<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:86099.wais]
WATER SUPPLY AND RELIABILITY: THE ROLE OF WATER RECYCLING
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 27, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
86-099 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 RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member
George Radanovich, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Jay Inslee, Washington
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska George Miller, California
Rick Renzi, Arizona Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Joe Baca, California
Devin Nunes, California Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 27, 2003................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Gonzalez, Hon. Charles A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas......................................... 3
Napolitano, Hon. Grace, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Pearce, Hon. Stevan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 4
Renzi, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Cody, Betsy A., Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Resources, Science and Industry Division, Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress...................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Grindstaff, P. Joseph, General Manager, Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority.......................................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Gritzuk, Michael, P.E., Vice President, WateReuse
Association, and Director, Water Services Department,
Phoenix, Arizona........................................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Habiger, General Eugene E., USAF (Retired), President and
CEO, San Antonio Water System.............................. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Neely, Hon. Peggy, Councilmember, City of Phoenix, Arizona... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Scott, Doug, Director, U.S. Water/Sewer Group Coordinator,
Fitch Ratings.............................................. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Additional materials supplied:
DeLoach, Robert A., General Manager, Cucamonga County Water
District, Letter submitted for the record.................. 52
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON WATER SUPPLY AND RELIABILITY: THE ROLE OF WATER
RECYCLING
----------
Thursday, March 27, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Calvert, Tancredo, Osborne, Renzi,
Pearce, Nunes, Napolitano, Inslee and Baca.
Also Present: Representative Gonzalez.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. The oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on
Water and Power will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
role of water recycling and reliability. Under Committee Rule
4[g], the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member can make opening
statements.
Recent drought conditions, critical water shortage, and
increasing water competition are requiring communities to look
beyond the traditional ways of developing and maintaining
dependable and safe water supplies. Nontraditional water supply
projects are being demonstrated nationwide and implemented to a
greater extent than ever before in response to increasing
demands on limited, high-quality water supplies.
This hearing is one of a series of hearings that will focus
on such mechanisms and projects that seek to improve water
supply availability and reliability in not only the Western
United States but throughout the country. It is also part of
our examination of how Federal resources can be most effective
in developing new water supplies while protecting our
environment. Today we will focus on how communities are meeting
their water needs through recycling.
In water deficit regions, such as southern California,
recycled water is considered a dependable, controlled, and
renewable source of water, which is often utilized in the same
context as traditional water supplies. Overutilization of the
Rio Grande, California's need to comply with the Colorado River
4.4 plan, and a need to decrease diversions from
environmentally sensitive waters, have helped us to become
acutely aware that expanded water reuse will be a critical
component of a comprehensive water management solution. Water
recycling allows communities to become more drought resistant
and less dependent upon imported and traditional water sources.
Today, we have the privilege of hearing from several
leaders who have first hand knowledge of successful water reuse
projects. I thank the panel for being here today and look
forward to hearing your views on water recycling and your
vision of an appropriate Federal responsibility in this area.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
and Power
Recent drought conditions, critical water shortages and increasing
water competition are requiring communities to look beyond the
traditional ways of developing and maintaining dependable and safe
water supplies.
Non-traditional water supply projects are being demonstrated
nationwide and implemented to a greater extent than ever before in
response to increasing demands on limited high quality water supplies.
This hearing is one of a series of hearings that will focus on such
mechanisms and projects that seek to improve water supply availability
and reliability in not only the Western States but throughout the
country. It is also part of our examination of how Federal resources
can be most effective in developing new water supplies while protecting
our environment.
Today, we will focus on how communities are meeting their water
needs through recycling. In water-deficient regions such as southern
California, recycled water is considered a dependable, controlled, and
renewable source of water which is often utilized in the same context
as traditional water supplies.
Over-utilization of the Rio Grande, California's need to comply
with the Colorado River 4.4 Plan, and a need to decrease diversions
from environmentally sensitive waters have helped us to become acutely
aware that expanded water reuse will be a critical component of
comprehensive water management solutions. Water recycling allows
communities to become more ``drought resistant'' and less dependent on
imported and traditional water sources.
Today, we have the privilege of hearing from several leaders who
have first-hand knowledge of successful water reuse projects. I thank
the panel for being here today and look forward to hearing your views
on water recycling and your vision of the appropriate Federal
responsibility in this area.
______
It is now my privilege to recognize Mrs. Napolitano, the
Ranking Democrat Member, for her opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening
this hearing on water recycling. I am eternally grateful to you
for opening the door so that we can move on this very important
issue for not only California but all the southern region of
the United States.
It is entirely appropriate that this Subcommittee take the
initiative to learn more about water recycling and explore
other uses of technology that can help improve and stabilize
water supplies not only, as I said, in California and the
southwest, but in many other states that are facing a critical
shortage of water.
I trust that today we will hear firsthand from witnesses
who are already successful in making and using recycled water
to improve their communities and quality of life, improve
business, many things that affect our everyday life. We also
will develop a better understanding and learn more about the
frustrations that our many community leaders and water
districts have faced as they have tried to obtain Federal
financial assistance for their projects under Title XVI, Public
Law 102-575.
The Title XVI water recycling program offers tremendous
potential to help solve problems of water supply shortages and
water use conflicts in some critical areas of the western
States. It is, indeed, frustrating that this administration has
little or no interest in this program. They keep decimating the
budget and I think it's important for us to bring this to light
and show how important, how valuable, how critical the water
is, the recycled water and the water we use is to the many
states that have benefited from it. We want to be sure that, as
the fresh water supply pressures and demands mount throughout
the United States, especially in our western States, that we do
not ignore our most valuable entire class of water development
options.
Mr. Chairman, again your leadership is laudable and very
encouraging to me, and I agree with your proposal to use our
Subcommittee hearing process as a means to thoroughly
investigate how we can help bring to light how our local
governments successfully apply technologies to their water
supply programs. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
and welcome all of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Our colleague, Mr. Gonzalez from Texas, is here with us
today. I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gonzalez be
allowed to sit with us and be able to question the witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Gonzalez, we have a special guest from San Antonio, and
I understand you would like to introduce him. You are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Member Napolitano, members of the Committee. First of
all, thank you for allowing me to sit up here with you.
It is a great privilege and pleasure today to introduce one
of my constituents, General Gene Habiger, who will actually be
testifying today. The General became president and CEO of the
San Antonio Water System in 2001. Prior to his service with
SAWS, General Habiger served 35 years with the United States
Air Force, rising to the rank of a four-star general, and
served as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command,
where he was responsible for all United States Air Force and
United States Navy Strategic Nuclear Forces.
As Commander in Chief of the Strategic Command, he
established an unprecedented military-to-military relationship
with his Russian counterparts that dramatically improved
relationships between the nuclear commands of the United States
and Russia. His work in this area was highlighted by both ``60
Minutes'' and CNN.
After retiring from the United States Air Force, he served
as the Department of Energy's security tzar, where he was
responsible for implementing the Secretary's security reform
plan and changing the security culture at the Department of
Energy.
General Habiger's tenure at SAWS has seen the long overdue
fluoridation of the San Antonio water supply, as well as the
aggressive development of water recycling efforts.
Additionally, it is not surprising, given General Habiger's
career, that SAWS quickly developed an effective security and
cyber security plan after 9/11. I am sure we're going to have
him testify before Homeland Security. He was the right man, at
the right time, at the right place.
San Antonio, like most of Texas, faces serious, long-term
water supply challenges that will inevitably endanger its
economic growth in the future if they are not handled now. The
San Antonio Water System under the General has faced these
challenges head on, both in a visionary yet practical way. San
Antonio has been very fortunate to have the contribution of
General Habiger's talent and experience at this critical time,
and I thank you for holding these hearings and I think you're
going to find his testimony informative and refreshing.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Any other opening statements? The gentleman from Arizona.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICK RENZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just want to welcome
from my home State of Arizona the Honorable Peggy Neely. Thank
you so much for your testimony today. I know your expertise is
going to be invaluable to us today. Coming from the desert
community of Arizona, it's an absolute that we must maximize
every drop of water, and your experience in that is something
that I'm looking forward to hearing.
As you know, up in Flagstaff, Arizona we're trying to find
ways to recycle our water, and in particular to use it to make
snow. There's a real controversy up there, whether that water
is pure enough, whether it contains carcinogenics. Recently we
are finding out that it is pure water. It is going to be a
quality water supply that we'll be able to use to make snow up
there.
In addition, I ran on a platform of conservation of water,
trace area uses of water where we grow fish, and then use that
water for aquaculture to grow plants, and then sell the water
to the golf courses, particularly up there in the Prescott
area. So for me, it's a real valuable lesson to have you here
today, and I welcome you from my home State.
Thank you, Peggy.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Any other opening statements? Mr. Pearce.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVAN PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The concept of water reuse is especially important all
through the West. In New Mexico, we have a source of water that
in the State legislature I began to submit legislation for, and
that is produced water from oil wells. The Pecos River runs
through the eastern side of my district, up above the Pecos
River, and some small hills. We have produced water that is
actually cleaner, except for the hydrocarbons, and has less
salt content than the Pecos River. Current regulation requires
that we dispose of that water in a salt zone so that the water
is contaminated then to about 200,000 parts per million instead
of about 1,000 parts per million. So the next time we clean
that water up, Mr. Chairman, it's going to be extremely
expensive.
I think that, for the West, that it is not enough to
recycle water. We have got to begin to clean up these new
sources of water and to use the brackish waters that are
available underneath the Earth's surface.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on this
Committee and thank you for calling this hearing.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. We have an extensive panel today, and we
certainly want to hear from everyone. I would state that we
attempt to try to stay within the 5-minute rule, especially
when we have such a large panel, so we would appreciate your
attempting to do that.
Miss Betsy Cody, Specialist in Natural Resources,
Congressional Research Service, is with us today. The Honorable
Peggy Neely, Councilwoman from Phoenix, Arizona; General Eugene
Habiger, United States Air Force [Retired], President and CEO
of the San Antonio Water System; Mr. Joseph Grindstaff, General
Manager, Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, accompanied by
Mr. Richard Atwater, CEO and General Manager of the Inland
Empire Utilities Agency; Mr. Mike Gritzuk, the First Vice
President, WateReuse Association; and Mr. Doug Scott, Director
of the U.S. Water/Sewer Group Coordinator, Fitch Ratings.
With that, I would now recognize Miss Cody for your 5-
minute testimony. There are some lights on the table that
indicate when your time has concluded. Certainly any additional
information will be included in the record.
With that, I recognize Miss Cody.
STATEMENT OF BETSY A. CODY, SPECIALIST IN NATURAL RESOURCES
POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Ms. Cody. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today.
I should say at the outset that CRS's comments are for
background and analytical purposes only, as CRS takes no
position on pending legislation or amendments to existing
programs.
In providing an overview of the Federal Government's
involvement in wastewater reclamation, I would like to submit
for the record, with your permission, of course, a CRS report
that describes current Federal water supply and treatment
programs.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The CRS Report entitled ``Federally Supported Water
Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs'' updated March 25,
2003, has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
Ms. Cody. This report also describes the Federal
Government's historical role in providing assistance for
municipal water projects.
Although my testimony will focus on the Bureau of
Reclamation's reuse and recycling program, Title XVI, it is
important to note that to date the States have been most active
players in pursuing water reuse technologies. In particular,
Florida and California, in partnership with other private and
public entities, appear to have pretty well-established water
reuse programs, although growing programs.
It appears that there are more than 460 recycling projects
in Florida, and more than 230 in California. Although it is not
clear how many projects there are nationwide, some have
estimated that they number close to 1,500.
I focus today on the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI
program because it is the only active Federal program providing
localities with financial and technical assistance for the
development of water reclamation and reuse facilities. Although
both Corps and the EPA have some limited authority to provide
assistance to local entities for recycling projects, neither
has an established, regularly funded program for these
activities.
The genesis of the Bureau's Title XVI program appears to
have been the longstanding drought of the late 1980's and early
1990's. The drought hit California and the Southwest
particularly hard. As such, this Committee spent much time
debating Federal water supply policies. The result of several
years effort in addressing these issues was the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
While much attention has been given to Title XXXIV of that
Act, the CVPIA, Title XVI authorized five reclamation water
reuse and recycling projects. Additionally, the Act authorized
some studies, including a comprehensive reuse study, for
Southern California. The latter appears to provide specific
statutory authority to activities that were underway in 1991.
And those were related to an announcement by Secretary Lujan
for a comprehensive water reuse initiative for Southern
California to potentially decrease the area's dependence on
imported water supplies from the Colorado River.
Title XVI has since been amended six times since 1992,
resulting in a total of 27 authorized projects. To date, the
Bureau has undertaken planning, design, and engineering
activities on 18 projects. The Bureau has largely completed its
funding obligations for three projects, two in California and
one in Utah. Total obligations and expenditures for the
Bureau's Title XVI program are expected to hit about $285
million by the end of 2003. The total amount of non-Federal
investment in Title XVI projects appears to be between $800
million and one billion, although that is a little sketchy.
The projects on line so far are producing an estimated
98,000 acre-feet of water annually. For a perspective, that's
roughly 25 percent of what California water recycling programs
were producing in the year 2000.
The projected water yield for the 27 authorized projects
ranges from 500,000 acre-feet up to about 640,000 acre-feet
annually, depending on changes that the programs go through
once they come on line.
Questions relating to the Bureau's Title XVI program appear
to have increased in recent years, possibly because of the
nature of the project authorization and the lack of a clear
program funding process that is typical of other Federal water
programs, such as EPA's state revolving loan funds for
wastewater and drinking water.
Unlike these other programs, each Title XVI project is
specifically authorized by Congress and funded via the annual
appropriations process. As such, there appears to be no
specified or promulgated development or evaluation criteria for
Title XVI projects prior to authorization. That being said, it
has been noted that the Bureau's guidelines for developing
water reclamation and reuse projects provide solid criteria
prior to funding of those projects.
These issues were highlighted during development of the
Fiscal Year 2004 budget request, whereupon OMB reviewed the
program to assess its strengths and weaknesses. While the Title
XVI program fared reasonably well on most of its evaluation
criteria, it was found to be weak in providing a clear link
between Federal funding progress and specific outcomes and in
planning long term.
The Title XVI OMB review concludes by stating that the
program should be scaled back because it serves a largely local
function and local responsibility, and that it is not one of
Reclamation's ``core functions.'' However, I should note here
that documents leading up to that report did imply that it was
linked to the mission of that program very clearly.
Consequently, the Administration's budget request for Fiscal
Year 2004 is $12.6 million, 59 percent less than what was
enacted in 2003 and 65 percent less than what the Congress
appropriated for Fiscal Year 2002.
The OMB review and, of course, the congressional response,
including this hearing, raise several policy issues not unique
to the Title XVI program. First, it highlights the tension
between congressional and administration priorities; second, it
raises questions regarding the appropriate Federal role in
water supply development for M&I uses, including recycling. For
example, is Congress redefining the Federal Government's role
in M&I water supply as it authorizes new site-specific
projects? To what degree should the Federal Government provide
incentives for water supply development via new technologies
such as recycling, and what factors should be considered? Is
there any need for coordination or realignment of Federal water
activities? Last, is there a need for technical evaluation of
these projects prior to project authorization?
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
questions from the Chairman or other members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cody follows:]
Statement of Betsy A. Cody, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research
Service
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today. My name is Betsy Cody. I am a specialist in natural
resources policy with the Congressional Research Service, Library of
Congress, where I have worked on western water policy and natural
resources issues since 1989. I have been asked to provide Members of
the Subcommittee with an overview of the Federal Government's
involvement in wastewater reclamation, recycling, and reuse. With
permission of the Subcommittee, I would like to submit for the record a
CRS report that outlines current Federally supported water supply and
water treatment programs. <SUP>1</SUP> This report provides an overview
of current projects and programs, as well as a description of the
historical role of the Federal Government in providing assistance for
municipal water supply development and treatment. Although the Federal
Government has a significant role in developing water quality
regulations and standards for municipal and industrial (M&I) water use,
historically it has provided a relatively small percentage of direct
funding for construction of M&I water supply and treatment facilities.
