs recharging once the
ground freezes.
There are no established programs through which the State can
assist these individuals, many of whom are economically challenged. The
USDA Rural Development program does have some assistance available to
rural homeowners, but this program is often not ideally structured to
meet the needs of Vermonters.
I am deeply concerned about the rural families of Vermont and their
well-being over the long winter. I believe that if some action is not
taken, portions of the State will truly be facing a crisis in the
coming months. I want to share with the Committee and our witnesses the
story of one Vermonter that is reminiscent of the pioneering days of
westward expansion in our Nation.
An elderly woman who lives alone in rural Vermont is faced with an
almost insurmountable burden in the coming winter. Her well has run dry
and, like many Vermonters, she is unable to get a new well drilled
before winter sets in. To survive the winter and gather water for the
most basic of bathing, cooking, and cleaning needs, she will be walking
\1/2\ mile to her nearest neighbor's home and carrying water through
the snow back to her house.
I plan to work over the next few weeks with my colleagues on this
subcommittee and in the full Congress to ensure that the USDA's Rural
Development Program has the resources and the ability to provide
assistance to those in crisis due to water shortage this winter. I also
plan to work with my colleagues to make emergency grants if required
through the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the people
of Vermont have access to the most basic services that every American
enjoys.
I am pleased that this subcommittee is taking such a thorough look
at the water policy issues facing our Nation before proceeding with
water infrastructure legislation in January.
I want to take a few minutes to introduce Mr. Jay Rutherford who is
one of our witnesses today on our second panel and hails from
Waterbury, Vermont. Jay is the Director of Water Supply for the Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation, a position he has held since
1992. In this capacity, Jay is responsible for the management of the
State's drinking water program, groundwater protection program, and the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. He also administers the State's
comprehensive source protection plan program. Prior to assuming the
directorship of the department, Jay oversaw the administration of both
the drinking water and wastewater grant and loan programs for the
State.
He was also responsible for the development and implementation of
those programs' information management systems. Jay has also had
experience as an engineering consultant, a software author, a public
school teacher, and a Peace Corps volunteer. He received a B.S. in
Civil Engineering from the University of Vermont and is a Registered
Professional Engineer. I am very pleased that Jay can be here with us
today to offer the benefit of his expertise on water issues in Vermont
as well as the cumulative knowledge of the Association.
I also hope that we continue to utilize his expertise in
administration of the drinking water and wastewater grant and loan
programs for Vermont as we proceed with water infrastructure
legislation.
Senator Graham. We have been joined by Senator Campbell.
Senator, do you have an opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have a
short one.
I would also like to welcome the witnesses here. John Keys
has a very fine reputation in our State, too--a man of sound
voice on water management and I am happy to see him. My old
colleague Mike Parker--I haven't seen you for a couple of
years. Mike, it is very nice to see you here again. Let me
maybe just make a couple of comments as a westerner, as Senator
Crapo did, Mr. Chairman. There is an old saying, I think it was
attributed to Mark Twain, who said, ``In the West, whisky is
for drinking and water is for fighting.'' As many of us in the
West know, prior to statehood, territories in the West had
adjudicated their water claims in a system of water courts, and
the Federal Government historically has recognize this
distinction between the East and the West in the treatment of
water and how the law reflects the differences.
Unlike the eastern seaboard, in fact many other regions of
the country, we are subject to very wide swings in water
supply. In fact, in many of our States we store over 80 percent
of the water we need for the year, as opposed to 15 percent in
most of the eastern seaboard States. They say in many places in
the East you can drill 15 feet, and I am sure in your State of
Florida you can probably drill 15 or 20 feet and you will find
water. There are places out in our States of Idaho and Colorado
and Montana and Nevada you can drill 1,500 feet and you still
won't find water.
So we look at water as a property right, and in fact as you
know in the West we can take it from the land and sell it
separate from the land. We can sell water to one person and
sell the land to somebody else. It has initiated a whole
different kind of a system of law and how we use our water. To
complicate it, we have to balance the needs of the National
Parks, the endangered species, the agriculture, the public, the
priority Indian tribal rights and a number of different
compacts--interstate compacts between upper and lower basin
States and compacts between our States and the United States
and Mexico, too.
So we have a whole different concept, as you might guess,
in how we deal with water. But it does provide some particular
challenges to the western water users. In my State, as an
example, the continental divide runs right up the middle of our
State. Eighty percent of our population in Colorado live on the
front range, but eighty percent of the water is on the western
side. That in itself creates a problem where we have more than
enough water on one side of the mountain that we own under the
compacts, and yet we have difficulty in getting it to the
people who need it. So we have to look for some innovative
approaches, particularly since, as I understand it, our State
is going to grow about 30 percent in the next 20 years.
I know that Congress generally appreciates that water is a
scarce resource and that we look at it a little differently in
the West. I think it is really important to recognize that a
lot of the overdue water projects that were designed in the
1960's to help us share the water among the scarcity of all the
competing demands, some of them are long overdue. One of them,
John Keys just told me, will probably get off the ground very
shortly. The Adamsville Platte was authorized in 1968. So you
can see are way behind on trying to provide the water to the
people that need it in our States.
In any event, I do look forward to the testimony. Like
everyone, I have a conflict, too. I have a markup in
appropriations at 10:30, but I am going to stay as long as I
can.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Campbell follows:]
Statement of Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, U.S. Senator from the
State of Colorado
Thank you for holding this hearing on the Federal role in meeting
water supply.
Water is our most precious resource. As such, interested parties
have fought over water since time-in-memorial.
Water conflicts between competing users are most pronounced in the
arid West, where water is a scarce resource.
Prior to statehood, territories in the West have been adjudicating
water conflicts through a system of water courts. The Federal
Government historically has recognized the distinctions between the
East and the West and the treatment of water in the law reflects those
differences.
Unlike other regions of the country, the West is subject to wide
swings in water supply, and often experiences significant drought
conditions, thereby reducing an already scarce resource.
Western States must adjudicate water claims to find equitable
distribution of water between a growing number of competing users.
Making sure that there is enough water to maintain endangered species,
national parks, agriculture, and the public at large, and honoring
Indian water rights' claims, can be a challenging task.
Furthermore, the geography of the West provides particular
challenges in meeting the needs of water users. In my own State of
Colorado, eighty percent of the water is on the Western slope, yet
eighty percent of the people live east of the continental divide. That
fact alone requires innovative approaches to getting the water to the
people that need it. However, considering that Colorado's population is
projected to grow more than forty percent (or 1.5 million people) by
2015 underscores an already dire situation.
We, in Congress, must appreciate that water is a scarce resource
and that the Federal Government should continue to defer to Western
States in adjudicating water rights. The Western water States are the
best arbiter of water claims and the current system should be respected
and preserved.
It is important to address our Nation's aging water infrastructure.
Yet, it is just as important to look ahead so that we will have secure
water supplies in the West. Moving forward on planned water projects,
such as the Animas La Plata, is the responsible and right thing to do.
In planning for the future, States must know how much water the
various Federal agencies of jurisdiction claim. Therefore, I would hope
that those agencies expedi-
tiously quantify their claims so that interested States can apportion
their water with forethought.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Senator.
Again, I wish to express my appreciation to the panel. I
know that you will provide us with some very insightful
commentary based on your experience in these important issues.
Our first panel is the Honorable Mike Parker, who has
recently become the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
Works--Mike, thank you for joining us; Mr. John Keys,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the
Interior; Mr. Robert Hirsch, Assistant Director for Water of
the U.S. Geological Survey, also the Department of the
Interior; Mr. Tom Weber, Deputy Chief of Programs, Natural
Resource Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture;
and Mr. Mike Cook, Director of EPA's Office of Waste Water
Management.
Mr. Parker.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE PARKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
FOR CIVIL WORKS
Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, especially my friend, Senator Campbell.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on the
Army Corps of Engineers' activities to address the water supply
issues of the Nation.
In your call for this hearing, you asked that we respond to
three specific questions. I will respond to your questions in
order. First, you asked that we present our perspective on
water supply in the United States today, including the extent
to which there is or is not a water supply problem today or in
the future; a description of that problem if we believe one
exists, including regional differences; and a discussion of the
potential cause of this problem.
We believe the Nation faces many challenges in assuring an
adequate water supply. These challenges now affect all regions
of the country, not just the traditionally dry areas. The
availability of reliable and clean supplies of water is crucial
to the health of our citizens and to maintaining the Nation's
economic prosperity both now and in the future.
In a series of listening sessions the Corps held last year,
citizens around the Nation voiced their concerns about various
aspects of water supply at every session. At these listening
sessions, the public called for better data to understand the
scope and nature of the water supply problems we face. The last
comprehensive assessment of the Nation's water needs was
completed over 15 years ago.
The public also told us that water supply is more than a
local problem. Municipal leaders told us that supporting growth
in an environmentally sustainable manner will require regional
solutions. Consequently, new water supply projects that are
feasible and efficient must often be located outside the limits
of the municipalities that seek additional supplies. Technical
leadership will be essential to integrate competing values
across multiple political jurisdictions to reach consensus for
regional water supply solutions.
As an example, in landmark 1997 legislation, the State of
Texas recognized these new realities and designated 16 regions
to lead the development of future water supply. Larger
communities within these regions were designated to take the
lead for their regions.
Your second question asked us to address the extent that
the Federal programs under our jurisdiction work to ensure that
State and local governments are meeting water supply needs. It
has been longstanding policy that municipal and industrial
water supply projects are considered the primary responsibility
of non-Federal parties. The authorities under which the Corps
of Engineers provides water supply storage are generally
project-specific and a secondary purpose for the development of
a project.
We can provide water supply storage at completed projects
by reallocating storage for other purposes and evaluate the
potential for new water supply as part of planning multi-
purpose projects. At the present time, the Army operates 117
reservoirs containing about 9.5 million acre-feet of storage
authorized and available for municipal and industrial water
supply use. We also maintain approximately 57 million acre-feet
of storage for agricultural irrigation in 50 reservoirs.
Overall, we have over 400 reservoirs that could be modified or
have existing storage that may be available for reallocation to
provide additional municipal and industrial water supply
storage.
I want to emphasize the Corps' involvement in water supply
is founded on deference to State water rights. During the
enactment of the Flood Control Act of 1944, Congress made clear
that we do not own water stored in our projects. Our practice
is to contract with non-Federal interests for water storage in
our projects. Our policy is to continue our commitment to
consistency with State water law.
The Corps of Engineers is currently working with other
Federal agencies and with State and local interests to help
solve several large complex regional water problems. For
example, as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan, the Corps of Engineers is undertaking a technical
evaluation of complex systems and balancing competing demands
for available water resources in the development of a
comprehensive regional solution. This effort integrates diverse
needs, objectives and ongoing complementary efforts of multiple
Federal, State, local and other interest groups. Although the
Federal interest is primarily environmental restoration, this
interest is closely linked in the case of the Everglades with
water quality improvement, water supply and flood damage
reduction.
Another example is the comprehensive assessment of the
demands and water resources available on the Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River systems
to assist the affected States in reaching decisions on
allocation of available water. These efforts included the
development of alternative scenarios and options on which
allocation decisions can be based.
Your final question asked us to review what actions, if
any, Congress should take to facilitate an efficient and
effective Federal role in water supply. Participants in our
listening sessions told us that they looked to cooperative
efforts between the Federal Government and States in developing
integrated regional management of water resources, including
water supply. Our management of water must be based on economic
and environmental benefits and cost. Decisions must be science-
based choices among a full array of alternative uses to which
our watersheds and river basins may be put. In doing this, we
must respect the primacy of State water law.
Congress should work with the Administration to ensure that
our Nation has the framework to provide integrated water
management. This framework should include the appropriate roles
of the Federal and non-Federal levels of government and the
very powerful part that the private sector must play in any
solution to our water resources challenges.
In conclusion, I believe we are facing emerging water
supply challenges. Consistent with the goals of the president,
the Army Corps of Engineers stands ready to work with its
sister agencies in contributing to the dialog. We will continue
our stewardship of our existing projects to manage water
storage for efficient uses, including water supply, and
maintain our commitment to consistency with State water rights.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be
pleased to address any questions that you or anyone on the
committee may have.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Parker. I
appreciate that very constructive statement and look forward to
some questions.
Mr. Keys.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I am John Keys, Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation. It is certainly a pleasure to be here
today. This is not our normal committee and it is nice to be
able to talk to some other folks about water supply in the
West.
Senator Graham. We will try to treat you well enough that
you will want to come back.
Mr. Keys. That sounds good to me.
I would first ask that my full written statement be made
part of the record, if you would.
Senator Graham. It shall be, yes.
Mr. Keys. Good.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KEYS, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Mr. Keys. When first asked to testify here today on
oversight on water resources in the West, I thought of several
aspects of the problem that we should talk about, not the least
of which is security at our facilities that our underway right
now, the drought aspects, some of the infrastructure conditions
that we are dealing with, and future for our water supply.
First, with all of the recent attention on security, let me
emphasize that all Bureau of Reclamation facilities are secure.
We remain at a high level of security at all of those
facilities over the West and we have paid particular attention
to those high visibility, high risk facilities such as Grand
Coulee, Hoover, Shasta, Glen Canyon and a number of others that
could get some particular attention. Our power facilities and
water supply facilities are included in that vigilance.
With all of the work during this period in security areas,
let me assure you that during that time we did not miss the
delivery of a single acre-foot of water nor the generation of a
single kilowatt hour of power. That system operated at its best
during that time and we in reclamation were certainly proud of
that.
In the near future, you will see reviews of security at all
of our facilities. The President just this week signed a bill
that gives us law enforcement authority at all of our
facilities, and we do appreciate the Senate's action on that.
It allows us to contract for the coverage of law enforcement at
our facilities, which we did not have before.
In talking about drought for just a minute, a large portion
of the Western United States is in the second or third year of
a severe drought. Parts of the Columbia Basin this past year
received just over 50 percent of their normal runoff. In other
areas, the Rio Grande and the Pecos River received less than
half of their water supplies this past year. California,
Nevada, Utah, Colorado--all of those areas are still suffering
from shortages of water this year.
The Bureau of Reclamation projects worked well in supplying
needed water during that time. In most of the areas, drought
contingency planning ahead of time helped prepare a lot of
those areas for the worst. In some of those cases, we got the
worst. Another year of short water supplies in those areas
could be devastating to some of our water users. We are right
now continuing to work on water conservation programs, on
drought contingency planning in those areas, but in some
places, it is probably not going to be enough. If we don't
receive above-normal runoff in some of those areas next year
could be a very tough year for a lot of those folks.
Now, our infrastructure around reclamation is an aging one.
A lot of our facilities were built in the early 1900's. But
Bureau of Reclamation facilities are being operated and
maintained in a safe, reliable and sustainable manner. Our No.
1 priority in reclamation is, and I hope it always will be, to
continue that. We have one of the best safety advantage
programs in the world, and we are implementing it to ensure the
safety of those facilities around the Western United States.
Our power operation and maintenance program with Bonneville
Power Administration and the Western Power Administration are
exceptional to get the most generation from all of our plants.
We continue to supply irrigation water to over 10 million acres
of farmland and domestic municipal and industrial water to more
than 31 million people in the Western United States. Of course,
we could use more dollars to work on and update these
facilities, but we understand that dollars are short these
days. Our programs will keep these facilities in a safe and
operating mode with what we have for the time being.
Looking at the future, over the past next 25 years,
population in 17 Western States has increased at 32 percent
growth rate. That compares to an overall growth rate of about
19 percent in the rest of the United States. Nearly every water
system in the West--the Colorado, the Columbia, the Missouri,
the Rio Grande, the Great Basin--all of those are heavily
developed and over-appropriated in most cases. This trend is
expected to continue. It causes significant challenges to both
the Bureau of Reclamation and other Federal, State and local
water agencies.
Many irrigation and municipal industrial water delivery
systems will require substantial improvements to meet current
engineering standards and to enable beneficiaries to deliver
and receive the water supplies they need in order to meet the
rising demands in the future. New facilities to meet
agriculture and municipal and industrial conversion may be
needed. As one of the fastest growing regions in the United
States, water that was once used for irrigation is increasingly
being converted to municipal and industrial usage.
Because of the change in the location of usage, because of
the changes in timing of when the water is needed currently,
and because of the need for treatment of municipal and
industrial water to make it potable, there is currently in
insufficient infrastructure to meet these needs. In addition to
converting the water from agriculture to municipal and
industrial purposes, a new water supply will be needed to meet
the growth of certain regions in the Western United States.
While Reclamation has a significant and diverse mission----
Senator Graham. Mr. Keys.
Mr. Keys. Yes, sir?
Senator Graham. Could you summarize the balance of your
statement and the full statement will, of course, be in the
record.
Mr. Keys. You bet.
The last point that I was going to make is one of the
challenges we face is in meeting budgets to provide all of
these facilities, and we would certainly be willing to work
with our appropriations committees and those folks to provide
those dollars. We would look forward to working with your
subcommittee on the drought program and would certainly stand
to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Keys.
Our next witness is Mr. Robert Hirsch, Assistant Director
for Water of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT HIRSCH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR WATER, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Mr. Hirsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to report on water
supply issues from the perspective of the U.S. Geological
Survey.
I am Robert Hirsch, and as Associate Director of the
Survey, I am responsible for the water science programs of the
USGS. Allow me to summarize my remarks and try to be as
responsive as I can to your questions.
In response to your first question, I would say that the
water supply situation has become much more complex in recent
years. The Nation's water infrastructure was designed primarily
to meet a set of demands for water for irrigation, municipal
needs and industrial needs. Over the years, conditions have
changed. For example, center-pivot irrigation systems have made
irrigation more practical in many regions, and populations have
shifted from northeast to the southern and Western parts of the
Nation.
Of particular importance is the fact that water supply
systems are now being called upon to provide water for in-
stream uses that were not part of the original design
requirements. What this means is that there is a rapidly
increasing conflict and competition for water nationwide. We
see this in arid regions and humid regions alike. Experience
has shown, however, that application of science can help cope
with the conflict.
To answer your second question, let me point out where
science and the USGS science in particular can play a valuable
role in resolving water supply problems. As competition gets
stronger, there is a need for science that defines more
precisely than ever the actual extent of the resource. We
believe that the science of groundwater hydrology is crucial to
water management not only in arid regions, but nationwide.
Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater has great potential
for making water supplies more drought-resistant. Groundwater
is crucial to sustaining streamflow for habitat and for water
supply. More and more, we find that our partners are asking us
to explore the role the groundwater plays in maintaining
adequate flow and temperature conditions in rivers.
Second, we conduct scientific studies to support the use of
emerging technologies such as artificial recharge, aquifer
storage and recovery, and recharge of reclaimed waste water as
pivotal parts of the water management equation. The science to
support the use of these new technologies is a part of our
strategic plan for the future of USGS groundwater science.
Third, we provide hydrologic data that are crucial to the
wise management of the resource and that support effective
daily operational decisions, as well as long-term solutions.
You will see a chart coming up in a moment here regarding our
stream gages. We operate about 7,000 stream gages which monitor
the flow of water in our Nation's rivers and streams. We freely
provide the current and historical data to a wide range of
users. This information is used for purposes that include water
supply planning, flood risk assessment, water quality, water
supply operations, streamflow forecasting, habitat assessment
and personal planning of river-based recreational activities.
Currently, we are in the process of modernizing the stream
gauging network, and at the present time about 5,000 of these
stations have satellite telemetry that enables us to provide
near real-time data to all users via the Internet. One of the
information products that comes from the stream gauges is
called ``water watch.'' This is illustrated on the briefing
board. These water-watch maps are constructed daily and are
based on conditions for the preceding week at all the USGS
stream gaging locations that have 30 or more years of record
and have telemetry systems. Each dot on the map represents an
individual gauge, and they are color-coded based on the long-
term record of flows at that site for the particular time of
year. The colors range from red, which indicates record-
breaking low flows, to black indicating record-breaking highs.
The patterns seen on yesterday's map shows a broad area of
very dry conditions from northern Florida through Maine; a very
wet area centered in Indiana; another focused around the Red
River of the north; and dry areas in the Northern Rockies and
the coastal regions of Oregon and northern California.
Let me take a moment to mention four USGS programs most
relevant to the water-supply question. First and foremost is
the Cooperative Water Program that has been in existence for
over 100 years. In this matching program, we cooperate with
1,400 State, local and tribal governments. In recent years, the
non-Federal contributions have greatly exceeded the Federal
share. Today, the program involves about $63 million in Federal
funds and about $120 million in non-Federal funds. The work
undertaken includes the collection of water data and regional
studies and models.
Second, I would like to mention the Water Resources
Research Institute Program. This cost-shared program is crucial
to the development of the expertise and assistance to State,
local and Federal Government on water issues. Roy Mink from the
Idaho Institute will be here to testify later.
Third, the Groundwater Resources Program conducts research
on groundwater systems with an aim to providing a better
overall characterization of the resource and better ability to
predict how the resource will respond to stresses from
development or climate change.
Finally, the National Streamflow Information Program is a
newly focused effort to provide support for the stream gaging
network that measures the pulse of the Nation's rivers. We have
worked closely with the Congress over the past 3 years, and
thanks to your support and the support of hundreds of State,
local and tribal agencies and our Federal partners,
particularly the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of
Reclamation, we have made good progress in modernizing and
stabilizing the network.
