U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–025 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 111–1183 

EPA’S ROLE IN PROMOTING 

WATER USE EFFICIENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 31, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 31, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 1 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ..................................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 36 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 125 

WITNESSES 

Shapiro, Michael H., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 27 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 29 

Davis, Martha, Executive Manager for Policy Development, Inland Empire 

Utilities Agency .................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Dickinson, Mary Ann, Executive Director, Alliance for Water Efficiency .......... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 76 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 78 

Shannon, Mark A., James W. Bayne Professor, Director of the Center of 

Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water and Systems, University 

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ........................................................................ 83 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 104 

Mehan, G. Tracy III, Principal, The Cadmus Group, Inc. .................................... 107 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 109 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 117 

(1) 

EPA’S ROLE IN PROMOTING WATER USE 

EFFICIENCY 

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Cardin (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin, Crapo, Whitehouse, and Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on 

Water and Wildlife for the Environment and Public Works Committee will come to order. 

I first want to acknowledge this being our first Subcommittee 

hearing on an extremely important subject dealing with water efficiencies. I want to acknowledge the support of Senator Boxer for 

allowing the Subcommittee to move forward with this first hearing 

on water efficiency, and thank her for her leadership on water and 

wildlife issues. 

We are going to deviate for a moment. Senator Crapo, who is the 

Ranking Republican on the Committee, and we appreciate his attendance, has about three other places that he is supposed to be 

right now, including a markup on some very important legislation. 

So I am going to yield to Senator Crapo, and then we will move 

forward with the hearing. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your accommodation. 

As things would have it, not only do I have this first hearing that 

is very, very important for me to work with you on, but I have a 

markup on legislation where I have one of the key amendments 

that I need to go propose, plus the Finance Committee is having 

a hearing, but the beginning of that hearing is going to be a tribute 

to Senator Baucus for his 30 years of service. So I am expected to 

be there, too. So I appreciate you understanding my time constraints. 

I will just submit my opening statement for the record, but wanted to say publicly how much I appreciate working with you. We 
2 

have sat down and had discussed the agenda items that this Committee could and should be focusing on, and you and I are in agreement on the importance of these issues and the agenda which we 

will follow. I look forward to working with you. 

To our witnesses, I have reviewed your testimony, and I hope I 

can get back for some question and answer period, but no matter 

how it turns out, I again want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

your friendship and for working with me on this Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. 

Before I speak on the topic of today’s hearing and welcome our witnesses, I would 

like to briefly say that I have enjoyed our recent discussions on this Subcommittee’s 

agenda for the 111th Congress and I look forward to our continued work together. 

I might also add that the only thing I am looking forward to more than a field hearing on the Chesapeake Bay is having one in Idaho, particularly near one of our 

many beautiful rivers with lots of fish. 

Today’s hearing will focus on promoting water use efficiency and how the Environmental Protection Agency can work with local communities in furtherance of that 

important mission. As such, I am pleased that we are being joined today by Dr. Michael Shapiro, the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water at EPA. 

I also welcome our other witnesses—Mr. Mehan, Dr. Shannon, Ms. Dickinson and 

Ms. Davis. I look forward to hearing your testimony and discussing this important 

issue with you. 

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discussed how some power companies 

are beginning to look at ways to meet energy needs while using significantly less 

water than had been used in the past, due to increasing concerns about water availability and its use. The article details how some companies are halting plans to 

build traditional power plants that require significant amounts of water because, in 

some States, water is a very limited resource. We know this all too well in the West, 

where water is considered the lifeblood of many local communities and economies 

and where population growth and increasing needs are making efficient use of this 

precious resource all the more important. 

Issues of water efficiency are critical in Idaho, and throughout much of the Country. In Idaho’s case, limited water availability, drought and wildfires make efficient 

use of water highly important. It will only become more of a priority as emergencies, 

needs and populations continue to grow and States and local governments continue 

to be hard-pressed by the economic situation that we face. As such, it is all the more 

important that States and localities are able to receive help from the EPA, and that 

the agency understands and is willing to help address the needs of State and local 

governments without implementing unreasonable, costly, one-size-fits-all mandates. 