In recent years, Congress has been asked more and more to fund
development of M&I water supplies, including providing Federal support
for water reuse and recycling projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service,
Federally Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs, CRS
Report RL30478, updated March 24, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although my testimony will focus on the Bureau of Reclamation's
Reclamation Reuse and Recycling Program (Title XVI of P.L. 102-575, or
Title XVI), it is important to note that, to date, the states have been
the most active players in pursuing water reuse technologies. In
particular, Florida and California have well established water reuse
programs. It appears that there are more than 460 water recycling
projects in Florida and more than 230 in California; however, it is not
clear how many projects are on-line nationwide. Efforts to track these
activities more precisely are currently underway. Standards for
recycled water quality are set at the state level; however, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines provide
recommendations for reuse practices and technical information to assist
states in formulating state-level regulations. <SUP>2</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Water
Reuse, EPA/625/R-92/004 available at: [http://www.epa.gov/ordntrnt/ORD/
NRMRL/Pubs/625R92004/625R92004prel.pdf].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title XVI: Reclamation Water Reuse and Recycling
The Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program is the only active
Federal program providing localities with financial and technical
assistance for the development and construction of water reclamation
and reuse facilities. <SUP>3</SUP> Although both the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the EPA have limited authorities to provide assistance to
local entities for recycling projects (e.g., specific provisions in
1992 and 1999 Water Resources Development Acts, <SUP>4</SUP> and a
pilot program by EPA under the Alternative Water Sources Act),
<SUP>5</SUP> neither has an established, regularly funded program for
such activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget, Performance and Management Assessments. Budget of the U.S.
Government, Fiscal Year 2004 (Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
Feb. 2003), p. 173. See also, PART worksheets for the Department of the
Interior's Title XVI water reclamation and reuse program at: [http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pma.html] p. 2.
\4\ Sec. 217 of P.L. 102-580, and Sec. 502 of P.L.106-53,
respectively. Some of these activities received funding for Fiscal Year
2003 in Title I of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 108-7; Division D). The Corps also has
authority for design and construction of Everglades wastewater reuse
technology (P.L. 106-541). In all, it appears $110.5 million in
assistance has been authorized for Corps water reuse activities, with
approximately $22.6 million appropriated to date.
\5\ Title VI of P.L. 106-457.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The genesis for the Bureau's wastewater reclamation, recycling, and
reuse program was the long-term drought of the late 1980s and early
1990s. The drought hit California and the Southwest particularly hard.
As such, this Committee spent much time debating Federal water supply
policies, including how to address conflicts between the need and
desire for continued operation of the Federal Central Valley Project
and the application of state and Federal environmental laws that could
potentially limit water deliveries to protect certain species or comply
with water quality standards. The result of several years' effort in
addressing this conflict was the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). While much attention has been
given to Title 34 of that Act (the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act), Title XVI (the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Studies and
Facilities Act) authorized construction of five reclamation water reuse
and recycling projects in Arizona and California. Additionally, the Act
authorized a comprehensive reuse study for Southern California,
including Colorado River hydrologic regions as defined by the
California Department of Water Resources. The latter language appears
to provide specific statutory authority for activities that were
underway in 1991 in response to Secretary of the Interior Manuel
Lujan's announcement of a ``Comprehensive Water Reuse Initiative'' for
Southern California. <SUP>6</SUP> It was envisioned that a
comprehensive water reuse program would help to decrease the area's
dependence on imported water supplies from the Colorado River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Department of the Interior News Release, Office of the
Secretary, dated August 5, 1991. According to materials provided to CRS
on October 25, 1991, the Bureau undertook a number of activities that
fall, including developing a detailed action plan for promoting the
initiative. By October 23, 1991, the Bureau had held its first pre-
planning committee meeting for the Southern California Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title XVI has been amended six times since 1992, <SUP>7</SUP>
resulting in the addition of 22 specific projects for a total of 27
authorized projects. The Federal share of project costs is limited to
25% of total project costs; however, amendments in 1996 added 18 new
projects (of the current 27) and new program guidance, which retained
the 25% Federal/non-federal cost share, but also limited the Federal
share of project costs to no more than $20 million. To date, the Bureau
has undertaken planning, design, and engineering activities on 18
projects. The Bureau has completed its funding obligations for two
projects: 1) the Los Angeles (CA) area water reclamation and reuse
project, and 2) the Tooele (UT) wastewater treatment and reuse project.
Bureau involvement with a third project, the Mission Basin/Oceanside
(CA) groundwater desalting demonstration project is nearly complete.
Obligations and expenditures for the Bureau's Title XVI program to date
have totaled approximately $255 million and are expected to reach $285
million by the end of Fiscal Year 2003. The total non-federal
investment in Title XVI projects is estimated to be between $800
million $1 billion. The projects on line so far are producing an
estimated 98,000 acre-feet of water annually (roughly 25% of all
recycled water in California in the year 2000), according to the Office
of Management and Budget. The projected water yield for the projects
authorized ranges from 500,000 - 640,000 acre-feet annually. While the
Bureau has guidelines for the development of water reclamation and
reuse projects, <SUP>8</SUP> no official rules or regulations for the
program have been promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ P.L. 104-266 (1996 amendments) authorized specific construction
projects in California, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas; P.L. 105-
321 (1998) authorized a project in Oregon; P.L. 106-554 (1998)
authorized an additional project in Nevada; P.L. 106-566 extended the
Secretary's research and planning authority to include projects in the
State of Hawaii; P.L. 107-344 (2002) authorized a project in Washington
state; and P.L. 108-7 (2003) authorized an additional project in
Nevada.
\8\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Guidelines for Preparing, Reviewing, and Processing Water Reclamation
and Reuse Project Proposals Under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, as
Amended, (Washington DC: Bureau of Reclamation, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions relating to the Bureau's Title XVI program appear to have
increased in recent years possibly because of the nature of project
authorization and the lack of a clear program funding process that is
typical of other Federal wastewater and drinking water programs. Unlike
other Federal water assistance programs, such as state revolving loan
funds for wastewater and drinking water, each recycling project is
specifically authorized by Congress and funded via the annual Energy
and Water Development appropriations bill. As such, there appear to be
no specified or promulgated development criteria and no competitive
grant processes for Title XVI projects; however, it has been noted that
the Bureau's guidelines for developing water reclamation and reuse
projects provide ``solid criteria ... to evaluate potential projects
prior to funding, and also to monitor and evaluate projects under
construction.'' <SUP>9</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget, OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), Competitive
Grant Programs. PART worksheet for the Department of the Interior's
Title XVI water reuse and recycling program at [http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pma.html], p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These programmatic issues were highlighted during development of
the Fiscal Year 2004 budget. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
reviewed the program using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)--
an analytic tool used to assess program strengths and weaknesses. While
the Title XVI program fared reasonably well on most evaluation
criteria, it was found to be weak in providing a clear linkage between
Federal funding and progress toward specific outcomes, and in planning
for the long-term. The supporting Fiscal Year 2004 PART review
documents prepared by OMB describe the program as an ``earmark-driven
grant program for local projects'' for which there is no competitive
grant process. While supporting documents state that the program helps
the Bureau ``meet its mission to manage and develop water and related
resources in an economically and environmentally sound manner'' (and
specifically notes the role of the program in assisting Southern
California to reduce its reliance on Colorado River water), the OMB's
summary overview of the PART review opines that the water reclamation
and reuse activity is ``not one of Reclamation's core functions.'' The
Title XVI PART review concludes by stating that the program should be
scaled back because it serves a largely local function and local
responsibility. Consequently, the Administration's budget request for
Fiscal Year 2004 is $12.6 million--65% less than was enacted for the
program for Fiscal Year 2002 and 59% less than was enacted for Fiscal
Year 2003.
The OMB's Fiscal Year 2004 PART review raises several specific
policy issues not unique to the Title XVI program. First, it highlights
the tension between Congressional and Administration priorities.
Second, it raises questions regarding the appropriate Federal role in
water supply development for M&I uses; for example, is Congress
redefining the Federal Government's role in M&I water supply and
treatment as it authorizes new site-specific projects? To what degree
should the Federal Government provide incentives for water supply
development via new technologies, and what geographic, regional, or
social factors should be considered? Lastly, is there needed
coordination or realignment of certain Federal water activities to
ensure efficient use of scarce Federal resources.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer questions
from the Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
The Honorable Peggy Neely, Councilwoman, Phoenix, Arizona.
You're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PEGGY NEELY, COUNCILMEMBER,
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Ms. Neely. Thank you.
Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify in
support of stronger Federal participation in water reuse and
water recycling initiatives.
My name is Peggy Neely. I serve on the City Council for the
City of Phoenix, Arizona, representing the growing northern
portion of the City. I serve on the City's Natural Resources
Subcommittee. In my work with the City, I have developed an
appreciation for the foresight and dedication needed to
maintain the quality of life we now enjoy in our thriving
metropolitan area of over three million people. Nowhere is this
more important than in the acquisition and management of
sufficient high-quality supplies for our desert environment.
Over many decades, our Federal, state and local leaders
have ensured that the water supply needs of this rapidly
growing region can be met, most notably through the acquisition
of the Colorado River water through the Central Arizona
Project. As our population is expected to double in the next 40
years, we realize that our need for sustainable water supplies
will extend far beyond the availability of these supplies,
which took the better part of the last century to plan,
litigate and construct. The job is nowhere near complete. Yet,
there are no projects of the scope of the CAP on the horizon.
As we are continually reminded of the finite nature of our
water resources, we must ask an uneasy question: where will our
next supplies come from? It is widely speculated that the
ancient Hohokam Indians, who were the builders of the first
system of canals in our area, did not find a satisfactory
answer to that question. The Hohokams were peaceful farmers who
inhabited the Salt Valley River for about a thousand years,
from 300 A.D. to about 1450. The University of Arizona's
research provides evidence that the region encountered a
devastating drought at the tail end of the tribe's existence in
the area, giving us the best explanation yet of the Hohokam's
demise.
In the Phoenix area, reclaimed water will be a key source,
and one that could ultimately serve between one-quarter and
one-third of the region's municipal water demand. Our ability
to effectively utilize this supply will be highly dependent on
safe and cost-effective means to treat and distribute the
supply for a wide range of uses, including potable delivery.
However, to get there, we will need a stronger Federal
participation in the research and demonstration of expanded
technologies.
The City of Phoenix currently operates three significant
water reclamation facilities that together serve a population
of over two million. The largest of these facilities is co-
owned by Phoenix and four other cities, providing water for the
cooling towers at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Facility.
Water from this plant is also used for area farmlands and for
restoration of wildlife habitat at the City's Tres Rios River
Restoration Project. Tres Rios, which is currently being
expanded to a full-scale project from its demonstration phase
in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a
remarkable example of how reclaimed water can be used to
benefit the environment while enhancing education and other
quality of life objectives. I invite you, when you visit the
Phoenix area, to tour this remarkable project.
The City of Phoenix and our municipal partners in the
Valley of the Sun continue to lead the way in planning and
utilizing reclaimed water for landscaping areas, agriculture,
and for the storage of highly treated water underground to
restore the depleted ground water tables. Reclaimed water is,
by nature, drought proof, an important feature in Phoenix,
where our surface water supplies are subject to periodic
shortfalls.
In addition, reclaimed water will also help reduce the need
for additional water treatment plant capacity and help us meet
the state's requirement to use sustainable water supplies. For
these and many other reasons, we value this resource highly in
our future water supply planning efforts, and encourage
continued Federal efforts to facilitate more effective use of
this important resource.
One of the challenges we face in using reclaimed water is
the high salinity content, which limits its effective
utilization for certain uses. Much of this salinity originates
in source water, but additional salts are contributed through
the urban disposal to our wastewater systems. Phoenix has been
a driving force in bringing this and other salinity-related
issues to a national forum through the efforts of the Multi-
State Salinity Coalition. Your Subcommittee staff participated
in our first salinity summit last December in Las Vegas. At the
summit, we emphasized that one of our top challenges in
addressing salinity is how to dispose of the salt concentration
from the treatment process. We appreciate the continued Federal
participation in salinity-related research to meet our water
supply objectives.
Arizona's rural communities, which are critical to the
state's tourism economy, are rapidly coming to grips with water
supply shortfalls. These communities are growing rapidly, and
the vast majority lack access to adequate sustainable water
supplies. The problem has been seriously compounded by the
recent drought in our state, necessitating significant water
use cutbacks by many of these communities. Rural Arizona could
also benefit substantially from further water reclamation
research, technological advancements, planning and
infrastructure assistance.
In summary, our reclaimed water supplies will be
increasingly relied upon to sustain the high quality of life we
enjoy in the desert community, while accommodating our new
residents who are attracted to this lifestyle. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide this testimony to you today, and ask
your support for funding the projects necessary to effectively
utilize this important water resource.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Neely follows:]
Statement of Peggy Neely, Councilmember, City of Phoenix, Arizona
Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to testify in support of
stronger Federal participation in water reuse and water recycling
initiatives.
My name is Peggy Neely. I serve on the City Council for the City of
Phoenix, Arizona, representing the northern portion of the City. I also
serve on the City's Natural Resources Subcommittee. In my work with the
City, I have developed an appreciation for the foresight and dedication
needed to maintain the quality of life we now enjoy in our thriving
metropolitan area of over 3 million people. Nowhere is this more
important than in the acquisition and management of sufficient high
quality water supplies for our desert community.
Over many decades, our Federal, state and local leaders have
ensured that the water supply needs of this rapidly growing region can
be met--most notably through the acquisition of Colorado River water
through the Central Arizona Project. We realize, though, that the
region's need for sustainable water supplies will extend far beyond the
availability of this important supply, which took the better part of
the last century to plan, litigate and construct.
As we are continually reminded of the finite nature of our water
resources, we must ask an uneasy question: Where will our next supplies
come from? It is widely speculated that the ancient Hohokam Indians,
who were the builders of the first system of canals in our area, did
not find a satisfactory answer to that question. The Hohokam were
peaceful farmers who inhabited the Salt River Valley for about a
thousand years, from about 300 A.D. to about 1450. The University of
Arizona's research provides evidence that the region encountered a
devastating drought at the tail end of this tribe's existence in the
area, giving us the best explanation yet of the Hohokam's demise.
Though our present culture is fortunate to have access to imported
water sources, advanced water treatment technologies and sophisticated
infrastructure to serve our cities, our job is nowhere near complete.
Our population is expected to double in the next 40 years, and there
are no large imported water sources of the scale of the Central Arizona
Project on the horizon.
As we plan our water supply future, it is clear that reclaimed
water will be a key source, and one that could ultimately serve between
one-quarter and one-third of the region's municipal water demand. Our
ability to effectively utilize this supply will be highly dependent on
safe and cost-effective means to treat and distribute the supply for a
wide range of uses--including potable delivery. However, to get there,
we will need stronger Federal participation in the research and
demonstration of expanded technologies.
The City of Phoenix currently operates three significant water
reclamation facilities that together serve a population of over 2
million. The largest of these facilities, which is co-owned by Phoenix
and four other cities, provides water for cooling towers at Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Facility. Water from this plant is also used for
area farmlands and for restoration of wildlife habitat at the City's
Tres Rios River Restoration Project. Tres Rios, which is currently
being expanded to a full scale project from its demonstration phase in
partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a remarkable
example of how reclaimed water can be used to benefit the environment
while enhancing education and other quality of life objectives. I
invite any of you who visit the Phoenix area to tour this remarkable
project.
The City of Phoenix and our municipal partners in the Valley of the
Sun continue to lead the way in planning and utilizing reclaimed water.
An example is our effort to store highly-treated reclaimed water
underground. This will restore depleted groundwater supplies, provide a
reliable source during surface water shortages, and provide a
dependable future supply for our community. Numerous local parks and
golf courses use reclaimed water, and we are continually identifying
additional large institutional, industrial, commercial, and
recreational customers.
The major sources of water to the Phoenix area are surface water
supplies that are subject to periodic, but inevitable, shortfalls.
Because reclaimed water is, by its nature, substantially drought proof,
a solid water reclamation and reuse program can significantly reduce
the impacts of these shortages. In addition, reclaimed water use should
also help reduce the need for additional water treatment plant capacity
and help us meet the State's requirement to use sustainable water
supplies. For these and many other reasons, we value this resource
highly in our future water supply planning efforts, and encourage
continued Federal efforts to facilitate more effective use of this
important resource.
One of the challenges we face in using reclaimed water is the high
salinity content, which limits its effective utilization for certain
uses. Much of this salinity originates in our source water, but
additional salts are contributed through urban disposal to our
wastewater systems. Phoenix has been a driving force in bringing this
and other salinity-related issues to a national forum through the
efforts of the Multi-State Salinity Coalition. Your Subcommittee staff
participated in our first Salinity Summit last December in Las Vegas.
At the Summit, we emphasized that one of our top challenges in
addressing salinity is how to dispose of the salt concentrate from the
treatment process. We appreciate the continued Federal participation in
salinity-related research to meet our water supply objectives.
Arizona's rural communities, which are critical to the State's
tourism economy, are rapidly coming to grips with water supply
shortfalls. These communities are growing rapidly, and the vast
majority lack access to adequate sustainable water supplies. This
problem has been seriously compounded by the recent record drought in
our state, necessitating significant water use cutbacks in many of
these communities. Rural Arizona could also benefit substantially from
further water reclamation research, technological advancements,
planning and infrastructure assistance.