In response to your final question about congressional
actions, let me simply acknowledge the strong support that
Congress continues to show for these USGS water programs. I
would also note that the USGS is currently preparing a report
related to the topic of this hearing. It is being prepared in
response to the following request from the House of
Representatives Committee on Appropriations, and I quote from
their report language:
The Committee is concerned about the future of water
availability for the Nation. Water is vital for the needs of
growing communities, agriculture, energy production and
critical ecosystems. Unfortunately, a nationwide assessment of
water availability for the United States does not exist or at
best is several decades old. The Committee directs that by
January 31, 2002, the Survey prepare a report describing the
scope and magnitude of the efforts needed to provide periodic
assessments of the status and trends in the availability and
use of fresh water resources.
We would be pleased to discuss this report with the
committee at any time.
Thank you for asking me to testify today, and I would be
glad to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Graham. Mr. Hirsch, the report that you just
referred to, when will that be available?
Mr. Hirsch. It will be available at the end of January, but
we would be happy to discuss it with the committee as we are
wrapping up our process of preparing it.
Senator Graham. I am very pleased to know of that. The
timing fits exceptionally well with our intention to begin to
develop legislation in this and other areas relative to water
use at about that period in January. Thank you.
I would like to recognize the arrival of Senator Corzine of
New Jersey, a member of our subcommittee. Senator Corzine, do
you have any opening comments?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON S. CORZINE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this hearing on a very important topic to the Nation.
Actually, I noticed in Mr. Hirsch's formal remarks a
recognition of a growing drought problem along the East Coast
and the Delaware River Basin in particular, which is
particularly important to my State of New Jersey, but the whole
region. In questions, we will probe around a little more on
that.
I think this is a vital issue of importance to all our
communities and I appreciate your holding the hearing in
preparation for us moving forward with legislation. I look
forward to working with you. I have a formal statement I will
put in the record.
Senator Graham. Without objection.
Senator Corzine. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Corzine follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jon S. Corzine, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this
hearing on our Nation's current and future water supply.
My State of New Jersey has historically had adequate water supply
thanks to its multiple rivers, substantial annual rainfall, and
abundant groundwater. However, our status as the country's most densely
populated State, as well as the 9th highest in population, means our
water supplies are put under increasing stress. We now have areas
approaching critical depletion. Future water supply management will
require substantial investment in infrastructure and water resource
development.
I look forward to hearing from today's panelists on the outlook for
our Nation's water supply and what role the Federal Government can play
in meeting our citizens' water supply needs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Tom Weber, Deputy Chief of Programs, Natural Resources
Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Weber.
STATEMENT OF TOM WEBER, DEPUTY CHIEF OF PROGRAMS, NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and present
views on behalf of the Department of Agriculture regarding
water supply issues in our Nation.
America's farmers are among the most productive in the
world, but increasingly around this country farmers and
ranchers are facing an ever-increasing concern about both the
quality and the quantity of water. Recently, the Secretary of
Agriculture Ann Veneman released ``Food and Agriculture Policy:
Taking Stock for the New Century.'' This document is a long-
term view of the Nation's agriculture and food system. We
propose that the policies in this document not only buildupon
the past gains in resource conservation, but must prepare us to
respond to emerging challenges such as the link between water
supply and agriculture.
This relationship is exemplified by the following facts.
Nationwide, agriculture accounts for nearly 80 percent of all
water consumption. A significant percentage of all cropland in
the Western United States is irrigated. The 16 percent of the
harvested cropland that is irrigated accounts for nearly one-
half of the value of all crops sold. Nationwide, nearly all of
our orchard sales and a majority of the sales of vegetables and
potatoes are produced on irrigated cropland.
Demand for water is increasing, with added pressure from
both municipal use and urbanization. We believe that
Agriculture is uniquely positioned to be part of the solution
to the water issues. The Natural Resource Conservation Service
helps farmers and ranchers with on-farm water management. Some
examples of programs and activities that can help include the
following. We believe the best approach is to begin with a
conservation plan. That is where a conservationist works
directly with a farmer or rancher to plan their natural
resource needs, to address their needs, including irrigation
water management, and assist them in providing the technical
know-how to implement those plans.
The NRCS also offers valuable information to assist in
resource planning, such as the snow survey and water supply
forecasting program. This program provides for the Western
States and Alaska information on seasonal availability of water
from melting snowpack. This is through our system of automated
snow telemetry equipment which provides weekly and monthly
predictions of the resultant streamflows and is available as a
web service.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is also a partnership
effort in which we inventory the Nation's soil resources. The
Survey produces comprehensive maps, descriptions and
interpretations that land users and others can use to make
resource decisions based upon water availability.
In addition, the Natural Resources Conservation Service has
the National Resources Inventory which gauges the condition and
trends of natural resources around the Nation on over 800,000
sample sites, and also serves to provide analysis of those
resource trends and impacts.
The Conservation Plant Materials Program identifies and
distributes millions of native plants to address natural
resource problems. As part of this effort, we evaluate drought
tolerance of plants and work to develop these plants for the
assisting of farmers and ranchers who face water shortages.
I would also like to mention a couple of incentive
programs. The first is the Environmental Quality Incentive
Program which provides technical, educational and financial
assistance to farmers and ranchers to protect their natural
resources. On-farm water conservation practices such as drip
irrigation do provide dramatic reductions in water use, while
maintaining productivity, and are in part financed through this
program.
The Wetland Reserve Program also provides long-term drought
prevention by protecting our wet areas--swamps and marshes--
that helps to conserve and store water. The Small Watershed
Program involves State and other public agencies in water and
land treatment projects. These are used to enhance flood
control, watershed management, water conservation, industrial
and municipal water supply and fish and wildlife purposes.
We also have the Emergency Watershed Program which targets
communities as opposed to individuals by relieving imminent
threats to life and property caused by flood, fire, windstorm,
drought and other natural occurrences. We believe this
incentive and technical support programs can substantially
improve on-farm water management and sound resource information
can help make a difference.
When the Congress enacted the National Drought Policy Act
of 1998, a 15-member advisory commission consisting of farmers,
ranchers and government officials and chaired by the Secretary
of Agriculture did make several recommendations regarding NRCS
technical assistance and funding for voluntary programs to help
with drought mitigation. This commission also recommended
expansion of the resource inventory technology capacity to
assist.
I would conclude that even if we are not able to control
the weather, conservation programs can play an important role
in helping local people with the tools and assistance they need
to mitigate the effects of water shortages.
I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Cook, who is representing the EPA today, will be
available for questions, but I understand you do not have a
statement. Is that correct, Mr. Cook?
Mr. Cook. That is correct, sir. I might just say for the
record my name is Michael Cook and I am Director of the Office
of Waste Water Management at EPA.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Cook.
One question that I would like to start with is whether the
drought that was outlined in the statistics I cited earlier and
that several of you have mentioned in your presentations--is
this a cyclical circumstance or do we have some reason to
believe that the 21st century may be significantly different
than the 20th century in terms of the natural production of the
water upon which we depend? Mr. Hirsch, from the study that you
have underway at the Geological Survey, what is your sense?
Mr. Hirsch. Thank you for the question. It is always very
difficult to make any prognostications about what precipitation
or flow availability will do in the future. Even looking
backward in time, I think what we find is a very episodic
nature--episodic meaning periods of several years of departures
toward very wet conditions on one hand or dry conditions on the
other, and not really a cyclic pattern, but a kind of a
variation from one to the other.
One of the things we do see is that actually low flows in
rivers have tended to be increasing across the Nation over much
of the last century, and high flows have stayed relatively the
same. We don't see any clear pattern of a climatic shift
occurring that would portend a very different sort of climate
for the next century, particularly as it relates to water
resources.
Senator Graham. Any other members of the panel have any
comment on the question of is this a more or less conventional
cycle of weather, or do the drought conditions that we have
been experiencing for the past several years represent a more
fundamental shift in climate?
Mr. Keys, you referred to a set of statistics relative to
increase in public supply water use in the United States. Those
statistics indicate that between 1980 and 1995 on average the
United States increased its use of public supply water by 16
percent, but there were 16 States that more than doubled that
percentage increase. Of those 16 States, 7 were States that
were within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation and 9
were in States that were not in the Bureau of Reclamation's
jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation is largely
based on the water patterns of the United States in the 19th
and the early part of the 20th century where we had a
relatively wet East and a dry West. Now that we are having
other factors that are beginning to influence water supply and
use that are causing States in the East to begin to experience
some of the restrictions that were previously a western
phenomenon. Based on your experience at the Bureau of
Reclamation, do you have any advice for those States outside of
your jurisdiction that are now beginning to experience the type
of water limitations that have been historic in the West?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, that is a heck of a question. I
would just say that we work very closely with the other
agencies--the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Service--
in trying to supply waters to all of those areas. The
populations have built up around the project areas that
Reclamation worked on in the early part of the 19th century.
One of the biggest challenges to us right now is the conversion
from those irrigation water supplies to municipal supplies to
meet the demand brought on by a lot more people.
One of those statistics that I talked about is the more
than 30 percent increase over the past 20 to 30 years in
population there. We have been working with the Corps and with
the NRCS in those areas to try to make those conversions and
still supply the irrigation waters.
Do I have advice for the other Federal agencies? I think
the only advice that I would give is to be sure that we are
still working together, because they have their authorities, we
have our areas, and certainly I think together we can meet the
challenge.
Senator Graham. That is a very encouraging, optimistic
assessment of the future. I am hopeful that that will be the
case.
Mr. Parker, what have been in the Corps' experience the
most encouraging developments in terms of means by which we can
manage our water supply more effectively? For example, I notice
that the State of Georgia, in conjunction with the Corps, is
now considering adding a series of new reservoirs, particularly
on the Flint River in order to better manage their water
supply. What has been the Corps' experience as to the most
effective specific or combination of management techniques for
purposes of water supply?
Mr. Parker. Senator, I think that the biggest thing is the
realization of people around this country that there is a
definite problem. More and more people understand that they
have to take some action in order to offset that. What is
interesting is it is spotty across the country. If you look at
the State of Texas, they have taken some steps as far as
looking at their entire State and seeing the problem; looking
at it from a regional standpoint instead of a local standpoint.
California has done a good job.
In other States, not the entire State looks at it. In other
areas of the country, it may be a county or a municipality that
looks at it. More people realize that it is a national problem.
We need to look at it in a regional way. The Everglades is a
perfect example. Georgia is a good example. But you've got to
look at it in a regional way and you've got to bring together
all of the different agencies to bear on the Federal side, but
also on the local side. Whenever you do that, if they start
early enough in making decisions and making plans, then they
are able to not have some of the problems that others have had,
if they have that integration early on.
I think that that is the way we are going to solve this
problem, is that people have got to realize we have got to have
a national priority, we have to have a national plan, and that
is has to be regional in nature and that everyone has got to
cooperate to make this thing work, but they've got to start
planning together early to make it happen. We see good examples
of that all over the country.
Senator Graham. Would you suggest that in the legislation
that we are going to be drafting that we should give some
encouragement to States to look from a regional perspective at
their water supply needs and options to meet future demands?
Mr. Parker. I think you have to. I think that you are in a
situation now, especially because of some of the problems in
the country, where as Federal agencies we have got to make it
easy for people to deal with us and be able to put together
those plans. We have situations I am running into now in the
Corps where we have people that have come along and the Corps
wasn't involved until later on in the process. You know, they
started making plans; spent a lot of money--in fact, wasted
money, because if they had just planned properly, they could
have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble, and a lot of
their water problems would be solved.
There has got to be more coordination, and the Federal
Government is the only entity out there that can bring that
coordination to bear--not forcing their will on local
municipalities or local governments, but at least providing
access to the information they need.
Senator Graham. Mr. Cook, last year the Congress passed a
pilot program which was to provide assistance to States and
local communities for the development of alternative water
sources. I recognize that that legislation was passed too late
last year to receive an appropriation. Hopefully, there will be
funds available for the next fiscal year. Could you describe
what is the status within EPA of the commencement of planning
to implement that program?
Mr. Cook. Yes, sir. We set up a task force and initiated a
concept paper on implementation, and then basically put that on
hold when it became apparent there was not going to be an
appropriation under that authority. We do continue to
administer both our State revolving funds programs and also
substantial grants programs to provide assistance for reuse and
recycling and have provided a great deal of that over time,
including in the State of Florida.
Senator Graham. Has your initial work proceeded to the
point that you have developed some criteria of what you will be
looking for in alternative water source projects to be funded?
Mr. Cook. No, not anything other than what was in the
statutory language itself.
Senator Graham. Mr. Weber, several of our colleagues are
not with us now because they are on the Agriculture Committee
and they are involved in a markup. I know that one of the
titles of that legislation deals with conservation, including
water conservation. Are there any recommendations that the
Department of Agriculture is making to the Congress as it
writes the 2001 Farm bill that relate specifically to the issue
of availability of water for agriculture and other purposes?
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not aware of any specific recommendations other than
what are in Secretary Veneman's Ag policy document, which does
speak to water conservation as being a substantial issue from a
resource protection and enhancement standpoint.
Senator Graham. Are there any particularly encouraging
practices that are currently underway that you think should be
encouraged on a broader basis? Or are there new not yet fully
tested areas or tactics for water supply that you think should
be researched and developed on an operational basis?
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, I really believe there are
tremendous technologies already available for a substantial
improvement of efficiency of irrigation water management on
agricultural lands, many of which are applied and can be
applied to other land uses--things such a drip-irrigation
systems, which are used heavily out in the western part of the
country and some other parts of the country for fruits,
vegetables, vineyards and those kinds of specialty crops; the
underground irrigation systems that substantially improve the
efficiency of water use. There are just a number of outstanding
technologies that have been developed both from the government
research side, as well as the private sector, that are
available. It is an issue of management of these technologies,
and also the capital investment needed to convert from other
forms of irrigation that do pose some challenges, and that is
where some of our financial assistance programs can assist
agricultural producers.
Senator Graham. Is it primarily a State responsibility to
facilitate or even mandate the use of these more efficient
irrigation systems for agriculture?
Mr. Weber. From the USDA perspective, that would be a State
or local responsibility to require any kind of conversion from
existing irrigation to more efficient. Obviously, we work with
those local folks, as well as landowners and those State units
of government to help provide the technical know-how to
facilitate that, as well as the financial assistance to help
the conversion.
Senator Graham. Senator Corzine asked if I would ask to the
panel a question relative to the status of desalinization as a
means of generating fresh water supply. Mr. Cook or any member
of the panel who has some thoughts about what is the state of
the science of desalinization?
Mr. Cook. I guess in short, desalinization is being
practiced particularly in Florida, to give a prime example, but
also in other water-short areas. We at this point find the
costs are coming down, though it is still quite a costly
technology and is preferable to have a fresh water supply.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I might add that Reclamation has
technical expertise in de-salting and are actually working with
some projects on the ground right now. We have an agreement
with Sandia Lab to do some research in the New Mexico area. I
also know that the city of El Paso is moving into construction
of a de-salting plant there in coordination with the Army base
that is right close. So there are some things underway working
with some of these folks. We have some good expertise out
there.
Senator Graham. Mr. Cook, I would like to go back to that
legislation that Congress passed last year. At a hearing on
that legislation prior to its enactment, the EPA testified that
the Safe Drinking Water Act's State revolving fund should be
used to meet State needs for augmentation of water supply. At
that same hearing, it was established that the hierarchy of
purposes for the State for the Safe Drinking Water Program did
not include alternative water source development as one of its
purposes. If it is still the EPA's position that water supply
needs should be met through the Safe Drinking Water Act, do you
have some recommendations of how that Act should be modified in
order to make it available for purposes of the development of
water supply?
Mr. Cook. It continues, I think, to be both legislative and
our policy to try to focus the drinking water SRF loans on
improving the quality of what is delivered, as opposed to
improving increasing the quantity. However, we do have the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund which can and is being used on
a large scale for projects that involve reuse and recycling of
waste water. It is being used for high levels of treatment of
sewage. It is being used for storm water management, which is
eventually reinjected to reused in some fashion.
So we actually have a very active program going on in this
area, and it could be expanded easily if some States that have
not to date funded these kind of projects simply changed their
priorities somewhat. So I do not at this time see a need for a
legislative change to the Drinking Water SRF when we have the
clean water SRF which at this point has a much, much higher
capitalization. It is capitalized at this point at over $80
billion nationwide. I don't see a need for changing the
drinking water SRF when we have the clean water SRF.
Senator Graham. Gentlemen, thank you very much for this
very helpful and instructive discussion of our water supply
needs. As I indicated, early in the next year we will commence
the process of trying to take these ideas and incorporate them
into legislation, and we look forward to the opportunity to
continue to work with each of you in that process.
Thank you very much, and I apologize for that interruption.
Our first witness on the second panel will be Ms. Ane
Diester, who is associate vice president of the Metropolitan
Water District of southern California. She is the agency
spokesperson on conservation, drought management, water
reliability and environmental issues, all of which the core of
our hearing today.
I am pleased to say that Ms. Diester has some Florida
roots. Before going to California, she was appointed special
assistant-executive director of the south Florida Water
Management District.
Did you go to California with Woody Woodraski?
Ms. Diester. No, he followed me.
Senator Graham. He followed you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Graham. Our second panelist will be Mr. Jay
Rutherford, who is head of the Water Supply Division of the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, and has
already been introduced by Senator Jeffords.
Our third witness is Mr. Ken Frederick, Senior Fellow with
the Resources for the Future. He has been a member of the
research staff there since 1971 and has done research and
writing on economic, environmental and institutional aspects of
water resource use and management, and the potential impacts of
climate change on the supply and demand for water.
Mr. Leland Roy Mink, director of the Idaho Water Resource
Research Institute and past president of the Board of the Water
Resource Institute. Mr. Mink has also been previously
introduced by Senator Crapo.
Thank each of you for having made the effort to assist us
in understanding issues of water supply. I look forward to
hearing each of you testimoneys. We are requesting that
testimony be restrained to 5 minutes.
If you have a longer statement, that will be part of the
printed record.
Ms. Diester.
STATEMENT OF ANE DIESTER, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT,
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Ms. Diester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here today and to make these comments on this important
topic, water supply.
I have submitted comments for the record, and I believe you
probably have a copy of those.
In addition to my Metropolitan duties, I am also the non-
Federal chair of the National Drought Council, and I previously
served as the Urban Water Representative on the National
Drought Policy Commission.
Lately, and as recent as this morning, there has been some
discussion about water supply and security. Over the past
couple of years, there has been a great deal of discussion
about infrastructure. But the topic of today's hearing focuses
on what I think is the most basic issue and the one we need to
really address, basically our water resource supplies
nationally.
Searching for the answer from many sources to your three
questions, I used the National Job Policy Commission final
report which we submitted to Congress last year, and also the
Scientific American article which came out in February of this
year which featured a whole tapped out series of articles. I
also looked at a lot of Army Corps documents, USGS documents
and data, the World Water Commission reports, American
Waterworks Association documents and papers, and numerous other
scientific articles.
What all of these sources have suggested is something I
think we all know intuitively, and that is that fresh water is
limited and the demands are going up.
In my written comments, I have also provided some worldwide
water statistics and a State by State snapshot of water supply
availability for every State in the Union. In almost every one
of the States, they are either facing now or about to face or
have just recently faced some sort of supply shortage.
Groundwater basins are being over-drafted. Conservation
measures that have cushioned growth demands and dry weather
conditions are becoming hardened, and increases in salt
concentrations are beginning to limit recycling applications.
In places where there are Federal water supply facilities,
allocations are being exceeded and conflicts are rising. In the
past few years, scientists and water policy specialists, at
least out in the West, are beginning to interpret the real
world impacts of climate change on water resource systems.
So the short answer to your first question that you posed
is yes, there is a water supply challenge today, and it is
growing into a first class problem for the future. The
potential causes are described in my written comments, but I am
just going to hit them--just their titles today: natural
resource limits; changing climate conditions and the
uncertainties that that brings; ever-increasing water quality
constraints and associated treatment impacts; growing demands
and competition for resource supplies--and I'm certain
regarding population growth, we found we have seven different
projections for population growth in California, and the
numbers range by about 20 million and it is hard to plan for
that; the need for regional integrated resource plans
throughout the country using both structural and non-structural
solutions; the need for coordinated Federal water resource
management policies, approaches and priorities; and the need
for coordinated technical data collection, especially in the
monitoring and prediction area; waste water use estimates and
conservation and recycling advancements; the need for official,
coordinated Federal conflict resolution practices; and the need
for a shift in Federal funding priorities from response to
readiness, emphasizing planning and preparedness.
Question No. 2, asked about the effectiveness of the
Federal programs in ensuring that State and local governments
are meeting water supply needs. The answer I just gave to the
first question really hits five of those need areas which
directly relate to the Federal Government's role. Collectively,
they relate to the need to reevaluate the ability of any single
Federal agency to veto coordinated and collaborative plans
which are put together to meet water supply needs.
It also calls on the Federal program managers to work
cooperatively within their existing jurisdictions and
authorities in a participatory and transparent manner, and
admittedly that is easier said than done. But as difficult as
this task is, we can look to California's CALFED program and
Florida's Everglades Restoration Program and many of EPA's
National Estuary Programs for examples and successes and many
lessons learned.
