<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27706.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-400
TITLE XVI OF P.L. 102-575
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S REUSE AND RECYCLING
PROGRAM (TITLE XVI OF P.L. 102-575)
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-706 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Bruce M. Evans, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Vice Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Kellie Donnelly, Counsel
Mike Connor, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Atwater, Richard, Chief Executive Officer, Inland Empire
Utilities Agency, on behalf of WateReuse Association........... 30
Cody, Betsy A., Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Resources, Science and Industry Division, Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress.......................... 15
Donnelly, Thomas F., Executive Vice President, National Water
Resource Association........................................... 37
Grebbien, Virginia, General Manager, Orange County Water
District, Fountain Valley, CA.................................. 39
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 2
Keys, John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 3
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 1
Pack, Anthony J., General Manager, Eastern Municipal Water
District....................................................... 53
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 55
TITLE XVI OF P.L. 102-575
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:44 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I call to order the Water and Power
Subcommittee hearing of the Energy Committee. It is my pleasure
to welcome you all here today. We have a pretty packed house,
which is nice.
We have before us this afternoon an oversight hearing on
the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reclamation and
Reuse program. I understand that joining us in the audience
today are some members of the Association of California Water
Agencies. I appreciate your interest in the hearing.
The Bureau's Title XVI program originated in 1992 in
response to the Southwestern drought in the late 1980's and
early 1990's. At that time, Congress authorized the program in
an attempt to alleviate pressure on the Colorado River system
by augmenting existing supplies and developing new water
sources. Since then, Congress has authorized some 31 projects
and appropriated about $325 million for the program. However,
only three of these projects have received full Federal
funding. Nine are listed as inactive, meaning that they have
received little or no Federal moneys. The administration has
not been supportive of these new authorizations, arguing that
M&I water supply is largely a State and local responsibility
that is outside of the Bureau's core functions of delivering
power and irrigation water. Last Congress, Commissioner Keys,
who will be our first person to testify this afternoon,
testified that there was a 15-year funding backlog for
authorized projects that threatened to overwhelm the Bureau's
budget. Now currently, there are some 11 Title XVI bills that
would authorize an additional 19 projects pending before
Congress. Before acting on these bills, this subcommittee asked
the Congressional Research Service to undertake the first ever
overview of the program. This process has taken several months
and has led us to today's oversight hearing.
We are pleased this afternoon to welcome Betsy Cody, the
CRS analyst who performed the study, as a witness this
afternoon. It's my understanding that shortly after this
hearing, CRS will finalize its report and make it available to
the public.* Now, in undertaking this review, we have been
faced with some important and fundamental questions. First,
what should the Federal role be in developing new sources of
M&I water supply? Second, should the Title XVI program be
terminated? Should we maintain the status quo, or should we
work to reshape the program to make it more effective? And
finally, if we develop legislation, what should the legislation
look like? Should we decrease the Federal cost share, require a
regional focus?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CRS Reports are made available to Congress. Members of Congress
may then make them available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, this afternoon, we have a number of witnesses to help
us address the question of Title XVI's future. First off, I
would like to welcome Commissioner John Keys from the Bureau of
Reclamation. It is my understanding that the administration is
currently developing a legislative proposal to reform the Title
XVI program. So, I'm pleased that the administration is taking
a proactive approach in this area and look forward to hearing
more about the forthcoming proposal.
We will also have a second panel this afternoon, the
stakeholder panel. We'll be hearing from Mr. Rich Atwater from
the WateReuse Association, Mr. Tom Donnelly from the National
Water Resources Association and Ms. Virginia Grebbien from the
Orange Country Water District, which is a member of the
Metropolitan Water District.
The subcommittee is interested in learning about these
stakeholders' experiences with the Title XVI program and any
suggestions that they might have in order to make the program
more effective. With that, Commissioner Keys, I'm delighted to
have you here this afternoon and look forward to your testimony
and your input on this issue of great importance to many of our
States. Welcome.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator From South Dakota
Thank you, Madame Chairman, for convening today's hearing. I would
like to extend a welcome to Commissioner Keys of the Bureau of
Reclamation, and to the other witnesses who have traveled here to
provide us with their views on the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI
Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.
While we haven't yet made use of the Title XVI program in South
Dakota, it does appear to me that water reuse and recycling is going to
be a key part of the overall set of actions needed to meet future water
demands--particularly in areas of rapidly increasing population. For
that reason, I think this oversight hearing is a very valuable exercise
to determine whether there is a consensus on some changes that can be
made to the Program to strengthen it, and make it much more likely to
gain support from the Administration in future budget cycles.
I appreciate that the witnesses have come here today prepared to
discuss their ideas for moving forward with the Title XVI program, and
therefore look forward to a very good discussion this afternoon.
Thank you again for your leadership on the subcommittee Madame
Chairman. I look forward to working with you on this issue.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here today
and discuss the Title XVI program with you and what we can do
together to make it better for the American people. I have
submitted a formal statement, and I would appreciate it being
included for the record.
Senator Murkowski. It will be included in its entirety.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, in the early years of Title XVI,
the projects that were authorized and funded demonstrated new
technologies that, once proven, could be adopted by others to
improve water resources for communities in the Western United
States. Since that new technology was demonstrated, Title XVI
has not been producing the benefits for the taxpayers, Congress
and the administration, the benefits that we should expect from
that program. Since that new technology's been demonstrated,
the program has gone a different direction, and that's what we
would like to talk about.
To understand why, let me start with a brief overview of
Title XVI's history. In 1992, Congress authorized five Title
XVI projects. The Secretary was also authorized to identify
other water recycling opportunities throughout the 17 Western
States and to conduct appraisal-level and feasibility-level
studies to determine if those opportunities were worth pursuing
at that time. Even though we have authority to conduct
appraisal investigations and feasibility studies to help
Congress evaluate those proposals, Title XVI project sponsors
have sought project authorizations from Congress before
completion of those studies in most cases.
The result? They have been authorized without consistent
criterion to determine whether they are technically and
fiscally sound and whether they would help fulfill regional and
Western water supply goals. Not applying these tests to Title
XVI projects is inconsistent with the scrutiny and the analysis
that we, in Reclamation, and you, in Congress, apply to every
other water management infrastructure decision that we make. In
1996, Congress authorized 18 additional projects, including two
desalination research and development units.
Since 1996, additional Title XVI amendments and other
pieces of legislation have been enacted, and there are now 32
projects authorized for construction in nine States.
Since 1974, construction projects have generally been
initiated by Congress. The administration has confined its
funding requests to previously budgeted projects. Of the 32
specific projects authorized to date, 21 have received funding.
Of those, nine have been included in the President's budget.
Reclamation will have spent nearly $325 million on these
projects by the end of this fiscal year. Three projects have
been fully funded. Two will complete their full funding in
fiscal year 2006. The remaining projects are currently in
various stages of planning or construction. Thirteen of the 21
projects are currently producing reclaimed water. Based on
current project plans, more than $340 million in post-2006
Federal funding could be required to complete just those
projects that have already received funding. Neither detailed
project specifics nor feasibility analysis are currently
available for most of the 11 projects that have yet to receive
Federal funding assistance. Some of these projects are not
being pursued by project sponsors at this time. That's the
history.
Now, let's talk about possible reforms of the Title XVI
program. First, we believe that before projects are authorized
for construction, their appraisal and feasibility studies
should be completed, reviewed and approved by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Office of Management and Budget and
submitted to Congress just as other conventional Reclamation
projects are. That is not the current practice.
Congress is asked to authorize projects without the benefit
of adequate analysis that a feasibility study can and should
provide at early stages of project screening. Second, we
believe that the program needs explicit criterion by which
project sponsors, Reclamation, and the Congress can measure the
merit of the proposed projects. Some of these criterion could
determine threshold eligibility in the earliest stages of the
project planning. For example, does the project qualify for
funding under some other Federal program? Does the project
sponsor have a comprehensive water conservation program? Is the
project located where it could help Reclamation carry out its
core mission? Can the project proponent show that it can and
will pay its share of the study, ultimately construction and
operation and maintenance of the project?
Beyond threshold eligibility criterion, we think that as
projects progress through appraisal and feasibility, they
should be rated among several ranking criteria that would help
Congress and the administration prioritize those projects. For
example, would the project actually alleviate water conflict or
shortage? Would it add water supply in one of the hot spot
areas that we have focused on in the Water 2025 program of
Reclamation? Can it be brought on-line in a reasonable length
of time?
Now, solving the problem of how to justify these projects
for future construction is one issue. Dealing with projects
that have already been authorized for construction is another.
These currently authorized projects fall into three categories:
projects that have received Federal construction funds;
projects that have not yet received funding, but whose project
sponsors remain interested in their construction; and the third
are projects that our best information says are no longer being
pursued at this time. We believe that eligibility criteria
similar to ones we suggest for use in pre-authorization studies
and appraisals should also be legislated for projects that have
not yet initiated construction.
We would certainly like to explore with the committee
solutions to the problems of obsolete authorizations. By that,
I mean authorizations to build projects that the projects' own
sponsors are now not pursuing. The administration is currently
developing a legislative proposal to bring such proposals
reforms to Title XVI. We need a framework under which Title XVI
projects will be screened to ensure that they complement
Reclamation's mission rather than simply consuming scarce
budget dollars needed to meet our core obligations.
Madam Chairman, we're looking forward to a project
evaluation process similar to what we're doing in S. 895, the
Rural Water Supply Act, reported by this committee and approved
by the U.S. Senate last year. We're committed to working with
this committee on this critical effort. The Title XVI program
has a future. The reuse of wastewater and recycled water, we
think, at times could be the next river of the Western United
States to tap for critical water supply. It's up to us to
figure the best way to do that. We think that having
feasibility studies that show how those projects are done and
that they meet a certain criterion before they are authorized
for construction is the right way to go. We also think that
there should be some criteria that says where they go, how
they're built and what they address in the areas.
Madam Chairman, that completes my statement, and I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am John Keys,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to appear today
to talk about Reclamation's Title XVI water recycling and reuse
activities, including the history of Title XVI and the current status
of authorized projects. I will also outline Reclamation's proposal to
refocus Title XVI in the context of Reclamation's broader mission as
the leading water resource agency in the West
BACKGROUND
Beyond demonstrating then-new technology in the program's early
years, Title XVI has not been producing the benefits that taxpayers,
Congress, the Administration, and potential project sponsors deserve.
To understand why, let me start with a brief overview of Title XVI's
history. In 1992, Congress enacted the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act (Public Law 102-575). Title XVI of
this Act, the Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act,
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the
planning, design, and construction of five water reclamation and reuse
projects. The Secretary was also authorized to develop a program that
would identify other water recycling opportunities throughout the 17
Western states, and to conduct appraisal-level and feasibility-level
studies to determine if those opportunities are worthy of
implementation. Finally, Title XVI authorized the Secretary to conduct
research and construct demonstration facilities. Despite the
authorization to conduct appraisal investigations and feasibility
studies, Title XVI project sponsors have sought project authorizations
from Congress before completion of such studies. Title XVI projects
have therefore been authorized in an ad hoc manner, without consistent
criteria to determine whether they are technically and fiscally sound
and would help fulfill the Administration's goals. The failure to apply
these tests to Title XVI projects is inconsistent with the scrutiny and
analysis that should apply to every water management infrastructure
decision we make.
In 1996, Congress enacted Public Law 104-266, the Reclamation
Recycling and Water Conservation Act. This law amended Title XVI of
Public Law 102-575 and authorized the Secretary to participate in the
planning, design, and construction of 18 additional projects, including
two desalination research and development projects. Since 1996,
additional Title XVI amendments and other pieces of legislation have
been enacted and now there are 32 projects authorized for construction
in nine states.
In addition to significantly increasing the number of authorized
construction projects, the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation
Act of 1996 also placed several important limitations on Reclamation's
involvement in water recycling projects. First, the maximum Federal
cost share for new projects or projects that have yet to receive
funding was limited to the lesser of 25 percent of total project costs
or $20 million. Four of the five projects that were authorized in 1992
and that had already received Federal funding were limited to the
amounts specified in Reclamation's Fiscal Year 1997 budget
justifications, which in each case was substantially higher than $20
million. Second, the legislation originally stipulated that no Federal
funding may be appropriated on an authorized project for construction
activities until the Secretary or the non-Federal project sponsor
completes a feasibility study, the Secretary has determined that the
non-Federal project sponsor is financially capable of funding the non-
Federal share of the project costs, and a cost-share agreement with the
non-Federal project sponsor is in place.
Despite these stipulations, since 1994 construction projects have
generally been initiated by Congress. The principle exception to this
occurred in FY 2000, when Reclamation evaluated and ranked unfunded
authorized projects for the purpose of prioritizing available
construction funding for four new starts. Reclamation has not used a
competitive process to allocate funds since FY 2000. Instead the
Administration has confined its funding requests to previously budgeted
projects.
Of the 32 specific projects authorized to date, 21 have received
funding. Of these, nine have been included in the President's budget
request. Including anticipated expenditures during FY 2006,
approximately $325 million will have been expended by Reclamation on
these authorized projects by the end of the current fiscal year. Three
of the projects have been funded to the full extent of their
authorization. Two more should be fully funded in 2006.
The remaining projects are currently in various stages of planning
or construction. Thirteen of the 21 projects are currently producing
and delivering reclaimed water. According to the project sponsors,
approximately 118,000 acre-feet of reclaimed water were put to
beneficial use in FY 2005. The sponsors indicate that further
construction this year should result in an increase of about 42,000
acre-feet in the amount of reclaimed water delivered for a total annual
yield of about 160,000 acre-feet in FY 2006.
Based on current project plans, more than $340 million in post-FY
2006 Federal funding could be required to complete the maximum Federal
cost share for those projects that have already received financial
assistance. More than half of this amount, or approximately $182
million, would go to just three projects that were authorized prior to
the 1996 Title XVI amendments limiting the Federal cost-share to $20
million per project. By the end of FY 2006, collectively, these three
projects alone will have received approximately $138.5 million.
Neither detailed project specifics nor feasibility analysis are
currently available for most of the 1 1 projects that have yet to
receive Federal funding assistance. Some of those projects are no
longer being pursued by the project sponsors at this time; however,
each of the unfunded projects has a Federal cost-share ceiling of $20
million or 25%, whichever is less.
PART REVIEW
In 2004, Reclamation worked with the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to evaluate the Title XVI program using OMB's Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which overall was found to be Moderately
Effective. The PART highlighted many of the problems and challenges we
are discussing today. While the program is effective at obligating
funds, and has helped to make new supplies of water available, two main
problems can be inferred from the assessment: 1) it is difficult to
assess progress, because the program's goals and timelines are unclear,
mostly due to the large extent of local control; and 2) there is
insufficient Reclamation involvement and oversight early in the project
development process, leading to a proliferation of projects, many of
which may have planning deficiencies or be inconsistent with the
program's goals. Finally, a recent review of this PART concluded that
its goals of promoting water reuse and recycling are consistent with
the Water 2025 program's goals of diversifying water supplies, with the
aim of proactively addressing water-related crises in the Reclamation
states.
PROPOSED REFORMS
Mr. Chairman, as population growth and diverse demands for water
stress already limited supplies, Reclamation stakeholders throughout
the West want Reclamation to address shortages and help avert
conflicts. Title XVI projects have demonstrated that water recycling
can be a viable water supply alternative in water short urban areas of
the West. However, Title XVI has outgrown its original purpose--
demonstrating new technology. Fundamental reform is needed to ensure
that the program produces results for the current needs of the West.
First, we believe that before projects are authorized for
construction their appraisal and feasibility studies should be
completed, reviewed, and approved by Reclamation and the Office of
Management and Budget and submitted to Congress. As we have often said,
this is not current practice. As a result, Congress is asked to
authorize projects without the benefit of adequate analysis that a
feasibility study can and should provide at early stages of project
screening. This information is essential to making informed decisions
and establishing funding priorities.
Second, we believe that project sponsors should understand the
explicit criteria by which they, Reclamation, and Congress can measure
the merit of their proposals. Some of these criteria could determine
threshold eligibility in the earliest stages of project planning. For
example, does the project qualify for funding under some other Federal
program? Does the project sponsor have a comprehensive water
conservation program? Is the project located where it could help
Reclamation carry out its core mission? Can the project proponent show
that it can and will pay its share of study and, ultimately,
construction and Operations and Maintenance costs?
Beyond threshold eligibility criteria, we think that as projects
progress through appraisal and, if warranted, feasibility study phases,
they should be rated against several ranking criteria that would help
Congress and the Administration prioritize projects. For example, would
the project actually alleviate water conflict? Would it add or
diversify water supply in one of the ``hot spot'' areas that are also
the focus of the Water 2025 program? Can it be brought on-line within a
reasonable timeframe?
Solving the problem of how to justify select projects for
construction authorization does not address what should be done with
projects that have already been authorized for construction. These
currently authorized projects fall into at least three categories:
projects that have received Federal construction funds; projects that
have not yet received funding but whose project sponsors remain
interested in pursuing them, and projects that our best information
indicates are no longer being pursued by project sponsors.
We believe that eligibility criteria similar to what we suggest for
use in pre-authorization studies and appraisals should also be
legislated for projects that have not yet initiated construction.
Additionally, we would like to explore with this Committee solutions to
the problem of obsolete authorizations (authorizations to fund projects
that the sponsors are no longer pursuing). The Administration is
currently developing a legislative proposal to bring such reforms to
Title XVI. The proposal aims to create a framework under which Title
XVI projects will be screened to ensure they complement Reclamation's
mission, rather than diminishing Reclamation's ongoing core programs.
Reclamation's desire to make project funding more competitive is
shared by both non-Federal entities and a growing number in Congress;
introducing more competition to the process should ultimately result in
more on-the-ground benefits where they are most needed, and in better
use of taxpayer funds. To make this a reality, Reclamation is
considering different models for a project evaluation process to form
the heart of Title XVI reform; among the options we are considering is
the process contained in S. 895, the Rural Water Supply Act reported by
this Committee and approved by the U.S. Senate unanimously in 2005. We
are committed to working with this Committee on this critical effort.
If Title XVI is to have a future, it must be adapted so that Congress,
the Administration, and the American people can screen and prioritize
projects to ensure that they serve Reclamation's core mission, target
resources where they can have the greatest impact, and meet the needs
of all American taxpayers.
That concludes my testimony. I am pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Commissioner Keys. I
appreciate you kind of putting in perspective, in the
historical context, where we have come from on Title XVI. You
made the comment that, initially, that the program was designed
to demonstrate certain technologies; do you think that the
original intent, then, of Title XVI, which was to demonstrate
the water recycling technology and their applicability, do you
think that that original intent has been completed and that the
purposes of what we started out with, with Title XVI, are no
longer needed? You've indicated that you believe that Title XVI
has a future, but did we do what we set out to do, and now we
need to look to phase two of Title XVI?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, I think that's a great way to put
it. If you look at the whole Title XVI process, we were
actually authorized in doing feasibility studies looking at
demonstration projects before the Title XVI legislation was
passed. We were looking at different areas in California where
it may apply. Title XVI came along, gave that some funding and
authorized five projects for construction. The purpose of those
that were authorized for construction was to demonstrate that
the theories that we had put together would work. I would tell
you that I think we can claim success in the original Title XVI
purpose and process.
Senator Murkowski. So, you feel that the first part of this
was a success. We have demonstrated these technologies, but
we're beyond that demonstration phase now. And how would you
describe, then, this second phase of Title XVI?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, I think--I don't think the whole
process is flawed.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Keys. I think the purpose of looking at wastewater
reuse and recycled water as a component of a water resources
project, a conservation program, is still valid. What we're
saying is that rather than have the projects authorized on an
ad hoc or a random basis, there should be some method to it.
And the method would be that you, in the Congress, authorize
feasibility studies, we do those studies and then see where the
projects are feasible, where they fit with the regional needs,
where they fit with the hot spot maps, in other words, where we
have ongoing conflict and contention out there, and then direct
those projects into those areas.
Our Water 2025 program is a good example of where we are
directing resources, challenge grants into areas that have
existing needs and where we can get something on the ground in
a fairly short time. So, the original purpose is still there.
We think there's a better way to do it.
Senator Murkowski. I'd like to recognize that Senator
Feinstein has joined us. Thank you, Senator.
So, is it fair to say that if you perceive any flaws to the
Title XVI program at this point, it is in the lack of a
criteria or eligibility requirement, and that's the direction
that reform needs to go, in your opinion?
Mr. Keys. That's a big part of it, yes.
Senator Murkowski. Is it the No. 1 concern as far as you
would state?
Mr. Keys. I would say it's the number one, followed very
closely by needing the ability to have competition there,
competition wherein the projects are implemented and where the
most competitive ones are put in, in other words, the ones that
give you the most saved water for the dollar. I think that is a
close second to having some control over the authorization
process.
Senator Murkowski. I'm kind of skipping around here looking
at the notes that I made while you were testifying. You made
reference to eliminating, I guess, the obsolete authorizations.
Can you tell me how many of the projects that we're looking at
of the 31-some-odd you would consider to be obsolete
authorizations and why they're obsolete?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, there are a number of projects
that we understand the--even the project proponents are not
following through on them anymore.
Senator Murkowski. In terms of their share?
Mr. Keys. They have either found alternate funding for
them, or they have decided to find their water supply somewhere
else. I think our view on the thing is we would look--those
that are already being funded, let's get them done.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Keys. Those that are on-line, that are authorized and
want to continue and that we have started funding, we will keep
funding them.
Senator Murkowski. And those are the nine programs that
you've identified, then?
Mr. Keys. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Keys. There are some that we have not started funding
that have maybe not even finished their planning. They should
have another look at them to be sure that they're consistent
with the criteria that we're applying to new projects. Those
that we talk about not funding or de-authorizing are those
who--there are several, there are people that had them
authorized, and now they don't want to do them anymore. Those
are the ones we're talking about. And we would certainly work
with you and the project sponsors. We're not trying to just
kick some of them out.
Senator Murkowski. Sure.
Mr. Keys. We would certainly work with them and you to
decide which ones we're not interested in pursuing anymore.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you a little bit about the
eligibility criteria, recognizing that you might perhaps have a
different set of eligibility criteria for preauthorization, as
opposed to those that are currently booked now.
Mr. Keys. Okay.
Senator Murkowski. Am I correct in assuming that there
would be some differences or not?
Mr. Keys. I think that that's something you and--your
committee and us in Reclamation, with our stakeholders' input
into that, could decide. In other words, if a project had
already been authorized, I think that the step of just
completing the feasibility may be adequate to say yes, we
should go ahead. For one that has not even been authorized,
then we go through the feasibility, look at the authorization
and consider where it might be located or where there may be
some competition of two or three projects, and we would say
yes, this one fits that criteria, and the others don't.
Senator Murkowski. You have testified to the need for
legislation. It's your belief then that what has to happen in
order to adequately address the reforms must come through
legislation as opposed to an administrative directive?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, there are a number of the
activities that we've talked about that could be done
administratively. In other words, we could do the studies, some
of the feasibility studies, under current authorizations.
Requiring that feasibility study before construction
authorization is something we would need legislation for. Being
able to have competition among the different projects that are
being considered for construction is something that we would
need legislation for. So, there is some of it we could do
administratively. There's others that we think that there
should be some legislation.
Senator Murkowski. Now, you also mentioned reference to the
Rural Water program, that specific legislation. Do you also
believe that the Federal share of the cost of the Title XVI
program should be modeled after the rural water program?