In summary, our reclaimed water supplies will be increasingly
relied upon to sustain the high quality of life we enjoy in our desert
community, while accommodating our new residents who are attracted to
this lifestyle. I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony
to you today, and ask your support in funding the programs necessary to
effectively utilize this important water resource.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
General Eugene Habiger.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL EUGENE E. HABIGER, USAF [RETIRED],
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM
General Habiger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Gene Habiger and I very much appreciate
the opportunity to come before you this morning to tell you the
story of the successes of recycled water in San Antonio, TX.
Today in San Antonio, 100 percent of our water source comes
from one pool of water. That's the Edwards Aquifer. The Texas
State legislature, in 1997, mandated that the entire State be
broken down into 16 regions, and each of those regions would
come up with a water plan to ensure that viable water supplies
were available through the year 2050. We were part of that
process. By the year 2030, instead of being 100 percent reliant
on the Edwards Aquifer, we will be 30 percent reliant.
The first step in that journey was our recycled water
program. We have, over the past 6 years, invested $125 million
to build a 72-mile pipeline system to ensure that recycled
water was an integral part of getting us to the point where we
had viable water sources by the year 2050. We have 35,000 acre-
feet of recycled water available for use in the City of San
Antonio to our 300,000 customers.
Conservation has also played a critical role in our process
to wean ourselves off the Edwards Aquifer. Over the past 15
years, San Antonians have reduced water consumption by 32
percent, while our population has increased by 50 percent. That
is extraordinary. The closest city that we've been able to find
in the State of Texas to our conservation efforts is El Paso.
Consumption per capita in San Antonio today is 143 gallons per
person per day. El Paso is at 155. Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston,
Austin, are in excess of 200 gallons per capita today. We have
done extraordinary things with conservation, and we're going to
do extraordinary things with water recycling.
It's a viable program. There are over a hundred different
communities in the State of Texas that have viable programs.
For example, we're watering five of our six municipal golf
courses with recycled water. Many of our educational
institutions in San Antonio are using recycled water for
landscape irrigation. It works, it's effective, and it's safe.
It's the right thing to do, and it's a sign of the future.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come before
you today, and I would like to submit my entire testimony for
the record, if that meets your approval.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General. Certainly your testimony
will be submitted for the record, without objection.
[The prepared statement of General Habiger follows:]
Statement of General (Ret.) Eugene E. Habiger, President and Chief
Executive Officer, San Antonio Water System
Good morning. I am Gene Habiger, President/CEO of the San Antonio
Water System (SAWS). Thank you for inviting me to share with you the
importance of recycled water not only for San Antonio, but also for
many communities in Texas and our nation. SAWS is a municipally owned
water utility serving approximately one million people in South Central
Texas.
We provide drinking water, wastewater and recycled water service to
nearly 300,000 connections including three military bases (Lackland
AFB, Brooks City Base, Fort Sam Houston). Reclaimed, or recycled, water
is an important tool for the nation's cities as they work to manage the
water demands of a growing population.
Nowhere is this more true than in Texas--where over 100 recycled
water systems put recycled water to beneficial use. The reasons for
such an abundance of reclaimed water applications in Texas range from
the need to dispose of reclaimed water to meet water quality concerns
in receiving streams or from the need to develop ``drought proof''
supplies for business and industry. San Antonio provides a good example
of the critical role of recycled water for meeting water resource
needs.
In 2002, SAWS completed the first phase of its system to recycle
treated wastewater effluent for irrigation and industrial uses. For San
Antonio, recycled water is an important part of our integrated approach
to water resource management that relies on reducing, reusing and
recycling our water supplies before developing new fresh water
resources. Our recycled water is of very high quality--almost to
drinking water standards. Two cities that are comparable to our water
quality levels are San Jose and San Diego.
We have reduced our per capita water demands by approximately 32%
over the last 15 years, so that we are using less water today than we
did in 20 years ago even though our population has grown by 55%.
To further supplement our water supply, we began using recycled
water for cooling lakes required for the cities electrical utility.
This system was expanded to include a 35,000 acre-foot/year direct
reuse, or recycled water, system which provides a firm, drought-proof
supply for industries, cooling towers, military bases, universities,
municipal parks, golf courses and river maintenance.
This 72-mile pipeline system took about 6 years to design and
construct at a cost of over $125 million dollars.
San Antonio is well recognized for its ``River Walk''. The City of
San Antonio welcomes over 8 million visitors a year--generating over $4
billion of economic impact. Our Recycled Water System is designed to
supply 4,250 acre-feet per year, or over a billion gallons, into the
San Antonio River--thus assuring a reliable source of water year round.
San Antonio has determined that we must do everything we can to
conserve and reserve our existing resources. Additionally, the decision
to invest in this source of supply was especially important for our
community as we faced limits on our historic water supply due to
pumping from the Edwards Aquifer, home to threatened and endangered
species.
For this reason, San Antonio may be uniquely positioned for
achieving clear Federal purposes as it implements its long-range water
resources programs including recycled water. These purposes include, as
a minimum, ecosystem restoration and protection of endangered species.
In addition to the funds expended for the recycled water program,
SAWS will invest in excess of $2.6 billion dollars over the next 50
years to diversify its water supply. This will reduce our reliance on
the Edwards Aquifer, provide us with a reliable water supply for San
Antonio and help maintain the habitat of Federally protected species.
Other communities, which are not faced with endangered species
issues, are using recycled water as a way to ensure that key industries
and business interests are provided a secure source of water even
during drought. Especially during these times of economic uncertainty,
ensuring reliable water is critically important for protecting our
local, state and Federal economies; for protecting jobs.
Just as local users are helping to achieve Federal purposes, the
Federal Government can assist communities further the use of recycled
water by:
1. Providing grants or cost-share funds for studies related to
water quality and the treatment needed for use of recycled water in
certain applications (e.g. concrete for highway construction,
industrial uses such as micro-chip or other specialty manufacturing,
etc.);
2. Providing assistance and training for design, construction and
operation of recycled water systems;
3. Creating incentives for the reuse of water from wastewater
treatment plants rather than discharging it into streams to further the
goals of Clean Water Act when low-flow conditions in the receiving
stream is not a concern;
4. Requiring the use of recycled water at Federal installations,
Federal office buildings, for projects funded with Federal funds, and
by contractors when such supply is available; and
5. Funding such use from the Federal budget rather than shifting
those costs to the local communities.
These are just a few ideas of policies and programs that could be
developed to encourage the development of recycled water facilities
throughout the nation. Such use of our precious natural resources is an
important component of managing the needs of a growing population,
protecting the environment and keeping our economy vibrant.
Again, thank you for inviting me to speak today. I will be happy to
answer any questions you have.
______
Mr. Calvert. Our next witness today is Mr. Joseph
Grindstaff.
STATEMENT OF JOE GRINDSTAFF, GENERAL MANAGER, SANTA ANA
WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY, ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD W. ATWATER,
CEO AND GENERAL MANAGER, INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY
Mr. Grindstaff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like
for my testimony to be submitted for the record, and I will
just summarize that briefly.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, your testimony will be
entered into the record.
Mr. Grindstaff. Thank you.
I represent the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority,
which the Santa Ana River is the largest coastal river in
southern California. For those of you who don't know, Orange
County, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties are the primary
areas that we serve, and there are something over five million
people. In the 2000 Census, there were five million people in
that region. We expect that number to be seven million people
within 20 years.
We are tied to two Federal projects, the Colorado River and
to the Central Valley project through the Bay-Delta. In both
cases, we expect that our water supply will either be reduced
or, at best, remain the same. Yet, as our population grows, we
have to find ways to supply water.
At the present time, we currently have about 100,000 acre-
feet per year of recycled water in our region. We have plans
that will allow us to add an additional 270,000 acre-feet of
water, and our goal is to be able to totally drought proof the
region such that we can come off of both the Colorado River and
northern California water supplies in times of drought. That
provides significant benefit not only to the residents in our
area but to the entire Colorado River Basin and to the entire
area in northern California that gets water through the Bay-
Delta. That's a very significant program. Water recycling is
key to making that happen.
Typically in our region, water recycling projects are
leveraged on average to Federal dollars 10 to 1. The largest
project in our region is leveraged more than 20 to 1, with
local funds to the Federal funds. The largest recycled water
project in the Nation is the Orange County Groundwater
Replenishment System, which will provide 70,000 acre-feet of
water per year, every year, in southern California. That's a
significant contribution to our water supply.
As we look ahead, it is really important that the Federal
Government provide seed money to help these projects move. I
don't know that the Orange County Groundwater Replenishment
System would have been able to be developed if the Bureau of
Reclamation hadn't been able to commit $20 million to that
project. That $20 million is a small part of the total project
cost of $450 million, but it was a significant seed that helps
people say yes, we need to get this done.
I want to point out that grant programs sometimes have a
bad name, but my experience with grants is that local agencies
perform very well when their own money is on the line. So if a
grant program is developed that gives five or 10 percent,
twenty percent or thirty percent of the money--and in the case
of Title XVI, it's up to 25 percent--the local agency still
retains real financial interest in that. That is very important
for the management of the program. It caps the responsibility
of state and Federal Government. I think that's a significant
benefit. It causes local agencies to attempt to manage their
projects better. I have personally been involved in projects
that were built by my agency as a regional entity, where local
agencies did not feel as compelled to reduce costs. But when we
find a way to make the local agencies responsible by giving
them grants, they feel much more motivated, to cut out
everything but the essentials. I think that's a really
important benefit for grant programs. I think project
proponents are much more likely to get them done on time, so I
think that's an important benefit for the program.
I guess last, when you do a grant program, there is no
ongoing O&M and no ongoing liability for the Federal
Government. I see that, if you look at our past, a large part
of what we're spending money on in the Bureau of Reclamation is
ongoing O&M and ongoing liability for water supplies. That was
necessary at the time. It seems to me that, as we develop new
water supplies in the future, the water recycling program
offers an opportunity to limit the liability of the government
and yet inspire people to do more.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grindstaff follows:]
Statement of Joe Grindstaff, General Manager, Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority
Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for providing me this opportunity to address
the vital role that recycling must play in meeting growing water
demands in Southern California and the suitability of a Federal grants
program in achieving this objective.
The Santa Ana River Watershed has been recycling water for over 100
years. This hearing is very important not only to Southern California,
but to all metropolitan areas throughout the United States; water
recycling will become significant to all cities.
The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) represents the
Santa Ana River Watershed. This river is the largest coastal river
system in Southern California and flows from the San Bernardino
Mountains over 100 miles southwesterly to the Pacific Ocean at
Huntington Beach. The watershed covers over 2,650 square miles of
widely-varying terrain. This area, which includes parts of San
Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, was home to 5.1
million people during the 2000 census. The population is expected to
increase to 7 million by 2020.
SAWPA was founded in 1972 after 80 years of controversy and court
battles, at one time including more than 3,000 parties. Thus, SAWPA
came into being some 30 years ago as a way to solve problems, rather
than just litigate. Today, SAWPA has five member agencies--Eastern
Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District, San
Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Inland Empire Utilities
Agency and Orange County Water District. Each agency has specific
individual interests, but shares the ``watershed-wide'' responsibility
of insuring that there is reliable, high-quality water available for
the 5 million residents.
Integrating the management of surface water, groundwater, water
recycling, habitat, groundwater cleanup and groundwater banking are the
tasks that SAWPA faces. When fully implemented, this integrated program
offers the realistic capability of drought proofing the entire region.
In saying this term, I mean that SAWPA's five member agencies will be
able to roll off or significantly decrease sources of imported water
from the Colorado River and Northern California that are the region's
lifeblood. Recycling and the clean-up of contaminated groundwater are
at the heart of this innovative plan to reduce our dependence on
imported water demand.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6099.001
By storing or ``banking'' recycled water in groundwater basins
during normal and wet years, we will be able to withdraw it during
droughts and watershed wide offset the need for any imported water
during the drought. Given the problems facing California water agencies
by reason of the failure of the QSA, our plan to become essentially
self-sufficient in times of drought should come as welcome news in
other regions of the state and throughout the Colorado River Basin,
since our program is the only resource plan that literally leaves water
in both the State Water Project and the Colorado River in times of
crisis, rather than taking more out. In this respect, SAWPA is
completely unique among those state and local agencies that bear the
burden of providing water to their residents.
To accomplish this ambitious objective in an efficient and
effective way, all components of our plan must be tightly coordinated
and all activities integrated. Our efforts to provide such a program
were greatly improved by the passage of the State Water Bond on March
7, 2000. Chapter 6, Article 5, the Southern California Integrated
Watershed Program, or ``SCIWP,'' was intended by the legislature to
fulfill this opportunity. Many members of the legislature worked to
assure this section was included in the water bond.
More recently, the passage of yet another state water bond,
Proposition 50, has given SAWPA potential access to additional state
funding for implementation of the SCIWP. What is needed now is Federal
funding through a carefully conceived and developed grants program
under the direction of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. This will help
us to leverage these state and local resources to the greatest extent
possible. It will also help to further advance the national interest by
developing recycling technology and applications for use throughout the
West and elsewhere in the nation.
Orange County Water District and Central & West Basin have received
funding from Title XVI. Many other local projects were funded by
Proposition 13. For example, Inland Empire Utilities Association's $120
million investment of 70,000 AFY of new water recycling by 2010 at a
total capital cost of $125 million. Title XVI grant is $20 million or
about a 15% cost share. Further, the Orange County Water District's GWR
project is $450 million with current authorization of $20 million grant
from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
In the Santa Ana Watershed, about 100,000 AFY is currently recycled
by SAWPA and its member agencies. Funding for some of our projects has
been through Title XVI, and some through other Federal, state, regional
and local programs. In testimony presented before this Subcommittee on
June 18, 2001 at a field hearing in Cerritos, California, I enumerated
several of our success stories.
The bottom line for SAWPA is for us to implement the SCIWP which
will triple the amount of recycled water from the current level of
100,000 AFY to 300,000 AFY or more over the next twenty years. We can
achieve this important goal using existing technology, but only with
the assistance of state and Federal cost sharing programs such as the
Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study
(``SCCWRRS'').
In 1993, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, seven Southern California
water agencies and the California DWR agreed to fund and initiate a
multi-million comprehensive feasibility study on the potential to
recycle and reclaim water throughout the coastal plain of Southern
California. This eight-year study was completed over two years ago. The
draft report, although never submitted to Congress, identified cost
effective projects that would develop over 800,000 AF of new supplies
that could be developed and implemented by 2010. The Federal investment
under Title XVI would be approximately $150 million. The rest of the
costs, over $1 billion, would be borne by Proposition 50 and the local
sponsors. This is a very cost effective investment given the incredible
issues facing the Colorado River and the CAL-FED Bay-Delta Program.
For many years, dedicated and highly competent staff members of the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have promoted the concept of water
recycling. In many studies, not just limited to the SCCWRRS report, the
benefits of water reclamation and reuse have been analyzed and found to
be the most feasible way of meeting the demands of an ever-growing
populace. These benefits extend throughout our region, our state and
the 17 reclamation states, and even arguably the entire world as
undeveloped water resources become increasingly scarce.
On numerous occasions, representatives of the U.S. Department of
the Interior have rendered testimony before this and other
Congressional committees and published a significant body of literature
on the value of recycling on the website of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. In summarizing those statements, it is apparent that water
recycling and reuse contribute significantly to the accomplishment of
many Federal objectives at the least possible cost to the U.S.
Treasury:
1. LThe U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is charged with the important
responsibility of developing and implementing innovative solutions that
encourage the efficient use of precious water resources throughout the
17 western states. Through the promotion of financially feasible and
environmentally sound watershed plans like the SCIWP, the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation is able to advance new, cost-effective technologies
through research and real-world applications to fulfill this important
national mandate.
2. LUsing more efficient water use measures to stretch limited
water supplies, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can improve water
quality and reduce or entirely avoid the costs associated with the
development of new water storage projects and treatment facilities.
3. LBy promoting regionally planned and implemented programs like
the SCIWP, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can promote economically and
environmentally sound decision-making by state and local governments
and promote regional and/or watershed-based planning perspectives.
4. LRegionally-based programs, like the SCIWP, will promote the
formation of collaborative partnerships between the Federal Government
and such other entities as state, tribal and local governments to
integrate water supply and water quality issues, thus narrowing the gap
between those who supply, use, treat and regulate water.
Why then, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, is the
Administration backing away from such cost effective and
environmentally sound approaches to fulfilling this aspect of the
Bureau of Reclamation's core mission?