Question No. 3, asked what actions Congress should take. I
would begin with some general comments. First, begin by looking
at some Federal-non-Federal collaborations that have worked and
are still working. One of those is the Western Drought
Coordinating Council; the Western Governors Association, and
the Governor of New Mexico really spearheaded that; the
National Drought Policy Commission, where I served along with
the secretaries of many of the Federal agencies, private sector
and many stakeholders; and now the National Drought Council.
Then develop incentives for other collaborations like that to
happen throughout the country, especially at the regional
level.
One way to do that is to support the national drought
planning and preparedness legislation that the Western
Governors Association is working on with Senator Pete Domenici.
Included in that support is the administrative and
implementation funding which that bill will have. They will be
introducing that bill I believe in January 2002. Also, make
sure that the National Drought Policy Commission report
recommendations are implemented in that bill.
Basically, it talks about shifting Federal priorities from
response to planning, especially in the funding area. Provide
incentives for scientists to share data and collaborate. In my
attachments to my written comments, I have got a copy of the
drought monitor map and report that USDA and NOAA and Rural
Climate Centers and USGS and a number of Federal agencies and
regional groups are putting together in a collaborative
fashion.
Develop and enact a Federal practice of multi-
jurisdictional conflict resolution. Also conduct a national
assessment of the potential for regional watershed base-water
management programs, which also include stakeholder input
processes. I did include in my written comments some specific
recommendations related to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act which further
address these general comments.
I am happy to answer any questions at the right time.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rutherford.
STATEMENT OF JAY RUTHERFORD, DIRECTOR, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION,
VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
I would like to thank Senator Jeffords for his
introduction.
Although I am a State employee, I am here today to speak to
you on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, which represents the drinking water programs in
the 50 States, the territories and the District of Columbia in
their efforts to provide safe, potable drinking water to all
Americans. The Association's primary mission is the protection
of public health through the effective management of those
programs that implement the Safe Drinking Water Act.
In the 27 years since the passage of the Act, State
drinking water administrators have been primarily involved in
drinking water quality issues, less so with quantity, although
a reliable source of drinking water is a prerequisite for good
public health protection.
The Association's members regulate public drinking water
systems, which are those that serve 25 or more people per day.
Public water systems have the benefit of both Federal and State
regulation, and this oversight typically provides for improved
source protection, planning and operation of those systems to
the benefit of their customers.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the questions that you posed
in your invitation, we polled our member States over the
weekend regarding the adequacy or capacity of their public
water supplies. The responding States affirmed that each
State's situation is unique, so I will necessarily speak
generally about this matter. There are four points I would like
to address.
The first is that the States confirmed what we can see from
the national drought maps, which is that declared drought
conditions exist in all or portions of approximately half the
States, and that these conditions do affect the supply of
available drinking water, but to varying degrees.
Second, from our members' perspective, the primary cause of
these stresses is weather-related--lack of rainfall or
snowpack. Some States also reported stresses attributable to
population growth; to competition for use among agricultural,
manufacturing and environmental initiatives; and did report
that development was stressing some supplies in some areas,
although this issue was less significant than the stresses
caused by the weather.
The third point is that most States are developing or have
developed management systems to address the reliability of the
water supply. These efforts usually involve multiple State,
Federal and local agencies. In some States, water supply
management is a requirement on the systems; in others,
recommended.
Finally, fourth, about half the States' drinking water
programs are administered through their health departments and
about half through the environmental departments. This
distinction has led to a variety of lead agencies addressing
water supply issues.
The second question in your invitation requested an
assessment of Federal programs' effectiveness in ensuring that
State and local governments are meeting water supply demands.
This is a difficult question to answer due to those unique
circumstances in each State. The drinking water programs are
generally involved in water supply matters, commonly as part of
larger interagency efforts. In the Western States there is
clearly a strong Federal-State relationship as well.
The Source Water Assessment and Delineation Program in the
1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act have given
States a lot of flexibility to approach source water protection
in ways that meet local needs and conditions. We feel that this
is a good model for State and Federal cooperation.
The overall message from the States, however, is that water
supply matters are primarily State and local issues and the
Federal involvement with the States should be limited to a
facilitative or helping role in meeting the interests of those
States.
With respect to your third question regarding
recommendations for the role of Congress in this matter, we
suggest that the flexibility contained in the 1996 amendments
to the Act is an excellent approach. The Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund, in particular, provides States with the
flexibility to creatively apply set-aside funds in ways that
make the most sense to each State in the program. Additional
support for the Fund would further enhance the Program's
ability to carry out this work, and we encourage such support.
I thank you very much for the invitation to be here today
and would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Frederick.
STATEMENT OF KEN FREDERICK, SENIOR FELLOW, RESOURCES FOR THE
FUTURE
Mr. Frederick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Concerns about the availability of fresh water to meet the
demands of a growing and increasingly affluent population,
while sustaining a healthy natural environment, are based on
several factors. My remarks here I will address only two of
these: the implications of a greenhouse warming and the
shortcomings of our institutions for allocating scarce supplies
in response to changing supply and demand conditions.
Greenhouse warming could affect the quantity, quality,
timing, location and reliability of water supplies. The effects
on water supply supplies and water management systems are
expected to be among the most important impacts of global
warming. But understanding the linkages between emissions of
greenhouse gases and the climate, and then determining how
climate change would affect water resources at geographic
scales relevant for planning and management are daunting tasks.
While there is a very wide range of hydrologic projections
that come out of the different climate models, it makes it very
difficult to draw any conclusions at these river basin levels.
Some general conclusions about the likely impacts of global
warming on water supplies do emerge from the research. Higher
evapotranspiration rates may lead to decreases in runoff, even
in areas with increased precipitation. More intense
precipitation days are likely in some regions, which could
contribute to an increase in flood frequency. The frequency and
severity of droughts could increase in some areas as a result
of a decrease in total rainfall, more frequent dry spells and
greater evapotranspiration.
Higher temperatures would shift the relative amounts of
snow and rain, along with the timing of runoff in mountainous
areas. This shift could increase the likelihood of flooding
early in the year and reduce the availability of water during
periods off high demand. The quality and quantity of fresh
water in coastal areas might be adversely affected by higher
sea levels and increased storm surges that push salt water
further inland in rivers, deltas and coastal aquifers.
Looking at the water institutions, there is cause for
concern over the adequacy of our supplies. We have limited
control over the resource. Most opportunities for increasing
supplies are financially and environmentally costly. Current
uses are depleting or contaminating some valued supplies, and
the prospect of climate change introduces new uncertainties.
Meanwhile, the demands for fresh water are growing with
population and income. Many of the institutions that provide
the opportunities and incentives to use, conserve or protect
the resource continue to be rooted in a era when the resource
was not considered to be scarce.
On the other hand, there is reason for optimism as to the
long-term adequacy of water supplies. The institutions that
influence how supplies are managed and allocated among
competing uses and the effectiveness and cost of efforts to
protect aquatic environments and drinking water quality will
determine the magnitude and the nature of future water costs.
State institutions are primarily responsible for allocating
waters within their borders, but waterflows do not conform to
State boundaries. As the competition for water increases, all
users within a hydrologic unit become increasingly
interdependent. Consequently, Federal input is needed to
promote water use efficiency and protect the interests of
downstream States.
The Federal Government currently manages much of the West's
surface water supplies, supplies water to about one-quarter of
the irrigated lands in the West, and is the source and enforcer
of environmental legislation affecting water use, the trustee
of Indian water rights and the holder of unquantified rights
for water use on Federal lands. Carrying out these
responsibilities to better meet the Nation's future water needs
will be a major challenge.
I offer just a few recommendations. Water marketing, which
involves the voluntary transfer of rights to new uses and
users, has great potential to increase water use efficiency.
However, the Federal Government has taken a few steps to
facilitate water marketing, but to date they have had little
impact, and I think a much broader and active Federal role is
needed.
My remarks make a few other suggestions. Basically, I think
in regard to water quality, we need to introduce more cost-
effective approaches to meet our water quality needs. It might
include effluent fees that provide incentives to develop and
adopt least-cost technologies, tradeable permits to pollute
that establish an allowable quantity of pollution in
watersheds, and provide incentives to achieve this level at the
lowest cost.
The interdependencies among water users and the
interchangeability of ground and surface supplies are all too
often ignored in management decisions because natural
hydrologic regions have split into multiple political and
administrative units. Integrated management of existing
supplies and infrastructure, ideally at the river basin level,
would also at the level of smaller watersheds, could be a cost-
effective means of increasing reliable supplies.
Perhaps the most important measure that Congress could take
to meet the Nation's long-term water needs would be to restore
the Water Resources Council or a similar institution. Such an
institution is needed to evaluate water investment and
management decisions objectively from the perspective of their
impacts on larger watersheds, to assess the third party impacts
of interstate transfers, to counter the often conflicting
objectives of differing Federal agencies, and to reduce or at
least expose the inefficiencies that result from political log-
rolling and agency aggrandizement.
I thank you and I am pleased to address any questions that
you have.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Frederick.
Mr. Mink.
STATEMENT OF LELAND ROY MINK, DIRECTOR, IDAHO WATER RESOURCES
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Mink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also wish to thank Senator Crapo for his earlier
introduction.
As he mentioned earlier, I am past president of the
National Institutes for Water Resources and a member of that
board at this time. The National Institutes for Water Resources
represents the State water resource institutes which are
partners among State universities; Federal, State and local
governments; businesses and industries. It also works with
nongovernment organizations aimed at solving water problems of
supply and water quality at the local, State, regional and
national levels.
By way of background, the Water Resource Research Act of
1964 authorized establishment of a Water Resource Research and
Technology Center to be led by a land grant university within
each State. These institutes are charged with arranging
competent research that addresses water problems or expands the
understanding of water and water-related phenomena; also aiding
the entry of new research scientists into the water resource
fields; helping train future water scientists and engineers;
and getting results of sponsored research to the water managers
and to the public. The institute in each State is responsible
for working with researchers at other universities within their
respective States.
Congress passed Public Law 106-374 last year. This
legislation reauthorized the Water Resource Research Act
through the year 2005. The legislation is under jurisdiction of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Senator
Crapo was one of the major sponsors of last year's
reauthorization and I wish to thank him for that. The State
Water Research Institute Program is under the general guidance
of the Secretary of Interior and is administered through the
U.S. Geologic Survey.
Over the past 40 or more years, several reports have been
submitted to Congress attempting to address the questions of,
do we have enough water, and are we running out of water?
Interestingly, the Senate Select Committee on National Water
Resources, the so-called Kerr Committee, provided one of the
earlier reports in 1961, over 35 years ago. Two other major
assessments were conducted in 1965 and 1978 by the Water
Resource Council. Just this last year, the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief
report on the research information and needs for assessing
water availability and use.
If you look through, all of these studies consistently
indicate an inadequate water supply to meet future needs. They
have suggested ways to potentially develop more resources. An
example of that is waste water reuse, desalinization, water
conservation, among other recommendations. The studies also
indicated the need for hydrologic data to develop information
and to develop management plans and better able to make
management decisions. This all leads to developing the
information and techniques to make better forecasts, especially
as related to extreme conditions such as drought periods and
flood frequency.
In Idaho, as many of the Western States, water management
has changed over the last 30 years, especially with the
addition of new priorities. Early management strategy was to
create more storage so water could be made available for basic
needs of hydropower, food production and domestic consumption
and use. During the past 30 years, a shift has occurred to add
consideration of environmental concerns as a primary and a
major needs. Primary examples or examples of this include
minimum streamflows for aquatic species, which are important in
our area to salmon and other fisheries; and also recreation in
streams and rivers which has become an important consideration
driving managing streams and reservoirs which have primarily
been used traditionally for hydropower and irrigation purposes,
to include these new uses that the public is demanding.
As more diverse population growth occurs in the Western
States, new priorities surface for the available water. As a
result, the perception and often reality is there is not enough
water to satisfy the existing and projected demands. We feel
the major issue facing water managers in the 21st century will
be inadequate and uncertain water supplies.
Demands on the Nation's water resources are growing with
increased population and industrial expansion. Since the supply
is unchanged, with the exception of some potential climate
impact changes, it indicates that we face increased challenges
in meeting the growing demands. The degree of the problem or
challenge is certainly associated with different regions of the
country. Initially, the challenges are addressed by
reallocation of water among competing demands, with higher
demands--in other words, potable water use, drinking water--
being supplied by discontinuing lower value uses such as
irrigation.
This reallocation has social, economic and hydrologic
effects and should be thoroughly and carefully evaluated. In
some portions of the country, there are few alternatives for
reallocation or alternative supplies. It is certainly important
for the Federal Government to understand that demand is
exceeding supply. Likewise, Federal agencies must work with
States and local communities to develop alternatives to meet
these existing and projected water demands.
Taking the fact that the past national water supply studies
have been rather quantitative and describe large basins, local
and State water managers feel these projections in some cases
have been of little use. These past national assessments have
been mainly quantitative, being understood by engineers and
hydrologists, but being of limited value to other professions
such as social scientists.
Many water managers in the West feel information and
research certainly needs to be continued, and there is a
Federal role in supporting this effort. Information needs to be
targeted to users not only at the Federal levels, but at State
and regional levels. There is also a strong feeling in the West
that water management decisions are best made at these levels.
Water information related to water quantity and quality should
be designed to help meet the needs of these State and regional
issues. That was cited back in a 1988 study, that the use of
assessment means that its costs are justified by the benefits
received by the users. These benefits should extend beyond the
needs of just the Federal agencies.
There are several recommendations that we have made with
respect to Congress' role in evaluating potential for water
supply through the Nation. These include development of
improved and new innovative supply enhancing technology such as
the waste water reuse area. We have not been very effective in
reusing waste water and it is a source we feel can be used. We
need to develop innovative technologies to prevent pollution.
When we have a polluted water source, essentially it is not
used for many beneficial uses.
We need to increase the ability to forecast water
availability and future impacts such as climate change and land
use impacts on water supplies; encourage the support of
regional and State water planning. We also need to support
hydrologic data collection at the Federal level and have this
information available to State and local agencies and groups.
We need to encourage and support the regional characterization
studies both in high population and in rural areas.
In conclusion, I know that my fellow Water Resource
Research Institute directors commend Congress for the
recommendations contained in the fiscal year 2002 Interior
Appropriations Act. This Act directs the USGS to undertake a
report describing the scope and magnitude of efforts to provide
periodic assessments of the status and trends in the
availability and use of fresh water resources. This was
mentioned by Bob Hirsch in his testimony.
In addition, we also support the congressional
recommendation for the National Academy of Science's study to
examine Federal and non-Federal water resources research
funding and allocation of the resources currently deployed to
support the water programs. This seems to be a logical way to
develop and understand whether we as a Nation are making an
adequate investment in our water resources research.
I have included several examples of State activities
conducted by the water institutes in my written testimony, and
I wish to thank you for your interest in this important matter
and allowing me the privilege to speak.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much, Mr. Mink.
Ms. Diester, from your work, for instance, on the Drought
Policy Council, have you identified any specific actions that
you think the Federal Government should initiate or expand
current programs to deal with the issue of water supply?
Ms. Diester. Yes, sir. We actually have a whole list of
recommendations in our summary report. We look at a couple of
different areas. One is in the formal collaborative kinds of
processes among Federal agencies, appointing coordinating
councils or coordinating bodies or coordinating commissions
with specific duties and responsibilities with shared
information, shared visioning. Have some sort of funding
mechanism that encourages that sharing.
For example, everybody here has talked about the need for
coordinated information--technical information, scientific
information. One of the things that we did is that we worked
with USDA and NOAA initially because they both had weather-
predicting abilities. We asked them, what would happen if you
two worked together? After everybody got up off the floor, they
decided that it was probably a good idea to look into that.
We actually have brought in rural climate resources and
local climate resources, and we have done that incrementally,
and we created a process where every Thursday one of the
Federal agencies--they rotate who is the lead in writing up the
written comments--and they put out the drought map, the
National Drought Monitor every Thursday with written comments.
That's a good example. But you've got USGS that often needs
State cosponsorship for their stream gages. That should never
be a question. That is basic data and it needs to be fed in.
USGS needs to be supported and they need to be fed into a
coordinated data management system.
So that is a key one--monitoring and prediction,
forecasting and coordination.
Another area is in the creation of an ongoing body which we
call the National Drought Council, but it could be called
anything. It could be Water Supply Management Council or
something, that is funded with key Federal roles--who is in the
lead role, which agency is in the lead role, identified.
Currently, USDA is playing that role with the National Drought
Council; and have implementation money in there for
preparedness plans; and a safety net so that people who want to
shift from response kinds of programs to readiness kinds of
programs have maybe a 5-, 6-, 7-, or 10-year kind of transition
period. We have documented all kinds of cost benefit of doing
that.
You pay for it in the back end, it costs three, four, five
times. If you pay for it in the front end in terms of planning,
like we do in southern California, you don't have those impacts
and it saves a lot.
Long answer.
Senator Graham. I would like to suggest a policy question
and ask any of the members of the panel who would like to
comment on it. One of the arguments against Federal involvement
in water supply is that the expectation is that that
involvement will result in enhanced supply, and therefore will
facilitate additional growth into an area. You could argue that
water supply naturally ought to be treated as one of the
fundamental restraints on growth--a means of directing which
parts of the country can accommodate population increase.
With that issue, is it appropriate for the Federal
Government to be involved in augmenting water supply beyond
that which nature is going to do? Would the consequences of
such a Federal role be to distort land use and demographic
patterns?
Ms. Diester. I'll jump in. You are probably tired of
hearing from me, but one of the things that we discovered in
looking at the Federal role is that so much money is spent on
response efforts in terms of floods, and bailouts in terms of
crop impacts. If you take that money that is right now
designated for impacts, and you shift it. In California, we see
flood as simply the resource that we need for the dry periods.
So we think of it as an opportunity instead of a problem. If
you manage water that way, then you actually are maximizing the
use of water.
With respect to the issue of growth inducing, in some cases
that probably is true; that increased water supplies would
provide new growth. But the way to deal with that is to look at
places like the State of Florida with the Growth Management Act
of the 1980's, which really looks at the comprehensive land use
and water use--you know that one very well--where you make
those decisions based on the integrated process of land and
water management, and not use one resource to sort of back-door
a policy.
Senator Graham. Any other members of the panel who wish to
comment on that question?
Mr. Frederick. I will make a few comments. I don't think
historically water has been a very good indicator of where
people are going to go. Certainly, we have had no trouble
filling up our deserts and southern California with people.
Santa Barbara is an area that I think attempted to limit
development and growth by restricting access to water supply--a
policy which ran into a lot of problems then in the early
1990's when they had a very prolonged drought.
It seems to me that the Federal Government is involved in
water in so many areas and so many ways that the need for
coming up with better ways to allocate the water in response to
changing conditions, and also to come up with ways for
protecting the ecosystems which are very important for the
long-term quality of the water and availability of water, is an
important government role. I guess I don't see that as a
legitimate reason for not getting involved, as being one that
is going to encourage excessive growth.
People are going to somewhere, and if we can improve the
availability and the cleanliness of the water, I am sure that
will probably have some effect, but it seems to me that would
be a positive.
Senator Graham. Mr. Rutherford, you come from the New
England area where you have a cluster of States also with a
long common boundary with Canada. Are there any particular
water supply issues that are a function of the political
composition of the New England region of the United States? I
ask that question from the background of someone who comes from
a peninsula State where, with a few exceptions, we are
relatively autonomous in our ability to influence water issues.
It would seem to me that in New England, you are particularly
integrated across political boundaries, including an
international political boundary. I was curious as to whether
there are any particular issues of water supply that are a
function of that political geography?
Mr. Rutherford. As you have probably heard from the
testimony, I speak from perhaps a narrower perspective than
some of the other folks who testified. But within the drinking
water realm, I would say that within the United States, we do
not have significant issues due to our being together. All the
States work together, meet periodically throughout the course
of the year, and address common issues associated with drinking
water. We do not have a deep relationship on the Canadian side
of the border, unless we have a crisis that might occur in
either Quebec or in one of the States, where we typically do
have communication links to work together.
So I think our compactness and closeness, while perhaps
might create some friction, in fact the ease of communicating
from my perspective is that we have worked quite well together,
and do not have any significant issues because of that
closeness.
Senator Graham. Mr. Frederick, you used the term ``water
marketing'' in your statement. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Frederick. I was referring to the voluntary transfers
of water, and I mean, water marketing is increasing
significantly in the Western States. Initially, it started in a
significant way with water banks in California during the
drought, first in the 1980's and then in the early 1990's. I
think water marketing provides a way of transferring water from
what are relatively low value uses to the higher value uses. It
also provides a way of introducing incentives for irrigators to
conserve. If they have no opportunity to do anything else with
their water, they have limited incentive to adopt some of the
more water conservation technologies that were referred to in
the earlier panel. So I think it is certainly important from
that perspective.
You look at the enormous differences in the values of
water--take California, for example, where a very sizable part
of the water is used for relatively low-value crops. Then
you've got urban areas that are spending an order of magnitude
more to develop new supplies. It seems to me that this is going
to become an increasingly important means of responding to
changing supply and demand conditions.