Mr. Keys. That's something that we could discuss. The
different cost-share levels are something that are always
contentious. In the rural water program, I think we ended up at
25 to 30 percent that should be Federally funded or locally
funded. The Title XVI program, so far, we have been limited to
25 percent, or $20 million. I think that's something for us to
consider with you and your committee as we develop the new
legislation and what the proper levels should be.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Now, you also mentioned the Water
2025 program and a desire to kind of realign Reclamation's
water reuse activities to come into alignment with the goals of
Water 2025. Do you see any fundamental differences between the
Title XVI program as it now exists and what we're trying to
achieve in Water 2025?
Mr. Keys. I think there are three fundamental differences
that we would consider. The first one is that the challenge
grant program under Water 2025, they're targeted into those hot
spot areas, those areas in the Western United States where we
have identified conflict and the need for water conservation
programs that will ease some of the water resource
requirements.
The second one is our Water 2025 programs are relatively
short-term. Our challenge grants are just for 2 years, and they
typically have to be done, and the whole project then is
producing water within a relatively short term. Some of our
Water 2025 ones are long-term developments.
And the third part is that our Water 2025 programs are
relatively small. In other words, it's unusual for us to have a
Water 2025 program above $5 million, and some of our Title XVI
programs are over $100 million and in the multiple tens of
millions of dollars. So, those are the three fundamental
differences between those two.
Senator Murkowski. When speaking to the aspect of the
funding and the funding levels, if the funding levels had
stayed at their peak that we saw in 1999, how long would it
have taken to reach the Federal ceiling for those original five
projects that were authorized in 1992?
Mr. Keys. Two of them are done.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Keys. If you looked at San Diego, and if we had
maintained the $28 million that was funded in 1999 that you
mentioned, it would still have taken about 11 years to finish
that project.
Senator Murkowski. To get that one project or all five of
them?
Mr. Keys. That one project.
Senator Murkowski. That one project.
Mr. Keys. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Feinstein, I don't know if you
would like to make an opening statement, but I would certainly
offer that to you and give you an opportunity to ask the
Commissioner some questions. And I may have a few more for you
when we've concluded.
Senator Feinstein. Well, Madam Chairman, let me just say
thank you for having this hearing. I believe I requested that
you hold this hearing, and I'm really very grateful to you.
I've been trying to sort out what the problem is, but there
clearly is a big problem for my State, California, in that
there have been a number of projects submitted, 1999, 2000, and
nothing seems to happen with them. So, the question comes that
if, in fact, it's $200,000 a project for them to study them, is
this the best way to do it, since it's now 2006, and none of
these projects are able to move ahead, as I understand it?
It would almost seem to me that if the Bureau gave the
local jurisdictions a set of criteria that they would need for
approval and then let the local jurisdictions say this project
meets your criteria or not, things would be sped up. As I
understand it, the bottom line is in California none of these
projects are moving forward. So, my question to Mr. Keys would
be why is that?
Mr. Keys. Senator Feinstein, there are a number of them
that are moving forward. We have nine of them in our program
this year that are being funded. I would tell you that----
Senator Feinstein. Could you indicate which projects those
are?
Mr. Keys. Yes, ma'am. In our 2007 request, the Calleguas
Municipal Water District has been proposed for money, the Long
Beach Area Water Reclamation has been recognized, North San
Diego County, Orange County, San Diego Area--boy, San Diego's
got two in there--San Gabriel, San Jose and then our Water
Reuse Foundation money. So, one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight. I said nine, and it appears that one of them is
in Arizona, so there--that would be eight in California.
Senator Feinstein. And could you tell me how many
California projects are pending?
Mr. Keys. Yes, ma'am. It looks like we have about 20 or 21
on the books.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Now, how long will it take before
those 21--if I understand what you're saying, you're saying the
2007 bill approves nine specific California projects; is that
right?
Mr. Keys. There are funds in our request for fiscal year
2007 that are targeted for nine Title XVI projects.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Now, for the other 21, is it true
that it takes about $200,000 per project for the study?
Mr. Keys. Well, Senator Feinstein, they are at different
levels. Some of them have completed feasibility studies. Some
of them have not. And I could not tell you that it's $200,000
each. I don't know that figure.
Senator Feinstein. Well----
Mr. Keys. But we could certainly supply that for you.
Senator Feinstein. I think what I'm looking for is the most
cost-effective way to move these projects forward. In my State,
this is a very big deal, and we get constant importunings--
please, please move the project, it's caught up in bureaucracy,
it's been there year after year after year.
So, the question comes, what do you do to break this? And I
wonder, would it make sense if you just submitted the criteria
that a project would have to meet for Federal funding and then
let the local jurisdiction certify that, in fact, that project
would meet that criteria?
Mr. Keys. Senator Feinstein, we put out guidelines for
those proposals in 1998, and they've been out there for folks
to follow all along. I would tell you that a good share of
those that have been authorized, they have not completed the
feasibility studies along those guidelines.
Senator Feinstein. Then there's a problem, because my staff
just said many of them have submitted the studies.
Mr. Keys. Right, some of them have.
Senator Feinstein. They can't get action.
Mr. Keys. Well, Senator Feinstein, we live in a time of
flat budgets, or even decreasing budgets, and we only have so
much money to go around. What we're trying to do is concentrate
the money that we have onto those that are already under
construction. For us to start construction on some that have
not received money already, I think would be irresponsible,
because we would then be making promises that we couldn't keep.
So, we're trying to concentrate on those that we already have
under construction.
Senator Feinstein. So, you're saying that no new projects
are being considered? Is that correct?
Mr. Keys. Senator, we never say never. The Appropriations
Committee at times funds things that we don't propose.
Senator Feinstein. Madam Chairman, this is the problem.
What I hear is constant frustration, that people have submitted
their information, and it doesn't get approved, and so they
come to us year after year after year importuning something to
happen, because for many, this recycling is a very big deal and
very important.
And I'm just wondering if there isn't any way we can't save
money for the Federal Government if, in fact, each one of these
nine projects has cost $200,000 to study before it gets
granted, if it isn't possible to be able to do it another way.
And if I understand, Mr. Keys, you're reluctant to admit
there is a better way.
Mr. Keys. Senator Feinstein, I think there is a better way.
I think the better way is for us to be sure that we have those
feasibility studies done, and then, after they're done, come
back to Congress and let Congress authorize them for
construction and be sure that they're directed into those areas
that fit with where Reclamation belongs. In a lot of cases, a
lot of those projects that are authorized are not even within
Reclamation project boundaries or in some of our territory
there.
Senator Feinstein. Oh.
Mr. Keys. So, we're reluctant to start some of those, but
we--like I said, we do what Congress says.
Senator Feinstein. So, what you're saying is even if a
project is authorized, if it doesn't fit your parameters, you
don't fund it?
Mr. Keys. Currently, that is not the case, because we don't
have the authority to do that. We're asking to work with this
committee to develop criterion so that they can be directed
into those areas where we're short, where there are potentials
for conflicts between water users, and this would help solve
part of their water resource problem.
Senator Feinstein. Would it be asking too much to ask you
to give us a list of these projects, the nine plus the 21, the
30 in California, with exactly where each one is, and if there
is a problem, what that problem is?
Mr. Keys. Senator, we'd be glad to furnish that.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Could I receive it
soonest?
Mr. Keys. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Keys. Will do.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Commissioner, I've got a question now. I thought that I kind of
had a sense, in terms of these nine projects, that you are
proposing to move forward for funding, and in looking at some
of the charts that we have, for instance, the--and I'm going to
mispronounce it, the Calleguas----
Mr. Keys. Calleguas.
Senator Feinstein. Calleguas, you said?
Senator Murkowski. I'll let you say it, Calleguas. The
Calleguas water study is included in your recommendations as
one of the projects. And as I understand, that has already
received Title XVI funding, about 44 percent of the Federal
share. So, these projects that we're talking about, the nine
that you have identified, are not necessarily for a feasibility
study because--is that correct?
Mr. Keys. The nine that I mentioned are ones that have
already been authorized.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Keys. We have started construction, and we have put
money into them.
Senator Murkowski. Right, so we're not going back and doing
a feasibility study on these. We're moving forward with these
Federal funds to get----
Mr. Keys. They--for example----
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Completion.
Mr. Keys. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. Go ahead.
Mr. Keys. For example, the Calleguas one, the money that we
had put in through 2006 was $8.85 million. That means that the
money that would potentially be put into there later on is up
to $11 million, under the $20 million dollar cap. So, it's one
of the ones that we have included in the President's request
for fiscal year 2007, so that we can get it done.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Keys. And these nine that I mentioned, that's what
those are, the ones that had been funded previously, and we
think should go ahead and be completed.
Senator Murkowski. With these nine, if in fact, they go
forward at these levels that you have recommended, how many of
these nine then will be 100 percent complete?
Mr. Keys. At the end of 2006, which is the current fiscal
year, two of them will be complete. There are none that we
would finish up in 2007.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. All right. But what you're saying,
though, is that it gets these nine projects further down the
road toward completion, we're not looking at feasibility study
money for any of these nine.
Mr. Keys. That's correct.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Mr. Keys. That's correct.
Senator Murkowski. All right, that helps me in just kind of
understanding what we're doing there then. I had a question
just in terms of how Title XVI is rated. Do you evaluate Title
XVI using the program assessment rating tool utilized by OMB?
And if so, how does that work or how did it work?
Mr. Keys. Well, Madam Chairman, the PART exercise was an
effort by the Office of Management and Budget to rate our
program in how it's functioning. It does not rate the
individual elements, in other words, the different projects
that are authorized for construction. It evaluates the process
and the program that is there.
It was rated moderately effective, and what that means is
that it has a primary weakness, and the primary weakness is
that Reclamation has little impact on the program
accomplishments, on the construction, on the methodology, on
finishing the projects. In other words, we just pass the money
through. And we were rated moderately effective because of
that.
Senator Murkowski. So, OMB gives you that rating. Have you,
then, done anything in response to that PART rating to address
the concerns or the issues that were raised in that review?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, that's one of the reasons we're
here.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, all right. Well, whatever it takes
to get the program to function. I believe you stated that Title
XVI does have a future. It's quite clear, from those who are
listening, that there is a keen interest in figuring out how we
can provide for the funding for these projects. But probably
more importantly is how we prioritize them, because in times
where we recognize that we've got budgets that are tighter,
prioritization is something that is key. And I guess I look at
what I understand of the program, and there's very little to
give you a sense as to what has been given a priority.
We, here in the Congress, can move forward to authorize
something, but from the Bureau's perspective, you then have
these projects that you're looking to, but in terms of where
you put the funding next is an issue. So, I guess I'm looking
at this and saying if we can enhance the process by having
criteria that I think, as Senator Feinstein points out, people
know in advance, they know what it is that they've got to meet
in terms of eligibility criteria, you can perhaps have a more
successful program. Senator Feinstein, do you have any further
questions that you would like to address to the commissioner?
Senator Feinstein. No, I think that's it. I really
appreciate what you're doing, Madam Chairman, because I think
we do need clarity. Did you want to say something, Mr. Keys?
Mr. Keys. Yes, ma'am. Let me just say that the goals of
Title XVI need to be done. Wastewater is a valuable asset out
there that we should take advantage of, and what we're saying
is that the Title XVI program, as it was originally formed and
enacted and so forth, we can claim success from that because we
have demonstrated the methodologies, we've demonstrated that
it's a valuable part of water resource management.
We think it's time to move to the next stage in that and be
sure that we are getting the best result for the dollars that
we're putting into it. In other words, we are supporting good,
feasible projects, and they're being directed into those areas
that are most challenged for water supply now. I think that
kind of summarizes what we're trying to say, and we're willing
to work with this committee and the Congress to try to produce
a bill that will make it easier to do that.
Senator Feinstein. I think that's very good. From my State,
for example, I'm an appropriator, and I'm on that Appropriation
Subcommittee. It would be very useful to have some
prioritization so that we knew that the best projects were the
ones that were getting the money. Right now, that really isn't
possible, and that's why this list would be very useful. And
then if somebody has a problem, they can find out what that
problem is.
Mr. Keys. Right.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that.
Mr. Keys. We will certainly provide that for you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate
you being here today. With that, we'll call up the second
panel. Welcome to all of you. On our second panel, we have
Betsy Cody, who is with the Congressional Research Service. We
also have Mr. Richard Atwater, the chairman of the Legislative
Committee of the WateReuse Association; Mr. Thomas Donnelly,
executive vice president of National Water Resources
Association; and Ms. Virginia Grebbien, General Manager for
Orange County Water District. Welcome to you all. We'll just
start here at the end with Ms. Cody and move on down the line.
STATEMENT OF BETSY A. CODY, SPECIALIST IN NATURAL RESOURCES
POLICY, RESOURCES, SCIENCE, AND INDUSTRY DIVISION,
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Ms. Cody. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman for the
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today. My name
again for the record is Betsy Cody. I am a specialist in
Natural Resources Policy with the Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress, where I've worked on Western
water and natural resource issues since 1989.
I've been asked by the subcommittee to provide information
on the status of Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reuse and
Reclamation program, as well as to highlight issues in its
implementation. My written testimony, begins with a brief
discussion of the broader context in which the Title XVI
program is being implemented, as well as conflicts that have
arisen in implementation and fundamental issues facing the
109th Congress regarding the program's future. As requested, my
written testimony also provides background on the Title XVI
program, its genesis and where it stands today. With your
permission, I'd like to request that my written testimony be
entered into the record.
Senator Murkowski. It will be included, as will the written
testimony of all the participants this afternoon. Thank you.
Ms. Cody. Thank you. I'd like to start with the context of
where we are today, and we've heard some of that from
Reclamation. Today, growing populations and changing values
have increased demands on water supply throughout the West, as
you're all familiar with.
Senator Feinstein. Is your microphone on? It's hard to
hear.
Senator Murkowski. Pull it closer.
Ms. Cody. Okay, all right. Growing populations and changing
values have increased demands on water supplies and river
systems, resulting in water use management conflicts throughout
the country, particularly in the West where population growth
and climate variability make managing water supplies especially
challenging. As you know, in many Western States, agricultural
demands are often in direct conflict with urban demands and
other resource demands.
Two figures in appendix A of my written testimony
illustrate these points. The first is a copy of the Department
of the Interior's hot spots figure where the Department has
identified areas of potential water supply crises or conflicts.
It's important to note that these areas are identified by
Reclamation as areas already experiencing tension between
available water supplies and water demand.
The second figure shows the rapid growth in Western States,
particularly in the Colorado River Basin region and southern
California. The figure also shows the ranking of each State in
growth as compared to the rest of the country. Five of the
country's fastest growing States are among the 17 Reclamation
states, and eight of the top 12 are among the traditional 17
Western Reclamation States. If it pleases the Chair, I'd also
like to introduce a third figure for the record, and I've asked
staff to pass this out to members, who should have it by now.
Senator Murkowski. We do, and it will be included as part
of the record.
Ms. Cody. All right, thank you. This figure, produced by
CRS/the Library of Congress, depicts the Title XVI projects
that have been authorized in the 17 traditional Reclamation
States. It depicts them as an overlay on the first
illustration, Reclamation's identification of hot spots in the
West. The numbers on the left indicate the total number of
projects. Our numbers differ slightly from Reclamation's mainly
due to the way we count projects. They count one that we don't
count, and we count one that they count as three, but those are
minor details. The point--the major point--remains the same,
that there are more than 30 reuse projects authorized for
construction in the eight traditional Reclamation States and in
the State of Hawaii.
In the CRS figure, the darkest blue triangles represent
completed projects. The grayish-blue triangles represent the
other projects that have received some Title XVI funding. That
doesn't mean they're in this year's budget request necessarily.
Together, these total approximately 21 projects that have
received Title XVI funding. The light-blue triangles represent
the authorized projects that have not received Title XVI
funding or have been identified by Reclamation in the recent
past as inactive. And that's a moving target, so don't get too
settled on those numbers.
The projects are largely ordered by their authorization,
that is, the earliest ones, No. 1, would be the initial 1992
authorization, and if you count down about--well, there were 18
authorized in 1996 and so on--so, they're largely ordered by
their authorization, and then they correspond roughly to their
location on the illustration, except for the San Joaquin
Recycling Project and the Hawaii Authorization. Those two are
not depicted. One, Hawaii was not in the original Reclamation
Act, and we've had information from the San Joaquin project
sponsors that they may not be pursuing that project, so it's
not shown on the illustration.
As you can see, nearly half of these projects are located
in southern California. This concentration largely reflects the
direction of the original program authorization, which, many in
this room will recall, was begun in the midst of a 6-year
drought in California and the Southwest. I have more on this
early history in my written testimony.
A total capacity of 750,000 acre-feet is estimated to be
available when construction is complete on the active projects.
CRS estimates that another 30,000 to 50,000 would be available
if authorized projects for which we would be able to obtain
information were to be constructed as contemplated, today. CRS
found that at least six of the unfunded projects are still
contemplating future development. However, they're in various
stages of planning. One or two have started construction. The
others are still in pre-feasibility study phase, so they
differ. We were not able to contact all of those unauthorized
projects; however, we'll continue to try.
I'd like to turn now to issues. There's more on project
status in the table and in my testimony. As Commissioner Keys
has explained, the program has been controversial in recent
years, and as members of the committee have commented on as
well. While demand for these projects appears to be increasing,
and Congress has authorized several new Title XVI projects over
the years, the administration has opposed most new projects and
accordingly has requested funding only for projects it has
previously budgeted. The administration has also stated that
Title XVI projects are not part of its core mission, and at
times, has stated the activities are a local responsibility.
These latter two issues may relate--from a water resources
professional standpoint--to the traditional role of water
resource development agencies, primarily developing water
supply for M&I purposes, municipal and industrial purposes, as
they are connected to multipurpose projects like flood control,
navigation, hydro power, and in the case of Reclamation,
irrigation water supply. That's an issue, again, I touch on in
the written testimony, that providing water specifically for
M&I uses for Reclamation has not been a traditional role except
in relation to these big projects.
Other issues appear to be largely concentrated on, one,
project evaluation, which I think we've heard a lot about
today; two, authorization, the issues that have been brought up
in the questions of Commissioner Keys; and three, the funding
issues. These issues are addressed in greater detail in my
written testimony. Also, CRS has identified several policy
options that Congress may wish to consider as it contemplates
the future of the Title XVI program. A report on these options
and assessment of how Reclamation's proposal, what we heard
about today, might fit with these options, and a brief analysis
of options is forthcoming--will be in a CRS report available
for Congress.
In summary, it appears that the growing local demand for
these projects combined with differences in congressional and
administrative priorities in approving and in funding projects
has resulted in a backlog of sparsely funded and unfunded
projects and unmet demand. Ultimately, this has raised
questions--a question of what is the future of the Title XVI
program. Thank you, and this concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cody follows:]
Prepared Statement of Betsy A. Cody, Specialist in Natural Resources
Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional
Research Service \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicole T. Carter, Analyst in Environmental Policy, Resources,
Science, and Industry Division, assisted in the preparation of this
testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S TITLE XVI PROGRAM: IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Thank you Madame Chairman for the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today. I have been asked to provide Members of the
Subcommittee with background information on the Bureau of Reclamation's
Title XVI water reuse and reclamation program, as well as to highlight
issues in its implementation. My testimony begins with a brief
discussion of the broader context in which this program is being
implemented, conflicts that have arisen in implementation, and
fundamental issues facing the 109th Congress regarding the program's
future. As requested, my testimony also provides background on the
Title XVI program, including its genesis, and where it stands today.
CONTEXT OF TITLE XVI IMPLEMENTATION IN 2006
Growing populations and changing values have increased demands on
water supplies and river systems, resulting in water use and management
conflicts throughout the country. These demands are particularly
evident in the arid West, where population has increased dramatically
since Title XVI was first authorized, and where climate variability
makes managing water supplies especially challenging. In many western
states, agricultural demands are often in direct conflict with urban
demands, as well as with water demand for threatened and endangered
species, recreation, and scenic enjoyment. Areas where these conflicts
are especially prevalent are illustrated in a figure developed by the
Department of the Interior to display potential areas of conflict over
water resources, or ``Hot-Spots'' (see Appendix A).* Further
highlighting the population issue is a U.S. Geological Survey
illustration showing recent population growth in the western states
(see Appendix A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The appendix has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate over western water resources revolves around the issue of
how best to plan for and manage the use of this renewable, yet
sometimes scarce and increasingly sought after, resource. Some
observers advocate enhancing water supplies, such as through building
new storage or diversion projects, expanding old ones, and funding
water reclamation and reuse facilities. Others emphasize managing
existing supplies more efficiently--through conservation and revision
of policies that are seen as encouraging inefficient water use, such as
using market mechanisms or providing better price signals, which
theoretically would result in more efficient water use. In practice,
all of these tools are used by western water managers to varying
degrees; and all have been addressed by Congress, again to varying
degrees.
To address some of the growing challenges in western water
management in the early 1990s, Congress directed the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to establish a federal water reclamation,
recycling and reuse program (Title XVI of P.L. 102-575; 43 U.S.C.
390h). Under the Title XVI program, the Secretary is directed to
``investigate and identify'' opportunities for water reclamation and
reuse in the West, for design and construction of ``demonstration 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'' (43 U.S.C. 390h(a)).
Today, the Title XVI program seems to be at a cross-road. The
program has been controversial in recent years because of concerns over
its implementation. As reuse\2\ and desalination have become more
viable options for addressing a variety of water management issues, the
number of legislative proposals for Title XVI project authorizations
has increased. At the same time, Administration support for the program
has encountered many changes--from full support prior to enactment of
Title XVI in 1992--to the present, where the Administration has found
it cannot support much of the proposed legislation to authorize new
projects.\3\ Also during this time, congressional authorization of new
projects has been significantly less than demand.\4\ This situation has
created frustration and confusion over the existing program, its
future, and to some degree, the future role of the Bureau of
Reclamation in the rapidly growing West. Frustration is especially
apparent among project sponsors whose authorized projects remain
unfunded or receive limited funding, and sponsors of pending project
proposals, resulting in increased pressure on Congress and the
Administration to address program issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the purposes of this testimony, water reuse connotes the
planned beneficial use (e.g., landscape watering, agricultural
irrigation, and industrial cooling) of treated municipal wastewater.
Water reclamation is the treatment of wastewater or other impaired
surface or groundwaters (e.g., seawater, or groundwater with high
levels of arsenic) to make it usable or reusable. Water recycling
generally connotes the use of wastewater that is captured and
redirected back into the same water scheme, such as the multiple reuse
of water in a manufacturing facility.
\3\ For example, the Administration, when asked, has testified
against every Title XVI bill in the 108th Congress and most of the
pending bills in the 109th Congress, mostly because of budgetary and
project feasibility concerns (discussed below).
\4\ Two of approximately 13 project authorization bills were
enacted by the end of the 108th Congress, and 1 bill has been enacted
thus far in the 109th, with 16 individual project proposals pending in
legislation. A total of 6 new projects have been authorized since 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XVI OVERVIEW
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 facilities for the
reuse of wastewater and reclamation (including desalination) of
impaired surface and ground waters.\5\ 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,\6\ a
pilot program by EPA under the Alternative Water Sources Act,\7\ and
general Clean Water Act water treatment and wastewater authorities\8\),
neither has an established, regularly funded program dedicated to such
activities. However, in its review of federal agency programs, CEQ
found that ``a broad range of federal agency program activities employ
water reuse, recycling, and reclamation technologies to achieve
conservation and other program objectives.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Executive Office of the President, Council on
Environmental Quality, Federal Agency Water Reuse Programs, A Report to
Congress, white paper published October 3, 2005, p. 3. This report
confirms earlier findings of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Hereafter referred to as the CEQ report. See also, 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.htmll, p. 2.