When Congress enacted the legislation authorizing the SCCWRRS in
1992, it called for a cooperative partnership between the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation and the local agencies that would benefit from the
study. Pursuant to that partnership, SAWPA and other local agencies
contributed millions of dollars to the cost of the report with the
understanding that upon completion in six years, the SCCWRRS would be
presented to Congress. In fact, the authorized legislation directed the
Bureau to complete and return its report within that timeframe. Now,
Mr. Chairman, some 11 years later, the Bureau has yet to return the
SCCWRRS to Congress.
Out of a sheer sense of frustration, SAWPA sent a letter to
Regional Director, Robert Johnson in Boulder City, Nevada on February
21, 2003 again urging that the SCCWRRS immediately be returned to
Congress or, the alternative, that the $300,000 contributed by SAWPA
for the cost of the study be refunded (copy of letter attached as
Exhibit A). To date, no reply has been received.
SAWPA recommends that this Subcommittee immediately schedule
legislative hearings to authorize funding for the water recycling
projects determined to be feasible and identified in the SCCWRRS and
then mark up and report appropriate legislation. More than $6 million
has been invested in this study by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in
partnership with the California Department of Water Resources and
several regional water agencies, including SAWPA, MWD and others. As a
result, feasibility studies have been completed on an aggregation of
local projects that will develop more than 450,000 AFY of new water by
2010. Even more remarkable is the fact that more than 270,000 AFY of
this total will be developed within the Santa Ana River Watershed,
specifically in the Inland Empire and Orange County.
Turning to another subject, I would like to address some issues
that arise from my own personal experience with the management of
projects where there is a cost sharing arrangement that implicates
Federal, state and local sources of funding.
Cost sharing is a tried and true principle that has proven its
worth in many areas of involvement by the Federal Government. From the
standpoint of the U.S. Government, it is an absolute necessity to
ensure local commitment and support for the project. It also provides a
significant opportunity for the Federal Government to obtain the
greatest leverage for its investment in a local project. For example, a
25% Federal share results in a 3:1 return for each Congressionally-
appropriated dollar.
Additionally, there are other, albeit more subtle benefits to be
obtained through the use of cost sharing in a Federal grants program
like Title XVI:
<bullet> Local agencies perform a lot better when their own money
is on the line.
<bullet> Since there is a cap on both the Federal and the state
share, the responsibility for any project overruns devolves entirely
upon the local entity. Thus, there is no incentive to ``gold plate''
projects.
<bullet> Project proponents are more likely to get done on time,
thereby avoiding added expense through escalating costs of construction
or costly claims procedures for delay damages.
<bullet> Significantly, both title to a cost-shared project and
the responsibility for on-going operation and maintenance (O&M) remain
with the local sponsors, thereby avoiding a never-ending obligation
that would otherwise be borne by the Federal Government.
<bullet> The burden of construction management normally remains
with the local project proponent, again relieving the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation of a costly responsibility and permitting it to focus its
efforts on broader Federal activities such as feasibility analyses,
research and technology transfer.
In conclusion, as I again express my appreciation for this
invitation to address your Subcommittee, I would observe that water
recycling must be at the heart of any sound resource management plan in
this new century. The reason for this conclusion is clear: Until we
master a cost effective way to desalinate sea water, there will be no
other ``new water,'' only existing water put to additional uses through
recycling.
Recycling is the last ``river'' that we will harness for the
benefit of our customers in Southern California. We invite your
leadership and active participation in this great venture.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
______
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
COMMISSION FOR THE PROJECT AUTHORITY
EASTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
GENERAL MANAGER
P. JOSEPH GRINDSTAFF
February 21, 2003
Mr. Robert Johnson
Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 61470
Boulder City, NV 89006-1470
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The Board of Directors and Member Agencies of the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) request that the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation refund the $300,000 advanced to your agency to fund the
preparation of the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation
and Reuse Study (Final Report) which Congress authorized in 1992.
<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992,
P.L. 102-575, Title XVI, Section 1606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation completed the Feasibility Study in
April 2001, twenty-two months ago, but it was not submitted to
Congress, notwithstanding the mandatory statutory requirement, in
Section 1606(c), that:
the Secretary shall submit the [feasibility] report authorized by
this section to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House
of Representatives not later than six years after appropriation of
funds authorized by this title.
SAWPA was, as you and your staff are aware, one of the eight cost-
share partners <SUP>2</SUP> who, together, advanced approximately $3
million for the $6 million study. SAWPA's apportionment of those costs
was $300,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The cost-share partners, in addition to SAWPA, include the
California Department of Water Resources, Central and West Basin
Municipal Water Districts, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego,
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County
Water Authority, and the South Orange County Reclamation Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After April 2001, almost two-years since the completion of the
Feasibility Study, SAWPA was repeatedly informed that the Feasibility
Study would be submitted to Congress. For reasons not disclosed to
SAWPA or its member agencies, it was not. This is not right.
Furthermore, letters from Senator Feinstein and others have been as yet
unheeded in releasing this report.
More than a decade ago, Secretary Lujan and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation invited the State of California and local and regional
water agencies in Southern California to form a partnership to examine
the feasibility of constructing and operating local and regional water
recycling projects. The State of California, SAWPA, and others
responded to the challenge. All together, more than 50 local water
agencies, cities, and municipalities participated in the effort. As a
result, the Lujan Initiative was subsequently incorporated into the
1992 Act.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation conducted a comprehensive, detailed
and multi-phased feasibility study, over more than a six-year period.
The table below sets forth the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's conclusion
for both a Short-Term Program and a Long-Term Program.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Comprehensive Feasibility Study Conclusion
New Water Supplies in Southern California from Water Recycling
<SUP>4</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Final Report, Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study, April 2001, Executive Summary, Page ES-31.
Timetable New Supplies 2010................... 2040
Amount of Water 451,500 Acre Feet...... 747,800 Acre Feet
According to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Study, more than
270,000 acre-feet of the 451,500 acre-feet of the new water to be
developed from water recycling by 2010 will occur within Orange County,
and the area designated within the Study as the Inland Empire, within
the Santa Ana Watershed.
This Feasibility Study and the construction of the projects
recommended are essential to SAWPA's mission and crucial to the future
within our watershed. A recent and more complicating factor has now
occurred. On January 1, 2003, the Secretary of the Interior abruptly
reduced more than 600,000 acre-feet of water deliveries to Southern
California from the Colorado River, further challenging our region.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Study states, ``the need for [the]
study...is based on the premise that the increased use of recycled
water will reduce pressures on imported water supplies and provide a
continuous and dependable local source of supplemental water for
Southern California.
The immediate need to implement the recommendations found in the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Feasibility Study is greater than ever.
Requests for completion and filing and inquiries have been made by
many members including:
<bullet> Rep. John Doolittle, Chairman, Water and Power (106th
Congress);
<bullet> Rep. Grace Napolitano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Water and Power;
<bullet> Rep. Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and
Power;
<bullet> Rep. Jim Hansen, Chairman, Committee on Resources (107th
Congress);
<bullet> Rep. George Miller, former Ranking Member, Committee on
Resources;
<bullet> Rep. Nick Joe Rahall, Ranking Member, Committee on
Resources;
<bullet> Senator Dianne Feinstein; and
<bullet> Senator Barbara Boxer.
On February 4, 2003, I met with Commissioner Keys in Washington
D.C. When I inquired as to the status of this Feasibility Study, he was
unable to tell me its status or anything about it.
Since the Feasibility Study has not been submitted to Congress as
required by law, and it is now almost two years since the Study was
finalized, SAWPA requests that:
(1) LThe U.S. Bureau of Reclamation provide three full and complete
copies of the Study to SAWPA; and
(2) LThe U.S. Bureau of Reclamation refund, in full, the $300,000
SAWPA paid to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for this Study.
In closing, SAWPA extends its thanks and appreciation to you and
your staff in Boulder City and at the Southern California office for
the professional manner in which you organized and conducted this
undertaking.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
P. Joseph Grindstaff
General Manager
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6099.002
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Gritzuk to testify, the First Vice
President of WateReuse Association.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GRITZUK, VICE PRESIDENT, WATEREUSE
ASSOCIATION, AND DIRECTOR, WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PHOENIX,
ARIZONA
Mr. Gritzuk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee. The WateReuse Association is pleased to have the
opportunity to present this testimony on the role of water
reuse in ensuring an adequate water supply for the Nation in
the 21st century. I am Mike Gritzuk, Vice President of the
WateReuse Association, and I am also Director of the City of
Phoenix Water Services Department.
I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
hearing today. The hearing is especially timely, given the
numerous challenges facing local agencies in their quest to
ensure future sources of water and water supply.
The WateReuse Association is a national organization whose
mission is to increase the amount of high-quality water
available to communities and the environment by promoting
increased reclamation, recycling, and reuse.
The association has grown rapidly since it became a
national organization. WateReuse now has members that total
more than 270 nationwide, including more than 125 local water
and wastewater agencies.
The practice of recycling water in the United States is a
large and growing industry. An estimated 1.7 billion gallons
per day is reused daily in the U.S. Recycled water use on a
volume basis is growing at an estimated 15 percent per year.
While four States--Arizona, California, Florida and Texas--
accounted for an estimated 91 percent of all recycled water in
1995, various other States have growing programs, including
States such as Nevada, Colorado, Georgia and Virginia.
Water reclamation and reuse will play an expanding role in
water management in the 21st century, not only in the semi-arid
Western States and the Sun Belt States, but perhaps in all 50
States. There are several reasons why this is true. Populations
are growing rapidly in States such as Nevada, Arizona,
California, Texas and Florida. There are no readily available
sources of new water supplies in many geographic areas.
Drought events, such as the one being experienced by more
than half the country, debilitate available sources, and
alternative sources of supply such as desalinization, are
currently, in most cases, more expensive than recycled water.
Long-term water projections in States such as Texas, for
example, show that the demand will exceed supply by the year
2020. More rivers in the West, such as the Colorado and Rio
Grande, have allocations that greatly exceed their supply. The
only dependable, controllable and reliable supply of water in
several fast-growing cities, such as Phoenix, Tucson, and El
Paso, is recycled water in the long term.
I would like to underscore a statement which you made in
early 2001, Mr. Chairman, and one which the Association
strongly agrees with. Referencing the energy crisis of a couple
of years ago, you said, ``Without adequate water supplies, the
power crisis of today will become our water crisis out of
tomorrow.'' How true.
The Federal Government must adopt the leadership role in
promoting water reclamation and reuse. If appropriate actions
are taken now, it will be possible to avoid the coming water
crisis.
We also believe it is critically important for the Federal
Government to provide adequate funding for research. One of the
many issues faced by water researchers today is to understand
the meaning and potential health and ecological impacts of
hundreds of organic compounds that have been identified at
trace levels in drinking water and wastewater.
We believe the first appropriate action for the Federal
Government would be to establish a multiagency task force,
including the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Defense, the Department of
Energy and others, to conduct a governmentwide study of reuse
issues. Possibly headed by the Council on Environmental
Quality, this task force would assemble an inventory of Federal
agency efforts in the areas of water reuse and water use
efficiency.
The task force could produce a report to the President and
Congress which would identify opportunities for improving and
promoting water use efficiency. The net result of this effort
would be to increase the visibility and importance of the issue
of water reuse and water use efficiency to the Nation's future
well-being.
I would also like to touch briefly on the Bureau of
Reclamation's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request. I understand
that decisions on funding levels are a matter for another
congressional committee, but I also believe the
Administration's request for Fiscal Year 2004 deserves this
Subcommittee's attention and involvement.
The Administration's funding request for a total of only
about $12.7 million to support a few Title XVI projects has
been significantly decreased compared to prior years. This
eliminates support for authorized projects that have not
received funding in the past. Equally troubling, the budget
request contains an explicit statement that water reuse has
been determined not to be part of the core mission of the BOR.
It further suggested this is a program without controls or
sound management.
This evaluation could not be further from the truth. The
Administration may believe that water reuse is not part of the
Bureau's core mission, but the statutory obligations of Title
XVI suggest otherwise. We request that you contact your
colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and urge them to
increase Title XVI funding levels and to include language that
reinforces water reclamation and reuse as part of the core
mission of the BOR.
In summary, we believe that increased beneficial water
reuse will be a critical component of the Nation's water supply
in the 21st century. To ensure that this important resource is
fully utilized and that appropriate actions are taken now in
order to avoid a future water crisis, the Federal Government
must play a leadership role. Some of the specific actions that
should be taken by the Subcommittee include the following:
Support the formation of a multiagency task force, as I
have indicated; support additional research on water reuse that
is essential to developing answers to questions on
environmental pollutants of concern and to gaining public
acceptance; direct the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to continue
to include water reuse as part of its core mission; and support
increased funding for the Title XVI program.
Once again, the WateReuse Association wants to thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. We would be happy to
work with you in addressing critical issues related to water
reuse, and we are strongly supportive of your efforts to ensure
adequate and safe supplies of water in the future.
One further request. Recently there was a video news clip
on recycled water from ABC News on January 9th, which featured
the Orange County Water District. We ask that that video, which
was provided to your staff, be included in your official
record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
NOTE: The ABC News video entitled ``Groundwater
Replenishment System''' submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gritzuk follows:]
Statement of Michael Gritzuk, P.E., Vice President, WateReuse
Association, and Director, Water Services Department, Phoenix, Arizona
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the WateReuse
Association is pleased to have the opportunity to present this
testimony on the importance and role of water reuse in ensuring an
adequate water supply for the nation in the 21st century. I am Mike
Gritzuk, Vice President of the WateReuse Association, and I am
representing the Association today. I am also Director of the Water
Services Department of the City of Phoenix. On behalf of the
Association's Board of Directors, I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman,
for convening this hearing. The hearing is especially timely, given the
numerous and increasing number of challenges facing local agencies in
their continuing quest to ensure future sources of water supply.
As a way of introduction, the WateReuse Association is a national
organization whose mission is to increase the amount of high-quality
water available to communities and the environment by promoting
increased reclamation, recycling, and reuse (``reuse''). One of the
Association's primary goals is to assist our members in implementing
water reuse projects that yield valuable benefits to their communities.
We accomplish this overarching goal by encouraging more Federal, state
and local involvement in water reuse efforts such as sponsoring
research that demonstrates to the public that reclaimed water is a safe
and reliable water resource, engaging in outreach services to provide
information to the public about the safety and benefits of recycled
water, and in funding partnerships.
WateReuse has been especially effective in California--where the
Association began--in successfully eliminating barriers to reuse and in
securing grant and loan funding for local agencies to build projects
and conduct research. For example, the Association was instrumental in
getting legislation enacted in 2001 that established the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) Water Recycling Task Force, which is directed to
advise DWR on opportunities for using recycled water in industrial and
commercial applications and in identifying impediments and constraints
to increasing the industrial and commercial use of recycled water in
California.
The Association has grown rapidly since it became a national
organization three years ago. WateReuse now has more than 270 members
nationwide, including more than 125 local water and wastewater agencies
in six states. One of the reasons the Association has been effective is
due to its diverse membership which, in addition to local agencies,
includes state and Federal Government agencies, consultants, equipment
suppliers, and prominent researchers from the academic community.
The Association also has a long-standing and productive working
relationship with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and its Title
XVI program. WateReuse testified on behalf of the original legislation
that created this important funding program in 1992 and also actively
supported the updated legislation in 1996. We have worked closely with
USBR in the development of Title XVI guidelines (i.e., Guidelines for
Preparing, Reviewing, and Processing Water Reclamation and Reuse
Project Proposals Under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, As Amended)
and the overall implementation of the program to date.
The Association has also been successful in developing a cost-
shared research program with the USBR and other research organizations
through its WateReuse Foundation. The Foundation is engaged in
conducting ``leading edge'' applied research on important and timely
issues, including: 1) evaluating ways to advance public acceptance of
indirect potable reuse; 2) evaluating methods for managing salinity,
including the disposal of concentrates from membrane treatment systems;
and 3) understanding the occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants,
such as endocrine disrupting compounds, in conventional and advanced
water recycling systems.
Conducting research on these issues is particularly important to
cities such as those in the Phoenix metropolitan area. In the semiarid
Southwest, the only new available source of water is reclaimed water.
To use reclaimed water for both non-potable and indirect potable
applications, the public must be convinced of the safety and efficacy
of this approach. Although much research has already been conducted
regarding the safety of water recycling, new contaminants and concerns
emerge as analytical capabilities advance. Often a ``pollutant dejour''
is discovered in water or wastewater before the science explaining its
significance is completed. Thus, our research efforts related to water
reuse must keep up with the latest science so that we can continue to
demonstrate to the public that recycled water is chemically and
microbiologically safe--and the only way to accomplish that worthwhile
goal is through research.
Current Status of Water Reuse in the U.S.