I also think that there is quite a bit the Federal
Government can do to promote that, because a lot of this low
value irrigation water is supplied by Federal facilities.
Senator Graham. What would you recommend might be some of
the ways in which the Federal Government could encourage the
use of water marketing or other means of injecting a financial
discipline on the use of water?
Mr. Frederick. Well, let me mention a couple. One has to do
with Indian water rights. I think it is important. One of the
problems, or an important problem for encouraging markets is
the lack of clearly identified water rights. To the extent that
you can identify, accelerate the process of identifying the
Indian water rights, but then making sure that the Indians are
able to market the water off the reservation, I think is a very
important measure. In 1992, there was legislation passed which
made some of the water from the Federal Central Valley Project
could be marketed. To my understanding, there actually hasn't
been any marketing, but I think that type of measure is
important. I don't know enough about the details to know if
there is something additional that the Federal Government could
be doing to facilitate marketing transfers.
Ms. Diester. Well, certainly conjunctive groundwater use
has been happening, particularly in the Central Valley.
Metropolitan, for example, has contracts to store water outside
of its boundaries, and it is really more of a water quality
exchange program. But you are right--the whole notion of water
transfers does rest in part around the whole notion of who owns
the water. But another large issue is looking at third party
impacts, which I think is a key issue. Everybody has their own
definition of what that should include, but also looking at
sort of that delicate issue of cost of conveyance and how much
should the entity that is conveying the water be paid in order
to make that transfer happen. So these are some of the sticky
issues.
Mr. Frederick. I might just add I brought a number of
papers with me which I will leave with the committee, one of
which was published this past spring with the title Water
Marketing Obstacles and Opportunities, which discusses in quite
a bit of detail and gives examples of what has worked, where
the problems are.
Senator Graham. Mr. Mink, you mentioned that the water
resource institutes are based at the land-grant colleges in the
various States. Is that correct?
Mr. Mink. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. For the most part,
all of our institutes are at the land-grant universities and
that is designated in our authorization act. There are a few
exceptions, and those can be made by the Governor of a State if
he wishes to move it to a different institution.
Senator Graham. So are you based at the University of
Idaho?
Mr. Mink. Yes I am, sir.
Senator Graham. In Moscow?
Mr. Mink. Right.
Senator Graham. Is there some effort to establish national
or regional priorities in water research, such as exploring the
technologies that might enhance water supply which would be
conducted at a specific institute, but which would have multi-
State application?
Mr. Mink. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Institute Program is
highly recommending regional projects. In fact, part of our
reauthorization, section 104(g) requires regional collaboration
and collaboration among States on regional water issues. The
resources that Congress has provided the institutes are
competed competitively across the Nation, but it does require a
collaboration between two or more States and looking at
regional water issues--addressing regional water issues as
defined by the water managers of the respective States.
Senator Graham. What are the principal projects that you
are conducting at your institute at the University of Idaho?
Mr. Mink. We are looking at several projects, all the way
from water supplies to the Boise metropolitan area, which is
one of the most rapidly growing areas in the State. The
forecast of having a water shortage for domestic water
originally back in the 1960's forecasted that our supply would
last until 2020, and we are at that stage right now, at the
year 2000--about 20 years ahead of time because of increased
population demands.
We are also working with agencies--Bureau of Reclamation
and U.S. Geological Survey in looking at the issues of water
supply not only for agriculture and power, but also for salmon
habitat, the endangered species, and working with the States of
Oregon and Washington on how we might be able to fulfill the
needs of the State, but at the same time provide water down for
fish habitat in the river systems.
We are also working with local communities, local rural
communities on looking at their future water supplies, in small
rural towns of less than 2,000 people, and assisting them in
identifying future water supplies that they're having trouble
with, both with respect to increased population--in some of our
areas, two families move in and they've got a 100 percent
increase in population--and also the water systems that have
been degraded over time. A lot of them are very old and they
are having some real problems, and the financial resources that
these communities have are not able to manage those. So they
cope with improving those.
So we are providing technical support to these communities
so they can better figure out where they go for supplies. Some
of the impacts of arsenic is an example in water supplies--with
a lower level of arsenic, we are finding that many of our
natural groundwater reservoirs exceed this arsenic limit. So we
are working with those communities on how we can best solve
that problem and provide a safe drinking water source for them.
So these are some of the examples we are working with.
Senator Graham. Ms. Diester, gentlemen--thank you very
much. This has been a very helpful discussion. I look forward
to reading the papers that will be part of the record. Also as
we move into the development of legislation, I hope that we can
continue to call on your expertise in that process.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Hampshire
As the Ranking Republican of the Environment and Public Works
Committee (EPW), I support conducting this hearing which will examine
an issue of great importance to the Chair, Senator Graham. Chairman
Graham has long had an interest in the issue of water supply. The
situation in parts of his home State, Florida, as with other parts of
the country, is dire. However, the EPW Committee is charged with
ensuring the Nation's waters are clean, not whether there is an ample
supply of water.
According to The Authority and Rules for the Senate Committees for
the 107th Congress, EPW has jurisdiction over water pollution and water
resources. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has oversight
over irrigation and reclamation, including water supply. The agency
primarily responsible for helping communities meet their water needs is
the Bureau of Reclamation which reports directly to the Energy
Committee.
The Corps of Engineers, which reports to the EPW Committee was
authorized in 1958 to help communities with water supply if it was part
of a larger project or the facilities were already available. For
instance, if the Corps owns a reservoir for flooding which is going
unused, it is permitted to use it as a water supply source for the
local community. However, the Corps cannot finance or oversee projects
whose sole purpose is to ensure an adequate water supply. The only
exceptions are those projects authorized in the biannual Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA). Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) and I
argued to no avail against the inclusion of supply projects in WRDA
2000 because they exceed the authority of the Corps and this committee
which writes the WRDA bill.
During the 106th Congress, this committee, against my
recommendation, exceeded its jurisdiction and that of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) which the Committee oversees. Congress included
Senator Graham's legislation to authorize EPA to administer an
alternative water source pilot project. One of my primary concerns
about having passed this proposal is that we are blurring the missions
of the Federal agencies to the point that we will soon have as many as
three agencies performing the same function: securing water supply.
This is the very type of overlap and redundancy that Members of
Congress so often criticize. Further, those three agencies will report
to two Senate Committees, one of which doesn't have jurisdiction over
the issue.
I understand that this is a very important issue for Senator Graham
and the people of Florida. It is also a concern in New Hampshire albeit
not as large a problem. I believe that to the extent that the Committee
can promote programs within its jurisdiction that may have a positive
impact on water supply problems, it should. For instance, when
adequately funded, the revolving loan programs under both the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water Act provide communities
with the money necessary to ensure their water supplies are clean and
safe, resulting in fewer contamination-caused supply problems. Further,
the Environmental Protection Agency has promoted water recycling and
reuse through the Clean Water Act. Again, provisions related to
recycling and reuse seek to ensure a healthy source of water but also
consequently address the supply problem.
Senators Jim Jeffords and Mike Crapo and I are working closely with
Chairman Graham on a proposal which will examine ways to extend the
life of every dollar in the revolving loan funds. While addressing
water supply needs is not a goal of this proposal, just as it is not a
goal of the Clean Water Act or SDWA, if our proposal is able to meet
its objectives, it may result in the easing of some supply constraints.
Again, I fully understand the extent of Senator Graham's concerns.
However, those concerns must be addressed within the rules of the
Senate and the jurisdictions of its Committees.
__________
Statement of Hon. Mike Parker, Assistant Secretary, Department of the
Army for Civil Works
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am Mike Parker, the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you today on the Army Corps of Engineers
activities to address the water supply issues of the Nation.
In your call for this hearing, you asked that we respond to three
specific questions, and I will respond to your questions in order.
First, you asked that we present our perspective on water supply in the
United States today including the extent to which there is or is not a
water supply problem today or in our future, a description of that
problem if we believe one exists, including regional differences, and a
discussion of the potential cause of this problem.
We believe the Nation faces many challenges in assuring an adequate
water supply. These challenges now affect all regions of the country,
not just the traditionally dry areas. The availability of reliable and
clean supplies of water is crucial to the health of our citizens and to
maintaining the Nation's economic prosperity both now and in the
future. In a series of listening sessions the Corps held last year,
citizens around the Nation voiced their concerns about various aspects
of water supply at every session.
At these listening sessions, the public called for better data to
understand the scope and nature of the water supply problems we face.
The last comprehensive assessment of the Nation's water needs was
completed over 15 years ago. The public also told us that water supply
is more than a local problem. Municipal leaders told us that supporting
growth in an environmentally sustainable manner will require regional
solutions. Consequently, new water supply projects that are feasible
and efficient must often be located outside the limits of the
municipalities that seek additional supplies. Technical leadership will
be essential to integrate competing values across multiple political
jurisdictions to reach consensus for regional water supply solutions.
As an example, in landmark 1997 legislation, the State of Texas
recognized these new realties and designated 16 regions to lead the
development of future water supply. Larger communities within these
regions were designated to take the lead for their regions.
Your second question asks us to address the extent that the Federal
programs under our jurisdiction work to ensure that State and local
governments are meeting water supply needs. It has been long-standing
policy that municipal and industrial water supply projects are
considered the primary responsibility of non-Federal parties. The
authorities under which the Corps of Engineers provides water supply
storage are generally project specific and a secondary purpose for the
development of a project. We can provide water supply storage at
completed projects by reallocating storage for other purposes and
evaluate the potential for new water supply as part of planning
multipurpose projects. At the present time, the Army operates 117
reservoirs containing about 9.5 million acre-feet of storage authorized
and available for municipal and industrial water supply use. We also
maintain approximately 57 million acre-feet of storage for agricultural
irrigation in 50 reservoirs. Overall, we have over 400 reservoirs that
could be modified or have existing storage that may be available for
reallocation to provide additional municipal and industrial water
supply storage.
I want to emphasize that Corps involvement in water supply is
founded on deference to State water rights. During the enactment of the
Flood Control Act of 1944, Congress made clear that we do not own the
water stored in our projects. Our practice is to contract with non-
Federal interests for water storage in our projects. Our policy is to
continue our commitment to consistency with State water law.
The Corps of Engineers is currently working with other Federal
agencies and with State and local interests to help solve several large
complex regional water problems. For example, as part of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, the Corps of Engineers is
undertaking a technical evaluation of complex systems and balancing
competing demands for available water resources in the development of a
comprehensive regional solution. This effort integrates diverse needs,
objectives and ongoing complementary efforts of multiple Federal,
State, local and other interest groups. Although the Federal interest
is primarily environmental restoration, this interest is closely
linked, in the case of the Everglades, with water quality improvement,
water supply and flood damage reduction. Another example is the
comprehensive assessment of the demands and water resources available
in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa
River systems to assist the affected States in reaching decisions on
allocation of available water. These efforts included the development
of alternative scenarios and options on which allocation decisions can
be based.
Your final question asks us to review what actions, if any,
Congress should take to facilitate an efficient and effective Federal
role in water supply. Participants in our listening sessions told us
that they look to cooperative efforts between the Federal Government
and States in developing integrated, regional management of water
resources including water supply. Our management of water must be based
on economic and environmental benefits and costs. Decisions must be
science-based choices among a full array of alternative uses to which
our watersheds and river basins may be put. In doing this we must
respect the primacy of State water law. Congress should work with the
Administration to ensure that our Nation has the framework to provide
integrated water management. This framework should include the
appropriate roles of the Federal and non-Federal levels of government
and the very powerful part that the private sector must play in any
solution to our water resources challenges.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I believe we are facing emerging water supply
challenges. Consistent with the goals of the President, the Army Corps
of Engineers stands ready to work with its sister agencies in
contributing to the dialog. We will continue our stewardship of our
existing projects to manage water storage for efficient uses including
water supply and maintain our commitment to consistency with State
water rights.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be pleased
to address any questions that you or the committee may have.
__________
Statement of John W. Keys, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
My name is John Keys. I am Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation). I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today to discuss Reclamation's role and challenges in ensuring the
adequacy of water supplies in the areas we serve.
Before I discuss these issues, I would like to give the Committee
some background on the Bureau of Reclamation--a water resources
management agency within the Department of the Interior whose mission
is to provide water and power in the 17 Western States\1\. I would also
like to include a short overview of the facilities which Reclamation
has developed and the benefits which they yield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This includes 17 States located west of the 100th meridian.
These are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 1902--almost one hundred years ago--President Theodore
Roosevelt signed the Reclamation Act to develop and construct
irrigation water delivery projects in the Western United States. The
President's objective, and that of the Congress, in supporting this
legislation was to stimulate agricultural development through irrigated
agriculture in order to create economic opportunities in the arid lands
in the West and thereby facilitate the settlement of the Western United
States.
Partially because of the success of this program, the 1930's saw an
exponential growth in population in the west which meant that
electricity and other types of water supply, in addition to irrigation
development, were needed to meet increased demands. In response,
Congress authorized numerous multi-purpose projects--thereby expanding
Reclamation's focus from the construction of single purpose irrigation
projects to the construction of facilities to provide hydroelectric
power, municipal and industrial water supply, recreation, flood control
and other benefits.
bureau of reclamation's role in meeting the west's water supply needs
As a result of its activities to meet the contemporary--and
changing--water needs of the 17 Western States, Reclamation has become
the largest water resources management agency in the west. Three of
Reclamation's projects--Grand Coulee, Hoover and Shasta dams--are
listed on the National Critical Infrastructure list. Reclamation
administers or operates 348 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of
245 million acre-feet, 58 hydroelectric powerplants with an installed
capacity of 14,744 megawatts, and more than 300 recreationsites in the
17 Western States. These facilities enable Reclamation to meet
important needs and provide numerous benefits:
<bullet> We provide one out of five western farmers with irrigation
water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the
Nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its fruit and nuts.
<bullet> We deliver water to more than 31 million people in the
west, the most rapidly urbanizing region of the country.
<bullet> Our powerplants generate an average of more than 42
billion kilowatt hours of energy each year, making Reclamation the
Nation's second largest producer of hydroelectric power and the 11th
largest generating utility in the United States. Reclamation produces
enough electricity to serve 14 million people. Reclamation's Central
Valley Project in California generated more than 6.5 billion kilowatt
hours of energy in 1999 and serves approximately 2 million
Californians. Because of the flexibility of Reclamation's hydropower
system which can provide power at the peak times of day, its value to
the West is significantly greater than the mere kilowatts generated.
That value was clearly demonstrated last summer during California's
electricity crisis. On numerous occasions, it was Reclamation's power
that kept the lights on in California. And it was Reclamation's
hydropower system that ensured the integrity and stability of the
western power grid--when it was overloaded and on the verge of failing.
<bullet> Our projects support habitat with water for wildlife
refuges, migratory waterfowl, anadromous and resident fish, and
endangered and threatened species.
<bullet> Our reservoirs accommodate 90 million visits a year at
more than 300 recreationsites.
<bullet> Reclamation's Indian and other rural water projects
including the Mni Wiconi, Mid Dakota, Garrison, and Fort Peck projects,
when completed, will provide water to thousands of rural communities
who currently do not have access to potable water supplies.
Additionally, Reclamation is helping to meet future water supply
demand through broad programs promoting more efficient water use.
Water Conservation. Through our Water Conservation Field Services
Program, we provide water districts with technical and financial
assistance to develop effective water conservation plans. While
Reclamation has a role to play in water conservation, there also are
opportunities for State and local entities to offer incentives through
rate restructuring, low interest loans for farmers to install more
efficient irrigation facilities, and rebates for installation of
efficient appliances, landscaping retrofits, and toilets.
Water Reuse. Recycled water is used for a variety of purposes,
including agricultural and landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge,
and industrial cooling. Reclamation's water reuse program assists
western cites in enhancing their water supplies by providing funds for
the 25 projects authorized under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, as
amended. Since 1992, the Congress has authorized water reuse projects
in the States of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona,
and Oregon. NonFederal cost sharing partners pay at least 50 percent of
the feasibility study costs and 75 percent of the construction costs.
Total Federal costs for the 25 authorized projects is estimated at $600
million. To date, approximately $205 million has been made available in
Federal assistance.
These projects are in various stages of planning, design and
construction but all are estimated to be completed by 2012. Upon
completion, they are expected to yield an additional 494,000 acre-feet
water for beneficial use.
Facilitating Voluntary Water Transfers. Approximately 85 to 90
percent of the water consumed in the West is devoted to irrigated
agriculture. In the face of rapid urbanization, the changing economics
of farming, and the need to strike a balance with the appropriate
protection of environmental values, voluntary transfers of water from
willing agricultural sellers to willing buyers is one means by which
the future water needs of the West will be addressed.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
In many regions of the Western United States, particularly in the
Pacific Northwest, the 2001 water year was very dry. This severe
drought meant that there was below normal water inflow to some
Reclamation facilities which required unprecedented steps to balance
water deliveries, power production and environmental requirements to
satisfy, to the greatest extent possible, multiple project purposes.
While it is difficult to predict with precision future water
availability, in many of the basins that were severely affected by
drought this past year, like the Klamath Basin in Oregon and
California, as well as other areas that were not impacted, Reclamation
is working closely with the States, local governments, watershed
councils and other interested stakeholders to identify alternative
sources of water and to improve drought contingency planning.
MEETING FUTURE NEEDS
Over the past 25 years, the population of the 17 Western States
served by Reclamation has increased by 32 percent compared to a growth
rate of only 19 percent for the rest of the United States--making the
West the fastest growing area in the Nation. Nearly every major river
system in the West--the Colorado, Columbia, Rio Grande and Missouri--is
heavily developed and over appropriated. That trend is projected to
continue. This create significant challenges to both Reclamation and
other Federal, State and local water agencies.
In addressing these challenges, it is important to emphasize the
primary responsibility of local water users in developing and financing
water projects. Reclamation has an important role to play, both in
maintaining its significant investment in water infrastructure, and in
using its expertise to help local communities meet their water needs.
Also, as water demands intensify, it will become increasingly important
to encourage efficient water management practices.
New Facilities to Meet Agriculture to M&I Conversion. As one of the
fastest growing regions of the United States, water that was once used
for irrigation will increasingly be converted to M&I usage. Because of
the change in the location of usage, because of the changes in timing
of when the water is needed, and because of the need for treatment of
M&I water to make it potable, there is insufficient infrastructure to
meet those needs.
New Projects to Meet Growth. In addition to converting the use of
water from agricultural to M&I purposes, new water supply will be
needed to meet the growth of certain regions of the Western United
States.
Aging Infrastructure. Having dependable supplies of water and power
also requires that the infrastructure which Reclamation has developed
over the past century be properly maintained and upgraded where needed.
Many facilities built by the Bureau of Reclamation--both for irrigation
and municipal and industrial (M&I) water delivery--were built prior to
the development of current engineering standards. Approximately 50
percent of Reclamation's dams were built prior to 1950. An appropriate
level of annual maintenance of existing facilities is needed for
beneficiaries to continue to deliver and receive the project water
supplies they need in order to meet rising demands in the future, and
to ensure that the benefits of Reclamation's projects can continue to
be realized.
As with our dams and water delivery systems, Reclamation must also
maintain its powerplants. Sustained maintenance, replacement and
modernization of equipment and machinery over time, are critical to the
reliability of our hydro power system.
Security. Given the importance of Reclamation's facilities for
providing water and power and for protecting the public safety of
downstream communities across the west, we have always placed a high
priority on maintaining the safety and security of our facilities.
However, in light of the tragic events that began on September 11,
Reclamation has placed its facilities at a heightened state of
security. While we are working closely with State and local law
enforcement officials to supplement and complement our coverage, these
agencies are facing constraints with their budgets and manpower
capabilities.
We appreciate the recent enactment of H.R. 2925 by Congress which
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to assign law enforcement
personnel from Interior, and other Federal, State, local and Tribal
agencies to enforce Federal law at Reclamationsites and on Reclamation-
administered lands.
CONCLUSION
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Reclamation has a
diverse and important mission in working to help the arid west to meet
its water and power supply needs--especially as this region continues
to be the fastest growing in the Nation.
We look forward to working with the subcommittee and with all water
users and the interested public to develop ways to meet competing water
needs and demands into our second hundred years of service to the west
and to the United States. Thank you for the opportunity to participate
in today's hearing.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
______
Responses by Commissioner John W. Keys III to Additional Questions
from Senator Graham
Question 1. An issue associated with national water supply is the
need to ensure and increase where necessary, the security of the
Nation's water systems. How does the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
envision covering costs for any additional security at BOR dams and
distribution facilities? How will the security needs of BOR facilities,
where operation and maintenance have been transferred to irrigators, be
accomplished and funded?
Response. Mr. Chairman, this is an incredibly important issue that
Reclamation has been working to address. On April 4, 2002, I signed a
policy to address the issue of how increased security costs are handled
and in particular, how to expend the $30.3 million fiscal year 2002
Emergency Appropriations for emergency expenses to respond to the
September 11 terrorist attack, which are being used for counter
terrorism protection measures on Reclamation owned lands and
facilities. I have enclosed a copy of that policy for the record.
Question 2. If the Federal Government were to increase its role in
water supply services to the remaining 33 States, the Burreau would
surely be required to help, if not lead this effort. Are you aware of
problems on the east coast involving supply that you have not had to
address with Western States?