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the innovative and important work 

being done by water systems, product manufacturers, the public sector, universities, 

and the American people to meet the challenges of making more do with less. Innovation continues to be led by those most closely involved in the provision and use 

of the service, and it is critical that public policies are framed in a permissive way 

rather than in a command-and-control fashion. We should continue to provide the 

resources to the EPA and others to undertake research and development into water 

efficiency technologies, but we should also recognize that system operators and their 

customers know best what can and will work in their own situations. This has been 

the guiding policy of this committee for many years in the crafting of legislation in 

this arena. 

Finally, we should take a moment to applaud the investments and steps taken 

by the end-use customers to be good stewards of the finite resource of water. Efforts 

to encourage and reward water use management have great promise to build on the 

progress and gains made by the consumer, who we must never forget is the focus 

of our activities and this hearing today. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that the Committee is more interested in listening to the 

witnesses than in listening to me, so I will save the rest of my views for questions 

to the witnesses. Again, thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward to 

the testimony. 
3 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Crapo, let me acknowledge the 

fact that our staffs have had a chance to meet, we have had a 

chance to meet. I think both of us understand the importance of 

the jurisdiction of our Subcommittee in protecting the waters of our 

Nation for the environment and for safe drinking and supply, and 

I look forward to working with you. 

I do have a few issues in the Senate Finance Committee, so I 

hope that you will get there quickly and establish a relationship 

that perhaps our friendship will help me get those bills out of the 

Finance Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRAPO. You got a deal. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, your opening statement will 

be made part of the record. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. I would ask unanimous consent that the testimony of Patricia Mulroy, General Manager of the Southern Nevada 

Water Authority be included in the record, at the request of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. 

Without objection, that statement will also be made part of the 

record. 

[The referenced document follows:] 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

Senator CARDIN. First, let me say that today’s hearing will focus 

on the role the Environmental Protection Agency must play in 

making our Nation more efficient in the way we use our water. For 

so many of us, we can turn on the tap or the washing machine or 

the dishwasher and have all the water we need to drink, to wash, 

and to water our lawns. We don’t think about how much water we 

use in our daily lives, let alone the vast amount of water it takes 

to grow our food, to manufacture the goods we depend upon, or to 

produce the energy we need to power our Nation. 

Water seems to be so abundant, in fact, that we often forget how 

precious it is and what a limited resource we have. EPA data 

shows how much water we use. The agency reports that water use 

in the United States is increasing every year. Since 1950, the 

United States’ population has increased nearly 90 percent, yet our 

use of water has increased 209 percent. Americans now use on average 100 gallons of water per day every day per person. 

This increased use is placing pressure on our water supply. In 

the last 5 years, nearly every region of the Country has experienced water shortages. At least 36 States are anticipating local, regional or statewide water shortages by 2013. In my own State of 

Maryland, we are one of those States. Population growth and 

changing growth patterns are placing increased pressure on water 

resources across my State. 

In central and western Maryland, the Maryland Department of 

the Environment has found that there is not enough water for 

some of the planned growth activities. Water level in the aquifers 

in southern Maryland and the eastern shore are declining at a significant rate, with water levels in some being tens to hundreds of 

feet below their original levels. 

Drought is intensifying these shortages in regions across the 

Country. We know in California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 

declared a state of emergency this February due to drought, and 

the State is considering mandatory rationing. NOAA reports that 

the Great Lakes, which supply drinking water to more than 40 million U.S. and Canadian residents, are experiencing record low levels. The southeast is again suffering from drought. This is Texas’s 

driest winter since records began in 1895. 

According to a 2006 NOAA report, drought in the United States 

is estimated to result in average annual losses of between $6 billion to $8 billion across the sectors of our economy. 