\6\ 217 of P.L. 102-580, and 502 of P.L. 106-53, respectively.
Some of these activities received funding for FY2003 in Title I of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for FY2003 (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
as of FY2003.
\7\ Title VI of P.L. 106-457. (Clean Water Act Section 220; 33
U.S.C. 1300.)
\8\ According to CEQ (CEQ report, p. 8 and 9), water reuse,
recycling, and reclamation activities fall within larger EPA program
areas of water treatment, wastewater management, or water resources
management (33 U.S.C. 1376). According to the CEQ report, funding for
certain aspects of water reuse, recycling, and reclamation project may
be available via Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act State
Revolving Funds. Although funds are not specifically authorized by
Congress or targeted by EPA for such purposes, Congress has
periodically specified funding for individual reuse projects. For
example, project-specific reuse funding in FY2005 totaled $6.4 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM BEGINNINGS
In 1992, Congress directed the Secretary to establish a program to
investigate and identify opportunities for wastewater reuse and
reclamation of naturally impaired ground and surface waters in the 17
western states (Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act, Title XVI of P.L. 102-575; 43 U.S.C. 390h(a)).\9\
Responsibility for undertaking the new program--commonly referred to as
the Title XVI program--was assigned to the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). As part of the original
authorizing statute, the Secretary is directed to undertake appraisal
investigations to identify opportunities for water reclamation and
reuse, and is authorized to participate with federal, state, regional,
and local authorities in developing feasibility studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Congress has since authorized Title XVI activities in Hawaii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The genesis for Reclamation's wastewater reclamation, recycling,
and reuse program was a 6-year western drought of the late 1980s and
early 1990s. The drought hit California and the Southwest particularly
hard. In response, this subcommittee and its House counterpart, the
House Resources Water and Power Subcommittee, spent much time debating
federal water supply policies, including how to address conflicts
between the need and desire for continued operation of federal
reclamation projects and the application of state and federal
environmental laws that could potentially limit water deliveries to
protect certain species or to 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 paid to Title XXXIV of this Act
(the Central Valley Project Improvement Act), Title XVI, the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Studies and Facilities Act,
authorized construction of five specific water reuse and reclamation
projects in Arizona and California and established what is known as the
Title XVI program. The Act also authorized a comprehensive reuse study
for Southern California, including Colorado River hydrologic regions.
The latter provides specific statutory authority for activities that
were underway in 1991 in response to then-Secretary Manuel Lujan's
announcement of a ``Comprehensive Water Reuse Initiative'' for Southern
California and speaks to what was perceived to be an important federal
interest in the management of the Colorado River.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Interior Secretary Lujan
Announces Comprehensive Water Reuse Initiative for Southern California,
News Release, Office of the Secretary, August 5, 1991. According to
materials provided to CRS on October 25, 1991, Reclamation undertook a
number of activities that fall, including developing a detailed action
plan for promoting the initiative. By October 23, 1991, Reclamation had
held its first pre-planning committee meeting for the Southern
California Water Reclamation and Reuse Study.
In addition to increasing the water supplies available to the
area [southern California], this program would also decrease
the area's dependency on water imports from the Colorado River,
California, and Los Angeles Aqueducts, help restore and protect
the quality of existing ground-water reserves, and help meet
environmental water needs. Lujan said . . . ``Reclaimed water--
one of the most dependable, abundant and underutilized water
supplies available--could provide as much as 2 million acre-
feet of water each year for the area.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid., p.1.
The completion and submission of this study and whether or not it
is a ``feasibility study'' has a long history and has remained a point
of contention among southern California stakeholders and Reclamation to
this day.\12\ In sum, this large undertaking (capable of producing
450,000 acre-feet of water annually), which is directly linked to the
Title XVI program's creation, became caught up in apparent shifts in
Administration policy on, and congressional oversight of, the Title XVI
program.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Reclamation undertook the ``Southern California Comprehensive
Water Reclamation and Reuse Study'', along with eight state and local
agencies. The effort was later broadened to include 70 water supply and
wastewater treatment agencies in southern California. The study was
largely completed by April 2001 and was published as a final report in
July 2002 (2002 Report); however, the report was not officially
submitted to Congress, as required under the Act (Section 1606(c),
which requires submission of the study within six years of the first
appropriations for the title (by FY2000)). According to an October 2003
letter to relevant project managers, the Department of the Interior
found the original report contained ``more detail than desired for a
submittal [sic.] to Congress.'' The then-Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science then asked Reclamation to prepare a ``. . . concise, to-
the-point version of that Report.'' The Southern California
Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, Reclamation Compendium
was submitted to Congress February 20, 2004. However, the word
feasibility was stricken from the ``compendium,'' raising the question
of whether the submission complies with the directives of Section 1606.
\13\ An apparent policy shift occurred during preparation of the
FY2004 Reclamation budget, a process that included an evaluation of the
program's effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
through its Program Rating and Assessment Tool (PART), the results of
which are discussed in the Title XVI Policy Issues section below. It
appears that since that time, congressional project authorizations
slowed, although many legislative proposals are pending. (Re: apparent
policy shift, see: U.S. Department of the Interior, letter from the
Secretary of the Interior, Gale A. Norton, and Deputy Secretary of the
Interior, Steven Griles, to the Solicitor, Inspector General, Assistant
Secretaries, and Heads of Bureaus and Offices, stamped Nov. 22, 2002.
Subject: Conclusion of the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Formulation Process.
The letter thanks officials for their efforts in identifying activities
that could be scaled back or eliminated and notes a Reclamation
proposal to ``devolve significant responsibilities in the Water
Reclamation and Reuse (Title XVI) program'' in order to conserve
resources to ``implement innovative, new approaches to address long-
standing problems such as those relating to endangered species.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XVI TODAY
Title XVI has been amended multiple times since 1992, resulting in
a total of 31 currently authorized projects in 8 western states and
Hawaii (see Table 1).\14\ To date, Reclamation has undertaken planning,
design, and/or engineering activities for 21 projects. Although the
program includes projects for both water reuse and desalination of
saline water (both brackish groundwater and seawater), the majority of
Title XVI projects have been authorized for reclamation of municipal
wastewater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Total number of projects is subject to interpretation.
Reclamation does not include the Port Hueneme Desalination project in
its summation of total project authorizations or list of ``active''
projects, because it was authorized under general authority of the 1996
amendments, and was not specifically authorized by Congress as have
been the other projects. However, because Reclamation includes the
project in its budget itemization, including totals on estimated
project funding to date and water to be reclaimed, etc., CRS includes
it in its total project count. CRS also has counted the Hawaii
authorization as one project; whereas, Reclamation counts it as three
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly half of the projects are concentrated in southern
California. This concentration reflects the direction of the program as
first authorized. Most of the largest projects were authorized in 1992,
before federal contributions were capped.
Project Funding. The federal share of project costs under Title XVI
is limited to 25% of total project costs. Amendments in 1996 (P.L. 104-
266) authorized numerous new projects, and added new program guidance.
Specifically, the amendments retained the 25% / 75% federal/non-federal
cost share, but limited the federal share of costs to no more than $20
million per project.
Reclamation has completed its funding obligations for three
projects: 1) the Los Angeles (CA) area water reclamation and reuse
project; 2) the Tooele (UT) wastewater treatment and reuse project; and
3) the Port Hueneme (CA) Desalination project. Title XVI funding
obligations are nearly complete (80% or more complete) for several
other projects: San Gabriel Demonstration (CA); North San Diego County
(CA); Orange County Regional (CA); Mission Basin Desalination (CA);
Albuquerque Metropolitan (NM); and the City of El Paso (TX).\15\
Projects authorized prior to the 1996 amendments ranged in total costs
from $152 million ($38 million for Reclamation's share), to $690
million ($172 million for Reclamation's share). Post-1996 projects have
been much less expensive, ranging from $10 million ($2 million for
Reclamation's share) to $280 million ($20 million for Reclamation's
share).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Title
XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Funding History, Reclaimed
Water Deliveries and Project Status, January, 2006. Revised Chart
provided to CRS via e-mail February 1, 2006. (Hereafter referred to as
2006 Reclamation Reuse Chart.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Title XVI funding through 2006 is estimated by Reclamation to
be $324.5 million.\16\ (See Table 1.) The remaining total federal
contribution for all authorized projects is estimated to be at least
$344 million. Non-federal Title XVI investment as of Sept. 30, 2004 is
estimated to be $1.1 billion.\17\ Title XVI funding for FY2006 is $25.6
million; the budget request for FY2007 is $10.1 million.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Title
XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Funding History, Reclaimed
Water Deliveries and Project Status, January, 2006. Revised Chart
provided to CRS via e-mail February 1, 2006. (Hereafter referred to as
2006 Reclamation Reuse Chart.) Note: this figure represents actual
expenditures, and is slightly lower than summation of annual
appropriations, which total approximately $350 million (not including
rescissions).
\17\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Title
XVI Project Costs and Investment as of Sept. 30, 2004, Chart provided
to CRS via e-mail February, 2005.
\18\ FY2006 figures reflect an Across-the-Board Rescission of 1%
per P.L. 109-148. Prior to the rescission, the appropriation was $25.9
million. (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2007,
released February 6, 2006. Water and Related Resources--p. 8.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active and Inactive Projects. Projects have been authorized for
construction in 9 states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. These states represent
many of the states that are especially active in reuse, but not all;
two very active states, Florida and Colorado, do not have Title XVI
projects. Florida is not eligible for Title XVI support because it is
not a designated as a ``reclamation state,'' as defined by the
Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended (43 U.S.C. 391).
More than two-thirds of the 31 Title XVI projects have received
some Title XVI funding. The 10 authorized projects that have not yet
received funding from Reclamation, or received minor amounts, have been
deemed ``inactive'' largely for accounting purposes. Projects shown in
italics in Table 1 have not yet received Title XVI funding (with the
exception of the Oregon project). Of these 10 projects, CRS has
determined that at least 6 are, in some manner, moving forward with
local funding.
A total capacity of nearly 800,000 acre-feet of water is slated to
be reclaimed by the projects that have received Title XVI funding and
for which CRS was able to acquire data (see Table 1).\19\ Reclamation
estimates that the amount of water to be reclaimed (maximum design
capacity) from its active projects is nearly 750,000 acre-feet.\20\ The
50,000 acre-foot difference between these estimates represents the
total reclaimed water potential of 6 inactive projects for which CRS
gathered estimates from project sponsors or project websites. The
potential of all inactive projects would necessarily be somewhat
higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Figures are based on facility design capacities provided to
CRS in the 2006 Reclamation Chart, and interviews with several sponsors
of projects that have not received Title XVI funding.
\20\ 2006 Reclamation Reuse Chart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XVI POLICY ISSUES
Title XVI policy issues generally fall into two categories: broad
policy issues, such as the federal role in water supply development
(particularly for municipal and industrial (M&I) purposes); and more
specific project evaluation and authorization issues.
Broad Policy Issues
Historically, federal water resource agencies' involvement in water
supply was limited to developing irrigation projects and multiple use
projects. Unlike other areas of water resources management in which the
federal role is more prominent (e.g., irrigation, flood damage
reduction, and navigation; or providing funding for wastewater and
drinking water treatment through federal revolving loan programs), the
federal role in water supply development for M&I uses has been
secondary to the primary role of state and local governments. Water
supply development for M&I purposes largely has generally been
incidental to the primary project purposes of large, multi-purpose
irrigation, flood reduction, hydro power, and navigation projects,
pursuant to congressional policy established in the Water Supply Act of
1958.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to
recognize the primary responsibilities of the States and local
interests in developing water supplies for domestic, municipal,
industrial, and other purposes and that the Federal Government should
participate and cooperate with States and local interests in developing
such water supplies in connection with the construction, maintenance,
and operation of Federal navigation, flood control, irrigation, or
multiple purpose projects.'' (Water Supply Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 320;
43 U.S.C. 390b, note.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While occasional congressional directives have deviated from this
policy (including Title XVI), as a general matter, local, regional, or
state agencies have been responsible for water supply development, and
they have been wary of federal involvement in allocating water.
In recent years, the Administration has maintained that some Title
XVI activities (other than research) are not a ``core function'' for
Reclamation and that the Title XVI program ``serves a function that is
a local responsibility.''\22\ However, over the last two decades,
Congress has increasingly, and incrementally, authorized the Department
of the Interior to participate in construction of approximately 13
water supply projects for small and rural communities, as well as
recycling and reuse projects under Title XIV. Although Congress has
increasingly passed bills for site specific projects and established
the Title XVI program, it has not re-articulated congressional policy
regarding the federal role in water supply development since the 1958
Water Supply Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 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/waterreuse.pdf] p. 2. See also Administration
testimony on Title XVI bills in the 108th and 109th Congresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Evaluation, Authorization, and Funding Issues
Recent questions and concerns about the implementation of
Reclamation's Title XVI program appear to have increased in part
because of the nature of project evaluation and authorization processes
and the lack of a clear program funding process that is typical of
other federal water programs. Other federal water assistance programs,
such as state revolving loan funds for wastewater and drinking water
administered by EPA, have set criteria and competitive processes for
project and funding, as do rural water supply programs administered by
the USDA. Congress appropriates money annually for these programs;
however, project funding is not appropriated by line item, as is the
case for Reclamation projects. Instead, depending on the program,
states or federal agencies allocate program funding based on program
and project eligibility criteria.
Program Criteria and Project Evaluation
In contrast to several other federal water programs, there are no
legislatively mandated or promulgated development criteria and no
competitive grant processes for Title XVI projects. Sections 1603 and
1604 of Title XVI (43 U.S.C. 390h-1 (a)-(c) and 43 U.S.C. 390h-2 (a)-
(c)) establish a project evaluation process, which directs the
Secretary to undertake appraisal investigations before preparation of
feasibility studies on potential reclamation and reuse measures and
lists several ``considerations'' that must be addressed; however, the
Act does not include clear program criteria, such as how to prioritize
projects, or qualified eligibility criteria.
To implement the program, Reclamation developed guidelines for the
development of Title XVI projects.\23\ These guidelines provide more
explicit evaluation and feasibility criteria than is provided in the
statute. OMB in the past has noted Reclamation's Title XVI guidelines
provide ``solid criteria . . . to evaluate potential projects prior to
funding, and also to monitor and evaluate projects under
construction.'' \24\ These guidelines have never been officially
promulgated as official rules or regulations; nor do the guidelines
criteria appear to be binding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Guidelines forPreparing, 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).
\24\ 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:I/
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pma.html], p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Authorization
Another issue relates to the project authorization process.
Reclamation has interpreted the Title XVI authorization as requiring
congressional authorization for each project, as is the case for
traditional Reclamation projects. Under the evaluation process
established in P.L. 102-575, as amended, and implemented by
Reclamation, projects are to go through an appraisal phase, a
feasibility phase, and receive a feasibility recommendation. Positive
recommendations would then be forwarded to Congress for construction
approval via a specific project authorization. Authorized projects
would then be funded (or not) via the annual Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill. However, in practice, many projects
authorizations, and pending legislative proposals, are for projects
that have not gone through the project evaluation phase outlined in
Title XVI. It has generally been Reclamation policy to not support
projects that have not gone through the evaluation phase and received a
positive feasibility recommendation. At the same time, some projects
have undergone what sponsors believe to be extensive evaluation and
what they believed was a feasibility-level process. This has resulted
in project sponsors' frustration by the experience, and has resulted in
them coming directly to Congress for authorization. Other projects
appear to have been authorized by Congress without assessment or
feasibility evaluation by Reclamation.
Project Funding Issues
Funding for Title XVI projects has been controversial in recent
years because of differences in congressional and administration
priorities. For example, Reclamation has limited its budget request to
projects that have received prior federal funding, while Congress has
provided substantially more funding for projects via the annual
appropriations process. The budget request for the last 3 years has
been 40%-67% less than the enacted appropriation for each of the last 3
years. The Administration's request of $10.1 million for Title XVI
projects for FY2007 is 40% less than the FY2006 enacted appropriation
of $25.6 million.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Reflects FY2006 Across-the-Board Rescission of 1% per P.L.
109-148. Without the rescission, the appropriation is $25.9 million.
(U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Budget
Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2007, released
February 6, 2006. Water and Related Resources--p. 8.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there is approximately $1 million-to-$3 million devoted to
program management each year, there is no overall program funding per
se. Instead, each project is authorized by a separate line item in
Reclamation's Water and Related Resources budget account. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations noted, in report language accompanying
FY1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, its concern about
the potential costs of this program and noted that local sponsors who
proceed on their own prior to a federal commitment to the project ``do
so at their own risk'' (S.Rept. 105-44). The Committee also noted its
support of Reclamation's efforts to develop criteria to prioritize the
authorized projects currently awaiting funding.
The above issues raise several questions. Is new or revised program
guidance needed, via a formal rule-making process, congressional
action, or both? Would new or revised guidance forestall the issue of
projects being authorized by Congress prior to undergoing the Title XVI
project evaluation process, or would it would help to alleviate funding
issues and controversy over differing administrative and congressional
budget priorities?
Where to go from Here?
Questions for the 109th Congress
Growing pressure on water supplies in the West make it likely that
the demand for Title XVI projects and requests for federal assistance,
and hence pressure on Congress to approve more projects, will increase.
At the same time, the potential for future requests to escalate and
create an entirely new class of water supply assistance appears to have
increased congressional and administrative concern over the
implementation and authorization of new Title XVI projects. Under the
current process, the potential result is an ever-growing list of
pending Title XVI legislative proposals, and for those gaining
congressional approval, a growing list of projects competing for
limited appropriations and administration support. Currently, almost a
third of the 31 authorized projects are unfunded--a ``backlog'' the
Administration has cited as reason to oppose new authorizations--and 16
additional project authorizations are pending before the 109th
Congress.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ A total of 19 bills amending the Title XVI program have been
introduced thus far in the 109th Congress. One bill was enacted (Hawaii
authorization, P.L. 109-70), and it had a closely related bill; leaving
17 bills actively pending. Of these, one pertains to an existing
project, leaving 16 bills that would authorize new projects; however,
many of these bills address the same project, or would authorize
multiple projects. In all, it appears there are 16 new project
proposals pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the 109th Congress is faced with the question of what should
be the future of the Title XVI program?
Fundamental to deciding the future of the program are underlying
questions related to the federal role in municipal water recycling
specifically, and perhaps municipal water supply more generally. The
broader policy issues raised in the implementation of Reclamation's
Title XVI program (particularly whether wastewater reuse and
reclamation are local responsibilities or important to Reclamation's
core functions), touch on several policy issues not unique to the Title
XVI program. First, they highlight the tension between congressional
and Administration priorities. Second, they raise 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? If not, can or should such changes be made explicit through
the kind of debate on implementation that is currently occurring, or
through legislation?
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 if it does so? Lastly,
is additional coordination or realignment of certain federal water
activities needed to ensure efficient use of scarce federal resources?
One or more of the options could be used to address many of the issues
associated with these questions.
If Congress decides to affirm a federal role for water reuse in the
West, a different set of questions arises: How does promoting or
facilitating reuse in the West facilitate other federal goals,
objectives, and legal obligations? How could the Title XVI program mesh
with other federal activities (e.g., Interior's Water 2025 challenge
grant initiative or CALFED water reuse and storage activities)? Should
the program be tied to alleviating demand or reducing existing
diversions where endangered species or other fish and wildlife concerns
are at issue? Should it be used to help communities drought-proof their
supplies, or to slow pressure on agricultural water supplies by
possibly slowing conversion of ``ag-to-urban'' water transfers? Will
promotion of recycling and reclamation simply encourage more growth in
already water scarce areas? These questions are just a few that have
been raised by interested parties in the course of discussing the
future of the Title XVI program.
In conclusion, a wide range of options appears to be available for
addressing the Title XVI implementation issues addressed above.
Legislative options range from dismantling or phasing out the Title XVI
program, to strengthening the program, and could include many less
drastic adjustments, such as providing Reclamation with clearer
direction on why it should carry out these activities. Administrative
options could potentially be pursued as well, such as strengthening
agency guidelines or developing formal rules or regulations. While
there is no silver bullet option likely to be supported by all
stakeholders, examining these questions may help clarify differing
perspectives on the appropriate federal role in reuse, define goals of
federal participation in reuse, and understand the extent of problems
with the existing program.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer questions
from the Chairman and other Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you.
______
Table 1.--TITLE XVI PROJECTS BY STATE:\27\
Federal Authorization, Estimated Contributions, and Actual Funding, and Water to be Reclaimed\28\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Water to be Reclaimed (acre-
Estimated feet)
Estimated Funding Estimated Estimated -------------------------------
Federal (actual Percent Project
Project Name and Authorization (Public Law Number) Contribution funding) Title XVI Completion
($ in FY1994-FY2006 Funding Date By 2006 Max. Project
thousands) ($ in Complete Capacity
thousands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona
Phoenix Metropolitan Water Reclamation and Reuse, AZ (P.L. 20,000 1,260 06.30% 2010-2015 0 100,000
102-575; P.L. 106-53 repealed study cost-share limit)......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Arizona........................................ 20,000 1,260 0 100,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California
Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling, CA (P.L. 104- 20,000 8,853 44.27% 2010 9,500 10,000
266).......................................................
High Desert Wastewater Collection and Reuse (Yucca Valley, \42\ 0 \42\ \42\ 0 1,100-5,500
CA) (P.L. 104-266).........................................
Irvine Basin Project, CA (P.L. 108-233)\29\................. 12,710 0 \42\ \42\ \43\ 4,000
Long Beach Area Water Reclamation, CA (P.L. 104-266)........ 18,836 9,857 51.88% 2011 10,000 18,000
Long Beach Desalination Demo, CA (P.L. 104-266)............. 20,000 4,599 23.00% 2014 0 8,960
Los Angeles Area Water Reclamation and Reuse, CA (P.L. 102- 69,970 69,970 100.00% \44\ 35,640 102,000
575).......................................................
Mission Basin Brackish Groundwater Desalting Demo, CA (P.L. 3,112 2,543 81.72% 2006 3,360 3,360
104-266)...................................................
North San Diego County Water Recycling, CA (P.L. 104-266)... 20,000 17,063 85.32% 2008 4,916 13,532
Orange County Regional Water Reclamation, CA (P.L. 104-266). 20,000 16,164 80.82% 2008 5,040 72,000
Pasadena Reclaimed Water, CA (P.L. 104-266)................. 5,760 345 05.99% \42\ 0 2,015
Port Hueneme Brackish Water, CA (P.L. 104-266).............. 4,000 4,000 100.00% \43\ 3,970 4,370
San Diego Area Water Reclamation, CA (P.L. 102-575)......... 172,590 80,437 46.61% 2012 23,050 80,880
San Gabriel Basin, CA (P.L. 102-575)........................ 38,090 30,935 81.22 2010 41,135 75,580
San Joaquin Area Water Reuse and Recycling, City of Tracy, \42\ 0 \42\ \42\ 0 0
CA (P.L. 104-266)\30\......................................
San Jose Area Water Reclamation & Reuse, CA (P.L. 102-575).. 109,959 27,080 24.63% 2011 7,537 36,000
Watsonville Area Water Recycling, CA (P.L. 104-266)......... 17,975 2,870 15.97% 2008 0 4,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal California..................................... 533,002 274,716 144,148 435,797
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii
Hawaii Water Resources Act Projects, HI (P.L. 109-70)\31\... \42\ 0 \42\ \42\ \43\ \43\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Hawaii......................................... \42\ 0 \42\ \42\ \43\ \43\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada
Las Vegas Shallow Aquifer Desalination R&D, NV (P.L. 104- 20,000 540 02.70% \42\ 0 20,000
266).......................................................