Response. When the Bureau of Reclamation was established 100 years
ago this year, the Reclamation Act of 1902 authorized the agency to
design and construct irrigation projects exclusively in the Western
United States. While our authorities have been expanded over the past
100 years to address municipal and industrial supply, hydroelectric
power generation, recreation, fish and wildlife mitigation and
enhancement, flood control, drought preparation and planning, and waste
water recycling and reuse, we have continued to be limited in express
authority to the 17 Western States. As such, we have dedicated limited
attention to the water resource management issues associated with the
eastern portion of the United States.
While we have not closely evaluated the Eastern United States, in
general I would expect that the water-related issues in the Eastern
United States, mainly associated with quantity and quality, are very
similar to those that we deal with in the west. The differences are
most likely related to the relative degree of importance of each aspect
of these issues. For example, the issue of water quality for human
consumption purposes, while becoming an increasingly important issue we
are dealing within the west, has historically been a relatively small
part of our program. In the east, however, due to historically greater
population density, water quality has been a significant issue for a
long time. A significant issue is the conjunctive use of surface and
groundwater supply demands, however there is a general lack of
recognition of this inter-connectedness of surface water and
groundwater in most States' water laws, which becomes a barrier to
success in managing water in the East. In addition, one of the primary
missions for Reclamation has, historically, been to build projects to
deliver water for agricultural irrigation. In the east, irrigated
agriculture is much less widespread.
While Reclamation operates in the and West, drought issues in the
East could have a significant impact to many citizens. In dealing with
drought in the West, Reclamation has developed considerable resources
and experience that could be of benefit to Eastern communities in times
of water supply shortage.
One significant difference in water supply issues would be related
to the nature of the different legal systems for water allocation in
the East as compared to the West. In the West, water law is based upon
the prior appropriations doctrine--whereby water rights are based upon
the first in time, first in right principle. This means that anyone who
puts water to use has priority over others who began to use water on a
later date. Water rights under this principle depend upon actual usage,
rather than land ownership, as a property right interest to the right
to use water.
In the Eastern States, water is allocated based upon the riparian
doctrine whose fundamental principle is that the owners of land
bordering a waterbody acquire certain rights to the use of water.
According to the Deportment of Agriculture, currently every eastern and
Midwestern State that uses the riparian water rights doctrine, except
South Carolina, has modified its laws to require water appropriations
to secure a permit to divert water out of a water body. The net effect
is very much similar to western prior appropriation doctrine in
allowing depletion of the stream flows in a regulated manner by owners
of non-riparian lands.
Reclamation has significant technical capabilities that we have
provided to other Federal agencies, such as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, involved in water issues in the East. While the
majority of Reclamation's experience has been with Western States and,
as such, we have not conducted any in-depth technical analysis of the
water supply issues in the East, we believe there are many similarities
in water supply issues between the West and the East that Reclamation
has considerable experience and knowledge in dealing with over the
course of the past 100 years.
Question 3. What kind of budget and staff increases would the
Bureau need if it were to expand coverage to the entire United States?
Response. Since Reclamation operates almost exclusively in the 17
Western States--we have not evaluated the water supply issues and needs
of the east. Further, without a firm grasp of the issues to be
addressed in this region, we do not have the data to put together even
ballpark estimates for the budgetary or staffing needs to address the
water supply issues associated with the East.
__________
Statement of Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water,
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to report on the status of water conditions in the United
States as monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
The USGS is a science agency within the Department of the Interior
with a history of 122 years of providing scientific information needed
for the wise management of our Nation's natural resources. The study of
water goes back to our very early years and the work of our second
Director, John Wesley Powell, who focused much attention on the
availability of water resources for the economic development of the
West. The USGS of today consists of four major program areas: Geology,
Geography, Biology, and Water. The USGS strives to combine these four
disciplinary areas to provide more complete information and analysis
regarding the resource and environmental issues facing our Nation.
Hydrologically, conditions across the country are quite varied at
the present time. The West is a mixture of above-normal flows in
southern and coastal California, normal flows in Washington State, and
below-normal flows in the northern and central Rockies, northern
California and Oregon. Although the interagency U.S. Drought Monitor,
which incorporates USGS streamflow information, continues to depict
much of the Northwest as being in moderate to extreme drought,
streamflows have moderated in some areas (such as Washington State)
during the past 4 to 6 weeks. In the central third of the Nation,
rivers and streams are generally flowing in the normal range, with
above normal flows throughout Indiana, southern Michigan, and eastern
North Dakota. Indeed, intense and persistent rains in October brought
very high flows and flooding to much of the southern Great Lakes and
northern Ohio Valley from the middle of October to early November The
East, however, is a different story. Streams in the coastal States from
Maine to Florida are reporting very low flows for this time of year,
with many setting new daily and weekly records.
The USGS water resources program provides reliable, impartial,
timely information that is needed to understand the Nation's water
resources.
We operate about 7,000 streamgages, which monitor the flow of water
in our Nation's rivers and streams, and we freely provide the current
and historical data to a wide range of users. This information is used
for purposes that include: water supply planning, flood risk
assessment, water quality management (including calculation of Total
Maximum Daily Loads under the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean
Water Act Program), water supply operations, streamflow forecasting
(done primarily by the National Weather Service, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Natural Resources Conservation Set?vice), habitat
assessments, and personal planning of river-based recreational
activities. Currently, we are in a process of modernizing the
streamgage network. At the present time, about 5,000 of these stations
have satellite telemetry that enables us to provide near-real-time data
to all users via the Internet.
Using these data, and information from other agencies, I will
describe the current surface-water situation across the Nation, as well
as variations and changes that have occurred in recent weeks. To (to
this I will rely on an illustration that we create daily and place on
the USGS website. It is based on conditions for the preceding week at
all USGS streamgaging stations that have 30 or more years of record and
have telemetry systems. Each dot on the map represents an individual
gage. They are color coded with red indicating that flows for the week
were the lowest ever recorded for that time of year, brown indicating
that flow was below the 10th percentile, orange was between the 10th
and 25th percentile, green indicates ``normal'' (25th to 75th
percentile), light blue is 75th to 90th percentile, dark blue is above
the 90th percentile, and black represents record high flows for this
time of year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1718.001
The lowest flows currently are occurring in southern Virginia and
western North Carolina. During the past several weeks, more than 3
dozen streamgages have reported new record daily and weekly low-flows
in this area. This pattern is also reflected in groundwater declines as
monitored at a few USGS wells that report in realtime in this region.
Other areas experiencing record low flows for this time of year include
South Carolina, the Delaware River basin, and parts of New England.
What's interesting about the pattern of dryness in the East is
that, although it seems to have just recently appeared, it has actually
been lurking around since early summer. Along the entire Eastern
Seaboard, except for South Florida, flows have been varying between
normal and below normal since July. There were no persistent rainy
periods, particularly those associated with tropical storm systems, to
produce and maintain elevated flows and, when below-normal to much
below-normal precipitation occurred throughout the coastal States
during October, the region was poised to experience fairly rapid
streamflow declines. Although the reservoirs serving some metropolitan
areas are at normal to above-normal levels for this time of year, such
as those feeding the Potomac River upstream of Washington, DC, other
systems are already showing signs of stress. Just last week, for
example, storage in the Upper Delaware River Basin reservoirs declined
to drought warning levels, triggering reductions in Delaware River flow
targets and water diversions to New York City and New Jersey.
I would like to focus for a moment on the Delaware River Basin,
which encompasses more than 13,000 square miles in Delaware, New
Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. As major river systems go, the
Delaware River Basin is a small watershed--covering only about 0.4
percent of the U.S. land area. Despite its small size, the Basin
provides water to about 20 million people, about 7 percent of the U.S.
population. Although not physically in the basin, New York City obtains
about one-half its water supply from three reservoirs in the Upper
Delaware Basin. As I mentioned previously, water supplies in the
Delaware River Basin are showing signs of stress. On November 1, 2001,
combined storage in the Upper Delaware Basin reservoirs was 98 billion
gallons, or 36 percent of capacity, and continues to decline. This is
57 percent lower than the level of storage that existed a year ago. As
a result of these abnormally dry conditions, New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania have recently declared some level of drought alert for
counties in the basin. Voluntary conservation measures are being
requested in these areas. If storage continues to decline at the
present rate, the Delaware River Basin could be in a drought emergency
condition by early December, resulting in the imposition of mandatory
in-basin conservation measures and restrictions.
The precipitation Outlook for November to January, issued recently
by NOAA, indicates normal conditions across most of the United States.
The Southern Plains may receive above-normal rainfall, and parts of the
Southeast below-normal rainfall. If such conditions were to occur, the
water resources situation in South Carolina, Georgia, and northern
Florida could only get worse. However, it is worth noting that we are
now entering the time of the year when water demand goes down.
Evaporation is reduced, and people will not be watering lawns, washing
cars, or irrigating crops as during the summer months. So declines in
streams and aquifers will be less noticeable to the average citizen now
than in the late spring or summer. Still, normal rainfall would not be
sufficient to restore deficient stream-and aquifer-levels to normal. It
would take above normal precipitation over a period of weeks to months
to do that. Thus, given current hydrologic conditions, the East Coast
will need to average above-normal precipitation over the coming 4 to 5
months to ensure that normal water supplies are available next spring
and summer; particularly in those areas already experiencing shortages.
The streamgaging network, that measures the ``pulse'' of the
Nation's rivers (and enables LIS to produce a ``snapshot'' of
conditions such as I have used here), is a priority for the USGS. We
have worked closely with the Congress over the last 3 years and thanks
to your Support, and the support of hundreds of State, local, and
tribal agencies, we have made good progress in modernizing and
stabilizing the network. We are working with our partners in ail effort
to assure that these vital data continue to be available to water
resource management.
I should also briefly mention the importance of groundwater as an
indicator of drought and as ail important aspect of the mechanisms
available to communities, agriculture, and industry as insurance
against drought. While our ground-water level monitoring networks have
not been modernized to a level where we can provide the same kind of
synoptic view of ground-water conditions as we presented for surface
water, we anticipate improvements in the next few years. We believe
that the science of groundwater hydrology is crucial to water
management not only in and regions, but nationwide. Conjunctive use of
surface and groundwater has great potential for making water supplies
more drought resistant. Groundwater is crucial to sustaining streamflow
for habitat and for water Supply. More and more we find that our
partners are interested in the role that groundwater plays in
maintaining adequate flow and temperature conditions in rivers.
We also find that emerging technologies such as artificial
recharge, aquifer storage and recovery, and recharge of reclaimed
wastewater are pivotal parts of the water management equation. The
Science to support the use of these new technologies is a part of our
strategic plan for the future of USGS ground-water science.
I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and would
be pleased to respond to any questions you might have.
__________
Statement of Thomas A. Weber, Deputy Chief for Programs, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today and present views on behalf of the United
States Department of Agriculture, regarding water supply issues in our
Nation. I am Tom Weber, Deputy Chief for Programs at the Department's
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The mission of NRCS is
to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve,
improve, and sustain our natural resources and environment. Our agency
was created in response to the Dust Bowl days of the 1930's, helping
farmers and ranchers manage and conserve water resources has remained
among our principal activities.
As most Members on this Committee are already aware, America's
farmers are among the most productive in the world. They feed our
population with the highest quality, safest, and most affordable food
anywhere, while producing food for others all around the world. Today,
farmers face new challenges, many associated with the use of natural
resources. These include the soil health, air quality, and wildlife
habitat issues. But around the country, farmers and ranchers face ever
increasing concern for the quantity and quality of water.
Persistent shortages of water and prolonged abnormal moisture
deficiencies adversely and permanently affect vegetation, animals, and
people. Recently, Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman released, Food
and Agriculture Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century. This document
is our long-term view of the Nation's agriculture and food system, with
emphasis on the conservation of natural resources. We propose that our
policies not only buildupon past gains in resource conservation, but
also must prepare us to respond to emerging challenges such as the
inextricable link between water supply and agriculture. Without
question, the future of our farms and water supplies are interdependent
and are exemplified by the following facts:
<bullet> nationwide, agriculture accounts for nearly 80 percent of
all water consumption.
<bullet> Three-quarters of all cropland in the Western United
States is irrigated.
<bullet> The 16 percent of harvested cropland that is irrigated
accounts for nearly half of the value of all crops sold.
<bullet> nationwide, nearly 100 percent of all orchard sales and
more than 80 percent of the sales of vegetables and potatoes are
produced on irrigated cropland.
Throughout the country, demand for water is increasing, with added
pressures from municipal use and urbanization. I would add that prior
to coming to Washington, DC. I served with NRCS in California and also
as State Conservationist in New Mexico. From my work in these States, I
can attest that the experiences of the West on water supply issues may
be a foreshadow of emerging conflicts in other regions of the country.
While we are not being able to control the precipitation, we do
believe that agriculture is uniquely positioned to be part of the
solution to water issues. From its inception, NRCS has helped farmers
and ranchers with on-farm water management. Following are a few
examples of ways we can help:
CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
We believe that the best approach is to begin with a proactive
conservation plan and then implement it. NRCS field conservationists
provide technical assistance to farmers and ranchers to develop
voluntary resource conservation plans. Conservation technical
assistance does not regulate or compel farmers to accept practices, but
instead encourages them by demonstrating the benefits of conservation.
In addition, NRCS field staff identify opportunities for other forms of
USDA incentives-based conservation assistance, including cost-share,
conservation easements, and other opportunities.
TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
NRCS also offers valuable resource information that assists with
resource planning such as; Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasts--The
purpose of this program is to provide Western States and Alaska with
information on the seasonal availability of water from melting
snowpacks. NRCS field staff and partners collect data on depth and
water equivalent of the snowpack at more than 1,200 manually read
mountain sites. The automated snow telemetry (SNOTEL) provides daily
and hourly data from additional 650 locations. The NRCS Water and
Climate Center provides weekly and monthly predictions of the resultant
stream flows via web services. These forecasts are used by individuals,
Tribes, organizations, and State and Federal agencies to make decisions
relating to agricultural production, fish and wildlife management,
municipal and industrial water supply, urban development, flood
control, recreation, power generation, and water quality management.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a partnership effort to
inventory the Nation's soil resources. The survey produces
comprehensive soil maps, descriptions and interpretations. Land users
employ this data to make resource decisions on their farms and ranches
based upon water availability. Soils, especially high quality soils,
resist degradation from drought and flooding, to quickly recover to
agricultural productivity. We also conduct the National Resources
Inventory. Through this effort, NRCS gauges the condition of natural
resources at 800,000 sampling sites, and is able to provide analysis of
the resource trends and impacts.
The Conservation Plant Materials Program identifies and distributes
millions of native plants to address natural resource problems. As part
of this effort, NRCS evaluates the drought-tolerance of plants, and
works to develop new vegetation that can assist farmers and ranchers
who face water supply shortages.
PROGRAM ASSISTANCE
NRCS also offers an array of opportunities to farmers and ranchers
facing water-related concerns. Included in these, are the following
programs:
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM
This program provides technical, educational, and financial
assistance to farmers and ranchers in high-priority regions for
protecting soil, water, and related natural resources. Water
conservation is one of the resource concerns brought forth from the
locally led process that sets priorities for this assistance.
WETLAND RESERVE PROGRAM
This program provides long-term drought prevention by protecting
the swamps and marshes that conserve water and water-loving plants and
animals. Landowners establish 30-year or permanent conservation
easements or sign restoration cost-share agreements. Wetland
restoration provides many water conservation benefits such as to
augment low stream flows and provide water critical to wildlife.
WATERSHEDS AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS PROGRAM
(SMALL WATERSHED PROGRAM)
The Watersheds program engages State and other public agencies
(called project sponsors) in water and land treatment projects. These
partners enhance flood control, watershed management, water
conservation, municipal and industrial water supply, recreation, and
fish and wildlife protection. Since 1944, conservation partners have
built more than 10,000 flood prevention structures across the country.
Many of these structures have provided communities with additional
water supplies crucial during droughts.
EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM
This program is targeted to communities--as opposed to
individuals--by relieving imminent hazards to life and property caused
by floods, fires, windstorms, droughts and other natural occurrences.
The Emergency Watershed Protection program is a recovery program. Other
programs solve problems that predated the disasters or prevent future
disasters. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides
technical assistance and pays as much as 75 percent of the costs for
emergency repairs, such as removing debris from a stream. We also
purchase easements from willing landowners on flood prone areas to
prevent future crop losses.
There are many challenges facing America's farmers and ranchers on
water quality and quantity issues. We believe that incentives and
technical support for improved on-farm water management, and sound
resource data and assessment, can make a real difference. In 1998,
Congress enacted the National Drought Policy Act. The law established
an advisory commission to provide advice and recommendations on the
creation of an integrated coordinated Federal policy designed to
prepare for and respond to serious drought emergencies. The 15-member
commission consisted of farmers, ranchers, and government officials
from around the country and was chaired by the Secretary of
Agriculture. The commission presented a report to Congress in May 2000
entitled, ``Drought in the 21st Century''.
The Commission made several recommendations regarding NRCS
including support for technical assistance and funding for voluntary
programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The
Commission also recommended expansion of resource inventory and
technology capacity of NRCS as well as encouraging accelerated work
with tribes, States, counties, and towns to develop and maintain
drought preparedness plans.
Congress is currently working toward reshaping agriculture policy
for the future through reauthorization of the Farm Bill. Without
question, water and agriculture will continue to weigh heavily into
these discussions and consideration. One of the central themes is that
future policies must square with today's realities. Without question,
the reality that many of our Nation's farmers and ranchers face is an
increasingly scarce supplies of water, and increasing pressure and
competition for the water. It is difficult enough to be productive and
profitable today in agricultural production, and adequate and
affordable production inputs such as water are crucial. I would
conclude by reiterating that even if we are not able to control the
weather, conservation programs can play an important role in helping
provide local people with the tools and assistance to mitigate the
effects of water shortages.
I thank the Chairman, and would be happy to respond to any
questions that members of the Committee might have.
__________
Statement of Ane D. Deister, Co-chair, Interim National Drought
Council, Associate Vice President, Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
I serve as the non-Federal Co-Chair of the Interim National Drought
Council with Secretary Ann Veneman, USDA, serving as the Federal Co-
Chair. The Council was formed last year through a Memorandum of
Agreement, in response to the recommendations of the National Drought
Policy Commission (NDPC), on which I served as the national urban water
representative. The NDPC held a number of hearings across the Nation
and submitted its final report and recommendations to Congress in the
summer of 2000.
Presently, I work in a senior management position with the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, one of the largest
regional water management agencies in the country. Previously, I worked
for 15 years in Florida, including a top staff position at the South
Florida Water Management District. These remarks reflect a diversity of
experience and perspectives including the California and Florida water
resource experience, work with multi-State and national drought
management entities, and participation in the American Water Works
Association (AWWA), Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and
the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP).
In your invitation letter you asked that we address three things.
These remarks are prepared with a short overview, followed by answers
to the three questions, with further details provided in an attachment.
OVERVIEW
Lately there has been a great deal of attention dedicated to the
issue of water supply security. Previously, information was presented
to Congress regarding the issue of aging infrastructure. However, the
basic water supply condition in the world, Nation, regions, States,
tribal areas, local jurisdictions and ecosystems is challenging today,
and expected to become even more challenging in the future. The basic
dilemma is that fresh water resources are finite, and demands on them
are increasing, often resulting in competition, conflicts, and water
wars with economic, environmental, agricultural, industrial and safety
impacts felt by the water consuming public.
In addition to the basic resource scarcity, the process of water
supply decisionmaking is often equally challenging. The planning,
preparedness and solutions to water supply problems are often delayed
until they reach near crisis conditions, which may constrain and reduce
the available approaches and options. As a result, some of the most
cost-effective water supply measures such as conservation, recycling
and groundwater conjunctive use may be overlooked, with more
controversial supply options supported by well meaning managers, under
emergency or near emergency situations.
Finally, the role of the Federal Government has been helpful in a
few specific instances. But overall some changes in the Federal role
could result in measurable, cost-effective benefits for the water-using
public.
Question 1. Perspective on water supply problem today or in our
future, a description of that problem, including regional differences,
and discussion of the potential causes of this problem:
The simple answer is yes there is a water supply problem in the
Nation today, and indications are that these problems will become more
difficult and severe in the near term. For many years in two diverse
States--California and Florida--at opposite ends of the country, there
has been a common phrase among water managers. That is, there is
sufficient supply, but not in the right locations, at the right time or
amounts to meet demands on a sustainable basis. At some point in the
past 10 years California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Washington, Idaho,
Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia and most of the other Western States
have declared or come close to declaring drought conditions in their
States. In many cases these declarations have covered consecutive
years. With this increase in frequency of multiple year drought
conditions, water managers today may be rethinking that old saying.