Climate change-related effects are predicted to place even greater 

stress on water resources in many areas of the Country. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 assessment projects 

that declining amounts of water stored in glaciers and snow covers 

will reduce the water available to one-sixth of the world’s population. 

The IPCC also predicts droughts will become more severe and 

longer lasting in a number of regions. The 2007 Ohio State University study projects that coastal communities could lose up to 50 

percent more of their fresh water supplies than was previously 

thought. As sea levels rise, salt water will move inland and turn 

underground fresh water supplies brackish and undrinkable. 

Water shortages aren’t the only reason we should be looking at 

ways to be more efficient with our water. Our current water use 
10 

system based largely on centralized infrastructure that pipes in 

clean water and pipes away wastewater is inefficient and expensive. Our massive network of water pipes are broken and leaking. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our water infrastructure at D-minus and estimates a 5-year investment need of $255 

billion. 

A survey conducted in 2000 suggests that more than 85 percent 

of Maryland water systems lose at least 10 percent of the water 

they produce, with the estimated average between 15 percent to 20 

percent. In a needs survey released just last week, EPA estimates 

it will cost $5.4 billion over the next 20 years to repair and retain 

Maryland’s drinking water infrastructure alone. 

Plus, our system is increasingly energy intense. It is estimated 

that 10 percent of our Nation’s imported energy goes to treating 

and pumping water. 

So we can make huge progress here, not only on the supply of 

water, but the supply of energy. In recent years, fluctuating gas 

prices, the threat of climate change, and our vulnerability to parts 

of the world that don’t like us much has made most of us realize 

that we have to change the way that we deal with energy. We realize with growing clarity that we have to move more toward greater 

energy efficiency and renewable technologies. 

But too many of us don’t yet see that we need also to change the 

way we use water. With better investment in research and development, with public education, with better incentives to use waterefficient technologies, we can begin to change public perception and 

change the way we use water. 

I want to acknowledge that many of our States are leading us 

in this direction by offering incentives for water efficiencies in appliances and products. Water efficiency in green technology and 

demonstration projects are also helping us explore ways in which 

we can be more water efficient. 

EPA’s WaterSense project has also been effective in bringing 

public attention to water efficiencies. And the House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 631, which I think is a bill that we need 

to take a look at, which puts a spotlight on water efficiency 

through research and demonstration projects. 

We can make sure we have the water we need to maintain our 

standard of living and ensure future economic growth. We can seize 

an economic opportunity to become an exporter of a new approach 

to water, and the technologies that go with it, to the rest of the 

world, but we have got to be more aggressive and with a greater 

sense of urgency if we are going to be able to accomplish these 

goals. 

I look forward to this hearing from our distinguished panelists 

today in helping us figure out how we can move forward with this 

vision for America. 

With that, we will turn to our first witness. I am very pleased 

that we have Michael Shapiro here, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We 

appreciate you being here. Your entire statement will be made part 

of the record for all of our witnesses today, and you now may proceed as you see fit. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 
11 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Today’s hearing will focus on the role the Environmental Protection Agency must 

play in making our Nation more efficient in the way we use our water. For so many 

of us, we can turn on the tap, or the washing machine, or the dishwasher, and have 

all the water we need to drink, to wash and to water our lawns. We don’t think 

about how much water we use in our daily lives, let alone the vast amounts of water 

it takes to grow our food, to manufacture the goods we depend on and to produce 

the energy we need to power our economy. Water seems so abundant, in fact, that 

we often forget it’s a precious and limited resource. 

EPA data shows how much water we use. The agency reports that water use in 

the United States is increasing every year. Since 1950, the United States population 

increased nearly 90 percent. In that same period, public demand for water increased 

209 percent. Americans now use an average of 100 gallons of water per person each 

day. 