North Las Vegas Water Reuse, NV (P.L. 104-266; P.L. 108-7).. 20,000 4,105 20.52% \42\ 0 72,810
Southern Nevada Water Recycling, NV (P.L. 104-266).......... 20,000 20,000 100.00% 2006 9,391 113,000
Truckee Watershed Reclamation Project (P.L. 106-554)\32\.... \42\ 0 \42\ \42\ 0 \43\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Nevada......................................... 60,000 24,645 9,391 205,810
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico
Albuquerque Metropolitan WRRP, NM (P.L. 104-266; P.L. 105- 11,687 11,687 100.00% 2007 5,730 6,181
62)........................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal New Mexico..................................... 11,687 11,687 5,730 6,181
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon
Willow Lake/City of Salem Natural Treatment, OR (P.L. 105- 950\34\ 0\35\ \42\ 2006\45\ 112 600-1,200
321)\33\...................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Oregon......................................... 950 0 112 600-1,200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas
El Paso Water Reclamation and Reuse, TX (Northwest Area) 8,691 8,670 99.76% \42\ 2,474 2,514
(P.L. 104-266).............................................
Williamson County Water Reclamation and Reuse, TX (P.L. 108- 20,000 95 0.48% \42\ \43\ 5,000
361).......................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Texas.......................................... 28,691 8,765 2,474 7,514
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah
Central Valley Water Recycling, UT (P.L. 104-266)........... 7,750\36\ 0 \42\ \42\ 0 9,000
St. George Area Water Recycling, UT (P.L. 104-266).......... 3,000\37\ 0\38\ \42\ \42\ \43\ 3,900-11,700
Tooele Water Reclamation and Reuse, UT (P.L. 104-266)....... 3,409 3,409 100.00% \44\ 1,500 2,537
West Jordan Water Reclamation and Reuse, UT (P.L. 104-266).. \42\ 0 \42\ \42\ 0 \43\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Utah........................................... 14,159 3,409 1,500 15,437-123,237
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington
Lakehaven, WA (P.L. 107-344)................................ 9,500\39\ 0 \42\ \42\ 0 6,717-13,435
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Washington..................................... 9,500 0 6,717-13,435
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 677,989 324,482\40\ 163,355\41\ 778,056-
797,574
===========================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Information supplied to CRS by Reclamation in January and February 2005, 2006 Reclamation Reuse Chart, and CRS interviews with Project
sponsors, November 2005-January 2006.
\27\ Projects in italics are considered ``inactive'' by Reclamation for budgeting purposes. According to Reclamation, projects are generally considered
inactive if they are incomplete and not currently receiving federal funding or have received only a minor amount of federal funding (e.g., Oregon
project) in prior years (i.e., overall, projects have not made substantial progress as a result of federal funding assistance).
\28\ Subtotals and totals indicate minimum estimated federal costs as this information was not available for all projects. Water to be Reclaimed column
represents maximum project design capacity (or range for multi-phase projects). Numbers are based on project design capacity upon completion; they may
not correspond to eventual amounts reclaimed or sold, which will likely be slightly less. Subtotals and totals indicate a lower bound estimate of
water to be reclaimed, as water quality information was not available for all projects.
\29\ The Irvine project was inadvertently listed as ``active'' in Reclamation's 2005 active/inactive table, so earlier accounting of inactive projects
are underestimated by one project.
\30\ Sponsor has indicated the project is not currently being pursued.
\31\ The Act authorizes design, planning, and construction of one desalination project and two recycling projects on three different islands.
\32\ The Truckee Watershed Reclamation Project (P.L. 106-554, Div. B, Sec. 106 of H.R. 5666) was inadvertently listed as the Sparks Water Reclamation
and Reuse Project, NV in earlier Reclamation and CRS documents.
\33\ This project is listed here as inactive because it is not listed as a financially active project in the 2006 Reclamation Chart. However, it may be
counted by Reclamation in other lists of ``active'' projects, as it meets other ``active'' criteria.
\34\ Based on total construction cost of $3.8 million.
\35\ Actual funding for this project has been approximately $270,000; however, it is not reported by Reclamation in funding tables provided to CRS
because the project does not meet other ``active'' project budget criteria. In order to keep this column consistent with Reclamation estimates, we do
not include the $270,000 in actual funding totals.
\36\ Based on estimated construction cost of $36 million.
\37\ Based on estimated construction cost of $12.5 million.
\38\ The project has not received Title XVI funding via Reclamation; however, has received $5.5 million from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Dept. of the
Interior) for the Shivwits Band portion of the project (to provide 200 acre-feet annually to the Tribe), which is part of an Indian settlement
agreement. Additionally, EPA has provided a grant of $0.2 million via the State of Utah.
\39\ Based on estimated construction cost of $38 million.
\40\ Total shown here is slightly more than sum of the column listings due to rounding.
\41\ Total reclaimed by end of FY2006 may be more than reported by Reclamation; this total includes estimates from interviews with project sponsors.
\42\ Undetermined.
\43\ t available.
\44\ Completed.
\45\ Demo phase.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Ms. Cody.
Mr. Atwater.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD ATWATER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INLAND
EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF WATEREUSE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Atwater. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Senator
Feinstein. My name is Richard Atwater. I'm currently the
general manager at the Inland Empire Utilities Agency located
in Chino, California, southern California. But more importantly
today, I'm testifying on behalf of the WateReuse Association as
chair of their Federal Legislative Committee, and that's a
national association from the east coast to the west coast,
with over 300 members, and we have been working with the Bureau
of Reclamation on the Title XVI program since its inception.
Let me just back up a little bit and give you my
background. I've known Commissioner John Keys since about 1981-
82, when I was at the Bureau of Reclamation, working here in
Washington, DC, on the Colorado River and water problems
throughout the West. And I think what I would like to highlight
through my experience in working with the Bureau of
Reclamation, and then I was one of the witnesses here before
this committee. It was this committee who enacted Title XVI. It
didn't come from the House. It was the leadership of this
committee in 1990 and 1991 and 1992. And then, of course, all
of the new starts were initiated through Congress, and I'll
talk a little bit about that.
But first, let me just say again, going back to 1990, and
I'd suggest for the record, the Department of the Interior
initiated the southern California reuse study, and it was by
Secretary Manuel Lujan and at that time, Commissioner Dennis
Underwood. Dennis, of course, just recently passed away. He was
the general manager of the Metropolitan Water District, but he
recognized clearly what we all recognize, and that is
throughout the West, throughout the United States, and frankly,
throughout the world, water reuse, recycling, desalinization,
using new cutting edge technology needs to be developed and
applied if we're going to solve our water problems.
It was initiated by the administration in 1990 and 1991. In
1992, when this committee enacted and Congress approved the
whole legislation, it clearly recognized, and I will submit for
the record your committee report, that we are in a water crisis
and that water reclamation and reuse is a critical part of
solving our problems. It's certainly more true today than it
was 15 years ago. One of the things that Commissioner Keys
said, that I think is an important one to talk about since both
members asked him questions about it, why doesn't the
administration propose criteria, and why don't they propose
projects to be funded.
As long as I've worked--when I was here in Washington, DC,
and I've worked throughout the Western States, neither the Army
Corps, and frankly, the Bureau of Reclamation, never proposes a
new start. I was the general manager at West Basin Municipal
Water District in 1992 when it was enacted. In 1994, we were
the first new start on Title XVI working with the city of Los
Angeles and the Mono Lake Committee. Senator Feinstein may
remember this because she sat here in this committee room with
Senator Bennett Johnston, and we looked at the solution. We can
provide a 20 percent cost share to fund this water recycling
project, where L.A. discharges wastewater into an EPA-
designated estuary, Santa Monica Bay, and we had this water
right dispute that was very litigated for 15 years with a whole
host of issues, including endangered species, Clean Air Act
non-attainment, et cetera, and L.A. argued at that time that
they would either go to the Colorado River or northern
California to replace the lost water supply. We came up with an
innovative solution to replace that with recycled water.
I bring that up because, although the administration at
that time in 1994 was sympathetic, the long-standing policy of
OMB is that they never propose any new starts.
Senator Feinstein. They never----
Mr. Atwater. They never propose new starts of new projects,
whether it's Title XVI, Army Corps flight control projects, et
cetera. In fact, I think you'll find that when we get into a
discussion of CALFED and the levee issue, it's doubtful that
the administration would propose it as a new start unless you
were to advocate it.
And so, I just would remind you that every project that
Commissioner Keys listed, the nine that have been funded, they
were enacted in 1996 and authorized by Congress. And second,
Congress appropriated the money first, before they put it in
the President's budget. They've never done it the other way in
the history of the program. They've never initiated it and
proposed any project. And third, from the WateReuse standpoint,
for the last half a dozen years, we've had an outstanding
relationship with the Bureau on Research and Development. Our
foundation leverages 20 cents on the dollar of Federal
investment with State agencies like Florida and California,
local agencies, and academic universities to fund research
because we all agree we need to promote the technology, and
that's the kind of partnership that I think we ought to
encourage.
What I want to just allude to is--and when you look at that
history, after Congress re-authorized the program in 1996, the
association--Commissioner Keys pointed out his bluebook, the
guidelines, that's a great example, where we did work for 2
years with them to come up with their guidelines, and it was
stakeholder consensus, and I think it's worked well over the
years. But Senator Feinstein, you asked the right question.
Starting in 1991, with Secretary Lujan's initiation of the
southern California study, and Congress authorized it in the
1992 bill, we've spent about $8 million in southern California,
and another $5 million in the bay area doing comprehensive
engineering feasibility and financial feasibility studies on
reuse, so that's an appropriate question.
In the 1996 to 1998 guidelines the Bureau did, we had
suggested that we don't need to reinvent the wheel. The State
of California, through their California State Water Resources
Control Board, had existing criteria, and we already had to
submit feasibility reports. Why wouldn't we--and that's a good
question to ask here, whether it's Arizona or New Mexico or
California, why couldn't we have identical criteria for both
the State and the Bureau?
Senator Feinstein. Yes, why not?
Senator Murkowski. That's a good point.
Mr. Atwater. We do that already in California with EPA. So,
that's a key point. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. And
frankly, after 15 years and spending $15 million of engineering
feasibility studies, I don't think we need to do more. In
California--and I should also say, through the very extensive
process of the CALFED Bay-Delta review--water recycling was
rated as the most cost-effective new supply in California, and
it's been fully vetted. The State of California just adopted
its new State water plan, and it recommends it.
So, we have a lot of planning that's been done. And I think
it's a good question, how do we coordinate and collaborate on
that and not duplicate efforts? And I think that's one that I
think the committee--I think the Department of the Interior and
the Bureau would agree, but we need to probably nudge them
along more, that we need to do that.
As a footnote, in January, I take a look at what the
Secretary of the Interior submitted to OMB. It sent for the
first tim--Senator Feinstein requested this in her
legislation--a cross-cut budget of all expenditures by the
Federal Government on CALFED. Every one of these Title XVI
projects is listed in the cross-cut budget. In fact, they take
credit for the investments to reuse water in San Diego to
reduce its demand in the delta for good reason. We all
acknowledge that helped solve the problem, just like that also
helped solve the problem on the Colorado River, but they aren't
talking to each other. They have a report that accomplishes
what you want.
So, the last thing I'd bring up, and just in conclusion, is
that I think, overall, the program has had a huge success. And
as we go forward over the next few decades, it's not unique to
California, it's not unique to the Colorado River Basin States,
and it's true, whether you are in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson,
Albuquerque, Salt Lake, or Denver, all the major metropolitan
areas in the Colorado River Basin are developing reuse
projects. Clearly, the Federal Government, given how important
the Federal role is in the Colorado River and a lot of these
issues that we deal with, they ought to be encouraging and
promoting. And in this case, in the case of Title XVI, we're
talking about the least amount of cost sharing of any Federal
water project. We're talking a maximum of $20 million and 25
percent. It is the smallest cost share of any Federal water
program. And in fact, we would encourage more competition and
more leveraging so that you spread the available funding, which
is a policy issue. How much can you fund for the program, but
have more competition so that it can be applied on a more
competitive basis, so more people can have available funds?
And in fact, the association would also encourage--which is
discussions we've had with the House for the last couple years,
and you might want to consider it, it's probably a good idea
too: why not make it a national program? There's actually more
reuse in Florida. And you look at problems in Texas and in the
Southeast, and it's something you might want to consider. Why
not? In fact, one of your recent legislations was to do reuse
in Hawaii. If they have a water problem, and if you're applying
cutting-edge technology to solve a problem that has multiple
water quality environmental supply issues, why should it be
unique to the Western 17 States? And so, I would suggest that
the committee might want to consider that.
I realize, from my days at the Bureau of Reclamation, it's
been a tradition for a long time to keep it restricted to the
17 States. Every once in a while, the Bureau tries to help out
Alaska, and every once in a while, it helps out Hawaii, but it
hasn't reached out to the rest of the country. However, I would
point out that the research and development program, we, in
fact--the Bureau with the WateReuse Foundation--fund some
really cutting-edge research projects in places like Florida,
Georgia and Virginia. And that concludes my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Atwater follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Atwater, Chief Executive Officer, Inland
Empire Utilities Agency, on behalf of the WateReuse Association
INTRODUCTION
Madam 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 the Bureau of Reclamation's
Reuse and Recycling Program (Title XVI) in ensuring an adequate water
supply for the nation in the 21st century. I am Richard Atwater,
Chairman of the WateReuse Association's National Legislative Committee,
and I am representing the Association today.
As a way of introduction, the WateReuse Association (WateReuse) is
a non-profit organization whose mission is to advance the beneficial
and efficient use of water resources through education, sound science,
and technology using reclamation, recycling, reuse, and desalination
for the benefit of our members, the public, and the environment. Across
the United States and the world, communities are facing water supply
challenges due to increasing demand, drought, and dependence on a
single source of supply. WateReuse address these challenges by working
with local agencies to implement water reuse and desalination projects
that resolve water resource issues and create value for communities.
The vision of WateReuse is to be the leading voice for reclamation,
recycling, reuse, and desalination in the development and utilization
of new sources of high quality water.
I am also Chief Executive Officer of Inland Empire Utilities Agency
(IEUA), located in Chino, California. By implementing aggressive
conservation programs and using innovative recycling and desalting
technologies to reuse our water supplies, we have reduced our potable
water demand by 20% over the past five years. IEUA is a municipal water
district that distributes imported water from the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and provides municipal/industrial
wastewater collection and treatment services to more than 800,000
people within a 242 square mile area in the western portion of San
Bernardino County. The Inland Empire region is the ``economic engine''
of California and among the top 10 job creating regions in the U.S.
The IEUA service area population is expected to double during the
next 20 years. About 7000 new homes each year are being built in the
IEUA service area. Inland Empire is not depending on new imported
supplies from the Colorado River or northern California through the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program to meet our future water supply needs.
Instead, we have developed an integrated water resources plan that will
develop 95,000 acre-feet of new recycled water, desalinate over 50,000
acre-feet of brackish groundwater supplies, and, with the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, develop 150,000 acre-feet of
conjunctive use in the Chino groundwater basin. These will be the
primary new water supplies to meet the rapidly growing needs of the
Inland Empire region of Southern California.
A critical partner in making these new local water supplies
available in our region is the Federal government. Pending in Congress
are Title XVI bills that would authorize a $20 million grant to provide
a 10% Federal cost-share for the IEUA regional water recycling project
of 95,000 acre-feet (total cost is $200 million). Without a doubt this
cost-sharing arrangement to develop a critical new supply for a rapidly
growing region without asking for more supplies from the Colorado River
or northern California (CALFED) is incredibly cost-effective when
compared to the other supply options available in the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program.
On behalf of the Association's Board of Directors, I want to
commend you, Madam Chairman, for convening this hearing. The hearing is
especially timely, given the increasing number of challenges facing
local agencies in their continuing quest to ensure adequate water
supplies in the future. It is our understanding that you would like our
thoughts on the United States Bureau of Reclamation's (USBR) Title XVI
Program. WateReuse is pleased to provide its views on this important
and valuable program. We would also like to expand our comments beyond
Title XVI and recommend some specific actions that the Federal
government could take to address the nation's future water supply
needs. Clearly if the U.S. is to address its future water supply needs
in an effective manner, the Federal government must play a leadership
role.
the bureau of reclamation's title xvi reuse and recycling program
In your invitation letter, Madam Chairman, you requested that the
Association address three specific topics: 1) our experiences with
Title XVI; 2) the potential project benefits; and 3) suggestions for
reshaping and improving the program. Let me address each of these
topics.
Experiences with the Title XVI Program and Program Benefits
My personal history with Title XVI can be traced all the way back
to the enactment of the legislation. As the General Manager of the West
and Central Basin Water Management Districts at the time of the passage
of the Title XVI legislation in 1992, I was strongly supportive of the
legislation. Once the legislation was enacted, West Basin was fortunate
to be one of the first recipients of grant funding. This grant funding
had numerous benefits for West Basin as well as the approximately 30
other local agencies that have received grant funding over the past 13
years, including the Orange County Water District (OCWD), represented
here today by Virginia Grebbien, OCWD's General Manager.
The Association and its members have a long-standing and productive
working relationship with the USBR and its Title XVI program. The Title
XVI program has benefited many communities in the West by providing
grant funds that made these projects more affordable. The Federal cost
share--although a relatively small portion of the overall project
cost--often makes the difference in determining whether a project
qualifies for financing. In addition, the Federal funding and the
imprimatur of the United States government typically results in a
reduced cost of capital.
The Association believes that the Title XVI program is an
unqualified success and represents a sound investment in the future of
the West by the Federal government. Through FY 2004, the Federal
investment of $272.5 million has been leveraged by a factor of
approximately 5:1. According to a recently completed study by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the non-Federal investment to
date during this same period amounted to $1.085 billion.
In enumerating specific project benefits, we must not forget the
intangible benefits that exist when this critical new water supply is
brought on line in addition to the financial value of such projects.
These include the following:
<bullet> Environmental benefits realized through the conversion of
treated wastewater into a valuable new water supply;
<bullet> Reduction of the quantity of treated wastewater discharged
to sensitive or impaired surface waters.
<bullet> Avoidance of construction impacts of new supply development
(e.g., new dams and other expensive importation aqueducts);
<bullet> Reduced dependence on the Colorado River and on the CALFED
Bay-Delta System, especially during drought years when
conflicts on both of these water systems are particularly
intense.
<bullet> Creation of a dependable and controllable local source of
supply for cities in arid and semi-arid climates such as El
Paso, Phoenix, and Las Vegas; and
<bullet> Reduced demand on existing potable supplies.
<bullet> Energy benefits, including reduced energy demand and
transmission line constraints during peak use periods, realized
by the replacement of more energy-intensive water supplies such
as pumped imported water with less energy-intensive water
sources like recycled water.
A fundamental question is ``why would we want to use valuable, high
quality water from the Bureau of Reclamation's Shasta Reservoir in
northern California or Lake Powell in Utah and pump and transport it
over 500 miles to irrigate a park or golf course in the Los Angeles or
San Diego metropolitan areas?'' Also remember that the replacement of
that imported water with local recycled water will save enough energy
from reduced pumping equivalent to a 500 megawatt power plant!
Obviously the energy and water policy issues facing the arid West
clearly justify a ``strategically'' small grant program to use recycled
water as a means to continue to support the economic vitality of the
major metropolitan areas throughout the Colorado and Rio Grande River
basins.
In its FY 2004 review of the Bureau's Title XVI program, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) rated the program ``moderately
effective.'' OMB noted that ``these water reuse and recycling projects
help expand water supplies in areas that routinely face severe water
shortages, and are especially important in helping to shift California
from its dependence on Colorado River water.'' OMB was also
complimentary of Bureau staff, noting that staff ``generally work[s]
very closely and effectively with local sponsors in project development
and planning and are efficient in supplying grant funds and technical
assistance.'' The Association concurs with OMB on both of these
findings; our experience in working with the Bureau has been a very
positive one. We would only add that, when compared to traditional
Bureau of Reclamation multiple purpose water supply projects, Title XVI
is very cost-effective and minimizes the need for future additional
Federal obligations to solve interstate water problems.
Suqqestions for Improvement of the Title XVI Program
The Association strongly supports the continuation of Title XVI
funding. Unfortunately, communities in the East do not qualify for
Title XVI funds. Hence, WateReuse supports the establishment of a
national competitive grants program that would provide Federal grant
funding for which communities in all 50 states would be eligible.
Water reuse and recycling is now practiced all over the country,
not just in the 17 western states. In addition to California, Texas,
Arizona, and Florida, the states of New Mexico, Washington, Colorado,
Nevada, Virginia, and New Jersey have growing water reuse programs.
Water reuse is growing at a 15% compound annual growth rate as shown in
Appendix A (Figure 1).* Current planned reuse is estimated at 3.6
billion gallons per day and is projected to grow to 12 billion gallons
per day by the year 2015. Substantial growth potential remains,
however. According to EPA's most recent Needs Survey, 34.9 billion
gallons per day of wastewater were generated in 2000. This means that
only about 10% is being beneficially reclaimed and reused (see Figure
2). Statistics on actual use in California, Florida, Texas, and
Arizona--which account for approximately 90% of all water reuse in the
U.S.--are shown in Appendix A (Figure 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Appendix A has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Subcommittee considers actions to make the Title XVI program
stronger and more effective, we recommend that consideration be given
to the following:
1) Creation of a competitive grants program;
2) Expansion of eligibility to include communities in all 50
states; and
3) Provision of an annual authorization of funding of $200
million/year.
A policy and Federal leadership commitment with this relatively
modest level of federal investment would mean that the nation would
begin to respond to the demands placed on current limited water
supplies and would address municipal, industrial and commercial demands
as well as natural resources needs as documented in the Department of
the Interior's Water 2025 assessment in 2002.
The current Title XVI program allows a Federal contribution of the
lesser of $20 million or 25% of the total project costs. To allow more
communities to participate in this valuable program, the Association
would support a reduction in Federal cost sharing to the lesser of $20
million or 20% of total project costs. We think that, when compared to
all other Bureau of Reclamation authorized projects, the Title XVI
``targeted low cost share grant program'' has the greatest benefits for
solving regional water problems and at the lowest Federal investment
cost.
Finally, the Association recommends that the Congress appropriate
funds to conduct a national survey of water reuse and recycling needs.
A national survey would serve a number of purposes, including 1)
documentation of national, regional, and local water reuse and
recycling needs, 2) documentation of willingness of local agencies to
expend funds on water reuse projects if they could obtain some level of
Federal support, and 3) a quantification of benefits--both financial
and social--of existing Title XVI projects and future planned projects.
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN WATER REUSE AND DESALINATION
In the opinion of our Association, the Federal government should
take a leadership role in promoting water reclamation and reuse,
desalination, groundwater recharge technology, and water use
efficiency/conservation innovation. If the appropriate Federal role is
identified now and appropriate actions are taken, our nation will be
well positioned to meet the water supply challenges of the future.
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
could be used to promote reuse practices. The Federal government could
promote 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 water reuse.
We also believe it is critically important for the Federal
government to provide adequate funding for research. If this country is
to have the wherewithal to provide cost-effective water supply
facilities, we must be able to reduce the costs of production and to
increase greater public acceptance and reliance on alternative water
supplies.