The World Water Commission for the past couple years has been
reporting on the global water supply picture, including:
<bullet> Only 2.5 percent of the world's water is freshwater
<bullet> Of that, \2/3\ is trapped in icecaps and glaciers
<bullet> Of the remaining \1/3\, 20 percent is in remote areas
<bullet> Of the remaining amount, 80 percent comes at the wrong
times or in the wrong locations to meet the need
<bullet> Seventy percent of the world's water is used for
agricultural purposes
<bullet> Increases over the next 2 decades are predicted:
<bullet> Human use by 40 percent
<bullet> Agricultural use by 17 percent
<bullet> As a result, aquatic ecosystems will be affected
The attachment includes several pages of specific water supply
problems, organized by State, with problems noted in almost every
State. The source of the problems, the nature of the impacts vary
geographically and hydrologically, but overall the factors contributing
to the current and growing water supply challenges include:
<bullet> natural water resource limits;
<bullet> changing climate conditions and uncertainties;
<bullet> ever-increasing water quality constraints and associated
treatment impacts;
<bullet> growing demands and competition for resource supplies and
uncertainties regarding population growth predictions;
<bullet> the need for regional integrated resource plans throughout
the country, incorporating a diversity of supplies including both
structural and non-structural water supply solutions;
<bullet> the need for coordinated Federal water resource management
policies, approaches and priorities;
<bullet> the need for coordinated, technical data collection,
analysis, and integration including monitoring and prediction, water
use estimates, advancements and applications for recycling and
conservation;
<bullet> the need for official, coordinated Federal conflict
resolution practices;
<bullet> the need for a shift in Federal funding priorities from
response to readiness, emphasizing planning and preparedness
activities.
Each of these factors is discussed below.
NATURAL WATER RESOURCE LIMITS
As previously noted, in the attachment, several pages list key
water supply problems, constraints or challenges for almost every
State. The Committee asked for regional differences to be shared in the
testimony, and while there are differences such as groundwater versus
surface supplies, the similarities are vivid and real. Virtually every
State in the country is presently or on the verge of facing water
resource supplies challenges or shortages. In some cases, such as in
Southern California, the predicted reductions in supplies from the
Colorado River, potential supply challenges associated with the State
Water Project, and natural rainfall circumstances have led Metropolitan
Water District to invest in a number of programs and water producing
projects over the past 10 years. They include emergency surface storage
(Diamond Valley Lake), development of groundwater storage and
conjunctive use programs within and outside district service areas, and
accelerated and enhanced recycling and conservation investments, all on
a cost competitive basis. Yet, that is not the routine across the
country, even though the challenges in each State mimic in their own
way the challenges being faced by Southern California.
Additionally, the term `drought', once defined by meteorological
conditions, over the past few years has been extended and expanded to
generally reflect any water shortage, or water curtailment
circumstance. Water managers are using terms such as `regulatory
drought' and `water-quality-driven drought' across the country today.
The recent experiences in the Klamath Basin and earlier water supply
curtailments of the State Water Project in California have been
characterized by some as `regulatory droughts'. The growing problem of
increasing salinity in water supplies resulting from a variety of
sources and practices is an example of how changes in water quality may
effectively reduce the amount of water to meet demands, hence the term
`water-quality-driven drought'. The term drought management, then, has
become one of comprehensive water resources management, and must
consider environmental needs for water, as well as economic,
agricultural, social, industrial and other human impacts associated
with water supply shortages. After more than 5 years of reviewing the
drought management needs across the country, and comparing those needs
with Federal, State, tribal and local assistance and programs, we have
identified significant service and assistance gaps that need to be
filled to help the country deal effectively with this growing resource
challenge.
CLIMATE UNCERTAINTIES
There is general agreement among scientists that CO<INF>2</INF> is
increasing in the atmosphere and the majority of the scientific
community believes that the climate has changed and will continue to
change. There continues to be uncertainty regarding the degree of
climate variability, the regional effects and potential impacts.
However, despite the continued dialog regarding the degree and
extent of climate change, there are some important projections that
contribute to water supply challenges. They include:
<bullet> Shifts in precipitation type from snow pack to rain fall;
<bullet> Shifts in precipitation locations from north to south;
<bullet> Shifts in precipitation frequency and duration, evidenced
by El Nino, La Nina and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) effects;
<bullet> Shifts in precipitation amounts, and predictions of
longer, multi-year droughts.
The relevance of these shifts is that water supply and distribution
systems designed for previous hydrologic regimes, may not be suitable
for the emerging regime. In the west, the snow pack is in effect a
`reservoir', which if reduced substantially, results in more rainfall,
greater runoff and water supplies that may be out of sync with
reservoirs, groundwater management basins and distribution networks
currently in place. Both tree ring and remote sensing data point to
extended periods of drought, throughout the country, encompassing 15-20
years of consistently dry conditions. That same data reveals similar
periods of flood conditions as well, with few years of `normal'
conditions. Again, this information suggests an overall challenge on
the horizon and increased probability of water supply shortages
nationwide, and most certainly in the west.
WATER QUALITY CONCERNS AND TREATMENT IMPACTS
Salt water intrusion and contamination has emerged as a major water
quality problem throughout the country, which often reduces the direct
uses of water supplies and impacts the ability to recycle water.
Various land use practices contribute to this problem, including
intensive growth in coastal areas, agriculture, and other naturally
occurring conditions exacerbated by growing water demands. Additionally
as detection technologies have increased, the number of contaminants
regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act have also increased, with
treatment cost rising exponentially. The attachment includes a couple
of charts that illustrate this dramatic increase, with a significant
jump occurring between 1990 and 1998. In 1990 there were approximately
30 constituents with more than 80 in 1998. Arguments could be made on
all sides of the discussion about this proliferation of water quality
regulations, but nevertheless they do contribute to the challenge of
meeting water supply demands.
GROWING DEMANDS/COMPETITION FOR RESOURCES
There are many classic water competition examples across the
Nation, with only a very few of the current situations listed below:
<bullet> Floridan Aquifer--Alabama/Georgia/Florida
<bullet> California Bay-Delta and State Water Project
<bullet> Colorado River 7 basin States
<bullet> Texas Edwards Aquifer
<bullet> Minnesota groundwater--irrigation and domestic competition
<bullet> Delaware River Basin area on drought watch
<bullet> Ogallala groundwater basin management
This is only a snap shot to illustrate the diversity of areas
experiencing competition for resources and growing demands.
existing and challenging regional integrated resource plans
The National Drought Policy Commission and other national
organizations have identified several successful models located
throughout the country where integrated resource planning is occurring
on a regional basis. Yet even these successful regional integrated
planning bodies could benefit from a more collaborative relationship
with the Federal Government. These successful models include:
<bullet> Florida's 5 Water Management Districts
<bullet> Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
<bullet> Santa Clara Valley Water District
<bullet> Delaware River Basin Commission
<bullet> Ohio River Basin Commission
<bullet> Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Using the Metropolitan Water District as an example, the model can
be based on a few key regional integrating planning strategies
including:
<bullet> Invest in conservation and local resources--over past 10
years 800,000 AF conserved and recycled, projected to reach 1.6 MAF by
2020
<bullet> Reduce reliance on Bay-Delta during dry years to improve
ecosystem management
<bullet> Keep the Colorado River Aqueduct full through innovative
conservation, storage and water transfer programs
<bullet> Develop and implement a preferred resource mix, balancing
local and imported water (IRP)
<bullet> Develop and implement a resource portfolio strategy for
drought management, incorporating storage during surplus periods for
use during dry periods (Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan)
In addition, there are some newly framed regional compacts and
other emerging regional areas where there is a need for greater
integrated resource planning, including:
<bullet> U.S. and Mexico issues with the Rio Grande and Colorado
River
<bullet> ACT-ACF, Georgia, Florida, Alabama issues (Apalachicola
Bay, Atlanta, etc.)
<bullet> Texas SB 1 implementation
These are not the only regional integrated planning examples, but
they illustrate the types of existing regional approaches. However,
there are many more situations where there has been no regional
planning or coordination, resulting in existing and imminent water
supply shortages and challenges. They also represent locations where
there are missed opportunities for economies of scale and the benefits
of share visioning and development of mutually beneficial solutions.
need for coordinated federal policies, approaches and priorities
The National Drought Policy Commission report, May 2000, identified
more than 80 Federal programs related to Federal drought assistance.
Despite a lot of investigation, analysis and evaluation we were unable
to identify coordination among those programs. They are based in
numerous Federal departments such as USDA, Bureau of Reclamation, Army
Corps of Engineers, EPA, NOAA, SBA, and to some limited degree FEMA,
which might explain some of the lack of coordination. However, we also
discovered that multiple programs within the same department lacked
coordination, as well.
The recent experience in the Klamath Basin is an example where an
upfront coordinated approach, and collaboration with the affected water
users, in hindsight, would have been beneficial. Additionally, a
similar situation, thought not quite as extreme as the Klamath,
occurred a year or so ago in California regarding the management of the
State Water Contract supplies. Again, these are not the only examples,
but serve as an indication of the need. These examples also underscore
the fact that the Federal Endangered Species Act and its State
counterparts have largely become the main driver in the need for
coordination among a diverse set of regulatory agencies that control
today's water supply decisions.
Yet there are some coordination and collaboration efforts occurring
today, which warrant mentioning. One of the members of the National
Drought Policy Commission and Interim National Drought Council is the
US Army Corps of Engineers. They have extensive information on this
topic, and have advised the commission and council members on
challenges related to water supply development projects, and also on
the success stories where a coordinated and collaborative approach was
used. The Corps has been undergoing a transformation in the way they
conduct business, and are moving more into the multiple purpose and
multiple benefits arena as a result. Additionally, the Corps and the
Bureau of Reclamation, in response to a recommendation made by the
National Drought Policy Commission are developing an MOU to allow the
Corps to perform drought management studies for the Bureau and to
combine their expertise and effectiveness nationwide.
The Western Drought Coordination Council, a collaboration between
Western States, several Federal agencies, urban interests and other
stakeholders, initiated by the Western Governors' Association,
represents a successful regional coordination and collaboration effort
between Federal and nonFederal participants. The National Drought
Policy Commission and Interim National Drought Council also serve as
models of collaboration and cooperation between Federal and nonFederal
entities.
As more and more coordination examples occur, there is increasing
evidence of the cost savings, resource benefits and environmental and
economic productivity rewards of coordination among Federal agencies
and with States, tribes and local entities requiring assistance in
water supply planning.
NEED FOR COORDINATION, COLLABORATION OF SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL DATA
COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION
A specific successful data coordination project is the weekly
production of the Drought Monitor map and report. This is a
collaborative data sharing effort between USDA, NOAA, the National
Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, and
several regional and local weather monitoring and prediction entities
in both the public and private sectors. The group tracks the occurrence
of drought across the country, with weekly updates reporting on current
conditions and any changes since the previous report.
This coordination effort points out the multiple benefits of shared
visions, and coordinated scientific pursuit. There are many areas in
which adequately funded coordinated data collection, analysis, and
evaluation is needed from the Federal Government. A few areas of
particular need are:
<bullet> Groundwater supplies and recharge and extraction rates of
aquifers
<bullet> Water use consumption, demand forecasting, and accurate
estimates of water supply and demand balance
<bullet> Conservation measures in urban, agricultural, commercial,
institutional and industrial sectors
<bullet> Stream gages and other watershed monitoring
<bullet> Weather prediction and long term patterns and trends
NEED FOR COORDINATED FEDERAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION PRACTICES
There has been an increasing emphasis within Federal departments
and agencies to use alternative dispute resolution and conflict
resolution practices, particularly in regulatory disputes. There is
also a slowly growing practice of using collaborative processes with
Federal and non-Federal participants sharing data, agreeing on the
issues and developing solutions. The CALFED and Everglades examples
have been previously noted, and many others have occurred, for example
in Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, Lake Tahoe, Santa Monica Bay and the
Chesapeake Bay. However, there is a growing need for an officially
sanctioned Federal practice of alternative dispute resolution and
consensus based decisionmaking for water supply problems. There is
increasing information in the legal and resource management literature
illustrating successes at local, regional, and multi-State levels where
participatory conflict resolution approaches were used to solve
problems, planned for litigation expenditures were redirected to
project and program implementation, and with lasting inter-group
relationships created. Yet, there is less experience within the Federal
Government among various departments and agencies, and between Federal
and non-Federal partners and participants.
NEED FOR SHIFT IN FEDERAL PRIORITIES FROM RESPONSE TO READINESS
One of the primary recommendations from the National Drought Policy
Commission is the need for the Federal Government to shift priorities--
particularly in funding decisions--from response or bailouts to
readiness or planning and preparedness measures. There was also a
caution to make sure that the shift occurs in such a way as to provide
a reasonable transition for States, tribes and local entities to
implement this change in priorities in their own areas. For example a
safety net for true emergencies would need to be in place for a period
of perhaps 10 years, for many agricultural programs to shift from an
emergency to readiness paradigm.
The National Drought Policy Commission report also documented the
substantial savings of providing up-front solutions to water supply
shortages and problems, studies such as the NSF funded ``Government
Response to Drought in the United States: Lessons from the mid-1970's''
have shown that the Federal Government spent significant amounts on
responding to drought impacts, including:
<bullet> $3.3 billion responding to the 1953-1956 drought
<bullet> at least $6.5 billion during 1976-1977 drought
<bullet> about $6 billion during the 1988-1989 drought
But there are clearly other costs as reported in ``Drought and
Natural Resources Management in the United States: Impacts and
Implications of the 1987-1989 Drought'' (Riebsame, Changnon and Karl)
which documented a reduction in crop production of nearly $20 billion
and an increase in food prices of more than $12 billion because of the
1988 drought. The report also noted the low flows in the Mississippi
River caused barge shipping prices to double and triple leading to an
estimated $1 billion in increased transportation costs. At one of the
National Drought Policy Commission hearings the Texas Agriculture
Commissioner, Susan Combs, reported that in 1996 and 1998 droughts in
her State caused a loss of $4 billion in direct income with a total
impact to the State's economy close to $11 billion.
Question 2. Extent to which Federal programs are effective or
ineffective in ensuring that State and local governments are meeting
water supply needs.
There are some effective Federal programs, such as California's
CALFED program and Florida's Everglades restoration program. Both
address the problem of resource scarcity and increasing competing
demands for those resources. They both have used collaborative
processes to help minimize conflicts, with a goal of environmental
restoration and protection. But even with these successful models there
have been occurrences when tough decisions had to be made regarding
such options such as storage and conservation for water supplies.
At the other end of the spectrum is the general issue of Federal
agencies, with specific mandates and perspectives, and little incentive
to cooperate, collaborate and develop a shared, mutually beneficial
approach to water supply. This is partly due to the more than 80
governmental programs in a dozen Federal entities, involved in water
resource and drought related assistance programs. Yet there is no
Federal forum for integrating the concerns, perspectives and mandates
of various Federal departments and agencies, which also includes
effective mechanisms for Federal and non-Federal participants to work
collaboratively. Several parts of the discussion above provide further
specifics on this question. Taken collectively several of them relate
to the need to re-evaluate the ability of any single agency to veto
coordinated plans to meet water supply needs. They are noted under the
headings:
<bullet> Need for coordinated Federal policies, approaches and
priorities
<bullet> Need for coordinated, collaborative scientific/technical
data collection, analysis and integration
<bullet> Need for coordinated Federal conflict resolution practice
<bullet> Need for shift in Federal priorities from response to
readiness
Question 3. What actions should Congress take to facilitate an
efficient and effective Federal role in water supply?
Based on the above information, observation and experience, there
are some basic ways in which the Federal Government could help the
country resolve some of the water supply challenges. They include the
following:
<bullet> Support a National Drought Preparedness Act, to create an
ongoing Federal and non-Federal coordination and collaboration entity,
with both administrative and program implementation funding;
<bullet> Implement the recommendations of the National Drought
Policy Commission report, including:
<bullet> Shifting Federal priorities from response to planning
and preparedness, reflected in funding decisions and incentives
for regional Federal and non-Federal water supply coordination
entities;
<bullet> Provide incentives for scientists and managers to
collaborate to enhance observation networks, monitoring and
prediction and information delivery of pertinent water supply
information;
<bullet> Maintain a safety net of emergency relief, that
emphasizes sound stewardship of natural resources and self-
help;
<bullet> Develop and enact a Federal practice of multi-
jurisdictional conflict resolution and alternative dispute
resolution;
<bullet> Conduct a national assessment of the potential to use a
regional approach to developing water supply plans and solutions,
including resource assessment, economies of scale, watershed basis, and
stakeholder input processes.
<bullet> Develop and fund a Federal practice of multi-
jurisdictional conflict resolution and collaboration with non-Federal
partners and participants.
<bullet> LRe-evaluate the ability of any single agency to veto
coordinated plans to meet water supply needs.
In addition to the broad topics addressed above, the water industry
has gone on record regarding some specific measures, which are
applicable to this discussion. They include specific actions by the
Federal Government that would help facilitate some water supply
solutions, without undermining the shared goal of protecting
environmental and ecological resources.
<bullet> Under the general category of better coordinated and
integrated water statues and programs:
<bullet> Develop effective, scientifically sound and
adequately funded programs to control polluted runoff.
<bullet> Amend the Clean Water Act to make protection of
drinking water sources one of its main purposes and to
specifically address drinking water contamination by non-point
and other sources.
<bullet> Develop water quality criteria for microbial
pathogens and all other pollutants subject to the Safe Drinking
Water Act, to limit the introduction of microbial pollutants
into the drinking water supplies.
<bullet> Amend Superfund to more effectively protect and remediate
drinking water sources.
<bullet> Change the Clean Air Act to prevent contamination of
drinking water supplies by MTBE and other oxygenates.
<bullet> In reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the
American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends:
<bullet> Develop a public policy review process that balances
species protection with the provision of public services
essential to public health, safety, and welfare.
<bullet> Allow for upfront agreement on reasonable and
necessary preventive or emergency repairs, maintenance and
safety modifications on existing water projects.
<bullet> Recognize the rights and responsibilities of the
owners of existing water rights.
<bullet> Ensure that ESA decisions are based on peer-reviewed
science conducted by acknowledged, independent experts in an
open, transparent, and interactive process.
In summary, the questions you raised are relevant and needed to be
raised. The solutions are not easy, but still need to be implemented.
While there may be diverse water supply needs across the country, I
believe you will find a host of individuals, groups and entities that
will welcome the opportunity to be part of the solution. I appreciate
the opportunity to provide testimony on this important topic and
welcome the opportunity to answer questions, provide additional
information or other means to further these endeavors.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Response by Ane D. Deister to Additional Questions from
Senators Graham and Crapo
Question 1. In your testimony, you identified a need for a shift in
Federal priorities from assistance for response or ``bailouts'' to
readiness. How would this shift in Federal priorities to readiness
occur? How would this work within the framework that recognizes and
defers to States and localities for water supply management
development?
Response. The simple answer is through a shift in funding
priorities. Currently after-the-fact response programs, which are
responsive in nature, often receive funding either through emergency
provisions, or in the case of natural-based disaster through Stafford
Act provisions with FEMA. Both grant and loan programs would ensure
State and local rights, restrictions and priorities are maintained, as
well.
My suggestion is for a systematic, staged shift in Federal funding
such that Federal loan and grant funds for drinking water, recycled
water, and conservation projects and programs are increased over a 10-
year period, with concomitant reductions in funds allocated for
response measures. In this way communities and utilities may plan and
prepare for increased water demands from a growth management
perspective that would maximize water conservation and facilities
planning approaches systematically, in a cost effective and resource
effective manner, to prevent emergency or other more costly situations.
Eligible facilities and programs might include treatment plants (and
upgrades to address water quality matters), storage (above and below
ground) facilities, canal and conveyance lining and rebuilding, system
audits, managed irrigation measures, residential, commercial,
industrial and institutional conservation retrofits and other
conservation and recycling activities. There are other cross resource
opportunities that might be considered as well. For example, one of the
major costs in water operations is electricity. There may be some
energy efficient measures such as co-generation, use of ``green'' power
and other measures that would contribute positively to two resource
challenges simultaneously. Certainly, Federal incentives would be
helpful.
Again, this is the simple answer, and I would be pleased to provide
additional information as well. I look forward to working with you and
the committee on this important resource challenge. Management of fresh
water resources is rapidly becoming one of the most pressing matters of
our time. Steps to pro-actively prepare for new demands, couple with
wise use of existing supplies will help us continue to provide water to
fuel the economy, support and restore the environment. I welcome other
invitations to be part of this effort nationally.
__________
Statement of Jay L. Rutherford, P.E., Director, Water Supply Division,
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, on behalf of the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
INTRODUCTION
The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) is
pleased to provide testimony before the Senate Environment and Public
Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water regarding the
Federal role in meeting water supply needs. ASDWA represents the
drinking water programs in each of the 50 States, territories, and the
District of Columbia in their efforts to ensure the provision of safe,
potable drinking water to all Americans nationwide. ASDWA's primary
mission is the protection of public health through the effective
management of State drinking water programs that implement the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
OVERVIEW
For more that 25 years, State drinking water program administrators
have been involved in issues primarily relating to water quality rather
than quantity, although a reliable source of drinking water is a
prerequisite for good public health protection. ASDWA's members carry
out regulation of public drinking water systems that serve 25 or more
people per day. Public water systems have the benefit of both Federal
and State regulation and this oversight typically provides for improved
source protection, planning, and operation of those systems to the
benefit of the consuming public.
In response to the questions posed by the subcommittee, ASDWA
polled its member States regarding the adequacy or capacity of their
public water supplies. The responses received emphasized that each
State's situation is unique.
Is there a water supply problem?