This increased use is placing pressure on our water supply. In the last 5 years, 

nearly every region of the Country has experienced water shortages. At least 36 

States are anticipating local, regional, or statewide water shortages by 2013. 

Maryland is one of those States. Population growth and changing growth patterns 

are placing increased pressure on water resources across the State. 

In central and western Maryland, the Maryland Department of the Environment 

has found that there is not enough water for some planned growth. Water levels 

in the aquifers of southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore are declining at a significant rate, with the water level in some being tens to hundreds of feet below their 

original levels. 

Drought is intensifying these shortages in regions across the Country. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a State emergency this February 

due to drought and the State is considering mandatory water rationing. NOAA reports that the Great Lakes, which supply drinking water to more than 40 million 

U.S. and Canadian residents, are experiencing record low levels. The southeast is 

again suffering from drought. This is Texas’ driest winter since records began in 

1895. 

According to a 2006 NOAA report, drought in the U.S. is estimated to result in 

average annual losses of between $6 billion to $8 billion across all sectors of the 

economy. 

Climate change related effects are predicted to place even greater stress on water 

resources in many areas of the Country. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change’s 2007 assessment projects that declining amounts of water stored in glaciers and snow cover will reduce the water available to one-sixth of the world’s population. The IPCC also predicts droughts will become more severe and longer lasting 

in a number of regions. A 2007 Ohio State University study projects that coastal 

communities could lose up to 50 percent more of their freshwater supplies than was 

previously thought. As sea levels rise, the saltwater will move inland and turn underground freshwater supplies brackish and undrinkable. 

Water shortages aren’t the only reason we should be looking at ways to be more 

efficient with our water. Our current water-use system, based largely on centralized 

infrastructure that pipes in clean water and pipes away wastewater, is inefficient 

and expensive. Our massive networks of water pipes are broken and leaking. The 

American Society of Civil Engineers rates our water infrastructure a D¥ and estimates a 5-year investment need of $255 billion. 

A survey conducted in 2000 suggested that more than 85 percent of Maryland 

water systems lose at least 10 percent of the water they produce, with the estimated 

average between 15 percent and 20 percent. In a needs survey released just last 

week, EPA estimates it would cost $5.4 billion over the next 20 years to repair and 

retain Maryland’s drinking water infrastructure alone. Plus, our system is incredibly energy intensive. It’s estimated that 10 percent of our Nation’s imported energy 

goes to treating and pumping water. 

In recent years, fluctuating gas prices, the threat of climate change, and our vulnerability to parts of the world that don’t like us much have made most of us realize 

that we have to change the way we get our energy. We realize with growing clarity 

that we’ve got to move toward greater energy efficiency and renewable technologies. 

But too many of us don’t yet see that we also need to change the way we use water. 

With better investment in research and development, with public education, and 

with better incentives to use water-efficient technologies we can begin to change 

public perception and change the way we use water. 

We can make sure we have the water we need to maintain our standard of living 

and ensure future economic growth. We can seize an economic opportunity to be-
12 

come an exporter of a new approach to water—and the technologies that go with 

it—to rest of the world. But we have got to move aggressively and with a greater 

sense of urgency. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists today on what steps 

EPA can take and this Congress can take to make that vision a reality. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. SHAPIRO, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to 

be here and I thank you for your leadership on this important 

issue. 

I will be discussing EPA’s efforts to promote increased water conservation and efficiency. My full statement will be made available 

for the record. I will summarize briefly a few key points. 

Too often, we take for granted a system that provides reliable 

and safe water, as you have pointed out. Headlines about water crises in different parts of the U.S. and the world have raised the collective awareness about this precious resource. 

States and communities across the Nation are facing difficult 

challenges in meeting their water resource needs. A report by the 

Government Accountability Office in 2003 indicated that 36 States 

projected water shortages by 2013. Continued population growth 

and the impacts of climate change are likely to further challenge 

our ability to provide reliable and safe water. 