The practice of recycling water in the U.S. is a large and growing
industry. An estimated 1.7 billion gallons per day (bgd) is reused
daily in the U.S. Recycled water use on a volume basis is growing at an
estimated 15% per year. In 2002, Florida reclaimed 584 mgd of its
wastewater and California ranked a close second with an estimated total
of 525 mgd of recycled water per day. Florida has an official goal of
reclaiming one billion gallons per day by the year 2010. California,
likewise, has a statutory goal of a doubling of current beneficial use
by 2010. Texas currently reuses approximately 230 mgd while Arizona
reuses an estimated 200 mgd. This is but a small fraction (4.87%) of
the total volume of wastewater generated--34.9 billion gallons per
day--according to EPA's soon to be released 2000 Clean Water Needs
Survey. Hence, the future potential for reclaiming treated wastewater
is enormous.
While four states--Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas--
accounted for an estimated 91% of all recycled water in 1995 (source:
USGS), several other states have growing programs, including Nevada,
Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. At least
27 states now have planned recycled facilities and the overwhelming
majority of states have regulations dealing with water reuse.
There is a long history of water reuse throughout the country,
encompassing a wide variety of applications including landscape and
agricultural irrigation, industrial processing, power plant cooling,
and groundwater replenishment. There are numerous examples of water
reuse success stories, dating from the 1950s. Some of the best known
facilities and programs are described in Appendix A. To document the
extent of water reuse in the U.S., the Association and the WateReuse
Foundation are currently developing a national database of all reuse
facilities. We would be pleased to make this information available to
the Subcommittee once the project has been completed.
Importance and Benefits of Water Reuse
A growing body of evidence suggests that water reclamation and
reuse will play an expanded role in water management in the 21st
century, not only in the semiarid western states and ``sunbelt''
states, but perhaps in all 50 states. There are at least five good
reasons why this is true:
<bullet> Populations are growing rapidly in states such as Nevada,
Arizona, California, Texas, and Florida;
<bullet> There are no readily available sources of new water
supplies in many geographic areas;
<bullet> Reuse meets the needs of industrial uses for non-potable
supply and solving environmental discharge problems;
<bullet> Drought events such as the one experienced by more than
half the country in 2002 debilitate available sources; and
<bullet> Alternative sources of supply such as desalination are
currently, in most cases, more expensive than water reuse.
While all five factors are driving the growth of water reuse,
perhaps none is as important as population growth. In a recent Awwa
Research Foundation (AwwaRF) study to assess the future of water
utilities, AwwaRF cited a U.S. Bureau of Census projection that
predicted the U.S. population would double by 2100 using moderate
fertility, immigration and longevity assumptions. The same projections
quadruple using aggressive assumptions. State estimates support these
projections. California's population is growing at a rate of 700,000
per year which means that the state's population will reach 50 million
by 2020. Florida's population will increase from 14.2 million to 20
million by 2020. The population of Texas is increasing by 3000 people
per day and is expected to increase from its current level of 20
million to approximately 50 million by 2050. Nevada and Arizona are the
two fastest growing states in the country, according to the 2000 U.S.
Census.
Long-term water projections in states such as Texas show that
demand will exceed supply by the year 2020. Major rivers in the West
such as the Colorado and Rio Grande have allocations that greatly
exceed supply. The only dependable, controllable, and reliable supply
of water in several fast growing cities such as Phoenix, Tucson, and El
Paso is recycled water. Denver, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Las Vegas,
Phoenix, Tucson, and Southern California depend heavily on water
imported from the Colorado River to satisfy growing demands; this fast
growing area is exploring various options, including water reuse and
desalination, to keep up with demand. These hard facts suggest, as many
knowledgeable observers routinely predict, that the U.S. will be facing
a population-based water crisis, perhaps as early as 2015. If these
projections take into account the impacts of localized droughts, then
the crisis is already occurring in many parts of the country.
Think of how important water is to the nation's economy. A good
example of the importance of water to industrial production can be
illustrated by the requirements of Silicon Valley. The South Bay Water
Recycling Project in San Jose, CA produces recycled water that provides
benefits to 1.3 million area residents. By reusing this water instead
of releasing it to the Bay, San Jose has avoided the imposition of a
sewer moratorium that would put the brakes on the Silicon Valley
economy'' an economy which is one of the nation's largest in the
development and export of computer hardware and software. It takes 10
gallons of water to make one microchip, and larger manufacturers in
Silicon Valley require over a million gallons of water each day.
This one example, of many which could be cited, serves to
underscore a statement which you made in early 2001, Mr. Chairman, and
one with which the Association strongly agrees. Referencing the energy
crisis of a couple of years ago, you said, ``Without adequate water
supplies, the power crisis of today will become our water crisis of
tomorrow.''
Water reuse is one of few alternative sources of supply that
represents a viable, long-term solution to the challenges presented by
growing municipal, industrial, and agricultural demands for water.
Reclaimed water has numerous benefits, including the following:
<bullet> produces a reliable water supply;
<bullet> produces a sustainable supply of water to offset the need
to find or develop alternative sources of drinking water supplies;
<bullet> uses much less energy than importing water;
<bullet> provides local control;
<bullet> avoids construction impacts;
<bullet> enhances water quality;
<bullet> costs less than ocean desalination;
<bullet> protects sensitive habitats; and
<bullet> reduces the quantity of treated wastewater discharged to
sensitive or impaired surface waters.
Technologies, Costs, and Applications
Technologies employed to treat recycled water depend almost
entirely on the application, or the ``highest treatment for the highest
use.'' As in Title 22, of the California Code of Regulations,
bacteriological water quality standards are established based on the
expected degree of public contact with recycled water. For example, if
the primary application is landscape irrigation or cooling tower water,
sand or duel media filtration and disinfection after secondary
treatment is sufficient to achieve California's standards. If, on the
other hand, the intended application is injection of reclaimed water
into groundwater aquifers, advanced technologies such as
microfiltration, reverse osmosis (RO), and ultraviolet irradiation must
be employed to ensure chemical and microbiological safety of the
reclaimed water.
The capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of water
recycling treatments depend on several factors including: the
technologies employed, which will be dictated by the application;
applicable regulations; and customer needs. The costs are lowest for
reclaiming wastewater effluent for irrigation of non-edible crops such
as cotton, grasses, orchards, and vineyards. As the quality of water
increases, so do the costs. The good news is that the costs of advance
technologies are dropping with improvements and innovations as the
result of applied research and increasing use. For example, the cost of
RO has dropped over the past 30 years from over $5 per 1000 gallons of
water to less that $2 per 1000 gallons. Costs also vary by region of
the U.S. due to a number of factors including labor and capital costs.
New technologies supported by applied research are critical to
providing safe and reliable treatment for recycling to meet our future
urban, industrial, agricultural, and ecosystems demands. Research is
needed to provide a scientific basis to use new technologies to
facilitate the development of future water supplies using recycled
water. New and innovative technologies will need to be developed to
address a number of concerns. For example, technologies may need to be
developed to cost effectively address trace organic chemicals that have
unclear long-term health effects, such as endocrine disrupting and
pharmaceutically active compounds, and newly identified pathogenic
microorganisms.
The Federal Role in Water Reuse
In the opinion of our Association, the Federal Government must not
only be a key player, but must adopt a leadership role in promoting
water reclamation and reuse, water use efficiency, and conservation. If
the appropriate Federal role is identified now and appropriate actions
are taken, it may be possible to delay or avoid the coming water
crisis.
There are numerous ways in which the leadership role of the Federal
Government could manifest itself. Federal subsidies for local water
reuse projects and targeted investment through demonstration grants, as
well as tax incentives, could be used to promote reuse practices. The
Federal Government could mandate increased use of recycled water at
Federal facilities (e.g., military bases and new GSA buildings); these
could be examples of good stewards of water efficiency and examples of
water reuse.
We also believe it is critically important for the Federal
Government to provide adequate funding for research. One of the many
issues faced by water researchers is to understand the meaning and
potential health and ecological impacts of thousands of organic
compounds that have been identified at trace levels in drinking water
and wastewater. The challenge is that analytical methods, which allow
identification of emerging chemical contaminants for both drinking
water and wastewater, are ahead of the science that allows us to
understand what these emerging contaminants mean in terms of protection
of public health and the environment, and ultimately what treatment
technologies are needed to ensure safe and appropriate water
reclamation. The same challenge is true for microbial contaminants.
This is not only a water reuse challenge, but one that also applies to
every municipality whose source of water supply is a major river or
whose groundwater is impacted by septic tanks or the of wastewater via
land application. Only through conducting substantial research can
local, state, and Federal Governments provide proper assurance to the
public that both drinking water and reclaimed water are safe.
We believe the first appropriate action for the Federal Government
would be to establish a multi-agency task force to conduct a
government-wide study on reuse issues. Headed by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), this task force would assemble an
inventory of Federal agency efforts in the areas of water reuse and
recycling, water use efficiency, and conservation. Federal agencies
covered would include, but would not be limited to, the Department of
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Defense, Department
of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture,
and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The Federal task force would produce a report for the President and
Congress. In addition to the inventory of current programs, the report
would identify opportunities for improving and promoting water use
efficiency. The net result of this overall effort would be to increase
the visibility and importance of the issue of water reuse and water use
efficiency to the nation's future well being.
Title XVI and Proposed FY-2004 USBR Budget Request
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to touch
briefly on the USBR's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request. I understand
that decisions on funding levels are a matter for another congressional
committee, but I believe the Administration's request for Fiscal Year
2004 deserves this Subcommittee's attention and involvement. The
request upends years of a policy understanding on the role of the
Federal Government in water reuse and generally in the effort to
develop substantial additional water yield, while minimizing
disruptions to the nation's ecosystems.
The Administration has requested a total of $12.7 million to
support 10 Title XVI projects. This denies any support for authorized
projects that have not received funding in the past. In addition, the
Administration has stated that other programs that support reuse
technologies such as research are to be redirected to desalination
program needs. We believe that desalination--like water reuse--has an
important and vital role to play in ensuring adequate water supplies in
the future. However, the Administration's budget abandons a decade old
commitment to a balanced approach to developing new water supplies.
This is exacerbated by the Administration's decision to seek $9 million
in new program assistance for desalination efforts at the expense of
ongoing reuse projects. Simply put, if these resources were equitably
distributed, we would see new water reuse projects becoming operational
in a timely manner. Instead, the decision to reduce funding commitments
for reuse and to shift resources into desalination research means
extended construction schedules, leading to more expensive projects
because of the delays attributable to this decision. If Congress
decides to reverse this attempt to eliminate the Federal-local
partnership, the dividends will be realized in the production of new
supplemental water supplies that are safe, reliable, and impervious to
droughts.
Equally troubling is the direction the Administration is pursuing
on water reuse policy. Many of the members of this Subcommittee may be
aware of the innovative budget and program review tool contained in the
Fiscal Year 2004 request. This tool, referred to as the Program
Assessment Review Tool (PART), was used by the Office of Management and
Budget. It seeks to conduct a seemingly impartial evaluation of Federal
programs to determine whether they deserve continued funding and
support. The budget request for USBR contains an explicit statement
that, based on PART findings, water reuse is determined not to be part
of the ``core mission'' of USBR. It further suggests that this is a
program without controls or sound management. This evaluation could not
be further from the truth. In fact, if one were to review the internal
documents that served as the core research for PART, you would be
astonished to learn that the analysis found the program to be effective
in creating new water supplies to meet the purposes of Title XVI. Title
XVI projects are professionally designed and engineered. Projects must
have local cost-share and the Federal exposure is limited to providing
the much needed assistance to leverage non-Federal resources to build
these projects. These are projects that, I wish to emphasize, help to
comply with Federal environmental mandates by providing protection to
the environment and ensuring safe water supplies.
One does not need to delve into reams of paper to question the
direction the Administration is heading, however. The Administration
may believe that water reuse is not part of the Bureau's core mission,
but the statutory obligations of Title XVI suggest otherwise. Congress
explicitly authorized these projects. We request that you contact your
colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and urge them to reject
the proposed budget level and policy direction of the budget by
increasing Title XVI funding levels to at least $30 million and to
include language that reinforces what is obvious, namely that water
recycling and reuse is part of the core mission of USBR.
I also want to take a moment to express our concern about the USBR
not providing to Congress to date the reports detailing the results of
the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study
(SCCWRRS) and the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Project (BARWRP).
For several years, the projects' co-sponsors have waited patiently for
the final reports to be released. Each time an effort is made to secure
the studies, we have been told that it is only a matter of weeks before
it will be available. More than 70 communities have contributed to the
funding of these studies. The time has long passed for patience. We
urge the Subcommittee to direct the immediate release of these studies
without further delay. Once the Subcommittee and the public has access
to these studies, we can then proceed with the development of regional
projects that will support compliance with the quantification
settlement agreement (QSA), advance the knowledge of water reuse, and
enhance economic productivity through increased yield based on reliable
sources of water.
The projects specified in SCCWRRS present excellent opportunities
for the Federal Government to support the development of water projects
that will benefit all Colorado River basin states and substantially
leverage Federal resources that would be intested. Benefit-cost ratios
in the draft report show that an investment of approximately $500
million in the 34 projects specified in the report would yield $2
billion in benefits.
In summary, we believe that Title XVI is part of the core mission
for USBR and the way to bring about water reliability throughout the
West is through a solid partnership between the Federal and local
governments. With regard to the SCCWRRS and the BARWRP reports, we
further believe that ``a deal is a deal.'' When local communities
contribute to Federal studies as partners, based on an understanding
that reports would be developed and published, the act of preventing
the publication of such studies must be dealt with in a clear and
forceful manner.
Summary and Recommendations
In summary, we believe that increased beneficial water reuse will
be a critical component of the nation's water supply in the 21st
century. To ensure that this important resource is fully utilized and
that appropriate actions are taken now in order to avoid a future water
crisis, the Federal Government needs to play a leadership role. Some of
the specific actions that should be taken by the Subcommittee include
the following:
<bullet> support the formation of a multi-agency taskforce in CEQ
to inventory water reuse programs within the Federal establishment and
identify opportunities for enhanced water reuse and water use
efficiency;
<bullet> support additional research on water reuse that is
essential to developing answers to questions on environmental
pollutants of concerns and to gaining public acceptance;
<bullet> direct the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to continue to
include water reuse as part of its ``core mission;'' support increased
funding for the Title XVI program;
<bullet> support the enactment of legislation that would put in
place a comprehensive program to authorized much needed water reuse
projects similar to the kind of commitment Congress has made to
wastewater and drinking water treatment needs; and
<bullet> increase Federal ``venture capital'' targeted grants
(e.g., Title XVI) to assist communities in developing innovative reuse
projects.
Conclusion
Once again, the WateReuse Association wants to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for convening this hearing. We would be happy to work with
you in addressing critical issues related to water reuse, water use
efficiency, and salinity management. We are strongly supportive of your
efforts to ensure adequate and safe supplies of water in the future for
the western United States.
Appendix A
examples of successful water reuse projects in the u.s.
``Water Factory 21'' in Orange County (CA)--'' The Orange County
Water District (OCWD) manages and protects the vast groundwater basin
in northern and central Orange County, CA that supplies approximately
75 percent of the water used by over two million residents in the
agency's service area. For four decades, the District has advocated
treating and recycling municipal wastewater as a reliable supplemental
water supply to make its service area as self-reliant as possible.
OCWD's premier water recycling project is a groundwater recharge
program that has been designed to prevent salt water from infiltrating
and contaminating the groundwater basin. OCWD takes wastewater from the
neighboring Orange County Sanitation District and processes it through
an advanced treatment system that includes granular filtration, reverse
osmosis and ultraviolet radiation disinfection. This is OCWD's ``Water
Factory 21,'' which is designed to reclaims over 15 mgd of recycled
water. After treatment, the recycled water is blended with local well
water and is injected into the groundwater basin through a series of 23
multi-point injection wells. The fresh water forms a ``water mound,''
blocking further passage of seawater. The project has been operating
since 1976.
City of Phoenix (AZ)--The City of Phoenix operates three water
reclamation facilities. The largest facility operates in cooperation
with four other municipalities that also own the plant. The reclaimed
water produced by this plant is the sole source of water for cooling
towers at the regional Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Facility.
Reclaimed water is also used for area farmlands and for restoration of
wildlife habitat at the City's Tres Rios River Restoration Project.
Tres Rios River is an example of how reclaimed water can by used to
benefit the environment and enhancing quality of life.
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (CA) Reclaimed
Water Projects--The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
(Districts) provide for the wastewater and solid waste management needs
of over five million people in 78 cities and unincorporated areas of
Los Angeles County, CA. The Districts operate 11 wastewater treatment
facilities, 10 of which are involved in water reclamation. These 10
facilities produce 200 mgd of reclaimed water ranging in quality from
undisinfected secondary effluent to filtered, disinfected tertiary
effluents. The reclaimed water is reused for a variety of applications
including landscape and agriculture irrigation, industrial process,
recreational impoundments, wildlife habitat maintenance and ground
water replenishment. There are over 450 water reuse projects serving 26
cities.