Declared drought conditions exist in all or portions of
approximately half of the States. States generally concurred that these
conditions either do or will affect the supply of available drinking
water. From ASDWA members' perspective, the primary cause of stressed
water supplies is weather-related--principally a lack of rainfall or
snowpack. Some States also reported stresses attributable to population
growth; competition for use among agricultural, manufacturing, and
environmental initiatives; and, in some areas, stress due to
development, although this issue was much less significant than
stresses caused by the weather.
Most States have developed, or are developing, management systems
to address the reliability of their water supply. These efforts usually
involve coordination among a variety of State and local agencies and,
as needed, further coordination with selected Federal agencies.
Slightly more than half of State drinking water programs are housed in
Departments of Environment or Natural Resources, generally the State
agency responsible for water supply management. The remaining State
programs fall under the purview of Departments of Health where water
supply management is not part of the program=s mandate. This
distinction has led to a variety of lead agencies with regard to
primary responsibility for water quantity issues. However, State
drinking water programs, regardless of their location, all contain
initiatives directed toward source water assessment and delineation as
part of their responsibilities under the 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
What is the appropriate Federal role?
The 1996 SDWA Amendments offered State drinking water programs
several opportunities to respond with enhanced flexibility to Federal
requirements in a manner that targeted specific State needs and
recognized that States frequently know how best to manage their
resources responsibly. Federal water supply management initiatives may
benefit from a similar approach. Water supply management is, of
necessity, very different east and west of the Mississippi River.
In the East, water supplies are generally more plentiful. States
recognize, however, that plentiful does not mean unlimited. Many States
already have well-and long-established interagency working
relationships primarily to address drought but also to look at broader
water management issues such as protection against contamination and/or
smart growth. Many States have developed water management and
conservation plans to respond to immediate short-term concerns such as
water outages as well as longer range coordinated mechanisms to ensure
continued sufficient water supply.
For example, Georgia is developing a State Water Plan and a State
Drought Plan that includes regional drought management models and a
statewide comprehensive water conservation plan. As well, Georgia is
studying ways to reduce agricultural water use while still protecting
the prosperity of farmers and agricultural communities. These
initiatives call upon the combined State level expertise of the
Department of Natural Resources through both the Pollution Prevention
Division and the Environmental Protection Division, the Departments of
Wildlife Resources and Community Affairs, the Georgia Emergency
Management Agency, the Georgia Association of County Commissioners, and
the Georgia Municipal Association. Federal participation is principally
through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In Tennessee, the State has enacted legislation that will require
registration and permitting for all interbasin transfers of water. A
special panel has been created to consider water supply policies for
the State. Tennessee expects that water supply legislation to conduct
an inventory of water availability will be introduced and considered
during the next legislative session. To respond to drought and other
water shortage situations, the Department of Environment and
Conservation works in collaboration with the State offices for economic
and community development, policy and planning, and municipal pollution
control. At the Federal level, Tennessee works with the Tennessee
Valley Authority, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Vermont, in contrast, has taken a different approach. The State's
policy is to encourage rather than mandate water conservation
initiatives at the local level. Conservation is perceived as a locally
managed issue. However, for a number of years, Vermont has taken a
conservative approach toward allowing development of new public
drinking water sources. This long range planning effort has been
instrumental in reducing drought impacts for those systems.
Additionally, the State requires that all community water systems
develop a Source Protection Plan which includes a contingency plan to
address system failures and outages.
Other States such as Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Minnesota
require that all public water systems serving, generally, a population
of 1,000 or more develop water management plans as part of the
permitting process. Although drinking water is regulated under the
Department of Health in these three States, each program is directly
involved in working with the Department responsible for water supply
management to address drought and conservation initiatives.
In the West, water supply management has a very different history
and tradition. Because supplies are so limited, water use has been
bound by a complex allocation scheme known as water rights. Much of the
water supply in the Western United States is controlled by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation through its oversight and management
responsibilities for Federal dams and reservoirs. Additionally, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plays a critical role in water supply
allocation as it strives to provide sufficient water to support
endangered marine and other species. The Corps of Engineers also play a
significant role in its management and restoration of wetlands as well
as its more traditional dredging activities.
Western States face unique water supply management challenges due
to these water rights issues that force irrigated agriculture,
technology and other industries, fish and wildlife, and the consuming
public into an ongoing struggle for severely limited supplies. The
significant level of Federal involvement adds yet another layer to the
mix. However, States have proved adequate to the challenge through
water management and conservation plans designed to address the needs
of their particular combinations of geography, population, and limited
sources of supply.
States in the West have worked diligently to find the appropriate
balance that addresses the concerns of these competing interests.
California, for example, has its longstanding State Water Project that
addresses supply concerns between the northern and southern regions of
the State. California also participates in a State/Federal water supply
partnership and has designed several regional and individual efforts to
increase supply through water reuse, water banking, and increased
surface storage systems. Additionally, California requires that any
developer of a project with more than 500 service connections must
identify an appropriate water source before receiving approval to
proceed.
The State of Washington, too, is working diligently to resolve some
of its supply issues through adoption of smart growth plans, increasing
water reuse capabilities, and developing water management plans. The
State is working to determine how best to integrate these efforts and
how to incorporate additional fish protection requirements into a
comprehensive management strategy. The State expects that its next
legislative session will focus largely on water supply management
issues for public water providers as well as consideration of issues
such as utility responsibilities for environmental management, water
use efficiency, and water system infrastructure funding.
Arizona has had a comprehensive water resource management plan in
place for more than 20 years. The plan requires State regulation of
groundwater use to ensure that dependable water supplies are available
for current and future use. The plan places conservation requirements
on both municipal and agricultural water use and promotes renewable
water supplies. The State's Department of Environmental Quality has
modified its regulations relating to reuse of effluent to allow more
reuse while maintaining necessary water quality standards; thereby
conserving potable water sources for human consumption and domestic
uses.
Each of these Western States has designed a water management plan
that addresses its unique needs--whether it be water transfers between
northern and southern California; water management plans to coordinate
competing uses in water-rich Seattle or high desert Spokane,
Washington; or water conservation planning and management for the arid
Arizona desert. Each has developed a methodology that incorporates
collaboration between and among different State agencies as well as
cooperation with a host of Federal agencies and inclusion of public
input through stakeholder involvement.
In the drinking water arena, each of these States has also
developed a plan for source water assessment and protection. These
initiatives will allow States to further coordinate their water supply
management activities through identification of areas that may need
increased protection from contamination; areas that should not be
developed as part of a prevention approach to protection; and the
ability of source water protection initiatives to assist in directing
State determinations for appropriate smart growth and other land use
decisions.
The clear message from State drinking water programs is that water
supply matters must be addressed primarily at the State and local
level. Federal involvement with the States should be limited to a
facilitative role in meeting the interest of the States.
What, if any, actions should Congress take?
State drinking water programs are reluctant to provide legislative
advice or direction on matters not typically under their purview. ASDWA
can recommend continued congressional support for programs such as the
source water protection initiatives found within the SDWA that carry
many incentives for participation, few overarching regulatory mandates,
and allow States to pursue compliance strategies tailored to their
individual needs. One of the best methods of support for these flexible
programs is increased funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Loan Fund (DWSRF). The DWSRF allows Federal funding, coupled with a 20
percent State match, to create a loan program that distributes much
needed infrastructure improvement dollars to qualified applicants as
well as offer drinking water utilities the means to work toward
protecting their drinking water sources; identifying and removing
potential sources of contamination; and establishing reasonable land
use or smart growth strategies. Each of these initiatives demonstrates
an approach to effective water supply management. All are possible due
to the flexibilities offered under the DWSRF for source water
protection.
ASDWA also reiterates that each State is unique in its needs,
strategies, and solutions. States are in the best position to manage
and coordinate the multi-level efforts among Federal, State, and local
perspectives. As well, States are best positioned to balance competing
priorities among local communities, interest groups, and Federal
agencies as they are the only entity to have direct responsibilities to
each of the participating parties. Tensions are often exacerbated when
longstanding State-local working agreements are overridden by Anew or
revised Federal mandates that can Aundo compromises that took years to
reach. Almost without exception, States have programs in place to
address drought conditions as well as water management plans that
represent years of effort to reach a delicate balance that fairly
represents competing interests.
History has taught us that without cooperation in water supply
management efforts, the economic consequences will be dire. Direct
Federal intervention is not the only, and frequently not the best,
solution. States must be allowed to manage their own resources--they
are the primary stewards--and are responsible to the public that they
serve.
ASDWA appreciates this opportunity to provide information to the
Subcommittee. ASDWA believes that each State faces unique challenges in
addressing the issues surrounding water supply management. States have
developed coordinated efforts that incorporate local and Federal
perspectives within the construct of identified State needs. The
Federal role should be both facilitative and supportive of these
ongoing initiatives. From a drinking water perspective, one of the best
ways to accomplish this is for continued Federal support for programs
such as the DWSRF that offers the incentives and financial wherewithal
to address identified water supply issues.
__________
Statement of Kenneth Frederick, Senior Fellow, Resources for the
Future\1\
Thank you Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the Nation's water
supply issues. I am Kenneth Frederick, Senior Follow at Resources for
the Future, a nonprofit, nonadvocacy research and educational
organization specializing in problems of natural resources and the
environment since 1952. The views I express today are my own, not those
of RFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Resources for the Future, 1616 P St., NW, Washington, DC 20036
(email: frederic@rff.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States is relatively well endowed with water, with an
average annual precipitation of nearly 30 inches throughout the
conterminous 48 States and large quantities of water stored in surface
and groundwater reservoirs. Despite water's apparent abundance and
renewability, water adequacy has emerged as one of the Nation's primary
resource issues. Freshwater is a scarce and often threatened resource
throughout much of the United States, but particularly in the and West.
Supplies are being depleted or degraded by unsustainable rates of
groundwater use, contamination, and damage to aquatic ecosystems.
Concerns about the availability of freshwater to meet the demands
of a growing and increasingly affluent population while sustaining a
healthy natural environment are based on several factors: (1) the
importance of reliable supplies of high-quality water for human and
environmental health and economic development; (2) uncertainties as to
the availability of supplies stemming from the vicissitudes of the
hydrologic cycle and the threat that greenhouse warming might alter the
cycle; (3) the high costs of developing additional supplies; (4) the
Vulnerability of the resource to contamination; and (5) the
shortcomings of our institutions for allocating scare supplies in
response to changing supply and demand conditions.
My remarks will focus on the implications of greenhouse warming and
the institutional shortcomings, I will leave the committee with several
papers that provide a more extensive discussion of these and other
factors affecting the Nation's water supplies.
HYDROLOGIC IMPLICATIONS OF GREENHOUSE WARMING
Greenhouse warming could affect the quantity, quality, timing,
location, and reliability of water supplies, The effects on water
supplies and water management systems are expected to be among the most
important impacts of global warming. But understanding the linkages
between emissions of greenhouse gases and sulfur dioxide (which has a
cooling effect) and the climate, and then determining how climate
change would affect water resources at geographic scales relevant for
water planning and management arc daunting tasks. Contrasting
projections of runoff (that is, our renewable supplies) based on the
two principal general circulation models used in the recent national
assessment of the impacts of climate variability and change on the
United States illustrate the uncertainties. Estimates based on the
Hadley climate model indicate flooding could increase in much of the
country, while those based on the Canadian model indicate increased
water scarcity would pervade much of the country.
While the wide range of projections from the different climate
models makes it difficult to draw Conclusions at the river basin and
watershed levels, some general conclusions about the likely impacts of
greenhouse warming on water supplies do emerge.
<bullet> Precipitation is likely to increase in higher latitudes,
particularly in winter.
<bullet> Higher evapotranspiration rates may lead to decreases in
runoff, even in areas with increased precipitation.
<bullet> More intense precipitation days are likely in some
regions, which could contribute to all increase in flood frequency.
1<bullet> The frequency and severity of droughts could increase in
some areas as a result of a decrease in total rainfall, more frequent
dry spells, and greater evapotrans-
piration.
<bullet> Higher temperatures would shift the relative amounts of
snow and rain along with the timing of runoff in mountainous areas.
This shift could increase the likelihood of flooding early in the year
and reduce the availability of water during periods of high demand.
<bullet> Higher temperatures and reduced flow could increase water
quality problems in some basins.
<bullet> The quality and quantity of freshwater in coastal areas
might be adversely affected by higher sea levels and increased storm
surges that push saltwater further inland in rivers, deltas, and
coastal aquifers.
WATER INSTITUTIONS
There is cause for concern over the adequacy of our water supplies.
We have limited control over the resource, most opportunities for
increasing supplies are financially and environmentally costly, current
uses are depleting or contaminating some valued supplies, and the
prospect of climate change introduces new uncertainties. Meanwhile,
demands for freshwater are growing with population and incomes. And
many of the institutions that provide the opportunities and incentives
to use, conserve, or protect the resource continue to be rooted in an
era when the resource was not considered to be scarce.
On the other hand, there is reason for optimism as to the long-term
adequacy of water supplies. The institutions that influence how
supplies are managed and allocated among competing users and the
effectiveness and costs of efforts to protect aquatic environments and
drinking water quality will determine the magnitude and nature of
future water costs.
State institutions are primarily responsible for allocating waters
within their borders. But water flows do not conform to State
boundaries. As the competition for water increases, all users within a
hydrologic unit become increasingly interdependent. Consequently,
Federal input is needed to promote water use efficiency and protect the
interests of downstream States. The Federal Government currently
manages much of the West's SUIT, waters, Supplies water to about one
quarter of irrigated lands there, and is the source and enforcer of
environmental legislation affecting water use, the trustee for Indian
water rights, and the holder of unquantified rights for water use on
Federal lands. Carrying out these responsibilities to better meet the
Nation's future water needs will be a major challenge. Some
recommendations follow.
Water marketing, the voluntary transfer of water rights to new uses
and users, has great potential to increase water-use efficiency, The
Federal Government has taken a few steps to facilitate water marketing.
The Department of Interior adopted a policy of facilitating transfers
involving Federal facilities and established a framework for approving
and administering interstate agreements for water transfers among the
three Lower Colorado Basin States. The Central Valley Project
Improvement Act of 1992 authorized the transfer of federally supplied
water outside the project service area. However, these measures have
had little or no impact on water use to date. A broader, more active
Federal role is needed.
Uncertainties surrounding unquantified Indian and federally
reserved water rights hinder the assignment of transferable water
rights. Providing the tribes with rights that could be sold off the
reservations would foster water marketing as well as tribal welfare.
Temporary and permanent transfers of federally supplied water could be
promoted to facilitate transfers from low-value, inefficient
agricultural uses to domestic and industrial uses. Providing irrigators
an opportunity to sell unused supplies would promote transfers from
low-to high-value uses and would provide irrigators incentives to
conserve. With the introduction of transferable water rights, users
would value water in terms of its opportunity cost--the value they
could get by selling water--rather than the subsidized price they pay
for it.
The prospect of global climate change provides added reason for
promoting water transfers and making the operation of Federal dams and
reservoirs more responsive to changing conditions. The magnitude,
timing, and even the direction of climate-induced changes in a region's
water supplies are uncertain. The costs of building dams, reservoirs,
and other infrastructure in anticipation of these uncertain changes are
high. But reexamining operating rules, relaxing constraints on water
use, and developing institutions to encourage voluntary exchanges of
water through markets would make the system more efficient and better
able to adapt to whatever the future might bring.
The United States has made impressive gains over the last two
decades in restoring and protecting its water resources. But resistance
is growing to the enormous investments that continue to be made in
treating industrial and municipal wastes because of high costs and
diminishing returns. More cost-effective approaches to water-quality
goals are needed. These might include effluent fees that provide
incentives to develop and adopt least-cost technologies, and tradable
permits to pollute that establish an allowable quantity of pollution in
a watershed and provide incentives to achieve this level at the lowest
cost. Nonpoint Source pollutants--such as runoff from farms, urban
areas, and constructionsites, and seepage from landfills and septic
systems--are now the principal sources of pollutants reaching the
Nation's waters. Since these pollutants lack specific points of
discharge where they can be collected and treated, watershed management
with particular emphasis on the use of riparian or riverside lands must
be employed to achieve significant further improvements in the quality
of the Nation's waters.
The interdependencies among water users and the interchangeability
of ground and Surface Supplies are all too often ignored in management
decisions because natural hydrologic regions are split into multiple
political and administrative units. Integrated management of existing
supplies and infrastructure, ideally at the river basin level but also
within smaller watersheds, could be a cost-effective means of
increasing reliable water supplies and resolving water conflicts in
many regions. Perhaps the most important measure that Congress could
take to meet the Nation's long-term water needs would be to restore the
Water Resources Council or a similar institution. Such an institution
is needed to evaluate water investment and management decisions
objectively from the perspective of their impacts on larger watersheds,
to assess the third-party impacts of interstate water transfers, to
counter the often conflicting objectives of differing Federal agencies,
and to reduce (or at least expose) the inefficiencies that result from
political logrolling and agency aggrandizement.
Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to address any
questions the committee might have.
__________
Statement of Leland R. Mink, Director, Idaho Water Resources
Research Institute
Mr. Chairman: My name is Leland Mink. I am Director of the Idaho
Water Resources Research Institute at the University of Idaho in
Moscow, Idaho. In addition, I am past president of the National
Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR) and a member of the Board of that
organization. NIWR represents the State water resources research
institutes, which are partnerships among State universities; Federal,
State, and local governments; businesses and industries; and non-
governmental organizations aimed at solving problems of water supply
and water quality at local, State, regional, and national levels.
By way of background, the Water Resources Research Act of 1964
which authorized establishment of a water resources research and
technology institute or center which tend to be at the land-grand
university in each State. These institutes were charged with (1)
arranging for competent research that addresses water problems or
expands understanding of water and water-related phenomena, (2) aiding
the entry of new research scientists into the water resources fields,
(3) helping to train future water scientists and engineers, and (4)
getting the results of sponsored research to water managers and the
public. The institute in each State is responsible for working with
researchers at other universities within their State.
Congress passed Public Law 106-374 last year. The legislation
reauthorized the Water Resources Research Act through fiscal year 2005.
The legislation is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works. The principal sponsor of last year's
reauthorization was Senator Crapo.
The State Water Resources Research Institute Program is under the
general guidance of the Secretary of Interior and is administered
through the U.S. Geological Survey.
Over the past 40 or more years, several reports have been submitted
to Congress attempting to address the questions of ``Do we have enough
water?'' and ``Are we running out of water?'' Interestingly, the Senate
Select Committee on National Water Resources, the so-called Kerr
Committee, provided one of the earlier reports to Congress in 1961.
(See Senate Report No. 29, 87th Congress, 1st Session).
Two major water assessments were conducted in 1965 and 1978 by the
Water Resources Council (See U.S. Water Research Council, 1968, The
Nation's Water Resources: The First National Assessment of the Water
Resources Council, and U.S. Water Research Council, 1978, The National
Water Resource Second National Assessment). Just this year, the
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences issued a
brief report on the research and information needs for assessing water
availability and use. (See Envisioning the Agenda for Water Resources
Research in the Twenty-First Century, National Research Council 2001).
All of these studies consistently indicate an inadequate water
supply to meet future needs. They have suggested ways to potentially
develop more resources. Examples include wastewater re-use,
desalinization, water conservation, etc. The studies also indicated a
need for improved hydrologic data to develop management plans and
better able to make management decisions. This all leads to developing
the information and techniques to make better forecasts, especially as
related to extreme conditions such as drought periods and flood
frequency.
In Idaho, as in many of the Western States, water management has
changed over the last 30 years, especially with the additional
priorities. Early management strategy was to create more storage so
water could be made available for basic needs of hydropower generation,
food production and domestic consumption and use. During the past 30
years a shift has occurred to add consideration of environmental
concerns as a major need. Primary examples include minimum stream flows
for aquatic species, which are important to salmon and other fisheries
in our region, and recreation in streams and rivers which has become an
important consideration driving managing streams and reservoirs which
are primarily used for traditional hydropower and irrigation purposes.
As a more diverse population growth occurs in the Western States, new
priorities surface for the available water. As a result, the perception
(and often reality) is there is not enough water to satisfy the
existing and projected demands. The major issue facing water managers
in the 21st century will be inadequate and uncertain water supplies.
Demands on the Nation's water resources are growing with increased
population and industrial expansion. Since the supply is unchanged
(with exception of climate change impacts) it indicates that we will
face increased challenges in meeting growing demands. The degree of the
problem, or challenge, is certainly associated with different regions
of the country. Initially, the challenges are addressed by re-
allocation of water among competing demands, with higher value demands
(e.g., potable use) being supplied by discontinuing lower value uses
such as irrigation. This re-allocation has social, economic and
hydrologic effects and should be thoroughly and carefully evaluated. In
some portions of the country there are few alternatives for
reallocation or alternative supply. It is certainly important for the
Federal Government to understand that demand is exceeding supply.
Likewise, it must work with States and local communities to develop
alternatives to meet existing and projected water demands.
Taking the fact that past national water supply studies have been
rather quantitative and describe large basins, the local and State
water managers feel these projections have been of little use. Past
national water assessments have been used primarily by Federal agencies
and by technical people, such as hydrologists and engineers, but they
have only been used to a limited extent by biologists and social
scientists (See Osborne & Shabman, The Use of Water Resource
Information: the Second National Water Assessment, 1988).