Improving water efficiency is one of the most effective ways for 

communities to manage their supplies. Moreover, increased water 

use efficiency will reduce utility operating and maintenance costs 

and reduce the need for expensive new infrastructure. 

EPA is working to foster a national ethic of water efficiency so 

that water is valued as a limited resource that should be used 

wisely. In June 2006, we announced WaterSense, an innovative 

partnership program that helps American consumers, businesses 

and governments make smart choices that save money and maintain high environmental standards, without compromising performance or requiring lifestyle changes. 

Products with the WaterSense label use at least 20 percent less 

water and perform as well or better than conventional models. In 

developing specifications, EPA works with voluntary consensus 

standard organizations, utility research committees, trade groups, 

and universities to develop information on product efficiency and 

performance. To earn the label, products must be independently 

tested and certified by a third party to meet EPA’s criteria for efficiency and performance. This distinctive approach has been identified as a key strength of the WaterSense program by many stakeholders. 

In less than 3 years and with the help of more than 1,000 partners nationwide, WaterSense has become a national symbol for 

water efficiency. The label can now be found on more than 700 varieties of water-efficient faucets and accessories and over 250 models of high-efficiency toilets. 

EPA has developed a WaterSense certification program for irrigation designers, auditors, and installation/maintenance professionals that focuses on water-efficient landscape irrigation techniques. 
13 

We are also developing a New Homes label that is designed to 

reduce water consumption by setting criteria for both indoor and 

outdoor water use and by educating homeowners about water efficiency. This year, we plan to issue final specifications for high efficiency flushing urinals that will use 50 percent less water than 

standard models, and we will also develop a draft specification for 

high efficiency shower heads. 

Water efficiency doesn’t only result in water savings, as you have 

pointed out. Delivering water to homes requires a great deal of energy. The potential for preserving our water supply for future generations and reducing energy demand through this voluntary program is significant, and WaterSense will continue working on other 

residential and commercial products. 

As I mentioned earlier, our efforts to promote water efficiency depend upon a national network of partners who help us with our 

product specifications, marketing, and consumer education. For example, the Alliance for Water Efficiency is establishing a water efficiency information clearinghouse that will complement EPA’s activities. 

We are also coordinating with EPA’s Energy Star program, the 

U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program, and the National 

Association of Home Builders’ Green Building program to incorporate WaterSense criteria into these broader energy efficiency and 

green building initiatives. 

Additionally, EPA’s sustainable infrastructure efforts look more 

broadly at water efficiency and asset management. We are working 

with public officials and utility managers and their professional organizations to identify strategies and tools for reducing water loss 

from systems, especially in the distribution system. 

Clearly, it is important to carefully consider how the water resources of this Nation are used and how we can effectively manage 

into the 21st century. We have come a long way in a very short 

time with our WaterSense and sustainable infrastructure programs. As the stresses on our water resources grow, the need for 

the products and services we are developing through WaterSense 

will become even more important. 

We look forward to working with our stakeholders and Congress 

as we look to expand EPA’s efforts in these areas. 

I ask that my full statement be submitted for the record and I 

look forward to addressing any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

Senator CARDIN. Well, first, Mr. Shapiro, let me compliment you 

on sticking exactly to 5 minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHAPIRO. We worked hard on that. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank you for your testimony, and thank 

you for your leadership on these issues. 

Unlike the Energy Star program, the WaterSense program does 

not have formal authorization. Would formal authorization by Congress help in what you are trying to do with the WaterSense program? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I think it would be beneficial in a couple of 

ways. First, direct recognition by Congress of the importance of the 

program and its role I think would further support our efforts at 

outreach and communication, and give the program additional visibility. 

Also, as I understand it, there are, although in general we have 

been fairly successful to date in launching the WaterSense program, there are certain bounds as to how far we can go, for example, in endorsing products with the WaterSense label because we 

don’t have a separate authorization that would allow it as the Energy Star program does. 