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
wastewater and other alternative supplies. 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 alternative supply development. The same challenge is true
for microbial contaminants. This is not only a water reuse challenge,
but also one that also applies to every municipality whose source of
water supply is a major river or whose groundwater is impacted by
impaired water sources. 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.
WateReuse is also strongly supportive of additional Federal funding
for water reuse and desalination projects. Although the President's
budget typically includes less than $20 million for USBR's Title XVI
program (note: the FY 2007 budget includes only $10 million), we have
consistently encouraged the Congress to support this worthwhile program
with an appropriate level of funding (i.e., $100 million/year or more).
RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, we believe that alternative water supplies, including
water reuse and desalination, 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 additional research, technology demonstrations and
technology transfer of water reuse that is essential to
developing answers to questions on environmental pollutants of
concerns, gaining public acceptance. and reducing the costs of
production;
<bullet> Support increased funding for the Title XVI program;
<bullet> Support the enactment of legislation that would establish a
competitive grants program for which local water agencies in
all 50 states would be eligible that would provide funding for
much needed water reuse and desalination projects. The
Subcommittee should advocate an authorization of $100 million/
year for water reuse projects and $100 million for desalination
over at least a five year period.
<bullet> Increase Federal ``venture capital'' (i.e., seed capital
assistance through innovative financing tools and targeted
grants (e.g., Title XVI) to assist communities in developing
innovative and new demonstrations of reuse and desalination
technology.
CONCLUSION
Once again, the WateReuse Association wants to thank you, Madam
Chairman, for convening this hearing. We would be pleased to work with
you in addressing critical issues related to water reuse and recycling,
desalination, and water use efficiency. We are strongly supportive of
the Subcommittee's efforts to ensure adequate and safe supplies of
water in the future for the entire country.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Atwater.
Mr. Donnelly.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. DONNELLY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Donnelly. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator
Feinstein. Projects and programs that maximize the use and
reuse of existing supplies are greatly needed in the Western
United States. Title XVI of Public Law 102-575 was intended to
be just such a program. Unfortunately, it appears to be
currently dysfunctional and understandably out of favor with
this administration. NWRA strongly supports a reconstituted
Title XVI program which provides cost sharing, cost-shared
funding for research demonstration programs and construction of
projects that represent new and improved technologies for water
recycling, reuse, desalinization and conservation in the arid
and semi-arid West.
The single biggest flaw in the current program is the
manner in which projects are selected for authorization and
funding. We would recommend that Title XVI be amended to
establish a more formal application process that requires the
Commissioner of Reclamation to present to Congress a written
report recommending or rejecting the project application before
Congress authorizes those projects or funds those projects.
That's not unlike programs in the Corps of Engineers and other
Federal agencies.
It has been suggested that the program should be made a
national program. We would strongly recommend that the program
be made available only in those States whose communities are
coping with long-range water supply programs. That's not to say
simply Reclamation States. There are a few non-Reclamation
States that are facing water supply challenges akin to the
problems faced by water supply districts in the arid and semi-
arid West, most notably Florida, as Mr. Atwater has mentioned.
Congress could choose to extend Reclamation's Title XVI
authority individually to these States.
The question of whether or not the Title XVI program should
remain the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation depends
largely upon Congress's vision of the future scope and
direction of the program. If the objectives of Title XVI
continue to be those stated in the authorized legislation, and
it remains a program addressing the critical water supply needs
in the arid and semi-arid States or additional States facing
similar problems, we believe the program should remain under
the purview of the Bureau of Reclamation.
In amending this program, Congress should consider
increasing the Federal cost share and the maximum amount
provided per project for those projects that satisfy national
goals and objectives. Madam Chairman, we stand ready to assist
the committee in any way to reconstitute the Title XVI program.
We want to see this program work. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donnelly follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas F. Donnelly, Executive Vice President,
National Water Resources Association
TITLE XVI OF PUBLIC LAW 102-575
The National Water Resources Association (NWRA) is a nonprofit
federation of associations and individuals dedicated to the
conservation, enhancement, and efficient management of our Nation's
most precious natural resource--WATER. The NWRA is the oldest and most
active national association concerned with water resources policy and
development. Its strength is a reflection of the tremendous
``grassroots'' participation it has generated on virtually every
national issue affecting western water conservation, management, and
development.
In the West, water infrastructure is every bit as important as
transportation infrastructure. It is essential to the continued
economic growth and development of the nation. Water infrastructure
needs continue to exist, particularly considering the West's rapid
population growth [9 out of 10 of the fastest growing states are
Reclamation States]. However, on the whole, today's infrastructure
needs are different from those of the past. No one envisions a future
infrastructure development program and financing arrangements like the
Reclamation program, which facilitated the development and economic
growth of the West during much of the last century. It is time to
recognize and address a new generation of infrastructure development
needs and financing realities. Future projects are more likely to
include non-structural features, environmental enhancement, proven best
management practices, innovative approaches to water quality/quantity
concerns and greater levels of non-federal financing.
Projects and programs that maximize the use and reuse of existing
supplies are greatly needed in the West. Title XVI of Public Law 102-
575 was intended to be such a program. Conceptually, Title XVI is a
sound and much-needed federal program; however, it is currently
dysfunctional and out of favor with the Administration. NWRA strongly
supports a reconstituted Title XVI program which provides cost shared
funding for research, demonstration programs and construction of
projects that represent new or improved technologies for water
recycling, reuse, desalination and conservation in the arid and semi-
arid West.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING TITLE XVI OF PUBLIC LAW 102-575
Application and Award Process
The single biggest flaw in the current program is the manner in
which projects are selected for authorization and funding. In point of
fact, the process has devolved into one that rewards those project
sponsors employing the most connected and influential lobbyists rather
than on the merits of the project or its technology and the needs of
the communities applying for assistance.
We would recommend that the law be amended to establish a formal
application process that requires the Bureau of Reclamation to present
to Congress a written report recommending or rejecting the project
application based upon factors such as, but not limited to, benefit/
cost, ability to cost share at an increased level, promising new
technology, and the prospect of impending water shortages in the
project area.
If such a process was incorporated into the law ,it would then be
incumbent upon the authorizing and appropriating committee in Congress
to reject projects for which a Commissioner's report had not been
forwarded to the authorizing Committees.
Use and Use Restrictions
It has been suggested that the program should be made a national
program. I suspect that water supply districts or agencies throughout
the country could make use of such a program, but we would strongly
recommend that the program be made available only in those States whose
communities are coping with long-range water supply problems. There are
a few non-Reclamation states that are facing water supply challenges
akin to the problems faced by water supply districts in the arid and
semi-arid West, most notably, Florida. Congress could choose to extend
Reclamation's Title XVI authority individually to States facing long-
term water supply problems as was done by Public Law 106-566 for the
State of Hawaii.
Program Responsibility
The question of whether or not the Title XVI program should remain
the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation depends largely upon
Congress' vision of the future scope and direction of the program.
First, we would oppose transferring the Title XVI program to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps' primary civil works mission is
navigation and flood control. The only justification expressed to date
for such a transfer of authority is the hope that under the Corps of
Engineers the program would be funded at a much higher level. If the
objectives of Title XVI continue to be those stated in the authorizing
legislation and it remains a program addressing the critical water
supply needs in arid and semi-arid states or additional states facing
similar problems, we believe that the program should remain under the
purview of the Bureau of Reclamation. Should Congress choose to expand
the scope of the program and make it national in scope, we could see
distinct advantages in transferring it to the Environmental Protection
Agency. However, as stated previously, we strongly believe that the
Title XVI program should benefit only those States whose communities
continue to struggle with meeting the water supply demands of a rapidly
growing population--the Reclamation West.
Cost Sharing
Each year the federal budget provides millions of dollars to States
and communities to provide water for environmental purposes, Native
American trust responsibilities and other purposes. The restoration of
the Everglades and California's Bay-Delta, water for anadromous fish
and Indian water rights settlements have and will continue to cost the
American taxpayers billions of dollars. Finding and/or providing
additional water is the principle element in all of these mitigation or
settlement programs.
The Title XVI program can be used effectively to explore and
develop technologies that provide additional water to meet the future
needs and competing demands of growing communities and environmental
mitigation and enhancement.
The program currently calls for a minimum non-federal cost share of
75 percent on all projects and provides a maximum of $20 million per
project. In comparison to most other federal/non-federal cost shared
programs, Title XVI is a bargain for the federal government.
In amending the program, Congress should consider increasing the
federal cost share and the maximum provided per project for those
projects that satisfy national goals and objectives such as the
aforementioned projects and programs.
Summary
1. NWRA strongly supports a reconstituted Title XVI program
under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
2. NWRA recommends that the Title XVI of P.L. 102-575 be
amended to establish a formal application process that requires
the Bureau of Reclamation to present to Congress a written
report recommending or rejecting the project application before
Congressional authorization or funding.
3. NWRA recommends that Title XVI remain principally a
program benefiting the arid and semi-arid States which could be
extended on an individual bases to States demonstrating a
critical need.
4. NWRA recommends that the federal/non-federal cost sharing
be made more flexible for projects creating new supplies of
water that satisfy national goals and objectives.
In conclusion, the National Water Resources Association greatly
appreciates the opportunity to present our views to the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee and we stand committed to assist the
committee in its efforts to improve upon this important program.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.
Ms. Grebbien.
STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA GREBBIEN, GENERAL MANAGER, ORANGE COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT, ORANGE COUNTY, CA
Ms. Grebbien. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Senator
Feinstein. I'm here today, I guess, representing the local
color, if you will. I'm the general manager of the Orange
County Water District. I'm also a public water official who has
a lot of experience with Title XVI projects. I've personally
been involved in the planning, design and construction of two
Title XVI projects that are successfully operating. And
currently, right now, my agency is building the groundwater
replenishment system, which is a large, indirect potable reuse
project which will be on-line in the summer of 2007.
In addition to that, I've helped numerous agencies with
their Title XVI projects through their institutional issues and
moving those projects forward to completion. I would tell you
that I'm here with a bit of a different message than
Commissioner Keys. My message is one of enthusiasm and hope for
the Title XVI program, rather than one of concerns and issues.
I would tell you that the Bureau of Reclamation has played a
very important role in Title XVI in the past and should
continue to do so in the future. And the most important reason
is what we've discovered in southern California, which is that
water recycling is our future in order to increase our water
reliability and supplement our imported water supplies. Despite
the fact that the Title XVI program enjoys tremendous support
from the Western and Sunbelt States, I'm really quite frankly
disappointed that we're here today again asking questions that
I've testified on before previously: Does the Title XVI program
work? Does it provide value? Does it create new water? Is there
a legitimate Federal role? Should the Title XVI program be
modified?
I would strongly tell you that the Title XVI program very
much works. It provides exceptional value. It creates new
water. How many programs by the Federal Government actually
create new water? The Title XVI program does. Given the
economic vitality of the West and the Federal mandates that
State and local communities must meet to assure a clean and
safe water supply, a legitimate Federal role in water recycling
in the Title XVI program does exist. Federal assistance that's
provided through the Title XVI program delivers benefits by
reducing borrowing costs, enhancing public acceptance of a
project, providing a platform for speedy transfer of innovative
technologies that can be used elsewhere in the Nation.
Our project, the Groundwater Replenishment project, the one
we're building right now--72,000 acre-feet, enough water for
140,000 families a year--would not have been successful without
Federal buy-in and support. It's a reality today because both
the State of California and the Federal Government have chosen
to financially participate in this project. The Federal role is
critical because it provides a mechanism for local elected
officials and decisionmakers to deal with the inherent risk
when implementing a large-scale water recycling program. I was
asked this rhetorical question: Would GWR be alive today, or
what would have happened to it without Federal support? And the
answer to that is we would not have as broad-based community
support and political support for the project as we currently
enjoy.
As we engage in outreach about our project, we start with
the top, if you will, the Federal Government. They provide
money technology transfer. The State of California provides
money in regulatory oversight. Local government provides the
majority of the money and the local will to implement the
project. All six of Orange County's congressional leaders
support the GWR project. California's two United States
Senators--thank you very much, Senator Feinstein--support the
GWR project, and that support is backed up by a Federal
commitment with Federal dollars, and that's the foundation upon
which we build community, environmental and business support
for our project.
Federal involvement in Title XVI projects is warranted for
several reasons. In California, we have a mandate to reduce our
use of Colorado River water. In Arizona and Nevada, there's a
similar mandate to appropriately use Colorado River supplies.
In Texas, the Ogallala Aquifer and watershed supply shortages
are creating the need for recycled water supply development.
New Mexico water supplies are extremely limited from the Rio
Grande and other local watersheds. The common theme here, and
there is a common theme, is that regional water supplies with
direct Federal involvement must be augmented and enhanced
through local water supply development, such as water
recycling.
The Federal Government has established significant mandates
for ecosystem maintenance and restoration, fisheries, in-stream
flows, and habitat development. All that takes water, water
that is typically diverted from ag and urban areas. At the same
time, our water demands are not decreasing. The population is
continuing to grow, and we have future water supplies we need
to meet. And these new water supplies must be environmentally
sustainable if they're going to be developed, as Mr. Atwater
mentioned.
The Federal Government is instrumental in establishing
these ecosystem mandates. How can we question the need for
programs, such as Title XVI, that provide the necessary funds
to implement alternative water supply projects?
Over the last decade, I've watched the Bureau of
Reclamation struggle to define its role in the Title XVI
program, and we heard some of that earlier today. Congress has
continued to authorize projects while the administration has
continued to decrease the overall funding, and this has created
a backlog of unfunded projects. I find it amazing that people
point to this issue and say that it's a problem, and it's proof
that the Title XVI program is broken. Instead, I would tell you
that this is proof that the Title XVI program works, and it's
needed, and it has value, and it should be expanded.
One of the important lessons that I've learned from my
years of working with Title XVI is the fact that we're at a
stage where we need to implement a comprehensive Federal
program of assistance to local agencies. And so, I would agree
with all the witnesses here today that we do need to modify and
amend, as well as augment and enhance the Title XVI program,
not restrict it and cut it back. One of the things that we
could do is identify the overall need, as you mentioned,
Senator Feinstein, and have an annual survey of where these
projects are at and have that survey be done by the Bureau of
Reclamation based on data developed from the States.
Establishing a set of criteria that would qualify for a
project, I agree with that.
However, I'm very concerned, and you heard it in the
previous testimony, that--as I believe Commissioner Keys said,
I'm reading my notes--the primary weakness of the Title XVI
program is that it's a pass-through program for the Bureau of
Reclamation. In my area in my agency, we do a lot of work with
the Corps of Engineers. We have multiple partnerships with the
Corps of Engineers. It will take us 7, 8, 9 years and millions
of dollars to get a feasibility study off the ground to
implement a wetlands project, a natural treatment project to
reduce nitrate and other chemicals in stream flows, urban
runoff. Fantastic programs. There's no reason something that
should take a $400,000 or $500,000 feasibility study should
take $5 million and 7 years, and that's our experience, quite
frankly, with the Corps of Engineers. I do not want that to be
my experience with the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Title XVI program is streamlined. These projects do
have feasibility studies. They are looked at by regulatory
agencies, by local agencies, by State-level agencies. The
Bureau of Reclamation has issued guidelines back in 1998. I
think we have sufficient guidelines and criteria. I would
encourage us to work on mechanisms where we can assure that the
Title XVI project program is fully funded.
And again, I would point to the fact that the Title XVI
program has produced water, actual new water, not stored water,
not conserved water, not water moved around, actual new water,
and that is money very well spent by the Federal Government.
In closing, I'd like to reiterate that the program's not
broken. It definitely is not broken. It's a very valuable
program that has facilitated the development of, I believe the
CRS study said, 600,000 acre-feet a year of recycled water
capacity. That's quite an achievement and something that we
should all be proud of. The Title XVI project, GWR, a $20
million investment by the Federal Government, has leveraged
$467 million of local and State revenue, primarily local
revenue. Not only do Title XVI projects drought-proof areas by
creating new water supply, but they reduce pressure on imported
water supplies where there's a clear Federal mandate. It
facilitates technology improvements. It enhances the science of
groundwater monitoring and provides the opportunities for
technology transfer and research. All of that is a lot of value
for your buck, and I would say that it's been a great program.
I look forward to working with the committee and the Bureau of
Reclamation to continue the Title XVI program.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Grebbien follows:]
Prepared Statement of Virginia Grebbien, General Manager, Orange County
Water District, Orange County, CA
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
Bureau of Reclamations' Title XVI Program. I am Virginia Grebbien and I
appear before you as the General Manager of the Orange County Water
District located in Orange County, California and on behalf of our
Board of directors. I will summarize my remarks and would request that
my formal testimony as well as background information on OCWD be
included in the hearing record. OCWD was formed in 1933 and today is
responsible for managing and protecting the vast groundwater basin
under north and central Orange County. The groundwater basin provides
about two-thirds of the water supply for 2.3 million people in our
region which includes the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa,
Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach,
Newport Beach, Irvine, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Orange, Placentia, Santa
Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba
Linda.
I am pleased to appear before you today to review the development
status of recycled water projects and the important role the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI program has played and must continue to
play in the future. In Southern California we realize that the future
of water reliability lies in the ability to supplement our imported
water supplies with local water supply development such as recycled
water. It is important to note that this priority involves multiple
uses such as irrigation, industrial and indirect potable reuse.
I have a long history with the Title XVI Program. I first testified
in support of Title XVI in 1992 when the Program was originally
authorized. In 1996 Congress amended the law. The changes included a
``cap'' of 25% on eligible project costs. I was part of the WateReuse
Association Task Force that helped initiate this and other changes. As
a public official, I have managed the planning, design and construction
of three Title XVI projects. I have also been involved in the
institutional development of numerous others. The Title XVI Program has
successfully helped develop 30 recycled water projects. I would note
that this subcommittee has been a major reason behind the program's
success. I would also note that full committee Chairman, Senator Pete
Domenici has been a key reason that we have enjoyed continued funding
of Title XVI programs despite efforts by the past two Administrations
to reduce the federal role. We deeply appreciate Senator Domenici's
commitment to ensure that we have a solid federal partnership.
Despite the fact that the Title XVI Program enjoys tremendous
support from the Western and Sunbelt states and despite the fact that
the Title XVI Program is over subscribed, we are being asked, again,
some important and fundamental questions that I hope will guide us in
developing an improved water recycling partnership with the federal
government. These are:
<bullet> Does the Title XVI Program work?
<bullet> Does it provide value?
<bullet> Does it actually create new water?
<bullet> Is there a legitimate federal role?
<bullet> Should the Title XVI Program be modified?
From my humble perspective as one of the pioneers of implementing
the original law, and an ardent supporter of recycled water, let me
assure the subcommittee that the Title XVI Program works. It provides
value. And, it creates new water. Given the economic vitality of the
West (California alone is the 5th largest economy in the world; makes
up 13% of the nation's GDP; and generates $1.4 trillion in gross state
product) and the federal mandates that state and local communities must
meet to assure a clean and safe water supply, a legitimate federal role
does exist. Let's be clear on one important point; the federal
assistance that is provided through Title XVI delivers benefits by
reducing borrowing costs, enhancing public acceptance of a project, and
providing a platform for the speedy transfer of innovative technologies
that can be used elsewhere in the nation.
Orange County Water District is currently constructing the
Groundwater Replenishment System. This visionary indirect potable reuse
project will be operational in the summer of 2007 and will produce
72,000 acre-feet per year (enough water to meet the annual needs of
140,000 families) of new water for the 2.3 million residents of Orange
County. The Project uses state-of-the-aft treatment, monitoring and
groundwater replenishment technology. This technology is used to insure
high quality water is produced from the project. All aspects of the
project are monitored to insure quality objectives are met and
maintained. The product water will be recharged into the Orange County
Groundwater Basin increasing the sustainable yield from the basin. The
Project not only provides direct benefits to the rate payers within our
service area but it provides regional benefits as well. Recycled water
is a drought proof supply that is available even in the driest years.
Having recycled water available enables OCWD to make conserved and
imported water available to other Southern California water agencies
that are not as fortunate in their water supply portfolio during dry
years. In addition, to the extent local water supply can be created
than it relieves the pressure to import water from the Colorado River
into the Southern California Region.
The Groundwater Replenishment System would not have been successful
without federal buy-in and support. GWR is a reality today because both
the State of California and the federal government have chosen to
financially participate in this project. The federal role is critical
because it provides a mechanism for local elected officials and
decision makers to deal with the inherent risks when implementing a
large scale recycled water project.
The total capital cost for the GWRS project is $487 million. The
Title XVI grant of $20 million has leveraged $80 million in State funds
and $387 million in local rate payer dollars. The federal cost share
was critical as it provided a mechanism to solicit State grant funds
and importantly provided a level of political acceptability and project
legitimization that enabled our local decision makers to move forward
with the project.
What would have happened to the GWRS project without federal
support? We would not have as broad based community and political
support for the project as we currently enjoy. As we engage in outreach
about the project we start with the projects supporters; the federal
government--they provide money and technology transfer; the state of
California--they provide money and regulatory oversight; local
government--they provide the majority of the money and the local will
to implement the project. All six of Orange County's congressional
leaders support the GWRS project. California's two United States
Senators support the GWRS project. That support is backed up by federal
dollars. This is the foundation upon which we have built community,
environmental and business support for the GWRS project. Unlike some
recycled water projects which unfortunately were built and then not
operated due to lack of community support. I have 100% confidence that
the GWRS project will be successfully producing recycled water next
summer and the cornerstone of that confidence starts with a small
federal investment.
Federal involvement in Title XVI projects is warranted for several
reasons. In California we have a mandate to reduce our use of Colorado
River water. In Arizona and Nevada there is a similar mandate to
responsibly use Colorado River supplies. In Texas the Ogallala Aquifer
and watershed supply shortages are creating the need for recycled water
supply development. In Florida there is a critical groundwater supply
shortage. In New Mexico water supplies are extremely limited from the
Rio Grande River and other local watersheds. The common theme is that
regional water supplies with direct federal involvement must be
augmented and enhanced through local water supply development of
recycled water.
The federal government has established significant mandates for
ecosystem maintenance and restoration. Fisheries, in stream flows,
habitat development all take water. Water that is typically being
redirected from urban uses. At the same time, our water demands are not
decreasing and neither are our future water supply projections. New
water supplies that are environmentally sustainable must be developed
if we are to meet our ecosystem mandates. Recycled water is one such
supply. If the federal government is instrumental in establishing these
ecosystem mandates how can we question the need for programs such as
Title XVI that provide necessary funds to implement alternative water
supply development?
It is important for the federal government to play a role in
research and technology transfer. Large results can be gained at the
local and regional levels with relatively small investments from the
federal government. No single local water agency has the financial
resources or expertise to research and investigate membrane processes,
brine concentration technologies, the health risks of pharmaceuticals
or alternative power technologies to name a few areas of interest.
However, the federal government has the capability to bring disparate
agencies together in cost sharing arrangements to jointly work on
technology improvements that will make recycled water development even
more cost effective and reliable. Again, a small federal investment
leverages local dollars and technical talent for significant water
resources gains.
Over the last decade I have watched the Bureau of Reclamation's
struggle to define its role in the Title XVI Program. Congress has
continued to authorize projects while the Administration has continued
to decrease the overall funding for Title XVI. This has created a
``backlog'' of unfunded projects. Some point to this situation as proof
that Title XVI is broken and needs fixing. I would instead say this is
proof of the value of Title XVI and what is needed is an expansion of
the program. A proposal has been floated that the federal government
should offer loan guarantees rather than grant funding. In my view this
is a tool that should be available along with other financing options.