Many water managers in the West feel water information and research
certainly needs to be continued and there is a Federal role in
supporting this effort. Information needs to be targeted to the users
not only at the Federal level but also at the State and regional
levels. There is also a strong feeling in the West that water
management decisions are best made at these levels. Water information
related to water quantity and water quality should be designed to help
meet these State and regional needs. As cited in Osborne & Shabman in
1988 and still holds true today ``use of the assessment means that its
costs are justified by benefits received to the users.'' These benefits
should extend beyond the needs of Federal agencies.
Congress should take the role of first evaluating the potential for
water supply crises throughout the Nation and then provide funding to
critical areas for further analysis and evaluation of alternatives.
Examples of items which Congress should consider to facilitate an
efficient and effective role include:
<bullet> Develop and improve new and innovative supply enhancing
technology
<bullet> Assess safety of waste water reuse
<bullet> Develop innovative technologies to prevent pollution
<bullet> Increase ability to forecast water availability and future
impacts such as climate change and land use changes
<bullet> Encourage and support regional and State water planning
<bullet> Support hydrologic data collection efforts at the Federal
level in cooperation with State and regional agencies and groups
<bullet> Encourage and support regional characterization studies
both in high population and rural areas
In conclusion, I know that my fellow water resources research
institute directors commend Congress for the recommendation contained
in the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations Act. The Act directs
the USGS to undertake a report describing the scope and magnitude of
efforts needed to provide periodic assessments of the status and trends
in the availability and use of freshwater resources. In addition, we
also support the congressional recommendation for a National Academy of
Sciences study to examine Federal and non-Federal water resources
research funding and the allocation of resources currently deployed in
support of water research programs. This seems to be a logical way to
develop data to understand whether we, as a Nation, are making an
adequate investment in water resources research.
The following are several example of water supply research
conducted in some of the State water resources research institutes that
may be of interest to members of the Subcommittee:
<bullet> To address the problems of aquifer decline and decreased
river flow, the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) is studying
possible scenarios for managing the Snake River Plain Aquifer and is
getting modeling help from the Idaho Water Resources Research
Institute. Dr. Gary Johnson and Ms. Donna Cosgrove have developed
numeric functions that describe the relationship between groundwater
use and river depletion for each cell of a groundwater flow model of
the Snake River Plain Aquifer. They have developed a spreadsheet that
water managers can use to see how reduction of groundwater pumping at
specific locations will affect the springs and the river. The State has
adopted these tools for aquifer management planning and plans to use
them to develop State water management regulations.
<bullet> In Nevada, a statewide reconnaissance of water resources
was undertaken during the 1960's and early 1970's. The results continue
to provide the basic information for planning and development decisions
faced by resource managers at both local and State levels despite their
design as reconnaissance-level efforts. Technological development and
introduction of new investigative tools now provide the opportunity for
more accurate assessment of available resources. Application of these
tools has often indicated that significantly more water is available
than previously believed in central Nevada and in southern Nevada. The
Nevada Water Resources Center has played a key role in this effort.
<bullet> In arrid regions of the United States, water conservation
and reuse are issues that receive a great deal of public attention. The
search for ways to responsibly use and reuse water is vital to the
sustainability of the water supply and thus the future of these areas.
Wastewater treatment and reuse is one of the best water conservation
options available to communities located in arid areas. Many large-
scale reuse efforts have been developed, such as the watering of golf
courses with treated municipal effluent or the use of effluent for
groundwater recharge. But the potential for wastewater reuse is not
limited to large-scale projects supplied by community wastewater
treatment facilities. It is also available to individual homeowners.
Graywater recycling offers a way in which people can save and reuse the
wastewater generated in their own home.
To add to the understanding of and clarify the issues surrounding
the safe and effective use of household graywater, in 1998 the Arizona
Water Resources Research Center began an in-depth study of residential
graywater reuse in the greater Tucson area. The study, supported by the
Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, and the Pima County Department of Environmental
Quality, looked at two separate aspects of graywater usage in the area:
(1) the number of households currently using some portion of the
graywater they generate and (2) the water quality of the residential
graywater being generated and how that water quality affects the soil
that is irrigated with that water.
<bullet> Researchers from the Alabama, Florida, and Georgia water
resources research institutes came together to engaged in an 18-month
interstate interdisciplinary research effort dealing with the
allocation of water resources in both national and international
settings. The findings have been used by the three State negotiating
team to arrive at an equitable allocation formula for water shared in
two basins.
<bullet> The Vermont Water and Resources and Lake Studies Center
supporter, a researcher who has illustrated the use of least-cost
optimization design to address the important problem of groundwater-
pumping, induced salt-water intrusion in coastal aquifers. This has
resulted in remediation designs which has resulted in remediation
designs resulting in 20 percent lower cost than those generated by
existing technology. Savings resulting from this work should be
substantial in cases requiring groundwater remediation.
Thank you.
__________
Joint Statement of Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
(ASDWA), Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA), and Council of Infrastructure Financing
Authorities (CIFA)
BACKGROUND
The Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts established their
respective State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs as the primary financing
mechanisms for water quality programs. To meet the challenge of
financing the Nation's clean and safe water needs, the States are
committed to strengthening and enhancing the SRF funding mechanisms.
U.S. EPA's Needs Assessment Surveys for infrastructure and other water
quality enhancement efforts (e.g., non-point source, source water and
watershed protection measures), support annual appropriation needs of
at least $3 billion for the Clean Water Programs and over $7.5 billion
to ensure the provision of safe drinking water. In addition, water
pollution control and water purification technology research and
development lag behind water programs' management needs.
State administrators agree that the State Revolving Loan Fund is
the appropriate funding vehicle for the construction of drinking water
and wastewater treatment and other water pollution control measures.
The Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF programs have matured since
their creation in 1987 and 1996, respectively, and the success of these
unique programs has been clearly demonstrated. As of September 2001 the
Clean Water SRF has provided nearly $34 billion--funding over 10,000
loans, while the Drinking Water SRF has provided $3.2 billion in loans
for over 1,500 projects.
The SRF was created, in the first instance, to replace the
Construction Grants program for municipal wastewater treatment
facilities, with the goal of improving on the shortcomings of this
grant-based funding approach. Congress, the Administration and the
States were aware that the mechanism for providing grants to localities
often: (1) was inefficient; (2) did not assure commitment to long term
operations and maintenance; (3) was time consuming; (4) did not create
a continuing revenue stream for future infrastructure needs; and (5)
tended to inhibit timely compliance with State and Federal
requirements.
In response, Congress, the Administration, and the States worked
together, in 1986-1987, to create the Clean Water SRF to assure a
funding source for municipalities in perpetuity. Based on its
examination of both the loan and grant programs, Congress again chose
in 1996 to establish an SRF program under the Safe Drinking Water Act
as the principal mechanism for financing for both public-and privately
owned water systems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The three State organizations listed above support the passage of
legislation addressing clean and safe drinking water infrastructure
needs. Such legislation should provide additional funds to the SRFs for
direct financing of pollution control measures, safe drinking water
infrastructure and State implementation needs, and help support the
necessary research and development to create the new control technology
for the 21st century. States request that these funding commitments be
made on a long-term basis for water and wastewater infrastructure,
source water protection, non-point source, and other water protection
and control mechanisms.
To manage these programs in the most efficient manner, ASDWA,
ASIWPCA and CIFA agree that Congress should:
<bullet> Provide the States with the ability to tailor financial
assistance to accommodate the needs of small and disadvantaged
communities. Congress should include the ability to extend loan terms
to 30 years and to forgive a portion of loan principal repayment under
the Clean Water Act and should limit any necessary targeted funding to
exceptional and or unique circumstances.
<bullet> Delegate hardship determinations to States based on State
criteria such as affordability as measured by local fiscal capacity.
This is important for local governments because with a SRF loan subsidy
for the entire project cost, a community can realize the same financial
benefit as they would receive under a partial grant, without having to
borrow the grant match at high interest rates. The small and hardship
communities will therefore benefit financially under the SRF.
<bullet> Enable State programs to provide financing assistance and
allow States to direct SRF funds to the greatest area of drinking water
and pollution control needs, including nonpoint source, source water
protection, TMDL implementation, animal waste control, land purchases,
other watershed management projects, transmission and distribution
projects, treatment, and storage for water supplies.
<bullet> Allow States to transfer funds between Clean Water and
Safe Drinking Water SRFs, in amounts and at times as that best suit the
water infrastructure financing needs in their States.
<bullet> Allow the States to use, for administrative purposes,
whichever is greater of the following: 4-6 percent of the total
capitalization grant; $400,000 per year, or \1/2\ of 1 percent of the
current value of the SRF.
<bullet> Authorize the creation of a State-led forum comprised of
the undersigned organizations, and representatives from the water and
wastewater community and EPA to eliminate unnecessary and burdensome
Federal requirements.
States support the strengthening of existing SRF programs because
history has demonstrated that grant-based programs often:
<bullet> Undermine the existing SRF programs in each State because
communities will seek grants rather than loans;
<bullet> Necessitate costly and wasteful duplication of
administrative structures that are already available in the SRFs;
<bullet> Result in confusion and burdensome red-tape for local
communities who would have to choose among more funding programs to
accomplish the same infrastructure construction purposes;
<bullet> Waste financial resources that could otherwise be used to
construct more facilities to benefit local communities and revolve in
perpetuity;
<bullet> Undermine State compliance efforts as systems delay
implementation until grants become available; and
<bullet> Inhibit State efforts to ensure long-term facility
financial, managerial, and technical capacity.
SUMMARY
The undersigned organizations have worked together to develop a
joint position because it has, over the years, become clear that: (1)
the SRF is the appropriate mechanism for the design and construction of
water and waster water treatment facilities; (2) the SRF can be
enhanced to accommodate emerging needs of communities; and (3) the SRF
needs to be funded at increased levels to accommodate the new
requirements in the Clean Water and Drinking Water programs, as imposed
by the Congress and the USEPA.
__________
The Loan Arranger--Grants v. Loans: What's the Best Way to Meet
Michigan's Wastewater Infrastructure Needs?
It has been said that competition brings out the best in people.
When it comes to serving as a public official in municipal government,
whether you are elected or appointed, competition for your time and
energy is fierce!
Some issues compete for an even scarcer commodity--your community's
money. I would venture to guess that for most of you, one of the
toughest of those competitors, an issue that takes an inordinate amount
of your time and effort, and stands to demand a significant monetary
investment, is your community's wastewater system.
There are some good explanations why wastewater collection and
treatment is garnering so much attention lately. The implementation of
Michigan's Combined Sewer Overflow Control Program is well underway.
Considerable efforts are also being expended to address sanitary sewer
overflow problems. As these programs move forward, it is also becoming
increasingly evident that huge amounts of money will be needed just to
adequately maintain the extensive and aging wastewater infrastructure
that exists in Michigan. All three of these demands are being felt
against a backdrop of a heightened awareness of the importance of
protecting Michigan's water resources and the public health of its
citizens.
JUST HOW MUCH MONEY WILL HAVE TO BE INVESTED TO MEET THESE NEEDS?
The 1996 Federal Clean Water Needs Survey estimated Michigan
communities would need to spend $4.9 billion over 20 years on their
wastewater systems. Managing the Cost of Clean Water: An Assessment of
Michigan's Sewer Infrastructure Needs, published in 2000 by Clean Water
Michigan; estimates these costs between $2.7 billion and $5.8 billion:
A report recently released by the Southeast Michigan Council of
Governments (SEMCOG) estimates that over a 30-year period, needs in
just the seven-county SEMCOG area will range between $5.7 billion and
$10.1 billion to rehabilitate and upgrade existing wastewater systems.
None of these estimates include the ongoing cost of basic operation and
maintenance.
WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM TO MEET THESE STAGGERING NEEDS?
Since 1989 local officials have usually sought financing for
wastewater system improvements from the following sources:
<bullet> open market bonds which, like any borrowing, are backed by
user fees, special assessments, and/or tax revenues;
<bullet> below-market-rate loan financing from the State Revolving
Fund;
<bullet> grant and loan assistance from other Federal programs such
as Rural Development; and
<bullet> special line-item appropriations from the Federal
Government in the form of grants that nearly always require a
substantial local match.
HOW CAN THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEST ASSIST LOCAL UNITS OF
GOVERNMENT IN FINANCING WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND CONTINUE
MICHIGAN'S IMPRESSIVE TREND OF IMPROVING WATER QUALITY?
That is the most important question. It is generally accepted that
the most effective financial assistance program is one that maximizes
the number of communities helped, and provides enough financial
assistance to make local projects ``affordable'' to the ratepayers and
citizens who will have to foot the bill.
State and Federal agencies have tried a number of wastewater
financial assistance approaches over the years, and after careful
consideration of the pros and cons of these, I strongly believe the
State Revolving Fund option is superior to the grant approach. There
are a number of reasons for this:
1. The SRF has more than 10 years of proven track record and is a
well-established and functioning program. Any ``new'' grant program
will require the creation of yet another level of bureaucratic
structure/authority.
2. 1State Revolving Fund assistance is streamlined, with a minimum
of Federal requirements. There is a real cost to the community to meet
the various Federal crosscutting requirements that accompany any
Federal grant.
3. SRF assistance is substantial, and makes a real difference in
the cost of a project. Remember, a low-interest SRF loan is for the
whole project, versus a grant, which funds only a portion of the
project The balance of the grant-funded project must be financed at
market rates. As a result, an SRF loan has a high ``grant
equivalency.'' For example, a 2 percent low-interest loan from the SRF,
at a time when market rates are at 6 percent, is equivalent to a 30
percent grant.
4. The SRF dollar can be ``stretched'' to provide more assistance
to more communities, sooner, than other assistance approaches such as
grants. For example, in the last 13 years, Michigan has provided $1.5
billion in low-interest loans, from only $927 million in Federal and
State match moneys.
5. The SRF does in fact ``revolve,'' assuring continued financial
assistance well into the future, unlike grant ``funding mechanisms,
which provide assistance only once.
6. The SRF can address affordability concerns by providing special,
lower-interest loans to hardship communities. With ample program
capitalization, Michigan could dramatically reduce the SRF interest
rates for all communities.
7. The SRF provides critical flexibility to the States to ensure
THAT SPECIFIC STATE NEEDS ARE ADDRESSED IN THE MOST EFFICIENT FASHION.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Clearly, Federal and State financial assistance to communities to
address wastewater infrastructure needs must increase if we are going
to adequately address the water pollution and public health concerns of
our communities. The key to successfully meeting communities' needs in
Michigan, as well as in other States, is to champion a higher level of
Federal capitalization of the SRF, with States assuring the
accompanying match. Governor Engler has pledged to assure State match
dollars will be available to meet every available Federal SRF dollar.
However,Federal funding has leveled off. From fiscal years 1998
through 2001, the annual Federal appropriation has been $1.35 billion:
The last administration attempted to reduce that amount by $500 million
in fiscal year 2001. I worked closely with Governor Engler and
Michigan's congressional delegation to convince Congress to restore
that $500 million and assure the full $1.3 billion was available to
communities for wastewater needs.
Continued Federal funding of the SRF at this level would allow
Michigan to award about $225 million/year in loan commitments.
Unfortunately, the ``demand'' for SRF assistance far exceeds that
amount. This gap will only continue to grow as our systems age and new
collection/treatment challenges surface. Also, there is considerable
discussion in Washington now to direct limited Federal funds toward
grants instead of the SRF. If this occurs, even fewer needs will be
met.
Although we have taken great strides in Michigan in recent years,
the task of meeting our needs in the area of wastewater infrastructure
remains a daunting one. Reauthorization of Title VI of the Clean Water
Act would provide the needed budget focus for the SRF, and increased
Federal appropriations would send the right message that our wastewater
infrastructure and our Nation's water resources continue to be a
national priority. A fully funded, robust SRF is essential if Michigan
communities are going to be able to afford to make the critically
needed improvements to our wastewater infrastructure. I look forward to
working closely with members of the Michigan Municipal League in making
this a reality.
FUNDED PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Another FiscaI Year has come to a close, with $255,615,000 awarded
to ten wastewater projects from the State Revolving Fund (SRF), and
$26,710,000 awarded to ten projects from the Drinking Water Revolving
Fund (DWRF). To date, the SRF has assisted 184 projects with loans
totaling $1.53 billion. In the DWRF to date, $158.9 million has been
awarded to 62 projects.
Following are the communities receiving loans n Fiscal Year 2001,
with a brief description o the project and the loan amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRF Projects:
Intra Co. Drain. Board for Lake Relief sewers, $20,670,000
St. Clair, Macomb Co,. rehab, sewer
separation, RTB
upgrades, Segment
1A.
Lansing......................... CSO sewer 10,860,000
separation, Subarea
013 South, Segment
13.
Port Huron...................... Sewer separation, 8,120,000
Segment 4.
Bay City........................ Wastewater treatment 42,435,000
plant and retention
treatment basin
upgrade.
Three Oaks...................... Sewer replacement 2,155,000
and rehab.
Detroit......................... Connor Creek 82,200,000
retention treatment
basin (partial).
Port Huron...................... CSO sewer separation 640,000
Item 34.
Trenton......................... Replace sewers to 1,005,000
correct SSOs,
Segment 3.
Monroe County, Carleton......... Upgrade and expand 5,330,000
the wastewater
treatment plant
(refinance).
George W. Kuhn Drain. Dist...... 12 Towns Retention/ 82,200,000
Treatment Basin
Improvements,
Segment 2.
DWRF Projects:
Chelsea......................... New production well, 6,110,000
transmission main,
softening
treatment, Segment
1.
Lake Linden..................... New well, ground 1,200,000
storage, replace
mains.
Sunfield........................ Elevated storage 880,000
tank, looping,
remove hydro tank,
repair.
Hudson.......................... Replace pumps/ 1,770,000
motors, new iron
removal facility.
Milford......................... Filter media 1,905,000
replacement,
upgrade/replace
storage tank, Phase
1.
Sault Ste. Marie................ Replace, mains, 1,800,000
looping, Segment E
(partial).
Flint........................... Upgrade and expand 9,480,000
the water treatment
plant, Segment 3.
Blissfield...................... Install nitrate 750,000
removal equipment.
Muir............................ New wells, elevated 1,850,000
storage tank,
replace mains
(partial).
Nashville....................... New and replacement 965,000
mains, WTP
improvements,
standby generator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2002 FUNDS
We are still waiting for the Federal appropriation for the State
Revolving Fund and Drinking Water Revolving Fund, before we can
establish the Fiscal Year 2002 Fundable Range. As soon as we know how
much money we will have available, we will post the information on our
Section web site. The web address is www.deq.state.mi.us/ead/mfsect/
DAVIS BACON UPDATE
In the Winter 2001 edition of The Loan Arranger, notification was
provided that the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis Bacon Act
would be reimposed in the State Revolving Fund. The reimposition was to
be implemented under provisions of a January 17, 2001 Settlement
Agreement between the EPA and the Building and Construction Trades
Department of the AFL-CIO.
It now appears that Davis Bacon requirements will NOT apply. We
were informed in June that the EPA has reconsidered its decision and
will not implement any terms of the settlement agreement. Although this
may foster an extended legal battle between the EPA and th AFL-CIO, SRF
recipients will not be required to pay prevailing wage rates. EPA's
reversal is expected to be published in the Federal Register shortly.
THE TIME IS NOW TO PREPARE FOR A LOAN IN FISCAL YEAR 2003
The following Reverse Time Line is a valuable tool to show the
basic sequencing of project plan preparation and provide a sense of the
time needed to complete the process. The dates specified in the Time
Line are flexible with the exception of the Project Plan Submittal
Date, and are intended to assist you in the planning process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DWRF SRF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Project Plan must be
received by the Environmental
Assistance Division, Michigan
Department of Environmental
Quality:
Project Plan Submittal Date. May 1............. July 1
If the council meets on the
first and third Thursdays of
each month:
Resolution of Project Plan On or about April On or about June
Adoption. 15. 15
The final Project Plan must be
available prior to the council
meeting:
Project Plan completed and On or about April On or about June
available for public 14. 14
display.
To allow at least 1 week to
incorporate public comments:
Public Hearing held on the On or about April On or about June 8
draft Project Plan. 8.
To provide the mandatory 30-day
notice for the Public Hearing:
Public Hearing notice on the On or about March on or about May 9
draft project plan is 9.
published.
To provide at least 1 week for
incorporating MDEQ comments on
the draft Project Plan:
Draft Project Plan is On or about March On or about May 1
completed. 1.
To provide MDEQ staff with an
opportunity to review and
comment on the draft plan:
Submit draft Project Plan to On or about On or about April
the MDEQ. February 1. 1
Assume minimum\1\ of 3 months to
complete the draft Project
Plan:
Council authorizes the On or about On or about
engineering work. November 1. January 1
To ensure you are on the right
track and to facilitate
approval of the Project Plan:
Preplanning conference with On or about On or about
the community/consultant October 1. December 1
and the MDEQ.
To initiate the Project Planning
process:
Council/Board decision to On or about On or about
seek DWRF or SRF assistance. September 15. November 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The time necessary to complete a project plan varies greatly with
the scope of the problem and size of the system being studied. Work
may include research and some preliminary design; pilot testing;
environmental agency contacts; analyses/evaluations; historical
information; surveys; public involvement; rate structure development;
mapping; etc.