Pinellas County Utilities (FL)--Pinellas County Utilities provides
drinking water, wastewater, reclaimed water, and solid waste serves to
almost 1 million people in the Pinellas County which includes 24
municipalities. Pinellas County has a reclaimed water system that
serves golf courses, residences, and commercial customers. The County
is in the process of upgrading of two utilities treatment plants to
expand capacity from about 13 mgd to 30 mgd and to upgrade the
treatment process to an advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) process.
These upgrades will allow the continued safe use of reclaimed water in
the distribution system as well as allowing for discharges to surface
waters during wet weather periods without adverse environmental
impacts. The project will also provide for construction of major
reclaimed water transmission mains. The use of reclaimed water helps to
extend, conserve and protect valuable drinking water resources by off-
setting demand.
Harlingen (TX)--'' Harlingen, Texas, a city of about 57,000, is an
excellent example of a municipal and industrial partnership to reuse
reclaimed water. Harlingen provides 65 to 70 million gallons per month
of reclaimed municipal wastewater to a hosiery manufacturer for
manufacturing, and there is a demand for increased supplies in the
future.
West Basin Water Recycling Project (CA)--West Basin Municipal Water
District is a public agency that provides imported Colorado River Water
and State Project Water to residential customers and water companies in
southwest Los Angeles County, CA. In addition, the District provides
its customers with recycled water that is used for municipal,
commercial and industrial applications. The West Basin Water Recycling
Project provides almost 22,000 acre-feet of recycled water annually,
distributed to more than 150 sites. These sites use recycled water for
a wide range of applications. Based in El Segundo, California, the
state-of-the-art Water Recycling Facility is among the largest projects
of its kind in the nation, with the ultimate capacity to recycle
100,000 acre-feet per year of wastewater. The150 plus sites use 7.1
billion gallons of West Basin's recycled water for non-drinking
applications including irrigation, barrier water and industrial
processes. West Basin has been successful in changing the perception of
recycled water from merely a conservation tool with minimal
applications to a cost-effective business tool that can reduce
production costs, water filtration costs, and limit the need for
expensive chemicals and dyes. Local oil refineries are major customers
for West Basin's recycled water. The Chevron Refinery in El Segundo and
the ARCO Refinery in Carson use recycled water for their cooling
towers. The Mobil Torrance Refinery uses the water not only in its
cooling towers but also in its boiler feed system.
San Antonio's Water Recycling Centers--San Antonio Water System
(SAWS) provides drinking water, wastewater, and water reclamation
services to over 1 million people in San Antonio, the seventh largest
city in the U.S., and the surrounding area. SAWS has one of the largest
water recycling systems under development in the U.S. SAWS, which calls
its four award-winning wastewater treatment plants ``Water Recycling
Centers'', produce 120 mgd of tertiary treated recycled water (sand
filtration followed by chlorination and then dechlorination). By
recycling its wastewater, SAWS is improving and protecting receiving
stream quality and increasing water supply reliability and redundancy.
Making greater use of recycled water will be one of the keys to making
more water available for economic growth and development in San
Antonio. Recycled water use is growing in San Antonio and includes
agricultural irrigation, irrigation of public parks, and improving
water quality in the Medina and San Antonio Rivers.
Water Conserv II (FL)--Water Conserv II, one of the largest water
reuse project of its kind in the world, is the first water reuse
project in Florida to irrigate crops produced for human consumption
with reclaimed water. Jointly owned by the City of Orlando and Orange
County, it has taken a wastewater effluent previously discharged to
surface water bodies and turned it into reclaimed water, as asset that
benefits the City, the County, and the agricultural community. The
system encompasses two water reclamation facilities connected by
transmission pipeline to a distribution center. From the distribution
center, reclaimed water is distributed to 76 agricultural and
commercial customers. The reclaimed water that is not used for
irrigation is distributed to Rapid Infiltration Basins for ground water
replenishment. The reclaimed water is monitored and controlled from a
central computerized control system.
Monterey County Water Recycling Projects--Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) and the Monterey County Water
Resources Agency operate a regional water recycling project for
agriculture. Nearly 20,000 acre-feet per year of water is used to
irrigate over 12,000 acres of food crops. The recycled water reduces
coastal seawater intrusion, as well as replaces groundwater that is
often too salty for long-term irrigation. Implementation of the project
was made possible by an 11-year study that verified the safety of food
crop irrigation. An extensive public outreach program was developed to
address the needs and concerns of local growers. MRWPCA and the Marina
Coast Water District want to further expand water reuse to urban uses
including landscape irrigation and possible industrial applications.
This project would involve ground water storage during the winter which
has the additional benefit of slowing salt water intrusion.
______
Mr. Calvert. Now we will recognize Mr. Scott.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS SCOTT, DIRECTOR, U.S. WATER/SEWER GROUP
COORDINATOR, FITCH RATINGS
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee members.
My role in the financial industry, as a rating analyst, is
to evaluate water and sewer credits, and also State revolving
fund loan credits, to ensure their economic viability. The tact
that I have taken with my submitted testimony is that I
consider it the most effective means as far as maximizing
Federal appropriations purely from an investment perspective,
much in the same way that an investor would evaluate
investments for restructuring a portfolio.
My conclusion in my testimony is that, under this approach,
Federal moneys utilized to seed capital for a perpetual loan
fund is the most economically viable method, as the interest
generated would compound and ultimately provide more money for
water projects.
Having said this, however, opportunities exist for the
Federal Government to participate in types of projects or in
individual projects with direct grants which would leverage
local dollars and possibly decrease the need for Federal
involvement on a larger scale in the future.
I would like to take the rest of my time to briefly discuss
the perceived benefits of the Federal involvement in projects
from a credit perspective.
In evaluating a credit, one of the areas that a rating
agency looks to is the borrower's historical and projected
financial operations. With any debt financing in the open
market, an investor wants assurances that the debt will be
repaid in a timely fashion. To gauge the likelihood of
financial performance, the rating agency looks to an issuer's
debt service coverage levels; that is, the amount that revenues
exceed the liabilities. Stronger credits typically exhibit
higher coverage levels than weaker credits, but in order to
increase coverage levels, revenues must increase, liabilities
must decrease, or a combination of both must happen.
In generating additional revenues, most local governments
are limited in their ability to raise additional capital in
ways that do not affect their constituencies, so those
increased funds typically are borne by local residents in the
form of increased taxes or increased utility rates. As a
result, Fitch takes into consideration the impact of these
increases in terms of economic burden. If Federal funds are
available to reduce the needs to generate additional revenues,
this is viewed as a credit positive because the financial
burden to local residents will be reduced.
Another area of evaluation in the credit process is the
amount of debt that a local government has and is expected to
incur within the foreseeable future. Obviously, less debt is
viewed more favorably than more. So the greater the Federal
subsidy, the less need there is for local government to finance
debt or raise cash for needed projects. In this case, a direct
grant would be more beneficial to an individual borrower from a
credit perspective than a loan from the Federal Government,
even one that is heavily subsidized.
Another aspect of the debt analysis is the equity
contributed to a project. The more equity contributed, the more
perceived the security to bondholders and the less for the
amount needed to finance a project. In simplistic terms, this
is similar to someone applying for a home loan. A home buyer
contributing a sizable amount of cash toward the down payment
is seen as less of a credit risk because that person has a
vested interest to assure that the mortgage will be repaid in
order to avoid repossession. Alternatively, a home buyer who
contributes very little up front is typically perceived as less
creditworthy because the investor is assuming more equity risk.
There are many other factors considered in the rating
process, but one last area that's relevant for discussion
purposes here is the perceived benefit to investors from a
feasibility and willingness to pay perspective. In evaluating
credit, Fitch contemplates the necessity of projects within the
framework of the local government's primary mission. Projects
which further the primary mission are more likely to receive
support from the public and, therefore, debts supporting such
projects is more likely to be repaid.
From a credit perspective, Federal involvement in a project
is typically viewed favorably, in the sense that oversight by
the Federal Government is generally assumed to ensure project
viability or feasibility, as well as necessity.
I hope this answers some of your questions regarding the
perceived benefits of Federal contributions from a rating
perspective, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Statement of Doug Scott, Director, U.S. Water/Sewer Group Coordinator,
Fitch Ratings
The U.S. population increased by 13.2% between 1990-2000, with the
West and South regions leading the nation in terms of growth at 19.7%
and 17.3%, respectively.(1) Future projections indicate this trend will
continue through 2025, albeit at a slightly reduced rate of growth
overall.(2) To meet the consumptive water needs of this increase in
population, additional water supply, treatment, and distribution
infrastructure will be required. Historically, the Federal Government
has played an important role in financing water projects through direct
and indirect funding measures: directly, as in funding the construction
of dams through the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of
Engineers, and indirectly, as in the funding of water and wastewater
infrastructure through Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants to
the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs. While future Federal funding
will be driven by policy decisions of the President and the Congress,
the method of how those funds are dispersed will determine the
leveraging capabilities of the appropriations.
Direct grant funding is arguably the most cost-effective mechanism
for disbursing Federal funds on a project basis, but no opportunity
exists for leveraging of those dollars. Because direct funding is
targeted to specific projects, administrative costs potentially can be
minimized thereby providing more actual dollars for a project than if
monies are appropriated as part of a Federal or state program. This
ultimately would reduce the cost of a project. However, the primary
limitation to direct grant funding from a fiscal perspective is that a
grant by nature is a one-time source of funds for one specific purpose.
This means that funding for other projects would require additional
grants. So simply providing direct grants for a specific project, while
there may be political, environmental, or economic justification for
such funding, typically limits the benefits of the grant to the
immediate recipient and fails to leverage those monies for additional
needs.
A method of maximizing Federal dollars is to provide ``seed
capital'' for investment in an interest-bearing account. Additional
monies could then be generated and utilized indefinitely or over a set
period of time. In the case of a defined spending timeline, the
required appropriation to fund a project or set of projects would be
reduced based upon the rate of return of the capital investment and the
timeframe over which the fund was depleted, essentially functioning in
the same manner as an individual retirement account. For purposes of
funding water projects, this would mean that grant funds would generate
interest earnings, with the interest earnings and a portion of the
grant dollars being used as direct grants for projects. The leveraged
amount in this case would equal the total interest generated over the
lifetime of the draws.
To maximize Federal leveraging further and ensure perpetuity of
available funding, the ``seed capital'' should remain intact and
continually be invested (i.e. loaned). For practical purposes, the
appropriation could be utilized as a zero-percent loan to entities.
This particular method of funding projects enhances the leveraging
capacity of the Federal funds over an extended period of time in that
repayment of principal would be available for additional projects. At
the same time, borrowers receive a direct benefit in the form of an
interest subsidy. However, because no interest earnings would be
generated, the amount available for future projects would be limited
both as to the initial investment and the timeframe of the repayment of
the loan or loans.
To enhance the perpetuity of the appropriations and provide the
most in terms of leveraging the ``seed capital'', the principal should
be reinvested in loans to prospective entities which are repaid with
interest. The Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs are perhaps the best
example of this type of funding program. Federal grants, along with
state match monies, are deposited into the respective SRFs. Monies
within the SRF fund are then loaned to recipients at rates below that
which the applicants could receive on their own in the open market, but
the fund continually expands as principal and interest repayments are
received and then reloaned to other entities.
To meet the vast water and wastewater demands across the nation,
many SRFs also issue leverage bonds in the open market which provide
additional sources of revenue for funding water and wastewater
infrastructure needs beyond that which could be accommodated from
available program funds. These leverage bonds are overcollateralized by
Federal grants and state matching monies, meaning that pledged
resources exceed projected debt service liabilities, and this
overcollateralization typically allows the bonds to achieve Fitch's
highest credit rating. By achieving such superior ratings, SRF
borrowing costs are typically less than what an individual borrower
would achieve if such borrower were to access the open market on their
own. Because of this leveraging, use of Federal funds is enhanced as
opposed to funding loan projects on an individual basis.
Indicative of the success of the SRF programs to leverage Federal
dollars for water and wastewater infrastructure funding is the ratio of
Federal capitalization grants contributed to the amount of actual
assistance provided. Moreover, for those states that have issued
leverage bonds, the ratio of assistance provided is greater than states
that have yet to do so. As of June 30, 2002, the EPA reports that the
total amount of Clean Water SRF assistance as a percentage of Federal
capitalization grants for states issuing leverage bonds was 228%,
compared to 144% for states which have not leveraged.(3) Likewise, for
the same period Drinking Water SRF assistance as a percentage of
Federal capitalization grants for states issuing leverage bonds was
222% compared to 90% for states which have not leveraged.(4) While the
SRF programs are perhaps the best example of leveraging Federal
dollars, the concept of utilizing Federal monies to provide ``seed
capital'' for a perpetual loan fund and issuing leverage bonds to
increase the immediate source of funding availability has the potential
to maximize Federal funding for many types of public projects.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Obviously, as we all know, a large part of our country is
experiencing drought conditions. Happily, we had some snow in
the Rockies recently that may help a little bit, but certainly
was not enough. We have long-term water needs that we must
address. In getting that water, obviously, from Mother Nature,
sometimes she's not willing to let loose and we end up with
these long-term droughts. So this Committee, and certainly the
Federal Government, over the last number of years, has looked
at reclamation as a viable way of having certainty in water
supply.
I want to ask this panel generally, what is the importance
of Federal assistance to a project's planning, design and
construction? What are the benefits of Federal contribution to
the construction of local projects that are primarily financed
through local mechanisms? As an individual who is more or less
a fiscal conservative, as was pointed out by the gentleman in
how these projects are financed, this is a great deal, it seems
to me, but I don't want to pre-answer the question. Just how
can we leverage Federal money?
With that, I will ask the panel in no particular order. I
guess we can go from left to right.
Ms. Cody. That's an interesting and difficult question.
Obviously, from what we've heard today from the project
proponents' point of view--and I've already said that CRS takes
no position on these types of things--but certainly, from all
I've gathered from reading this material, and also the
testimony today, the benefits, as I think we just heard,
include this leverage issue. It is one that comes up
consistently. Another is how recycling compares to other
alternatives. Whether they be factors such as firm or yield or,
the ability to go on line right away, those are some of the
things I think that have been highlighted by project proponents
today.
Others on the panel?
Mr. Gritzuk. If I can just add to that, the normal way that
a public entity finances a water reclamation project today is
by itself, with funds raised by the ratepayers. In light of all
the other pressures that we have confronting the water industry
today, that is becoming an increasingly more difficult task.
Title XVI is probably the most popular way to fund water
reclamation projects today. In Title XVI itself, there is a
limit of funding, $20 million, and there is also a percentage
limit that Federal funds cannot exceed 25 percent of the
overall cost of the project. So you have to look at this as
Federal funding provides kind of the seed money and the
incentive to get the project going. But the long-term
commitment still lies with the entity that is building that
project. Also, in the longer term, it is the ratepayer that
primarily pays for that.
Picking up on one more point from Mr. Scott here, that seed
money that the Federal Government can provide also helps in the
municipal bonding, in the bonding rating that the project gets.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
General Habiger. Mr. Chairman, San Antonio is entering this
fight late because, as I said, we've been relying on the
Edwards Aquifer. All we had to do was put wells beneath the
City and pump the water out, put a little bit of chlorine in
it, and we had a viable water source. But we are going to be
more and more involved in Federal funding mechanisms in the
future.
Our water plant right now, to wean ourselves off the
Edwards Aquifer, in a worse case scenario, is in excess of $2.5
billion over the next 15 years. In terms of Title XVI, we
received $200,000 about 6 years ago, which proved to be
invaluable with our recycled water program. These Federal
programs are viable. They shouldn't be considered as ``cash
cows'', in my view, but to leverage, as Mike pointed out.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Grindstaff. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, it seems to me
that throughout the West we have overcommitted ourselves, and
if we're going to have sustainable systems over the long run,
water recycling has to be a key component of that.
I really like the analogy of seed money. It helps people
make the decision to move ahead and do the right thing.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have listened with great interest to all of your
testimony and I have about 50 questions for each one of you,
but I'll try to hone it down to some of the ones that really
stand out.
Generally, all of you agree that there is a great need, a
great demand and a great benefit in continuing the use of
recycled water projects and water reuse. I'm hoping that
somebody can tell me how can we get together and get the
Bureau--and I'm sure the Bureau has somebody upstairs who is
asking them to do with less--but how do we convince the
Administration or the powers that ben that have made the
decisions to do away eventually with the actual recycling,
against the public law that set that up for the Bureau of
Reclamation. Would somebody answer that for me?