So there I think are areas where a specific authorization would 

add some benefits to our existing program. 

Senator CARDIN. Could you give a little bit more detail as to 

what are the standards for WaterSense? I particularly want you to 

comment, if you would, on the IG’s findings in regards to Energy 

Star that there have been, at least at times, products that have 

been given the rating that have not fully complied with the standards. So are you concerned that we might be running down a path 

in which we are giving a stamp of approval when in fact that’s not 

the case? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I think that in the case of the WaterSense 

program, we have a program design that really I think limits the 

ability to misrepresent products. The manufacturers themselves 

cannot claim that they meet a WaterSense standard unless their 

products have been tested and certified by an independent third 

party, and that third party itself is authorized through a process 

that meets international standards for independent certification 

programs. 

So in order to maintain that certification, the manufacturer or 

service provider has to continually demonstrate that they are conforming with the standard. The standards that we developed are 

done as collaboratively as possible so that we build wherever possible on standardized testing techniques and measures that have 

already been approved or supported by national consensus bodies. 

So we think we have put a program in place that limits the ability for misrepresentation because of the third party certification 

process, and we certainly feel that once the manufacturers invest 

in this process, they will certainly be on the look out for folks that 

are trying to evade the system and misrepresent their products as 

well. 

Senator CARDIN. Now, I strongly support the WaterSense program and applaud you for the initiative, and personally believe it 

would have more legitimacy if it were authorized. There is a real 
34 

concern about getting more public interest and knowledge about 

the importance of water efficiencies, so I think it makes sense for 

Congress to act in this area. 

The IG, though, pointed out that at least in the energy program 

there as not much opportunity for oversight for those who used the 

label to find out whether in fact they were complying with the 

standards. It is one thing for a manufacturer to say that they have 

used third party verification. It is another thing in fact that their 

products meet what they say they meet. 

So are we going to be creating a problem if we have an authorized program for WaterSense in monitoring and making sure that 

in fact the products that are labeled WaterSense meet what the 

manufacturer says it is going to meet. How do we oversee that? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, again the certification process includes testing the products as they come off the manufacturing line on a periodic basis. So again, you can’t be 100 percent sure, and I think at 

the end of the day if products are not performing, we will have a 

responsibility, and we do have a responsibility, to identify those 

manufacturers who aren’t playing by the rules and take appropriate measures to deal with them. 

However, again our experience to date has been that the process 

that is designed, which again is built on models where there is 

independent verification of certification, will give, should give the 

consumers a lot of confidence that the products bearing the label 

in fact will perform as certified and as tested. 

Senator CARDIN. Your testimony points out the importance of 

green infrastructure. I would like to explore that a little bit more 

as to how EPA can be more helpful in promoting green infrastructure. Are there things that Congress should be looking at to give 

you more tools to move forward in this area? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I think at this point we have the tools. Green 

infrastructure, as you know, generally involves applying concepts of 

natural hydrology to deal with stormwater management, so we look 

at naturalistic systems for increasing infiltration, for reducing the 

peak surge flows that occur as a result of storms in areas with traditionally a lot of impervious pavement, and encourage 

evapotranspiration as ways of managing the stormwater runoff. 

And in many cases, helping to recharge groundwater. 

I think there is a lot of understanding about how many of these 

systems, such as infiltration swales and bioretention facilities and 

rain gardens work on an individual basis. What we need to do and 

we have begun to do is research to help us understand how these 

individual approaches can operate within an entire watershed to 

manage the water resource on a more integrated basis. 