However, the suggestion that this tool could replace the existing grant
program is an ineffective idea. As a local government agency, OCWD has
access to a significant amount of tax free credit. We have an AA+
credit rating and our average cost of debt is 4%. A loan guarantee from
the federal government will not provide political support or the
political will to implement recycled water projects like the current
Title XXVI program does. Similarly, a loan guarantee does not enhance a
local government agencies' ability to raise capital.
What is missing from the Title XVI program is a comprehensive
federal program similar to the federal Drinking Water supply Program
that sets standards for federal support. This is an important point
that I cannot emphasize enough. Title XVI is an effective program. The
federal partnership made it possible for projects like GWR to get off
the drawing board. However, a number of lessons have been learned since
its original passage in 1992. Water recycling as well as desalination
are foundations for our future public health, environmental and
economic well being. I would add that on the heels of last year's
natural disasters, these projects also serve to safeguard against water
supply disruptions.
One of the important lessons that I take away from my years of
working with Title XVI is the fact that we are at stage where we need
to implement a comprehensive federal program of assistance to local
agencies. This means that we need to amend Title XVI to address issues
including:
<bullet> Identifying the overall need for assistance on a project by
project basis among the states based on a bi-annual survey of
need conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation based on State
generated data.
<bullet> Establishing a series of criteria that would qualify a
project for assistance such as ensuring a project provides
multiple benefits or will contribute to other ongoing water
conservation programs.
<bullet> Ensuring that any existing Title XVI project authorization
is fully funded.
<bullet> Expanding Title XVI to advance the commercialization of
promising technologies that can reduce the cost of water
production and/or increase the safety and acceptance of
recycled water by the public.
<bullet> Providing for a defined budget authorization to support a
comprehensive federal water recycling program that can create
stability and predictably to the management of this program
need.
In closing I would like to reiterate that the Title XVI program is
not broken. It is a very valuable program that has facilitated the
development of 600,000 afy of recycled water supply capacity. Title XVI
has produced projects such as GWRS. The federal government's investment
of $20 million has leveraged $467 million in state and local dollars.
GWRS, a Title XVI project, will not only help to drought proof Orange
County by creating a new water supply, but it will also reduced
pressure on Colorado River supplies, it will facilitate technology
improvements, it enhances the science of groundwater monitoring and it
provides opportunities for technology transfer and research.
Again, it is an honor to appear before you today and review the
important ways that Title XVI has assisted OCWD's efforts to ensure a
safe and reliable water supply and how we as a country should proceed
into the future. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Ms. Grebbien. Let's go to
some questions. Ms. Cody, is it fair to say that you believe
that Title XVI is a value-added program, but we need to
restructure it in order to make it more effective, based on
your review?
Ms. Cody. Well, that's a difficult question for me to
answer. First of all, CRS does not take positions, and we are
not allowed to take positions on pending legislation or even in
this case, pre-pending legislation, so I can't exactly answer
that question.
However, what I can say is that I think that question is
for Congress to decide--you have folks that believe, as we just
heard, the program is not broken and others that do. I think
what my conclusion would be--I can offer conclusions--is that
you have a program that is stuck. Yes, some people are
benefiting from it, some are continuing to go forward, some
have been lucky enough or feisty enough to get the
authorizations through Congress when they couldn't get
engagement with the Bureau, but for the Bureau, that has
created a problem. So, you have all these different views, and
I think this hearing is a place where people can air those
views and see exactly if the program is broken, and if so,
where and gather information on how to fix it.
One thing I have observed about the program is it is, in a
way, not really a program. It is very much like the traditional
process of authorizing Corps and Bureau of Reclamation
projects. Congress authorizes the projects, and then the
appropriations are made by line item. What Mr. Keys has
described is a proposal where it would be very similar to other
existing infrastructure projects, where you have the appraisal
phase, feasibility stage, a positive feasibility study comes
before the Congress, and then it's authorized, and then you get
appropriations.
I think what we're hearing from some of the folks at the
table is that that may not work for these types of projects. I
think where the problem comes in--and if I could just read
something real quickly from my testimony?
Senator Murkowski. Go ahead.
Ms. Cody. On page eight of my testimony, it also relates to
questions, Senators Murkowski and Feinstein, you both asked,
and it's that what we have here is kind of a disconnect between
the way that Reclamation has traditionally operated and other
Federal programs operate and the desire to meet local needs. If
I could just read this. There's a clear lack of--or Reclamation
has noted the clear lack of program funding process that's not
typical of other Federal agencies. Other Federal water
assistance programs, such as the State revolving loan funds for
waste water and drinking water administered by EPA, have set
criteria and competitive processes. That's what Reclamation is
now asking for, we heard today. So do rural water supply
programs administered by USDA, and I think the new Rural Water
Supply legislation passed by this committee last year is also
in that vein, but Congress appropriates money annually for
those programs.
However, project funding for projects under these other
programs is not appropriated by line item as it is for the
Title XVI projects. Instead, depending on the program, the
States and the Federal agencies allocate the program funding
under project eligibility criteria, and I think that's an
important difference--that here you have--that Reclamation
would have, if it were similar to other programs, a pot of
money that would then be decided where that money goes based on
set eligibility criteria that the program sponsors would know
what that is, and it could be based on those criteria. I think
that's what I'm hearing. It's kind of the combination of things
thrown out here today, but I want to make it very clear CRS
does not make recommendations to the Congress.
Senator Murkowski. Well, then I won't be able to ask most
of my questions to you on that.
Ms. Cody. I can frame issues, however, or come to
conclusions.
Senator Murkowski. But what I understand you are saying is
that, based on the review that you have conducted of the
various programs and where they are, either in the stages of
funding or their obsolete authorization, whatever the status
might be, that it would be helpful for the success of the
programs if there were some form of eligibility criteria.
Ms. Cody. I think it would be helpful. There are
eligibility criteria. I mean, I think that is important to
note. I think Mr. Atwater noted it. There are feasibility--
they're not really criteria, they are considerations that
Reclamation must look into in the original statute. The Bureau
also has pretty extensive guidelines. The issue is those
guidelines do not have the--I don't want to say force of law,
that's not the right term, but they are not binding on
Reclamation--they have not gone through a formal rulemaking
process, and they are not binding.
So, when people look at those, they may view them
differently than they would if Congress were to legislate
specific criteria that then--or if Reclamation on its own went
through a rulemaking process on new criteria, I think that's
one of the sticking points.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Well, we will look forward to this
forthcoming report where you set forth the policy options
there.
Ms. Cody. Okay.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Atwater, you have suggested
expansion of Title XVI to a national program. We've been
talking about the fate of some of these programs, that the
reason they're not moving ahead is not because they don't have
value or merit within their region or locality, it's just the
dollars associated with it. Just as it relates to a budget, do
you think that a national $200 million a year program is
realistic when the Bureau's budget is roughly a billion?
Mr. Atwater. Well, when you look at the role of cost
effectiveness and what we're accomplishing here, and if you
look at the partnerships between those States, those local
entities, and how you're developing a new water supply, what I
would say is if you could use 10 or 20 percent of the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget and then apply it as a competitive grant
program, frankly, it would be probably the most effective way
to solve the water problems in the United States, and it would
clearly have a lot of benefits.
The bigger challenge, which is your job, is to figure out
what are those priorities. But from my perspective, when you
look at the experience of what the needs are in the country,
$100 to $200 million for the economic vitality of many
metropolitan areas and avoiding--I'll use my area as an
example--in California, I'm developing 100,000 acre-feet of
recycled water worth a 10-percent, $20 million Federal grant,
and it's the economic engine. It's creating more jobs. It's in
the top ten in the United States. And when you look at the
economic multiplier benefits there, that $20 million bounces a
lot of different ways when you consider the economic,
environmental and social benefits of that kind of a program.
And going back to Ms. Grebbien's point, in Orange County,
you look at that kind of economic benefit and the regional and
statewide in the context of the Colorado River, how that helps
a lot of other areas and avoids stresses and strains and
conflicts, and we all know in the water world, we talk about,
you know, conflict all the time.
I would suggest that's probably the most cost-effective way
to encourage an appropriate level of Federal role.
Senator Murkowski. What about Mr. Donnelly's suggestion
that you do it on a State-by-State, case-by-case basis as
opposed to a national approach?
Mr. Atwater. It's probably true that maybe in Maine and
maybe in parts of--I'll pick on Minnesota and Michigan, maybe
they don't have a serious water problem. But clearly, from an
association standpoint, we see that reuse, reclamation,
cleaning up contaminated groundwater, whether it's perchlorate
or arsenic in New Mexico, those types of technologies and how
we reuse that water, whether it's for drinking water purposes
or irrigating a golf course or putting it in a power plant,
clearly, there's a lot of application throughout the country
and internationally.
Senator Murkowski. You made the point about the identical
criteria between the States and the Bureau. I think that that's
something that we would like to think is so common sense that
we should be able to make something like that work. Mr.
Donnelly, you mentioned just a more limited expansion as
opposed to the national approach that Mr. Atwater had
suggested. Again, the benefits of such an expansion moving
beyond the traditional concept of the 17 States, I'm assuming
you're coming at it from the same perspective as both Ms.
Grebbien and Mr. Atwater, that by doing this, you do get a lot
of bang for your buck, so to speak, with the dollars invested,
and that there are areas beyond the 17 States that should have
the opportunity to avail themselves with Title XVI funds.
Mr. Donnelly. Basically, we're still--hydrologically, we're
two countries. We're a water-poor West and a water-rich East. I
mean, that's very general, and given the money that's in this
program, I would hate to see it spread out and diluted to
States that really are not facing critical water supply
challenges for the future. Now, Florida, I mentioned that as an
example. Florida is. Florida mimics a lot of the problems that
we have in the Western United States. Congress declared--for
the purposes of this Act, I believe Congress declared in 1996
Hawaii to be a Reclamation State for the purposes of that Act.
They could do the same thing for Florida, or if in the future
another State develops the same type of problems, that could be
done. But given the amount of money that's involved in this
program right now, I would urge the Congress not to make it a
national program.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciated your comment about what
you perceived to be the biggest flaw in the program, not that
the program is broken, but that there is a flaw, and that flaw
is the manner in which the projects are selected for funding.
You made reference in your written testimony that it shouldn't
come down to who has the biggest and best lobbyist in
Washington, DC; it should really be based on merit that those
projects go forward. And I think that's something that, from my
perspective, we're looking at, and we want to make sure that we
are addressing those needs where the need is greatest, but we
need some assistance in being able to make those priorities as
well. So the criteria that Commissioner Keys has suggested does
not concern you? You would, in fact, welcome that; is that
correct?
Mr. Donnelly. I was kind of surprised at the dollar figure
that was thrown around here, $200,000 per project to evaluate
it. I think that's ridiculous. I mean, it doesn't require that,
and it doesn't have to be that laborious a process. It should
be very simple for the Bureau staff to go through and say yes,
this project meets the goals and objectives of the Title XVI
program, this one doesn't. And that's all they have to do is
send it forward to Congress, and then this committee and the
Appropriation Committee decides how they're going to be funded.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. Grebbien, you made the comment that
you were frustrated, I guess, that we're here again talking
about the status of this program. I think it is important to
recognize--and I do appreciate CRS's review of this--it's a
program that has been very successful for some, but very, very
frustrating for so many. And we don't have anybody on the panel
who has been on the other end of not being able to get those
funds and not being able to speak to the good side of it, so it
is high time that what we're doing with Title XVI is reviewed.
I think Orange County is in an envious position of having that
phase one just about complete. I understand you're about 80
percent now.
Ms. Grebbien. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. This projected proposal going forward I
think would probably get you complete, then you go onto a
second phase. So you are one of the ones that is seeing the
direct benefit.
Ms. Grebbien. Correct.
Senator Murkowski. And that is important to recognize. But
we also recognize that we're in a situation where we've got
some 21 programs that are sitting there on hold with no real
certainty as to who goes next or if anybody goes next, and
therein lies the frustration. Orange County is a relatively
wealthy county; could you have done this without the Title XVI
funds?
Ms. Grebbien. You know, it's interesting because folks
always say Orange County, relatively wealthy county. Actually,
Orange County is very much a melting pot, if you will, of
demographics. We have some very depressed areas in our county,
and then also we have the Newport Beach coast, it's an
extremely diverse county. It's a county where there is no
majority. We have the second highest Latino population, the
second highest Asian population in the State, in Orange County.
And so, in my particular service area, as I mentioned,
there's some cities who are very economically depressed and
then others who are extremely wealthy. And of course, we always
feel like poor stepchildren because Orange County is giving
more money to the State and to the Federal Government than
we're receiving back in return in property taxes and other
issues. But we could have built the project financially, yes,
without the Title XVI program. However, what the Title XVI
program did, as I mentioned when I was speaking earlier, is it
really is the foundation upon which we have built support for
the program under a variety of different levels.
So, for example, when we sold debt to--municipal debt to
finance our portion, the local cost share of the program, one
of the things that we told the rating agencies is we had a
grant from the Federal Government and also that the State was
participating. Because of that and a few other factors, our
interest rate costs were 25 basis points cheaper than it would
have been otherwise, and that was a direct comment from our
rating agencies. So, there's lots of value added by
participating in the Title XVI program.
Senator Murkowski. Then given where you are now and just
about nearing completion on phase one, will you need the Title
XVI assistance for phase two, or you've kind of established the
project, established what it is that you need, gotten that
community support? Are you on your own for this next phase?
Ms. Grebbien. Actually, for the next phase, we're going to
need even more financial assistance. And we're working with--
you know, our State is looking at a couple of bond issues, in
more infrastructure bonds, and we're working very closely with
NAWQA and other agencies to make sure that water recycling is
included in those bond offerings. And because of what we've
done, what Orange County Water District has done in the last 4
years, we've doubled our water rates--doubled our water rates
at the local level to pay for this project. At the same time,
our partner, Orange County Sanitation District, is under a
mandate for full secondary treatment, and they're having
significant sewer rate increases. And so, there's only so much
that the local community can bear. And if we are diligent in
getting Title XVI money and State grant funds, then we're doing
our part to work really hard to bring the cost down so that
there's the political will and the local community-level will
to implement rate increases that are necessary to generate the
local dollars.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you to all the
panelists.
Senator Feinstein, I have certainly not kept within any
time limit, so----
Senator Feinstein. Oh, thank you. I'll try and be brief.
Thanks, Madam Chairman. I want to ask a yes or no question. Do
the panelists agree that the traditional Bureau project model
of having the Bureau do a feasibility study for each project,
do you agree that that is not cost effective? Could we go right
down, just yes or no?
Ms. Grebbien. Yes.
Mr. Donnelly. Yes.
Mr. Atwater. Yes.
Ms. Cody. Senator Feinstein, I'm not sure I can answer the
question.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, if you can----
Mr. Donnelly. You mean in relationship to Title XVI?
Senator Feinstein. That's right.
Mr. Donnelly. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. See, I think this is the heart of the
matter, and this is what, Madam Chairman, we need to change, to
spend vital Federal dollars with the Bureau doing a feasibility
study of each project, to me, makes no sense. It seems to me
there ought to be a set of Federal criteria that if you want to
come in for a Federal grant, these are the criteria that you
must meet. And then the decision is made, yea or nay, you
either meet that criteria or not. Now, you're going to have a
lot of criteria. One of them might be does the project have a
regional impact. You know, one of them is size. It could be a
whole host, environmental conflicts, whatever the criteria are.
But I suspect we would save a lot of money, and we would get
more projects funded, and the frustration that the local
jurisdictions feel, that they've had projects pending for 6, 7,
8 years, and they don't know.
So, I'd like to just respectfully suggest that we take a
look at the law and make that change. And now, let me ask this
question. In terms of Federal criteria, if there were to be
specific Federal criteria, I've laid out some of them, I'd like
to ask the panel, what do you believe the Federal criteria for
Federal funding for that 20 percent should be?
Mr. Atwater. Well, if I may?
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Atwater.
Mr. Atwater. What I would suggest, Senator Feinstein and
Chairman Murkowski, is in fact, the 1998 guidelines are a good
start. But in California, it's one example, in each of the
States, as I indicated earlier, they have their own existing
criteria for using the Clean Water Act State revolving fund,
both for the drinking water programs, as Betsy pointed out, and
for the Clean Water Act. And in California, we have a detailed
criteria, and frankly, a good little process.
Senator Feinstein. My question is, what should the Federal
criteria be?
Mr. Atwater. Well, that one was approved by EPA. And what
my point is, why couldn't we have that merged? In this case,
the Bureau, why couldn't you use the same criteria? They don't
need to reinvent the wheel.
Senator Feinstein. Mr. Donnelly?
Mr. Donnelly. I agree with that. I guess the only thing I
would add is that each of these projects should significantly
contribute to the additional water supply of the area, that it
should support their future plans for providing water to their
citizens.
Senator Feinstein. In other words, a net addition of
potable water.
Mr. Donnelly. Correct.
Ms. Grebbien. I would say, Senator, that I would agree with
Mr. Atwater. In California, most recycled water projects
already conform with criteria established by the State Water
Resources Control Board or the Department of Water Resources to
get either SRF funds, low-interest loans or State grant moneys.
And those criteria are adopted by or were put in conjunction
with EPA, and they're relatively common sense things--is there
new water developed, does it meet a minimum financial return,
have you performed CEQA and/or NEPA, is it institutionally
viable, are you meeting the health department regulations and
requirements, is the treatment technology you're using proven.
So, they're relatively understandable and straightforward,
and Mr. Donnelly's suggestion of kind of having a checklist, if
you will, rather than a full-blown feasibility study, those
existing criteria would lend themselves to that approach.
Senator Feinstein. How about regional impact?
Ms. Grebbien. I personally like that criteria. I think the
wave of the future in California is integrated watershed
management planning, and we're starting to see more and more
agencies cross political lines and developing projects that are
regional in nature and provide watershed benefits. And I think
that's something that is easy to evaluate and should push water
agencies toward more global planning, which is a good thing.
Senator Feinstein. Everybody recognizes that this would
take the Bureau out of the feasibility study business?
Ms. Grebbien. Yes, we do.
Senator Feinstein. And you all think that's appropriate?
Ms. Grebbien. Yes.
Mr. Atwater. Yes.
Ms. Grebbien. I do.
Ms. Cody. I do have a comment on options, although I cannot
say where the program should go.
Senator Feinstein. You have a comment on options, okay.
Ms. Cody. I can at least look at options, and I think what
we've done in our--partly in the testimony, and more so in the
report, is look at options for Congress to articulate the
Federal interest in these projects. And among those options are
things like--I think you mentioned fish and wildlife, something
that helps with fish and wildlife, whether it's in a stream
that has endangered or threatened species that are covered
under the ESA or some other fish and wildlife criteria, or
water quality standards. You may also want to look at whether
there is duplication among programs, can some of these projects
be funded from existing clean water or safe drinking water
SRF's. That might be another criterion to look at.
Also, I think Reclamation mentioned today that it is part
of its core mission, and I think what they mean by that is--
well, I shouldn't put words in their mouths, but I also heard
Commissioner Keys say that it would be--ranking criteria would
be alleviating conflict, so possibly some of the criteria that
Congress might want to look at is what is--what are those types
of things. I think the Bureau hot spots map identifies some of
those areas, but there may also be areas that are not on that
map that have some of these issues.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Madam Chairman, that completes my
questions, but once again, let me just thank you for doing this
and offer to work with you on some revisions that might be able
to affect this. I would hope we would keep the drought-inclined
States and not the water-rich states in this, because the first
priority really has to be those that don't have other water
resources and therefore have to do recycling and desalination.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
I want to go back to your map, Ms. Cody. We don't do a very
good job oftentimes in anticipating the need in advance. And
just looking at your map and recognizing that yes, you've got
the bright red spots that show the conflict potential as being
highly likely, but the areas where we know we're going to have
issues, we know we have unmet needs. We have conflict
potential, and you know, interesting terminology. What exactly
does that mean? You go to southern California, you know exactly
what conflict potential is.
Senator Feinstein. In more ways than one, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. In more ways than one. You said that
first.
Senator Feinstein. Yes, right.
Senator Murkowski. But our reality is we've got some very
serious issues. I focus, primarily, in this Energy Committee,
on oil and natural gas matters because that's what my State
happens to be rich in, but the real crisis for the globe is not
necessarily going to be oil, it's going to be water. And what
Title XVI provides through the reuse, where we're working it
now, is fine in certain areas. But the track record for
completion, quite honestly, isn't as impressive as we would
like it to be, recognizing the growing demands as our
population increases, as we look at these water poor States
that, quite honestly, are some of our fastest-growing States in
population. So we've got to get ahead of the game here rather
than just staying even. And I would suggest that maybe we're
not even staying even, and that's one of the reasons that we're
here today.
As far as the criteria go, I was just shown a description
of the selection criteria that Metropolitan Water District of
California uses, and it's a pretty--I mean, it looks like a
pretty good list of things. So, you look at that and you say,
well, if Metropolitan Water has it, and all of the other
districts have something similar, what are we doing in terms of
getting the criteria in sync so that there can be some level of
certainty or just knowing what you--to expect before you get
too far into the game?
We had some very good information here this afternoon from
all of you. We appreciate the perspective, appreciate the
guidance. I think I'm leaving this hearing with a clear
understanding that Title XVI does have a future, and what we
need to do is figure out how we make it work best for the
maximum good. And we've got a task in front of us, but there's
no shortage of good ideas. So, I appreciate those of you who
presented them today, and the committee will be working as we
move forward. Thank you. With that, we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following letter was received for the record:]
Eastern Municipal Water District,
Perris, CA, March 14, 2006.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski: The Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD) appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony to the
Committee as it reviews the important role of the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation in its mission to encourage water recycling and
desalination technologies to solve water problems throughout the
western United States.
The attached document presents our thoughts on invigorating the
Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program and the associated benefits
of making the needed improvements. If you need additional information,
please feel free to contact me at 951-928-6109.
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Pack,
General Manager.
[Enclosure.]
Statement of Anthony J. Pack, General Manager,
Eastern Municipal Water District
Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee: my name is Anthony J.
Pack and I am the General Manager of the Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD). On behalf of EMWD and its Board of Directors, it is my
privilege to present this testimony to emphasize the benefits of
invigorating the Bureau of Reclamation's (Bureau) Title XVI program
which enables the Bureau to lead and unite the local and regional
agencies and provide the necessary seed moneys to leverage local and
State funds needed to develop and implement much needed water recycling
programs to enhance the limited water supply in Southern California.
The development of new water sources, such as recycled water, will help
us relieve the overwhelming demand on the existing local, State and
Federal water projects.
EMWD provides domestic water, irrigation water, and sanitation
services for about 580,000 people in a service area of over 555 square
miles in.Western Riverside County in Southern California, one of the
fastest growing areas in the nation. EMWD relies on water supply from
the State and Federal water projects such as the State Water Project
and the Colorado River to meet 65% of its needs, and supplements the
remainder with recycled water, groundwater, and desalted brackish
groundwater generated primarily through the development of local
projects. Recognizing the limited availability of water from the
existing sources and the need to meet the ever increasing demand, EMWD
has ventured into an aggressive expansion of its water reuse program
and an extensive brackish groundwater desalination program coupled with
an integrated groundwater management strategy. We strongly believe that
the successful implementation of these programs will create new water
sources that will relieve the demand on the existing water projects for
other State and national critical needs. This would not be feasible
without the leadership and the financial participation of the Federal
and State agencies and the desire to diligently invest local funds by
the Board of Directors on innovative water projects.