Mr. Grindstaff. I'll make an attempt.
Back in 1992, the Congress authorized the Southern
California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study--the
SCCWRRS study it's been called--and they authorized a companion
piece in Northern California. The Bureau of Reclamation has
done an outstanding job of developing that report. They haven't
brought it back to Congress, although I understand from the
Department of Interior they are committed to bringing that back
this next month.
It seems to me that that kind of work needs to continue,
that throughout the West those kinds of studies ought to be
done so you can identify the long-term opportunities for doing
recycling in every State, and identify, as you do that, how
that helps make the systems truly sustainable that have been
built in the past.
Then it comes down to this body authorizing those projects
after those studies are completed, authorizing the seed money
to help really finish the implementation of the core mission of
the Bureau of Reclamation, the development of the West. Their
core mission was to help develop the West by providing water
supplies, and they've done that wonderfully well. But in some
cases it's not sustainable, and doing this, I think, helps them
implement that core mission.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Gritzuk. Yes. Particularly in the West, but it's also a
national issue, our traditional water supplies, the fresh
water, is running out. We don't have enough to sustain the
population projections that we're seeing in the future.
So it would seem to us that, if the Federal Government,
through what I suggested in my testimony, have the Council of
Environmental Quality conduct a credible, technical study of
what the future needs are, particularly in those geographic
areas of the country where they have virtually run out of their
fresh water supplies. It would become very obvious that the
next water resource for those geographic areas is reclaimed
water. They have nothing else. So I think that could be another
approach that the Federal Government could take, just do a
credible study and see for yourself what the needs are in
reclaimed water.
Mrs. Napolitano. The problem is they haven't released the
study, even though this Committee, this body, has asked for it
more than once. I know I have asked for it twice. We are not
able to get them to give us the information. One of the replies
I received was that they were working on doing some adjustments
to it, whatever that means.
Mr. Grindstaff, as former Mayor of Norwalk, I was very
involved in the sanitation district that developed a lot of the
recycled water in the area, that serviced a lot of the cities
that are basically poor and disenfranchised communities that
needed this seed money. I read some of the testimony and I
noticed that some of it's only 10 or 15 percent, so it really
is basically seed money.
Where would we be, like in San Gabriel, where we had a
tremendous clean-up problem, that recycled water played a major
part in the economic sustainability for that area, could you
tell me where would we be if we had not had the Bureau step in
and help out?
Mr. Grindstaff. Well, I think, without the Bureau helping,
many of the projects would not have been done. In fact,
Southern California would be more dependent on Colorado River
water and more dependent on importing water from Northern
California. The consequences of that are immense economically.
As a water professional, I often just think about the
water, but I am reminded, when I meet with community leaders,
that when we have impacts on our water supply, it has dramatic
impacts on the economic development of the region.
As I was talking with the General before the meeting here,
Toyota just located a new facility in San Antonio, and water is
a key element to them being able to have that in San Antonio.
That kind of thing is very true in Southern California. Every
city, every part of the Nation, really needs that fundamental
infrastructure in place. Without that kind of assistance, that
might not happen and, in fact, the communities might have
untold kinds of impacts that are negative.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will wait for the
next opportunity.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Renzi.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I failed in my obligations to also introduce a good
Arizonan. Mr. Gritzuk, it's good to have you here. I thank you
for your leadership with the WateReuse Association, and more so
for your help in the State of Arizona as our Director of the
Water Services Department in Phoenix. I was interested in your
testimony, particularly in the summary and recommendations,
with the idea of putting together a task force.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that we have a ski resort
up in Flagstaff, Arizona that sits on public lands, that right
now is being debated as to whether or not we should be able to
use reclaimed water to make snow. It would be a great economic
impact for the City of Flagstaff to be able to produce snow up
there. If the temperatures allow it, you would probably be able
to ski an additional four to five months a year, which brings
millions of dollars to the economy. The idea that reclaimed
water would be used for snow making, the idea that we have
heard today, how it's used for irrigation and landscaping.
Given the fact that you have this beautiful association
that you've pulled together of members all over the country,
and even have insights into the world use historically of
reclaimed water and water reuse, what kind of exciting
breakthroughs or advancements are you seeing when you talk
about identifying opportunities and looking to the future, if
you don't mind?
Mr. Gritzuk. Well, the breakthroughs are primarily in some
of the research efforts associated with reclaimed water. We are
seeing that the treatment processes, for example, that we use
to reclaim water, are becoming more cost-effective. We are
seeing that there are processes now where you can take out
certain constituents out of the reclaimed water so that the
water has greater use. There are technologies available now
where you can develop a quality of reclaimed water by just
naming it and you can do it.
Now, getting to your ski resort, what is the difference of
using reclaimed water for crop production, for irrigation, and
in your case, you use water to generate snow through another
process? Reclaimed water is a perfectly acceptable product for
that purpose.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you. There were some real discussions of
whether or not early on we would be able to get to a purity
level that, when we made the snow and it perculated back down
into the aquifer, whether or not we would be tainting the
aquifer. We found that argument to be wrong.
Mr. Gritzuk. I agree. That's a totally false argument.
Today, reclaimed water is widely used to recharge the aquifer.
Science has proven that this is a perfectly safe method to do
that.
Mr. Grindstaff. Can I add to that? Both Vail and Big Bear
already recycle water for use as snow in those ski resorts.
Mr. Renzi. And I would add the Sunrise Ski Resort on the
White River Indian Reservation, the Apaches, does. Yet we're
not able in Flagstaff right now to overcome the
environmentalists who won't allow us right now to do it.
General, I appreciate your service to our Nation, and also
you go right back into service for the Great State of Texas,
particularly in an area of need involving the water.
You talked about reducing the water use in your area by 33
percent, while the population increased 50 percent. I'm asking,
could you share with me just real quick where that kind of a
breakthrough comes from.
General Habiger. Thank you, sir, for your kind comments.
We have a multifaceted program. Low flow toilets, low flow
showerheads, are classic examples of what we've done. Our
education program from kindergarten through 12th grade is
recognized as being probably the best in the country. The young
kids today, if they were to see one of us older individuals
brushing our teeth by turning on the cold water and leaving it
on while we brush our teeth, would have a fit if they saw that,
because we teach them that that's a terrible thing to do.
We have gone off and done some extraordinary things in
terms of sending our agriculture expert and our community
conservation expert to Israel for 8 days to pick their brains.
They've got some of the best water conservation programs in the
world. It is through those series of things, and incentivizing
people with a rate structure where you have lower rates with
less water used, improving the types of unaccounted for water
issues--in other words, leaks, to get those water main leaks
fixed quickly--all those things in combination have resulted in
a conservation program that, in my view, makes us world class
in San Antonio.
Mr. Renzi. Well, sir, you have become a great teacher. I'm
grateful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Baca.
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to
sit here on this Committee with you, and being with my
colleague adjacent to my district. I look forward to working
with you and trying to solve some of these problems that are
impacting not only California but throughout our Nation.
I have a couple of questions. I would like to follow up
with a question the Ranking Minority Member asked, a question
in reference to the feasibility study that was done. Why do you
feel the study has not been released by Interior? Does anybody
have an idea?
Mr. Grindstaff. I have spoken with both the commissioner
and Assistant Secretary about the issue. They informed me that
they are making some minor changes in the text and that they
expected to have that study released within--well, they said a
month, and it's been a couple of weeks ago. So it should be
within a couple of weeks.
Mr. Baca. But beyond that, is there any other reason why
they are not releasing it, besides minor changes?
Mr. Grindstaff. I could speculate as to political reasons,
but I would rather not do that.
Mr. Baca. Is it out of fear that we could produce a safe
supply of water and their fear of the connotation that it can
possibly be used as another alternative? I don't know. I'm just
asking.
Mr. Grindstaff. I don't want to speculate about why it
hasn't been released.
Mr. Baca. OK. Anybody else want to tackle that?
Mr. Calvert. I can speculate, but...
[Laughter.]
Mr. Baca. Thank you.
A couple of other questions. Has the Federal Government
been responsive to local government needs in this area, and if
not, what do we need to do?
Mr. Grindstaff. I think that the Federal Government has
very often been responsive. I think the study that was done,
the study that we're talking about here, was a very useful
study. It identified that, in Southern California, we could
develop 450,000 acre-feet of new water supply, so I think that
was a very good thing to do. They did a similar thing in
Northern California. Obviously, they can help in Texas, in
Arizona, and throughout the West, so I think they have that
ability.
I think the problem has been funding, honestly, getting
money so that, rather than lots of talk, people actually say,
hey, if I want to go build a program that develops 20,000 acre-
feet of recycled water that's going to cost me $20 million, I
can go to the Federal Government and they will help me get the
seed money necessary so I can make that decision and move
ahead. So that's the biggest difficulty, honestly.
Mr. Gritzuk. I would like to add to that answer.
Absolutely, the Federal Government has been responsive to
the needs of the communities. Our request here is to continue
the involvement of the Federal Government and maybe increase
the involvement of the Federal Government.
But the experience we've had in Arizona, for example--and
let me just use that as an example--we have had the involvement
of the Bureau of Reclamation, the involvement of the Corps of
Engineers, but the involvement basically was in study work, in
providing some seed money, and the benefit of that, it does
kick off a project and in the long term it's a very useful and
beneficial project.
The negative of that is that the community itself has to
come up with the overwhelming amount of funds to fund that
particular project.
Mr. Baca. And that is a burden for a lot of the communities
right now that are strapped, because they're not receiving the
funding from the State because the States right now are in a
deficit. So I believe the Federal Government has to come in and
play a part if we're really going to look at the critical
problems that is affecting our communities, and it's urgent
that we look at other alternatives as well.
Doug?
Mr. Scott. Can I add one point to this, one thing I didn't
mention in my oral testimony?
Water supply is obviously a critical component when we
evaluate a water and sewer system, because if the supply is not
there, the customer base cannot grow and the needs will not be
met, and the utility system will ultimately suffer.
Having said that, I have worked on many of the credits in
Southern California, including the metropolitan water district
of Southern California, the Los Angeles Department of Water,
San Diego and Irvine Ranch. One thing that becomes apparent in
looking at areas, particularly in the West and the Midwest,
where water supplies are stretched, is that as the economic
growth has developed in those areas, it then becomes
increasingly important for those areas to be able to
demonstrate to us that they can sustain that growth over a long
period of time. For many of those, recycled water is playing a
part in it. As a result, if it's meeting the needs and it's
able to sustain the growth, we typically have viewed that very
favorably. As a matter of fact, one of the things we have cited
as a weakness in Southern California is the conflict that has
gone on with the surface water supplies there, so any
enhancement to available water sources would be seen as a
credit positive.
Mr. Baca. One final question that I have.
How can you suggest that the Federal budget priorities
might be changed to accommodate water recycling? Do you have
any ideas? Can you suggest how Federal budget priorities might
change to accommodate water recycling?
Mr. Atwater. Richard Atwater.
Certainly, Congressman Baca, I think, as has historically
been the case since 1992, when this was authorized, the
Appropriations Committee, clearly with the oversight and
recommendations of this Committee, are a powerful voice to
making sure that the priorities for projects are clearly
identified, that this is western-wide. And certainly from the
water resource association's perspective, when you look at the
activities in Florida and Georgia and Virginia, and the water
problems throughout the country, it really is a national issue.
But certainly for the Bureau of Reclamation, I think this
Committee, as Mike Gritzuk pointed out, if you can articulate
to the Appropriations Committee these priorities, I think it
will carry a lot of weight.
Mr. Baca. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I appreciate your description of
your conservation efforts. It's really good to hear about the
good results that you've talked about today.
I wanted to ask you about the phenomenon of global warming
and how it may impact your operations. As you know, the
concentrations of carbon dioxide are anticipated to double in
the next several decades from preindustrial times, which almost
all reputable scientists believe is at least a partial result
of our industrial activities on Earth.
I have been talking to a lot of water folks--and I'm from
the Seattle area, and we're heavily dependent on the snow pack
in the Cascades for our water supplies. We have very, very
significant concerns in our part of the world, that it will
raise the freezing level and we'll have less snow. Where we
store our water in the Northwest, it's stored in snow pack,
because we don't have as much storage capacity as we would need
otherwise. We're really concerned about it up in our neck of
the woods. I think most scientists believe there are a lot of
significant changes in the rain cycle across the country that
we can't entirely predict at this moment they're going to cause
us some real grief.
I just wonder if that's something that any of your
organizations have thought about, projected, talked to your
Members of Congress about and the like.
Mr. Atwater. If I may, I do serve on the California Water
Commission, and over the last decade, the Cal-fed Delta-Bay
program, where the Federal agencies and the state water
agencies have looked at this issue of global warming, and much
like the Northwest, in the Sierra Nevadas, one of the things we
predict is, because of global warming, there will be less snow
pack and more rainfall.
That goes back to the earlier discussions in the
presentations. If we have less snow pack, that means our
reservoirs will not fill, so we will have more droughts and
more unreliable surface supplies, which shows the critical
nature, whether in San Antonio or Phoenix or Southern
California or, for that matter, Seattle. If we have less snow
pack and less rainfall, that's more unpredictable, that means
the recycled water firm supply is going to be more important
because our surface supply is going to be much more variable.
They're going to have extreme floods, and then you're going to
have sustained droughts. So on the Colorado River, if we have
less snow pack, that's going to affect everybody from Denver to
San Diego.
Mr. Inslee. So I guess you're saying that this--I'm sorry,
Mr. Grindstaff. Did you want to say something?
Mr. Grindstaff. I would also like to add to that. There
have been models of what might happen in a local region. The
models are contradictory. The first set of models said that
Southern California--I'll use that because that's the area I'm
from--would have more rain under that scenario. The newest
models that are out say there will actually be less
precipitation than there currently is. We just don't know the
impacts. I think it's clear that if the temperatures warm and
the snow pack goes higher, we will store less water in the snow
pack.
It's also clear there are major impacts on the flood
control infrastructure, something we don't talk a lot about
here. But that is a huge potential problem for water supply
agencies that store water behind reservoirs now, where for use
as drinking water they may, in fact, have to give up some of
that storage to use it as flood protection. There are a whole
series of issues that are tied to that.
Mr. Inslee. Right. Well, I'm going to make an appeal to all
of you. I know you come and lobby us, so I'm going to lobby you
right back across the aisle just for a moment.
There are a lot of things we're going to need to do.
Conservation, you've had great success in San Antonio,
recycling water. Obviously, we're talking about that today. But
I would appeal to you to try to talk to your legislators about
this issue and how it may impact potentially your operations
some day. The reason I say that is because I think this is an
issue that, because it's sort of long term, we tend to not
address it here in the U.S. Congress. I would appeal to you,
when you have an opportunity to at least discuss this with your
legislators, that you ask them to consider it and ask what
Congress is doing about this. Because we can do all the
recycling in the world, and all the conservation in the world,
but if we have these very significant changes in our climate,
we're just not going to be able to enjoy the lifestyle that
we've enjoyed in the West for the last several decades.
I just hope that you will sort of add that to your
portfolio issues that you talk to your Members about, because
it's one that has gone on for three decades and there's no
turning back from this problem. So I want to thank you for your
efforts.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I give my thanks to the panel for the presentations. The
idea of water and water uses is long overdue, and in the West
we find it sooner than in the East, but soon enough, worldwide,
we'll all have this discussion. Water not only will be but
currently is the most valuable resource and most strategic
resource, far, far more valuable than oil.
Miss Neely, what do you all do currently with your treated
brine, your brine concentrates?
Ms. Neely. I'm going to have to defer that question to Mr.
Gritzuk, who is more of a technical person, so if I could, I'll
have Mr. Gritzuk answer that for you.
Mr. Gritzuk. I would be happy to.
Brine disposal, as you are aware, is probably a major
problem for an inland community or an inland State. The normal
way to dispose of brine, which is the waste product normally
from a membrane treatment process, like reverse osmosis, is to
dispose of it to the ocean or down to the sewer. In a
landlocked State like Arizona, we don't have the luxury of an
ocean to dispose of it. So our methods are either to bring it
to the sewer, or to go to something like evaporation ponds.
There has been a study by the Bureau of Reclamation that
was done in Arizona, that indicated that for a metropolitan
area like the Phoenix metropolitan area, if we were just to
treat a portion through this type of method, it would require
ten square miles of evaporation ponds, at a cost of over $400
million. Where do you find that kind of money, and where do you
find ten square miles of vacant property in a metropolitan
area? These are not doable.
Dumping it into the sewer is also a problem, because that
salt winds up in your wastewater, and if you reclaim that
wastewater, the salt remains in the wastewater. As far as
reclaimed water with a high salt content, it has very little
value.