Again, progress is being made in that area. There is a lot of good 

work being done. So our tools and techniques are improving dramatically. I think there has traditionally been a reluctance to, on 

the part of water utilities, to adopt some of these measures. We are 

beginning to overcome that through the provision of information 

and technical training. And certainly the stimulus bill and the provision for a 20 percent setaside for green projects, which include 

green infrastructure, I think will provide additional incentives for 

water utilities to begin to look at these tools more frequently as 

they are making design choices. 
35 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I visited a green building in Howard 

County not too long ago, Howard County, Maryland, which is I 

think a model for a company that is innovative in green technology, 

building a building to operate that reflects that commitment, where 

they do have the rain gardens and they do recycle the stormwater 

and they do, I think, put it all together in a way that it should be, 

reflective of saving energy, being friendly toward our environment, 

and conserving water. All that is built into the technology. 

Now, that is done in partnership with a local government, which 

has been a supportive partner. The EPA has programs that will 

allow you to participate in these types of ventures, but you don’t 

have a separate research arm devoted toward water efficiencies. 

The House bill tries to do something about that by establishing an 

authorization for, and a person to deal with water efficiency research, and then allows for demonstration programs. 

Would that be useful for you to spotlight the water efficiency 

issue? Or should we continue down the path of strengthening 

EPA’s ability to deal in a broader sense, expecting that there would 

be attention paid to water efficiency issues? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I think there are sort of multiple questions 

in there. As you know, the Administration hasn’t taken a position 

on that House bill. I think that bill focuses specifically, as you say, 

on research relating to water efficiency. I think there are some 

areas of research within EPA today, especially relating to green infrastructure and the detection and correction of leaks in grey infrastructure that we are working very hard on. 

At the moment, EPA doesn’t have a research component that focuses on especially consumer and commercial water-using products 

and appliances. There are a number of external organizations to 

EPA that we rely on today to get the information that we use to 

develop our WaterSense criteria. And I think in looking at where 

to put funding in different areas, I think Congress would have to 

judge whether opening up an additional focus area for EPA’s research versus other organizations that may already be playing in 

that area is the best use of money for water efficiency purposes. 

Again, I think the overall needs for research and information to 

support a more efficient and sustainable water infrastructure is 

significant overall. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, that was a very fine, diplomatic answer 

considering the agency has not taken a position. That was as positive of a response that I think you could have given. I thank you 

for that. 

Here is our dilemma. Let me tell you why I think we do need 

legislation similar to what the House has passed. We may want to 

take a look at it and see whether we can’t improve upon that. But 

we have huge problems in this Country, and as we look in Baltimore, we have aging pipes that need to be replaced. We are in the 

process of replacing some. The cost is well beyond the capacity of 

the local governments, and they are under court orders because of 

environmental violations. 

But we really haven’t taken a focus as to the cost benefit ratios 

on water efficiencies, which I think would be very helpful to have 

that type of information available as we make decisions on how to 

proceed locally, as well as a national strategy. 
36 

So I think having the information base, and President Obama 

talked frequently about having decisions made by best science and 

best information, it would be useful to be able to know the cost 

benefit ratios on dealing with water efficiency issues. And I don’t 

think you really have that capacity today within EPA. You do look 

at these issues, but it is not the center focus. It becomes perhaps 

the byproduct of other research that you are doing. 

So I think what Congressman Matheson was doing in the House 

bill has merit for us to take a look at here. And the reporter doesn’t 

show those nods, so we will just reflect the fact that there was a 

friendly smile at the Chair. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. Again, let me thank you for your testimony. We 

look forward to working with you on this issue. Obviously, this is 

the first hearing of our Subcommittee, but the first hearing I think 

Congress has had, the Senate has had on this issue. And I know 

that the Chairman is interested in this and other Members are interested in this, and we will be getting back to you I think for specific additional information that we may need from you. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

I would also ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer’s statement be made part of the record. She is on the Senate floor this 

morning working on an amendment to the budget resolution, and 

asked me to welcome our witnesses from her home State of California on her behalf. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

We are here today to review EPA’s efforts to promote water-use efficiency. 

I would like to extend a special welcome to my fellow Californian, Martha Davis 

from the Inland Empire Utility Agency. Ms. Davis will be testifying about her agency’s innovative efforts to better use California’s precious water resources. 