EMWD is the fourth largest recycled water user in the State of
California and currently utilizes about 60 percent of the available
recycled water. If not for the Federal assistance provided by the
Bureau through its Small Reclamation Loan Program in the early 1990s,
EMWD would not have been able to build this recycled water
infrastructure, which is core to our success. This recycled water
system not only enabled us to deliver recycled water to the various
users but also allowed us to interconnect our five regional reclamation
plants and the various storage facilities to increase system
reliability. The use of recycled water within our District extends
beyond irrigating parks, golf courses and agriculture to environmental
enhancement such as the San Jacinto Wildlife Sanctuary. In our
estimate, our efforts to utilize 20,000 acre feet of recycled water per
year has relieved enough water from the State and Federal water
projects to sustain 4,000 acres of wetlands, 5,000 acres of agriculture
or 40,000 homes elsewhere in the west.
EMWD strongly believes that any further increase in recycled water
use cannot be accomplished without expanding local and regional
recycled water infrastructure and without developing and implementing
appropriate technology solutions to overcome the water quality
regulations and constraints. Recognizing this, EMWD, as a member agency
of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, participated with the
Bureau in the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and
Reuse Study. Most of the projects identified in this study are also
included in the Santa Ana Integrated Watershed Program. In addition,
the California Water Plan and the CALFED-Bay Delta Program has
identified that recycling is the most cost effective and the largest
source of new water supply state-wide. All of these efforts identify
the blooming opportunities waiting to maximize water recycling, reuse,
and desalination. Where we are today is because of the vision the
Congress had in the 1990s. The Congress paved the way for the future by
enacting Title XVI which directed the Secretary of the Interior to
investigate and identify opportunities for water reclamation,
recycling, and reuse to address the future water needs of the West.
This legislation further directed the Secretary to design and construct
demonstration and permanent facilities. It is just when most of the
water communities are beginning to embrace the core intent of Title XVI
that some are questioning the effectiveness and the future need of the
only Federal program that provides the localities with financial and
technical assistance needed for the successful implementation of the
various project elements.
The Title XVI program, even during the early stages of recognition
of the role of water reuse by water communities, has been very
effective. It provided value and created new water by helping to
develop 30 recycled water projects. Orange County Water District's
Groundwater Replenishment System is an excellent example. It creates
72,000 acre feet of water; incorporates modem treatment, monitoring,
and groundwater recharge technology; and relieves Colorado River water
for other agencies in Southern California. In this project Federal
participation has enhanced broad based community and political support.
Most significantly, Federal financial participation, at a very nominal
level, has helped the agency to leverage significant State funds and
local ratepayer dollars.
Now, EMWD, like many other Southern California water agencies, has
plans to further increase its recycling efforts by building more
transmission and storage facilities and by incorporating desalting
technology for both brackish water and recycled water to maximize
recycling, reuse, and salinity management. This is not the time to
question the effectiveness of the Title XVI program but it is the time
to invigorate the program to make it better. Title XVI program is not
broken. It requires more fuel, lubrication, and an updated maintenance
manual.
1. The Title XVI program needs fuel in the form of annual
appropriation, not intermittent but ongoing. The Bureau should
be directed to determine the national demand for water
recycling, reuse, and desalination projects and recommend a
reasonable level of annual funding needed to the Congress for
appropriation.
2. The Title XVI program requires political lubrication. The
program has to be extended to all 50 states to minimize
friction between reclamation and non-reclamation states. This
will make it palatable to the Congressional representatives of
the non--reclamation states and help the program gain political
support. In reality, there are other states that could
significantly benefit from the Title XVI program.
3. The Title XVI program needs an updated maintenance manual.
This Federal program should be made comprehensive and it should
include standards for Federal support. The Bureau should be
directed to establish a series of criteria that would qualify
projects for assistance such as ensuring that projects provide
multiple benefits and/or will contribute to ongoing water
conservation programs.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the need to invigorate and
enhance the Title XVI program to specifically target implementation of
water recycling, reuse, and desalination programs. These are the basic
and the cheapest building blocks for the new sources of water that are
much needed to quench the thirst of the rapidly growing West. This
valuable program has facilitated the development of 600,000 acre feet
per year of recycled water capacity and the Federal contribution of
$278 million, to date, has leveraged at a ratio of 5:1 with local and
State funds to produce over $1.3 billion in benefits. I thank you and
your esteemed committee for allowing me, on behalf of my Board, to
provide this testimony.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Betsy A. Cody to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. CRS counts 31 project authorizations, while the
Administration believes there are 32 authorizations. This also
impacts the number of ``inactive'' projects. Please explain the
discrepancy.
Answer. CRS and the Bureau of Reclamation have made
decisions in counting authorized projects, or project
authorizations, that have resulted in slightly different
project totals. The discrepancy can be explained by the way CRS
and Reclamation treated one project and one project
authorization bill.
In its count of authorized projects, Reclamation did not
include the Port Hueneme (CA) desalination project, because it
was authorized under the general authority of the 1996
amendments, and was not specifically authorized by Congress, as
were the other projects. However, Reclamation did include the
project in its budget summary, which included statistics on
estimated project funding to date, and water to be reclaimed.
For this reason, CRS included the Port Hueneme project in the
total project count.
Additionally, CRS counted the Hawaii authorization as one
project, whereas Reclamation counted it as three projects.
While the Title XVI authorization for Hawaii is just one
authorization, it does appear to authorize three separate
projects. In the future, CRS will count this authorization as
three projects, and thus will be consistent with Reclamation on
this point.
In conclusion, if one subtracts the Port Hueneme project
from the CRS total and adds the two additional Hawaii projects
(count the Hawaii authorization as 3 projects instead of 1, for
a net difference of 2), one ends up with the 32 projects
identified by Reclamation. However, counting the Port Hueneme
project and the Hawaii authorization as three projects leads to
a total of 33 projects authorized under the Title XVI program.
Of these, 32 have been specifically authorized by the Congress
(as Reclamation reports) and one (Port Hueneme) has been
undertaken pursuant to general Title XVI authorities.
CRS will continue to count the Port Hueneme project as an
authorized and active Title XVI project because it is included
in program financial and other data provided by Reclamation.
CRS will also henceforth count the Hawaii authorization as
three projects, as does Reclamation. Thus, with this change,
the total number of projects authorized (regardless of how they
were authorized) is 33.
Question 2. How did the Title XVI program evolve from the
original authorization to the current program?
Answer. The number of Title XVI projects grew substantially
with the 1996 amendments to the original authorization. The
1996 amendments (P.L. 104-266) authorized 18 additional
projects and limited project funding. It appears nine projects
have been authorized since 1996, three of which were authorized
in September 2005 (the Hawaii projects). Reclamation developed
and published Title XVI guidelines for program implementation;
however, no rules or regulations have been promulgated for the
program.
The program's recent evolution appears to be closely tied
to the findings and conclusions of the Administration's PART
review process. More information on this process and its
effects are included on page 5 (footnote number 13) and pages
7-9 of my written testimony. Please contact me if this
information needs clarification, or does not satisfactorily
respond to your question.
Question 3a. Is there a readily definable ``federal
interest'' in the Title XVI program?
Answer. Congress articulated the federal interest in water
reuse in 1992 when it enacted Title XVI of P.L. 102-575, the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities
Act. The program was conceived during the long-term drought of
the late 1980s and early 1990s when then-Secretary Lujan (1988-
1992 Bush Administration) announced the establishment of a
Comprehensive Water Reuse Initiative for southern
California.\1\ The initiative envisioned that a comprehensive
water reuse program would help to decrease the area's
dependence on imported water supplies from the Colorado River.
While the federal interest in developing the Title XVI program
was declared via enactment of P.L. 102-575, the federal
interest and policy position regarding water reuse more
generally were not clearly articulated in the statute
itself.\2\ Hence, more than a decade later, the question has
arisen whether there is still a federal interest in financing
or providing technical assistance for water reuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, ``News
Release,'' dated August 5, 1991. According to materials CRS received on
October 25, 1991, the Bureau of Reclamation undertook a number of
activities in the fall of 1991, including developing a detailed action
plan for promoting the initiative. By October 23, 1991, the Bureau had
held its first pre-planning meeting for the Southern California Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study.
\2\ There are no findings or policy declarations in Title XVI
itself, however, a quick review of the Title's legislative history
reveals a brief discussion of the program's potential to address long-
term water supply needs of water short areas (U.S. Senate, Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, Report of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (S. Rpt. 102-267), 102nd
Congress, 2nd Session, March 31, 1992, p. 1392). Other discussions
largely focused on site- or regional-specific rationales for the
program (e.g., the Title's ability to ``afford unique opportunities to
resolve long-standing water management disputes'' in southern
California (U.S. House of Representatives, Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, Conference Report, (H. Rpt.
102-1016), 102nd Congress, 2nd Session, Oct. 5, 1992, p. 183). In
another instance, Senator Bradley in a hearing mentioned the purpose of
bringing down treatment costs through the desalination and research
provisions of the Title. Yet, overall, Title XVI generated relatively
little policy discussion compared with other provisions of the Act; it
was one of 40 titles in an omnibus bill that proved quite controversial
for its early provisions on surplus crops (``double subsidies''),
Bureau of Reclamation policy reform, and latter provisions resulting in
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34 of P.L. 102-575).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument for a federal interest in water reuse is
perhaps most easily made where there is an existing federal
interest in water supply development or water resources
management. For example, the federal government, through the
Secretary of the Interior, plays a major role in Colorado River
management, which affects water supplies in many western
states. As noted above, this involvement appears to be the
impetus for establishing the Title XVI program.
Other areas where the federal government is already
involved in water resources management include places where
implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has affected
water resources management and water supplies in particular--
or, looked at another way, when federal water works (dams,
pumps, distribution facilities) have contributed to the decline
of certain species, thereby necessitating the implementation of
the ESA and potential impacts on water supplies. Where federal
projects have diverted water and where federal project
operations result in a lack of water of sufficient quantities
and quality for fish and wildlife or other species, and have
contributed to species decline, it is arguable that the federal
government under established policies has an interest, or
responsibility, in augmenting those water supplies. A similar
argument could be made for water quality where existing
supplies, particularly groundwater supplies, do not meet new or
emerging federal water quality requirements. A federal interest
could also be articulated where the federal government is
providing drought funding, or where it is funding and
investigating new water supply development that in part would
directly or indirectly augment potable supplies, as is the case
in several areas of California. According to EPA, ``perhaps the
greatest benefit of urban reuse systems is their contribution
to delaying or eliminating the need to expand potable water
supply and treatment facilities.'' \3\ However, whether such
benefit equates to or implies a specific federal interest,
particularly given the relatively limited history of federal
involvement in local municipal and water supply development, is
subject to debate. For more information on this point, please
see pages 7-8 (Broad Policy Issues) of my written testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Agency for
International Development, Guidelines for Water Reuse, EPA/625/R-04-108
(Sept. 2004). p. 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3b. Do all of the authorized projects have a
federal nexus or are some strictly local in scope?
Answer. The five projects and six studies authorized in
1992 arguably address the federal interest articulated in the
original Title XVI statute (P.L. 101-575). Other projects in
Colorado River Basin states and projects in southern California
areas receiving Colorado River water, or those in a position to
offset or augment Colorado River supplies, also would appear to
address this federal interest. It is not clear how many of the
projects might address other potential federal interests
described above; however, at least two of the ``inactive''
projects are, or would be capable of, providing water of
improved quality to streams which contain threatened or
endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act. To
fully understand whether some of the authorized Title XVI
projects are ``strictly local in scope'' would require further
in-depth research. This may be something the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) could pursue given its authority to
conduct program evaluations and its field resources (offices in
California and elsewhere).
Question 4. Have any of the authorized Title XVI projects
been abandoned by the local sponsors?
Answer. In interviews CRS conducted with project sponsors
of seven ``inactive'' Title XVI projects, CRS found that one
project (San Joaquin Area City of Tracy, CA) has been put on
hold indefinitely. Another project (West Jordan, UT) had not
been pursued by prospective project managers, but new
management indicated the project might now be pursued, perhaps
in conjunction with another nearby project.
Responses of Betsy A. Cody to Questions From Senator Johnson
Question 1. Your testimony talks about the primary role
played by state and local governments in developing M&I water
projects. If you look at programs across the board, including
Indian water rights settlements; EPA State & Tribal Assistance
Grants; and new Corps of Engineers authorities; hasn't federal
assistance for M&Iprojects greatly increased over the last 15
years?
Answer. It is important to distinguish the difference
between assistance for M&I water supply development projects
and assistance for M&I wastewater and drinking water treatment
projects. In my testimony, I touch on the historical role of
federal water resource agencies (e.g., the Corps and
Reclamation) in developing M&I water supply projects. What was
not said, is that also historically, there has been a fine line
upon which the activities of several federal agencies were
drawn. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has dealt primarily with programs concerning water
quality issues, while the Corps and Reclamation more typically
engaged in water resource development projects; that is, they
construct or assist in constructing navigation, flood control,
irrigation, and other facilities. The perceptions of the core
missions of these agencies still reflect this division in
responsibilities, although there appears to be increasing
overlap.
For example, Congress has more frequently authorized the
traditional water resource agencies to undertake M&I activities
that involve water quality aspects (e.g., Title XVI, and 219
``environmental infrastructure'' provisions in various Water
Resources Development Acts (WRDAs)), and has also more
frequently authorized M&I water supply development projects in
the past 15--20 years. These latter projects are often in
conjunction with or via Indian water rights settlements, rural
water supply authorizations, and isolated Corps authorizations.
However, it appears the total amount of federal assistance
(funding) for the water supply development projects would be
small, compared to federal funding for traditional water
resources development projects (irrigation water supply, flood
damage reduction, navigation, hydro power, etc.). It may be
true that, as a percentage of such funding, the proportion of
funding assistance going to M&I water supply projects is
growing. This may be a fairly likely scenario if looking at
funding for irrigation water supply development versus M&I
water supply development; however, it maybe an unlikely
scenario if comparing M&I water supply development with other
water resources development activities such as those
traditionally carried out by the Corps (flood damage reduction,
navigation improvements, etc.).
In contrast, funding that Congress appropriates to EPA in
that agency's State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account
is not provided for water resource or supply development. That
assistance is provided for constructing or upgrading of local
projects to treat ambient water to levels needed for safe and
healthy drinking water and projects to treat a community's
wastewater prior to discharge back into streams and lakes.
Question 2. Approximately 9 of 31 authorized projects are
deemed to be ``inactive'' by the Bureau of Reclamation. Does
your report indicate that only one is not being pursued? Are
the other inactive projects stalled because they are still
undergoing planning activity? Has Congress authorized a number
of projects that have not undergone in-depth feasibility
studies?
Answer. CRS has completed interviews with project sponsors
of eight of the nine inactive projects identified by
Reclamation in February of 2005. Of the eight for which we have
completed interviews, only one project sponsor indicated the
project would not be pursued (San Joaquin Area--City of Tracy,
CA). Four projects have completed feasibility studies; however,
it is not clear whether these studies were completed prior to
project authorization. The other three projects are in various
stages of planning and funding efforts, but could generally be
categorized as being in pre-feasibility stages.
I hope this information meets you needs. If you have
further questions, please contact me at 7-7229 or at
[bcody@crs.loc.gov.].
------
Orange County Water District,
Fountain Valley, CA, March 17, 2006.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski: Enclosed please find responses to the
questions submitted by yourself and Senator Johnson as a result of my
testimony on the Subcommittee's oversight hearing on the Bureau of
Reclamation's Reuse and Recycling Program (Title XVI of P.L. 102-575).
If you need any additional information or assistance I will be happy to
provide it.
Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of the Title XVI
dialogue.
Sincerely,
Virginia Grebbien,
General Manager.
[Enclosure.]
Responses to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Is it fair to say that you believe Title XVI is a
value-added program but that it needs to be restructured in order to
make it more effective?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony on February 28 I strongly
believe that the Title XVI program adds value. I have personally
constructed three
Title XVI Projects, the West Basin Water Recycling Project at West
Basin Municipal Water District, the Esteban Torres Recycled Water
Project at Central Basin Municipal Water District and currently under
construction the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) at Orange
County Water District (OCWD). Together the West and Central Basin
projects currently deliver about 35,000 AFY of recycled water. The GWRS
project will be operational in the summer of 2007 and will serve 72,000
AFY of recycled water. Together these three projects next summer will
be providing in excess of 100,000 AF of value every year!
In addition, Title XVI projects significantly leverage federal
dollars providing economic value. The total cost of the GWRS project is
$487 million. The federal cost share of $20 million is just four
percent--a significant value to the federal government. Modest
improvements to the program may be warranted but quite frankly, I
believe the Title XVI program works well as is. The only improvement I
would suggest is to increase the funding to the program.
Question 2. What is the most important action that Congress can
take to reshape Title XVI?
Answer. The most important action Congress can take with respect to
the Title XVI program is to continue to support it. Congress should
send a strong signal encouraging the expanded use of recycled water to
assist in solving the critical water problems facing the arid western
regions of the United States. The Title XVI program creates new water
supplies that are critically needed. As Congress considers ways to
improve Title XVI, I suggest it ensure that existing projects are
incorporated into any formal rewrite of Title XVI by authorizing the
projects with a sunset provision of ten years. This would establish a
commitment to projects that are already proceeding through the
legislative process today and establish a revised program for the
future.
Question 3. Over the past several years, the funding level for
Title XVI has ranged from a low of a $10 million Administrative request
to a high of $31 million in Congressional appropriations. What do you
think is an adequate level of funding for this program?
Answer. Ideally Congress should be funding this program at
sufficient levels to encourage the maximum amount of recycled water
development. I estimate this high level of funding would be in the $100
to $200 million per year range. However, given the competing interests
for federal dollars 1 would suggest the minimum annual funding for
Title XVI should be $50 million.
Question 4. Currently, there is a limit on the federal cost-share
of $20 million or 25 percent of project costs. One idea that's been
discussed is reducing the federal cost-share. What do you believe is
the appropriate federal cost-share?
Answer. It is my understanding that the federal cost share on Title
XVI projects is the lowest of any water resources program of the Army
Corps or the Bureau of Reclamation so I would argue that the cost share
does not need to be lowered. I know the Corps of Engineers projects my
agency participates in have a maximum federal cost share of 50 percent.
Similarly, we just received FEMA funding for 2005 flood damage that had
a federal cost share of 75 percent. In contrast, the Title XVI cost
share of the GWRS project is four percent.
Question 5. How should Congress address projects that have been
authorized but haven't received any federal funding?
Answer. I would suggest a sunset provision on authorizations going
forward is reasonable.
Question 6. Do you agree with the Administration's suggestion that
such projects should meet any newly imposed eligibility requirements?
Answer. This question concerns me as I am unclear as to what new
eligibility criteria are being contemplated by the Administration or
whether it is needed. As discussed at February's Oversight Hearing, the
USBR in the late 1990's issued a planning guidance document that
outlines feasibility criteria. It is my understanding that authorized
Title XVI Projects are in conformance with the criteria outlined in the
guidance document. Similarly, the State of California has criteria for
recycled water projects to be eligible for low interest loans and state
bond funds. If these criteria were used they would be acceptable as
they are well established, beneficial, and most if not all recycled
water projects meet them. If additional criteria were to be developed I
would recommend that any such criteria be stakeholder supported.
Criteria that would require an extended review and approval process by
the USBR would not be beneficial and would only serve to delay the
implementation of Title XVI projects.
Question 7. The House has added 10-year sunsets to their Title XVI
bills. Do you agree with this approach?
Answer. Yes.
Question 8. I understand that the average monthly water bill for
Californians is about $30. I further understand that more than 90
percent of California communities pay less than two percent of their
median household income for their water and wastewater charges, which
would fall in the range of ``highly affordable.'' How much could urban
water rates increase before rising to a level that is generally
considered affordable to invest in new water projects?''
Answer. Orange County has a diverse population that is now over 50
percent in minority status. Many Orange County families are on limited
income and fixed budgets. Additionally, water rates can unfortunately
be perceived as taxes, which many residents believe should not be
increased. These conditions make increasing residential water rates a
difficult and delicate issue. Local city councils have been threatened
in the past with recall elections due to proposed water rate increases.
OCWD has recognized the need to increase water rates to provide
funding to invest in our water future and has more than doubled our
water rates over the past six years. This increased cost of groundwater
has forced local cities to increase their retail water rates to their
residential customers.
Similarly, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has a $2
billion capital improvement program to meet existing and future
wastewater treatment capacity demands. OCSD has increased its sewer
rates 15 percent a year for the last four years. These combined water
and sewer rate increases have resulted in the combined average monthly
residential water and sewer bill to increase by 15 to 20 percent a year
over the last five years.
Public opinion polling generally reveals that the public will
support increased water and sewer rates to support clean water and
clean beaches. However, polling also shows that public support erodes
when water and sewer rates increase too steeply, typically greater than
$10 per month is not supported.
Responses to Questions From Senator Johnson
Question 1. I'd like to hear a little bit more about your
Groundwater Replenishment System. Does the overall project work
basically as a water bank?
Answer. This is a very perceptive observation. Yes, the project
does work a bit like a water bank. It also serves as a water
purification process and a salt water intrusion barrier. In Orange
County we are very fortunate to have a large underground aquifer. We
are even more fortunate in that it is ``managed'' versus adjudicated.
What this means is that each year OCWD's Board of Directors determines
how much water can be produced or pumped from the basin which is then
enforced through economic incentives and disincentives. The net result
of the Orange County basin being managed is that in the last twenty-
five years we have doubled the sustainable yield of the basin from
150,000 AFY to 320,000 AFY. In contrast, an adjudicated groundwater
basins' sustainable yield will remain constant over time.
GWR will operate as a water bank using the groundwater basin as a
storage reservoir and the recycled water as the supply source. The
recycled water produced by the GWR Advanced Water Purification Facility
(i.e. the treatment plant) will be recharged and stored underground in
the basin. Some of the water will be used to increase our sustainable
annual yield from the basin from 320,000 AFY up to about 380,000 AFY.
The rest will remain in storage for use during emergencies, to weather
droughts on the Santa Ana River (our main source of surface water in
Orange County) or to weather droughts and supply restrictions on
Southern California's imported water delivery systems.
Question 2. What used to happen to the water that is now being
captured, cleaned, and recharged into the groundwater basin as a result
of your project?
Answer. It would be wasted to the ocean.
Question 3. Are there environmental issues associated with
capturing water that formerly was released as treated effluent?
Answer. The GWRS project provides an environmental benefit and is
strongly supported by the local environmental community including the
Orange County Coast Keepers and the Surfrider Foundation. Orange County
has been plagued with beach closure issues particularly in the City of
Huntington Beach. For a while it was thought that OCSD's discharge of
treated effluent (the source water for GWRS) was the cause of high
bacteria levels that were closing the beaches. This has since been
determined to NOT be the cause of the beach closures. However, the
local environmental community were very active in working with the OCSD
to implement a policy of providing full secondary treatment to all of
their wastewater discharges and to reclaiming as much of their
wastewater as possible so that it would not be discharged into the
Pacific Ocean.
Question 4. Your testimony mentions that some recycled water
projects were built and then not operated due to the lack of community
support. Were any of those projects Title XVI projects?
Answer. No. Please let me clarify my testimony. One project was
built and then not operated. Another project was planned and under
design when it was terminated due to lack of community support.
Question 5. If not, how might have Title XVI helped to avoid that
result (i.e. not operated after construction)?