So the answer here is that you need to have some
breakthroughs in technology. There has to be a lot of research
done so that the brine streams can be diminished or recycled
and reused.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Miss Cody, you were talking about the Bureau of Reclamation
and the value of the projects. The Bureau of Reclamation went
in and did a lot of projects, building dams, I think, and in
New Mexico they lodged the first lawsuit, claiming ownership of
all the waters that were behind the dam because they built the
dam. They ignored the fact it was the first and only project
that has ever been paid off completely. They didn't bring the
suit against one of the others. I think they brought it because
they thought New Mexico would not respond strongly. But the
idea of ownership, Federal ownership of State water, is one--
and I have one more question, so if you can narrow the response
down. If we fund the Bureau of Reclamation and then they claim
that these recycled waters belong to the Federal Government,
I've got deep concerns.
Ms. Cody. Well, you've raised a very interesting question,
and a complicated one. But the water rights situation is very
complicated, as you know, coming from a Western State. But
typically, the Federal Government, in terms of the ownership of
the water itself, the Federal Government has tended over time
to defer to State primacy in water rights in particular. There
are some exceptions, like reserved water rights for Federal
lands and things like that.
I'm not an attorney, so I won't get too far into it, but we
do have people on our staff at CRS who are legislative
attorneys and have water rights expertise. But the typical way
that the Bureau has handled this since 1902--and the 1902 Act
itself expressly said that it wouldn't interfere with State
water rights--but the typical fashion is for the Bureau to go
into the State and apply for the water right under State law.
Sometimes, though, you have situations where irrigators may
have a preexisting right for a water. So it can get complicated
as far as who actually has the right.
But as far as the Bureau projects, it's a right held in
trust for the water districts--generally, I should say, except
where there are people who have run of the river rights. In
California you have some situations where people had run of the
river rights prior to the CBP being built, things like that.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my response
would be that that water held in trust 40 miles north of the
Texas border, where El Paso and the Nation of Mexico are having
tremendous water shortages, I suspect, with five electoral
votes, the water held in trust would not necessarily reflect
the needs of the five electoral vote State.
My last question, Mr. Chairman, is for General Habiger. You
mentioned that you had made a 72 mile long pipeline. I have
three pieces to this question. What area is the water coming
from, and what did the residents of that county and that
municipality that's closest to that have to say about the
taking of the water from one area to the next, and if we
shorten that up, then the next piece of the question is really
where the meat is?
General Habiger. The recycled water comes from three of our
wastewater treatment plants that belong to us. They are within
the city limits of San Antonio. The pipeline circumvents the
City, at about eight miles out. There were no complaints
whatsoever about where that water was going.
Mr. Pearce. So, Mr. Chairman, the pipeline only carries
your water in a loop back around to you.
General Habiger. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pearce. I would like to go ahead and ask the question
to anyone on the panel. You all would be doing this in one way,
but a lot of the cities in the Nation are going to end up
moving water. Again, I look at that as a small state. I know
it's not recycled water that we're kind of focused on here, but
it all comes together as we consider.
For instance, Texas is buying water--they're buying farms
in New Mexico, and they're asking that they receive the water
at the State line of Texas. If dollars, if sheer economic size
is allowed to solve the problems of water, then all of the
water in the State of New Mexico could eventually be bought and
delivered at the border of another State.
So, Mr. Chairman, as we go through this--and I'll leave
this question for anyone who wants to address it, as my time is
well over--but that contemplation about what do we do when we
take water from one area to the next, and the entire economic
base and population base of the previous area is completely
left behind. I know that's not your case and I appreciate that,
but any addressing of that would be appreciated.
General Habiger. If I could, Mr. Chairman, just address
that very, very quickly. I would submit, sir, that you carry
that problem from a State to a State to the problems we have in
Texas, where those issues go from county to county. We're in
negotiations to try to get water from an adjacent county, but
the State legislature passed a law saying that the pipeline
could not be built to get water from one county to another. So
this issue goes to the very core of water.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the response
indicates that it's going to be an ongoing discussion and one
that gets fairly flavorful before the next century is over.
Mr. Calvert. As you'll find out, Mr. Pearce, water disputes
go on in every State in this union, and have been going on for
a long time.
Mr. Grindstaff, obviously I am from the area that you
represent, and certainly the Southern California wastewater
reclamation and reuse study, as authorized by Congress, how
would that help achieve the goal of drought-proofing the
region?
Mr. Grindstaff. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
question.
The Southern California reuse study identifies in our
region 270,000 acre-feet per year of new water supply that we
could develop, and should that study be reported to Congress
and be authorized, then it would spur the development of that
water supply and significantly allow us to reduce our demands
for imported water.
Our goal is to reduce the amount of water we import, even
while our population grows dramatically. That study would help
immensely.
Mr. Calvert. How much water do you import now?
Mr. Grindstaff. We import half a million acre-feet of water
per year.
Mr. Calvert. So this would cut back by 50 percent the
amount of imported water?
Mr. Grindstaff. If it were built immediately, it would. The
way we expect it to be implemented is over a period of years,
as the population grows. So what it probably does in reality is
reduce what we import by 150,000, maybe 100-150,000 acre-feet
per year, if we implement it over 20 years. If we do it sooner,
then obviously we would have as bigger--
Mr. Calvert. If, in fact, we can negotiate our way into a
soft landing on the quantification settlement agreement, do you
believe we could have that--if we focused on this, to have that
in effect within the 15-year time line of the--
Mr. Grindstaff. Absolutely. We have an outline of a plan
that would allow us to get it done by 2010. As years go by, we
need to probably stretch that to 2012, but I believe we could
get that done within that timeframe.
Mr. Calvert. Good.
On Title XVI, Reclamation has responsibility for
implementing the only congressionally authorized water
reclamation reuse program we have. Yet the agency says the
program was not meant to be a grant program.
Are there concerns that you have with the program, and if
so, please suggest to us how we can reshape the present program
to make it more effective. I put that out there to all of you.
Obviously, you all like Title XVI, I believe. We'll start with
anyone who wants to address that question first.
By the way, we have been joined by Mr. Atwater from the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency.
Mr. Atwater. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Since I was involved in 1991 and 1992, when Congress
authorized Public Law 102-575 and talked about Title XVI, and
also active in 1996, what I would say is that this is only a
recent phenomenon over the last year or so. Previous
Secretaries--Certainly, if you look at the press release that
Secretary Lujan articulated before the authorization, the
Bureau of Reclamation initiated the Southern California study
before Congress even enacted the statute and recommended it.
Back in the 1980's, when I worked at the Bureau of
Reclamation, worked for the Department of Interior, water
recycling, reuse, was always thought of strategically as an
important part of the Colorado River solution and Cal-Fed Bay-
Delta issues.
Mr. Calvert. Maybe I can even rephrase this question and
make it very simple for everybody to be on the record.
Do you believe that water recycling and water reuse is a
core function of the Bureau of Reclamation?
Mr. Atwater. Yes, without question.
Mr. Calvert. Anybody else who would like to answer that
question?
Mr. Gritzuk. Yes.
Mr. Grindstaff. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. General?
General Habiger. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. The gentlelady from Arizona?
Ms. Neely. It's vital. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. So there's no disagreement. I presume that's
unanimous at the table.
Ms. Cody. In true CRS fashion, I could tell you it depends
on what you look at. But looking at the Bureau's current
mission statement, it does say one of the mission components is
development of water supply. Historically, that's been for
irrigation.
I think the big question you're facing is water for
municipal and industrial use. That has not been in the
traditional mission of the Bureau, but Congress, of course, has
the prerogative to change that.
Mr. Calvert. Obviously, congressional intent has been and
continues to be that reclamation and reuse is a vital function
of the department.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?
Mr. Calvert. I would be happy to yield.
Mrs. Napolitano. I'm going to quote the public law, that
one specific area, section XVI(O)(2), the general authority.
``The Secretary of the Interior, hereafter Secretary, acting
pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902, the Act of June 17,
1992, 32 stat. 388, and acts amendatory thereof and
supplementary thereto, hereafter Federal reclamation laws, is
directed to undertake a program to investigate and identify
opportunities for reclamation and reuse of municipal,
industrial, domestic, agricultural wastewater and naturally
impaired groundwater and surface waters, for the design and
construction of demonstrated and permanent facilities to
reclaim and reuse wastewater and to conduct research, including
desalting, for the reclamation of wastewater and naturally
impaired ground and surface waters.''That has not been changed.
Mr. Calvert. Duly noted.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Does the gentlelady have any other comment to
make?
Ms. Cody. Of course, that's absolutely right. I'm trying to
just give the perspective as a point in time over the last 200
years. But certainly we have noticed a trend in the last 10 or
15 years, since this law has been enacted, with not only the
Bureau of Reclamation but other Federal agencies--and I've
testified before on this point--that Congress is being asked
more and more to fund these types of programs, whether it's
ecosystem restoration connected with water supply, water
recycling, an interest in desal, those kinds of things. So
there is a trend here in that way, and there are laws on the
books for this.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I took a little of
your time. Do you want it back?
Like I said, I have a whole slew of questions. But I would
certainly like to ask the General a question about the
statement he made, that Texas has 16 regions that have
projects. Are any of those located along what is now the belt
of drought, along the river?
General Habiger. Yes, ma'am. The entire State is
encompassed in those 16 regions.
Mrs. Napolitano. No. I'm talking about are any of those on
the border in the area where you now have critical drought.
General Habiger. Yes, ma'am, they are.
Mrs. Napolitano. Where are they?
General Habiger. Well, it includes those--you're talking
about the counties in the southern part of the State?
Mrs. Napolitano. Right. What I'm trying to figure out is if
any of these projects are able to produce water to help the
farmers, because they have been starved of water from the Rio
Grande for the last...is it 7 years, 5 years?
General Habiger. Yes, ma'am. All of the counties along the
Rio Grande River have developed viable plans that have been
approved by the Texas Water Development Board. They've all been
deconflicted so that one region is not counting on the water
from another region. Those plans were all approved, all 16
plans, in the spring of last year, 2002.
Mrs. Napolitano. Have any of them been funded or
implemented?
General Habiger. We're in the process of--They have not
been funded. Implementation has begun. I cannot tell you about
the other regions, but I can tell you about my region. We are
very aggressively implementing those programs with not only our
recycling program, which as I said was our first step, but our
second step is an aquifer storage recovery program in the
southern part of our county, second only in scope and size to
Las Vegas, which is the largest in the country. And then we're
going after alternative water sources in other areas of the
State. The entire State, as I said, have these plans.
Across the State of Texas, as I recall, the bill is in
excess of $14 billion.
Mr. Scott. If I could add a point to that, prior to working
at Fitch I worked for the Texas Water Development Board and was
there when they did develop those plans. The short answer to
your question is yes, there are a couple of regional planning
groups that are there on the border.
Bear in mind that the regional plans were developed in
response to a drought in Texas during the Eighties. It was
determined that the plans were needed to ensure that there were
source water supplies during a drought of record. So what the
regional plans have contemplated, as far as developing those
supplies, particularly along the border, does include recycled
use water, which I believe is probably what you're interested
in knowing.
Mrs. Napolitano. So you're talking over 10 years ago. Are
there any plans now operating to be able to assist those areas
deal with the current drought?
Mr. Scott. The funding requirements that were for those
projects--there were two parts to it. Yes, some funding has
occurred for the projects that were listed on the plans. In
conjunction with that, though, when the bill was passed to
create the regional water planning groups, it also determined
that, once the plans were approved, that in order for those
projects to receive State assistance, they must conform with
the projects on the plans so that you didn't have conflict, so
that the basins were not conflicting over water.
Mrs. Napolitano. So the short answer is they're not up and
running?
Mr. Scott. It is up and running, because many of the
projects have been funded through the Water Development Board.
Now, as far as specific projects for water recycling, I can't
address that because I'm not there and--
Mrs. Napolitano. Those are the ones I'm more interested in,
because that's the topic of what--
Mr. Scott. I do believe that some of those projects have
been funded, but I'm not sure if they've been funded with the
State or if they've been funded through bonds in the open
market.
Mrs. Napolitano. My question is not really of whether
they've been funded. I'm trying to figure out if that has been
of any aid to those drought stricken areas that are losing
financially and many people are losing their farms because of
that.
I'm very thankful to hear, General, that you have indeed
focused on a lot of education, to be able to inform and educate
the user about the value of water. I hope that others begin. I
have long been of the opinion that it does take somebody's
leadership to begin a process, and that is all water agencies'
responsibility.
I have one more question, to both you, General, and to Mr.
Gritzuk, and also to Richard. One question. Who owns recycled
water?
Mr. Gritzuk. I believe there has been some litigation about
it in the State of Arizona, and recycled water is owned by the
entity that recycles it, at least that is Arizona law. I don't
know what it is in other States.
General Habiger. Not being a lawyer, I'm probably going to
step on a land mine here. But from my perspective, that water
belongs to the ratepayer, because that ratepayer, as we
discussed earlier, funded the program in large part.
Mr. Atwater. Like most things with California, it's always
more complicated than Arizona and Texas. But generally
speaking, in California, because our water laws have a
hodgepodge of rules and such, generally it is similar to
Arizona, in that the agency that produces the water owns it.
What gets complicated is that, over time, if it's discharged
down a stream, and then somebody else diverts it, and then the
State water board would have to have a water right permit to
divert it, and all those sorts of issues.
For example, on the San Gabriel River, which you're
familiar with, and the Santa Ana River, we have river judgments
that allocate and provide for the use of recycled water as a
supplemental supply, for both the San Gabriel Valley and the
Central Basin area. That's a court decree. So it's always a
little bit more complicated. But generally you need to hire a
lawyer and figure out what the rules are.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. It seems to me that maybe
Congress should be able to determine who is the actual owner,
as was stated before, who is the actual owner of that water,
regardless of what agency claims it. I can remember sanitation
telling me that they claimed it and were charged to buy it
back.
Mr. Atwater. The only thing I would say, from a
programmatic and policy standpoint, one of the positive aspects
of the way Congress in 1992, when you enacted the Title XVI
statute, and you talked about the Bureau of Reclamation's
mission, if the Federal Government is providing the seed money,
the venture capital, if you will, and they're not involved in
owning, operating, or future liability, then you have solved
the issues that we've talked about from New Mexico or Texas or
Arizona, Nevada or California's perspective. It's a local
responsibility and we're going to comply with the applicable
State law.
So if New Mexico and Arizona have unique different laws
than California or Texas, the Federal role is to encourage the
project to be built, but the local responsibility and the water
right procedures of how that's accounted for will be consistent
with both history and that unique circumstance in each State.
So you solve that problem.
If the Bureau owned the project and was operating it, then
you get into all those messy issues that you've been dealing
with for a long, long time, like the Central Valley project,
the Central Arizona project, who owns the water. Because now
you've got this nexus of Federal ownership and you're going to
have to come back to your Committee to resolve those issues
over time.
From my standpoint, from working at the Bureau of
Reclamation, that's one of the very strong positive aspects of
having a grant, a targeted funding program, where the Federal
Government is providing the leadership to encourage the
projects to go forward, but you avoid having that future
liability, and it's local control and it's local
responsibility.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I thank the gentleman.
I want to thank this panel. I have one quick question, and
then we'll close this hearing.
On the issue of brine for the inland States, I know that
that probably is, from a technical standpoint, the single-most
difficult issue you must deal with. Is it possible--and I guess
anything is possible--to work out an agreement with Mexico on a
brine line down to the Sea of Cortez that would connect not
just Arizona but Nevada, Utah, and be able to move that brine,
or do you believe that may be impossible?
Mr. Gritzuk. From a technical point of view, Mr. Chairman,
and given enough money, I would suspect that that's possible.
But I would also offer that that's the wrong direction to take.
And let me give you an example.
In Arizona and other States, we import Colorado River
water. That water is very expensive to us. And then, if we take
that water and put it through a membrane treatment process, 15
to 20 percent of the original source becomes your brine waste
stream. Here we are, where we import it at a high expense, and
now we're exporting 15 to 20 percent of that at also a very
high expense.
So I would offer that the answer here is to improve the
treatment processes so that there's a lesser amount of the
brine stream, and also invest in research on ways that brine
can be reduced and reused, so that we're not just throwing that
product away.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I appreciate this panel being here.
Obviously, from all of us here, I think you understand the
congressional intent is that we support water reclamation. It
is a certain source of water in an uncertain time, especially
in this country. We spend a lot of money on droughts, in trying
to fix a problem after the fact. I think we can be more
proactive here in the House and in this government to support
reclamation that is both a good value for Federal dollars to
leverage a significant amount of water supply to this country.
So I appreciate your coming out here and traveling great
distances to give us good testimony and answering our
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeLoach follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6099.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6099.004
Mr. Calvert. With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]