Answer. It is difficult to say if Title XVI would have helped these
two projects because fundamentally these were community outreach
failures rather than technical or financial failures. If they had been
Title XVI projects than one can assume that there would have had to
been greater political and community stakeholder support because in
order to become a Title XVI authorized project it takes the support of
an area's congressional delegation. Further, in order to receive
appropriations the level of support from the local community to
galvanize the congressional delegation to make the project a funding
priority must be even greater. In other words, to become a successful
(as defined by actually receiving appropriations) Title XVI project an
agency would have to engage in a significant outreach program. If the
agencies involved in these two particular projects had engaged in a
better outreach campaign they may have been able to adapt and modify
their projects so that the community would have supported them and they
then could have been effectively implemented.
______
Responses of Richard Atwater to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Is it fair to say that you believe Title XVI is a
value-added program but that it needs to be restructured in order to
make it more effective?
Answer. The WateReuse Association strongly believes that the Title
XVI program has been very successful in leveraging federal investments
with local and state funds to develop innovative technologies and
important new water supplies throughout the western U.S. The
Association believes that the Title XVI program can be improved through
modest changes in the cost-sharing provisions: lowering the federal
investment cap from 25% to 20% and streamlining the Bureau of
Reclamation's review of local projects feasibility reports to be
consistent with adopted State criteria (such as the California Water
Resources Control Board) to avoid redundant NEPA and ESA reviews. What
is the most important action that Congress can take to reshape Title
XVI? The update of the 1996 authorization of the Title XVI legislation
with new criteria (see attached) for eligibility would be the most
significant action that could be taken by the Congress.
Question 2. Over the past several years, the funding level for
Title XVI has ranged from a low of a $10 million Administrative request
to a high of $31 million in Congressional appropriations. What do you
think is an adequate level of funding for this program?
Answer. The WateReuse Association believes annual appropriations
can be sustained at a minimum of $50 million per year with a targeted
goal of $200 million annually. This level of funding, divided between
recycled water projects and desalination (both brackish groundwater and
seawater), should be authorized by Congress.
Question 3. Currently, there is a limit on the federal cost-share
of $20 million or 25% of project costs. One idea that's been discussed
is reducing the federal cost-share.
What do you believe is the appropriate federal cost-share?
Answer. As indicated in the February 28, WateReuse Association
testimony, we believe reducing the cap on percentage cost share to a
maximum of 20% from the current 25% would be more cost-effective. The
Association also recommends no change in the authorization cap amount
of $20 million. Many projects being built today have an effective cost-
share of between 10 and 15%, illustrating the significant federal
investment benefits to the nation when compared to any other comparable
federal water investment program at the Bureau of Reclamation, Army
Corps of Engineers, USEPA and the USDA NRCS water resources programs.
Question 4a. How should Congress address projects that have been
authorized but haven't received any federal funding?
Answer. All existing authorizations and all future authorizations
should have a 10:year ``sunset'' authorization provision, effective
going forward from 2006.
Question 4b. Do you agree with the Administration's suggestion that
such projects should meet any newly imposed eligibility requirements?
Answer. Without knowing the Administration's proposed eligibility
requirements, it is difficult to evaluate whether they are appropriate
or whether they should be applied retroactively on existing authorized
projects.
Question 5. The House has added 10-year sunsets to their Title 16
bills. Do you agree with this approach?
Answer. Yes, we believe that sunset provisions would resolve
concerns raised about Title XVI projects which are authorized but not
funded within a reasonable period of time.
Question 6. You advocate the expansion of the Title XVI program--
which is now limited to the 17 Reclamation states--to a national
program with an annual authorization of $200 million.
Would you support the concept proffered by the NWRA--namely that
Congress should evaluate non-Reclamation state participation on a
state-by-state basis?
Answer. Yes, based on the continuation of specific Congressional
authorization for each Title XVI project.
Question 7a. You note in your testimony that through FY 2004, the
Federal investment of $272.5 million was leveraged by a factor of about
5:1, for a non-Federal investment of about $1.09 billion.
Please explain how federal participation helps to leverage non-
federal funds, particularly since the average annual federal
appropriation for a Title XVI project is approximately $1 million.
Answer. The financing by local governments of new water supplies is
typically more expensive; the average cost of their existing water
supplies (whether local groundwater or imported supplies) and the
federal investment of typically 10-20% of the capital costs achieves
two key incentives: 1) federal endorsement with grant funding allows
local officials to garner broad public support for the non-federal
capital investment of 80-90%; and the federal investment typically
lowers the cost of the new recycled water supply so it does not make it
prohibitively expensive when compared to the existing local groundwater
or imported supplies.
Question 7b. Given that these projects can cost in excess of tens
of millions of dollars, how does the federal share provide any benefit
to a project?
Answer. As documented in the California Water Recycling Task Force
Report (June 2003) recommendations, state and federal grant funding is
a critical ingredient to encouraging more water recycling in California
to achieve the adopted goals of developing over I million acre-feet of
new recycled water supplies statewide (California State Water Plan,
2006). The same is true in other states.
Question 8a. You suggest in your testimony that the federal cost-
share component could be reduced from 25% to 20%.
Why not 15% or even 10%?
Answer. As indicated above, the reduction of the cost-sharing
percentage cap from 25% to 20% is reasonable. Lowering the cap further
at this time would limit unnecessarily the federal grant assistance to
projects that need the extra financial incentives.
Question 8b. If the federal cost-share is reduced, should the $20
million cap also be lowered? If not, why not?
Answer. The $20 million cap with a 20% cap on federal cost-sharing
of capital costs would now fund a $100 million project. Limiting the
federal investment cap to less than $20 million would reduce the size
and scope of the water recycling projects that can be considered. From
Watereuse Association surveys of projects being planned and currently
developed, many projects exceed $100 million and the cap already will
reduce the effective cost share to below 20%.
Responses of Richard Atwater to Questions From Senator Johnson
Question 1a. Have water reuse technologies become more cost-
effective over the last decade?
Answer. Yes, in that membranes are becoming more common in treating
wastewater and other poor quality water sources (e.g., groundwater) for
reuse and recycling of the supply for beneficial water supply projects.
Question 1b. Has Title XVI helped to bring about developing more
cost-effective technologies?
Answer. Yes, our publication of 10 case studies in 2004 documents
some of the best examples of new technologies being developed to reuse
and recycle previously wasted water into ``state of the art'' new
supplies. Recycled water is being used for new and different uses every
year (for example, fabric dyeing factory in Chino started using
recycled water in 2005; at least 14 high rise buildings in Irvine have
dual plumbing systems for urinal flushing; and the Gallo winery in
Sonoma County irrigates its grapes exclusively with recycled water).
Question 2. Should Title XVI be amended to ensure that a certain
percentage of funding is allocated to demonstration projects that
promote promising new technologies?
Answer. Through the Congressional authorizations and the criteria
for funding of projects, the Association believes that the Congress and
the Bureau of Reclamation have policies already in place that encourage
new technologies and demonstration projects. Additional authorization
language highlighting the value and need for demonstration projects
would be an effective policy tool to the private and public sectors to
continue to expand the use of new technologies to increase the reuse
and recycling of water throughout the United States.
Question 3. Do you think that Title XVI funding should be limited
to less affluent communities that may not be able to afford water reuse
projects absent federal grants?
Answer. Most of the Title XVI projects that have been authorized
and currently being considered by Congress are of a regional nature and
typically have poor and disadvantaged communities served by the
recycled project service area. Additional federal incentives for
disadvantaged communities (e.g., keeping the cost-sharing percentage
cap at 25%) might be an effective tool to ensure the financial
feasibility of water recycling projects in disadvantaged communities.
Drought and other water supply impairments do not selectively find
communities. While some communities may enjoy higher standards of
living than others, it is also true that these communities serve as
engines for economic activity benefiting all within and across regions.
The Association rejects the notion that Title XVI benefits wealthy
communities and believes that there is no scientific survey that
substantiates this assumption.
______
Suggested New Criteria for Water Reuse and Desalination Projects
(a) Project Financing Assistance.--The Secretary shall establish a
program of grant assistance to support the construction of water reuse
and desalination projects consistent with eligibility criteria in
paragraph (ii) of this subsection.
i. Eligible Projects.--For purposes of this section, an
eligible project shall be a project that provides water
supplies to the general public through alternative water
supplies. Projects that demonstrate compliance with subsection
(a) (ii) shall receive priority for assistance.
ii. Priority Criteria.--Eligible projects shall be
prioritized for financing assistance if they:
1. significantly improve water supply quality or
reliability;
2. significantly increase water supply yield; or
3. address multiple benefits.
iii. Guidelines.--The Secretary shall develop appropriate
guidelines for purposes of implementing the provisions of this
section. Such guidelines shall be issued not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act. In the event that
such guidelines are not published by such date, the Secretary
shall proceed with selecting projects for assistance provided
that at least five projects in each eligible state shall be
selected. Such selection shall ensure a balance within each
state between water reuse and desalination projects.
iv. Cost Share.--Projects authorized to receive assistance
shall demonstrate an ability to provide up to 50% of a
project's costs from nonfederal sources. The Secretary may
waive this cost-share requirement if it is determined that the
project sponsor is deemed to be an economically disadvantaged
community.
v. Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to
be appropriated $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010. Such authorized amounts shall remain available
until expended.
______
Responses of Thomas F. Donnelly to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Is it fair to say that you believe Title XVI is a
value-added program but that it needs to be restructured in order to
make it more effective? What is the most important action that Congress
can take to reshape Title XVI?
Answer. NWRA believes that Title XVI can be a very valuable program
allowing districts facing long-term water supply challenges to develop
``new'' water through recycling, reuse, desalination and conservation.
With a limited amount of federal dollars available, it is important
that the highest value projects are funded first. We would recommend
that Title XVI be amended to require a report from the Commissioner to
the Chairmen of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and
the House Resources Committee recommending or not recommending
authorization of the project proposal. We are not suggesting a detailed
and costly assessment of the proposal, but simply a letter reporting on
whether or not the proposed project meets the goals and objectives of
the Act, adds water to systems that are facing critical water supply
challenges. The report should also comment on, but not be limited to,
the cost sharing arrangements, the technology and other pertinent
aspects of the proposal.
Question 2. Over the past several years, the funding level for
Title XVI has ranged from a low of a $10 million Administrative request
to a high of $31 million in Congressional appropriations.
What do you think is an adequate level of funding for this program?
Answer. If the aforementioned procedural changes are made to ensure
that quality projects receive priority funding, an annual level of
funding in the $30-50 million dollar level could make a big difference
in the West. Creating ``new'' water can provide water for rapidly
growing urban areas in the arid and semi-arid West and water to meet
environmental needs.
Question 3. Currently, there is a limit on the federal cost-share
of $20 million or 25% of project costs. One idea that's been discussed
is reducing the federal cost-share.
What do you believe is the appropriate federal cost-share?
Answer. The current federal/non-federal cost share is very
favorable to the American taxpayer when compared to other federal
programs. Urban districts have a rate-payer base that allows them to
adequately fund the non-federal share in most cases. At this juncture,
we would not urge Congress to change the cost sharing arrangements or
the limit per project.
Question 4. How should Congress address projects that have been
authorized but haven't received any federal funding? Do you agree with
the Administration's suggestion that such projects should meet any
newly imposed eligibility requirements?
Answer. Provided the Congress amends Title XVI as suggested in the
response to question number 1, we would recommend that those projects
that have not received federal funding should be returned to
Reclamation for evaluation. In this respect, we do agree with the
Administration.
Question 5. The House has added 10-year sunsets to their Title 16
bills. Do you agree with this approach?
Answer. Sunset provisions require Congress to periodically reassess
federal programs to determine whether or not they have successfully
achieve their objectives, they should be continued or whether changes
or amendments should be made to the original authorization. We do agree
with this approach as long as it results in a review of the program
rather than an automatic termination of the program.
Question 6. In your opinion, could the Title XVI program be
effective in creating ``new'' or ``saved'' agricultural water for other
uses such as environmental enhancement or providing additional water
for municipal use?
Answer. There is no question that agricultural water uses provide
numerous opportunities to save water through canal lining and other
types of conservation improvements. Whether or not saved agricultural
water can be used for either environmental enhancement or municipal use
depends to a large extent on state water law. In a number of
Reclamation States such as Idaho and Montana, appropriation law
requires any saved water to go to the next junior appropriator.
Conversely, some states have enacted laws that provide for two-party
agreements to pay for conservation improvements in return for the use
of the saved water. Title XVI should be amended to allow it to be used
for projects that save agricultural water provided that the water is
used for a purpose that meets the long-term water supply objectives of
the state or region.
Question 7. You've suggested increasing the federal cost-share
component for projects that satisfy national goals and objectives.
Please elaborate on the national goals and objectives.
How much of an increase on the federal cost-share component do you
think is reasonable?
Answer. As an example, Congress has authorized multi-million dollar
projects to restore and enhance the Everglades in Florida and
California's Bay-Delta. Both of these projects require large quantities
of water to be allocated for environmental enhancement. Title XVI
projects which provide water to meet such national goals and objectives
should be encouraged and given priority for funding. In such cases the
current cost sharing arrangements may be inappropriate and prohibitive.
It's difficult to simply pick a number for an appropriate federal/non-
federal cost share. Rather than doing so, we would recommend that for
projects of this nature, cost sharing should be addressed by the
authorizing committees on a case-by-case basis.
Responses of Thomas F. Donnelly to Questions From Senator Johnson
Question 1. Is here a sense by NWRA's members that the Title XVI
program distracts Reclamation from carrying out its traditional mission
and serving its traditional constituencies?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation's core mission must be the
maintenance of its water supply and power generation infrastructure.
That is not to say that Reclamation should resist new missions
authorized by Congress, such as those authorized under Title XVI of
P.L. 102-575. We believe that programs such as Title XVI enhance rather
than detract from Reclamation's mission.
Question 2. Do you think Title XVI projects can and should be
targeted in such a way as to help Reclamation carry out its core
mission?
Answer. There is no question that they should be. Whether they can
be depends in large part on the details of the project application and
the area that benefits from the project.
______
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, April 18, 2006.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairwoman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the
Bureau of Reclamation to questions submitted following the February 28,
2006, hearing regarding ``Title XVI of P.L. 102-575.''
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the
Committee.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
I. Oral Question
Response to Question From Senator Feinstein
Question 1. For pending California water recycling projects from
SCCWRRS and BARWRP (those which have submitted feasibility studies but
Reclamation has not completed review), why have the reviews not been
completed and what will it take to complete them? Also, you can report
on the status of projects that have been approved/authorized but have
not received funding.
Answer. Reclamation has completed its review of all reports and
other documentation submitted by project proponents in response to our
request for information for the report directed by P.L. 108-361. (The
report is currently under administrative review, and we look forward to
submitting it to Congress soon.) Of the submittals for projects that
have not been authorized, fourteen (seven each associated with SCCWRRS
and BARWRP) were nearly complete, but lacked elements such as NEPA
compliance. While these projects have the potential to meet
requirements included in Reclamation's 1998 Title XVI feasibility
guidelines, we do not know how they would rank in priority if the Title
XVI program were reformed as proposed in our testimony. The remainder
lacked many required elements. All project proponents have been
notified of Reclamation's findings.
Progress on authorized Title XVI projects in California that have
not yet received funding from Reclamation is as follows:
1. San Joaquin Area Water Reuse--The sponsor has placed the
project on hold due to a change in demand for reclaimed water.
2. Irvine Basin Groundwater and Surface Water Improvement--
The sponsor has initiated planning and NEPA compliance is
underway. Reclamation has provided technical assistance on a
cost-reimbursable basis.
3. Hi-Desert Wastewater Collection and Reuse--The sponsor has
indicated its interest in initiating the project in the near
future.
II. Questions Submitted for the Record
Response to Question From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Local Title XVI project sponsors need help with the
financing of the capital costs of constructing facilities, although
they can also benefit from the receipt of subsidies for actual water
delivered as in the case of the MWD program. Do you believe a reformed
Title XVI program that rewards projects that have already been
implemented with a unit cost subsidy would be more appropriate for
Reclamation?
Answer. Title XVI projects are constructed, operated, and
maintained by non-Federal entities. Title XVI does not currently
authorize Federal funding for operations and maintenance of these non-
Federal projects. We do not believe such funding to be an appropriate
Federal role and do not believed it would be appropriate in a reformed
Title XVI program.
Responses to Questions From Senator Johnson
Question 1. During her confirmation process, Deputy Secretary
Scarlett was asked what role Interior should play in water recycling
and reuse. She responded for the record that the Department ``questions
the need for more Federal dollars through Reclamation to fund
additional projects, given other potential funding sources throughout
the West.''
Do you know what other potential funding sources she may have been
referring to? Do you think that there exists such a source of funds and
that it reduces the need for Reclamation to have an active Title XVI
program?
Answer. The Title XVI projects are predominantly planned, designed
and constructed by the local non-Federal project sponsors. These
projects are also owned and operated by the local water agencies. As
such, the primary responsibility for funding Title XVI projects resides
with state and local government. Although there are no other Federal
programs that provide funding for water recycling projects in the
manner that the Title XVI does, there are sources of funding at the
state level. One such program is the State Revolving Fund which
receives Federal financial assistance in the form of block grants from
the Environmental Protection Agency to help fund water and wastewater
projects, including water recycling projects. In addition; numerous
states have state-run financial assistance programs to provide grants
and loans to local communities. In the case of California, a program
funded from monies received from Proposition 50, passed by voters in
2002, is available to help construct projects in that state. These
funding sources are critical to the successful implementation of water
recycling projects at the local level.
Question 2a. Your testimony states that according to OMB, one of
the 2 main problems with the Title XVI program is that there is
insufficient Reclamation involvement early in the project development
process, leading to projects with planning deficiencies. This might be
a problem of Reclamation's own making. Last year, the Lakehaven Utility
District in Washington state asked Reclamation to serve as the NEPA
lead agency for the environmental review associated with Lakehaven's
authorized water reuse project. Reclamation declined, stating that
``the reuse portion of the program should be phased out and that no new
planning starts should be initiated. In the future, the program's focus
will be on desalination research.''
By taking this position, isn't Reclamation removing itself from the
planning process? How can OMB then complain that this is a major
problem with the program?
Answer. Reclamation believes that Title XVI has accomplished its
authorized mission of demonstrating recycling technology. Reclamation
made a conscious decision to redirect its discretionary funding in the
Title XVI program to desalination research. Reclamation believes this
commitment to focus Federal funding on research to bring down the cost
of desalination and recycling will result in substantial future
benefits to local communities. By advancing the science of water
treatment technologies, we believe the cost of implementing water
recycling and desalination projects can be reduced to a level that
makes these types of new water supplies more affordable to a greater
number of local communities. As Reclamation's testimony stated, we
believe there is still a role forReclamation to assume in the planning
of Title XVI projects and that desalination will become an even more
important tool in meeting future water needs.
Question 2b. What ideas do you have for ensuring sufficient
Reclamation involvement in the project development phase?
Answer. Reclamation has a number of ideas for insuring sufficient
involvement in the planning phases of project development, but believes
Congressional action is required to bring the program in line with the
water supply needs of today. We are working on a legislative proposal.
There are many changes to the way Title XVI is administered that could
be accomplished under the existing statute. However, we believe it will
take legislative action by Congress to place limitations on how and
when future projects are authorized for construction. Reclamation does
not have the ability to enforce these restrictions under Title XVI as
it now exists.
Question 3a. Your testimony suggests the Administration might be
receptive to the authorization of new Title XVI projects if the
existing authorization for the program is amended to establish explicit
criteria ensuring project feasibility, as well as some formula for
prioritizing funding.
Is this an accurate assessment?
Answer. Yes, this is an accurate assessment. We believe the Title
XVI program has served a useful purpose, but is outdated and in need of
reform. Clearly the authority to identify and investigate water reuse
opportunities has helped many local water agencies with project
planning. However, we believe the program has flaws relative to the
specific authority to plan, design, and construct full-scale water
reuse projects. Authorizing projects for construction prior to having
completed comprehensive feasibility studies has resulted in Federal
projects potentially costing billions of dollars that have not been
determined to be feasible and worthy of Federal investment. This has
placed a tremendous financial burden on Reclamation and further erodes
our ability to manage our existing infrastructure. Reclamation would
prefer to have projects authorized in stages where construction
authorization only occurs after Reclamation has determined that the
project would contribute to water supply goals and help meet our
mission of delivering water and power in the most efficient and
environmentally responsible manner.
Question 3b. If changes along the line you suggest are made, is it
realistic to expect that additional resources will be recommended to
construct projects, or will the Administration still prefer for
Reclamation to focus the program on something else like desalination
research?
Answer. Reclamation continues to fund ongoing Title XVI
construction projects. We are confident that with Title XVI reform,
there should be a greater role for Reclamation to play in decisions
about implementation of future projects, within the broader context of
addressing the many competing goals and funding needs, even just within
Reclamation and the Interior Department. We expect that in the future,
Reclamation's focus will be on processes and decisions relating to
implementation of Title XVI water reuse programs, and on other efforts
to fund research in advanced water treatment technologies, including
desalination.
Question 3c. Does Reclamation currently have explicit criteria by
which it can measure the merit of Title XVI projects?
Answer. Since 1994, authorized construction projects have generally
been initiated as a result of Congressional action. The principle
exception to this occurred in FY 2000, when Reclamation evaluated and
ranked unfunded authorized projects for the purpose of prioritizing
available construction funding for four new starts. As stipulated in
``Guidelines for Preparing, Reviewing, and Processing Water Reclamation
and Reuse Project Proposals Under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575, as
Amended,'' Reclamation based its prioritization criteria on specific
language in the Title XVI statute and the perceived needs of the local
communities. Since FY 2000, Reclamation's funding requests have been
limited to those projects that have been included in the President's
budget request in prior years. Reclamation believes that the recent
years of drought in the West and explosive population growth have
changed the fundamental water supply situation, and that new criteria
are needed to ensure Federal funding is directed to the greatest areas
of need and in the most efficient manner possible.
Question 4. Your testimony indicates that there are some authorized
projects that may no longer be being pursued by the project sponsors.
Can you identify these projects for the record?
Answer. Based on currently available information, we believe the
following projects are not being pursued by the project sponsors:
San Joaquin Area Water Recycling and Reuse Project--The non-
Federal project sponsor has placed the project on hold due to a
change in demand for reclaimed water.
Central Valley Water Recycling Project, UT--The non-Federal
project sponsor has elected to place this project on hold
indefinitely.
City of West Jordan, UT, Water Reuse Project--The non-Federal
project sponsor has elected to place this project on hold
indefinitely.
Truckee Watershed Reclamation Project--This project has not
received Federal funding or involvement. The project sponsor
has never requested Reclamation's assistance in developing this
project and no progress has occurred to date.
Question 5. What are some of the most significant technical or
legal challenges facing water reuse projects? For example, do some
projects have difficulty in securing state water use permits because of
increased consumptive use?
Answer. There have been instances when water recycling projects
have been limited in the amount of water that project sponsors can
reuse. For example, when a wastewater treatment plant has been
discharging to a stream or river for many years, a portion of those
flows may be required to continue due to the history of prior use by
downstream communities. Other legal demands for wastewater discharges
can often limit reuse, including inter-agency compacts and
environmental demands, such as meeting the needs of endangered species.
Technical challenges facing water reuse projects are varied and range
from issues of water quality, health, safety and public acceptance, to
issues of treatment technologies, brine-management and concentrate
disposal. Though these challenges may be formidable in certain cases,
it has been shown that a well thought-out planning process can
significantly reduce the obstacles to project implementation and result
in a successful water recycling project.