The topic of today’s hearing is very important to me and to my home State of California, and I would like to thank the Subcommittee Chair, Senator Cardin, for holding this hearing. 

In California, we are currently in the third year of one of the worst droughts in 

the State’s history. Reservoirs are at historically low levels, dozens of water agencies 

have already ordered water rationing, and just last month, the Governor declared 

a State-wide water emergency. 

But California is not alone in the water problems that we face. A 2003 GAO survey of State water managers showed that 36 States expected water shortages by the 

year 2013. 

The pressures on our water resources will increase in the future. Population in 

the U.S. is expected to grow 30 percent by 2030. And global warming is predicted 

to increase the occurrence of drought and reduce the reliability of water supplies. 

There are a number of options that can be implemented now to deal with today’s 

water crises and prepare for a future of growing demand and less water. Water reclamation and recycling, groundwater cleanup and more water efficient products are 

all technologies that are currently available. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on how EPA can help communities implement these environmentally beneficial water infrastructure projects. 

There are also emerging technologies, such as lower energy desalination and innovative water recycling systems, that show great promise. We should invest in research and development to help ensure that good water management ideas like 

these are available to address this growing problem. 

I believe that today’s hearing will help us to better understand EPA’s role in addressing this challenge. 
37 

Senator CARDIN. We will now go to the second panel, which includes Martha Davis, the Executive Manager for Policy Development, Inland Empire Utilities Agency; Mary Ann Dickinson, Executive Director, Alliance for Water Efficiency; Mark A. Shannon, the 

James W. Bayne Professor, Director of the Center of Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water With Systems, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and G. Tracy Mehan, III, Principal, 

The Cadmus Group, Inc. 

Welcome all of you, and particularly those who are from California from our Chairman, welcomes you, and I am supposed to 

make sure that you are well taken care of in the Committee. 

So Ms. Davis, you are from California, I take it? 

Ms. DAVIS. Actually, I was [remarks off microphone]. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, under those circumstances, you can go 

first. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF MARTHA DAVIS, EXECUTIVE MANAGER FOR 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT, INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY 

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, sir. I will try to emulate Mr. Shapiro’s 

brevity. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony [remarks off microphone]. 

My agency is located in San Bernardino in Southern California. 

We are a wholesale water district formed in 1950 to distribute imported water supplies and we are a member of the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California. 

We also provide regional wastewater treatment for over 850,000 

residents and we are proud to provide three products to our community: recycled water, compost and renewable energy. 

Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am supplying an updated corrected copy of my statement. I would like to emphasize three points 

from my testimony. First, these are challenging times for all water 

managers. As you pointed out in your opening statement, our Nation’s population continues to grow, there are increasing conflicts 

over existing water supplies, which in California and many other 

places have led to court rulings and regulatory developments that 

constrain these deliveries. 

Climate change adds an entirely new variable as rising temperatures will increase water demands at the same time that rainfall 

patterns shift and droughts become both more severe and more erratic. 

Water agencies throughout the Nation are responding by implementing water efficiency programs. Last year, California’s Governor Schwarzenegger called for a 20 percent mandatory reduction 

in per capita water usage by 2020, which translates into a potential 

1.74 million acre feet of additional water supplies for the State of 

California. 

The State water plan, which has just been released, recognizes 

water use efficiency as a central element of the State’s strategy to 

enhance water supply reliability, restore ecosystems and respond to 

climate change. 

Clearly, improving the efficiency of appliances both indoors and 

outdoors so that we can structurally build in water savings is a 
38 

vital part of transforming the Nation’s water use. I have had an 

opportunity to review Ms. Dickinson’s testimony and concur with 

the recommendations put forward for expanding the WaterSense 

program. There are many synergies with the very successful Energy Star program, and opportunities to combine the two should be 

implemented. 

Second, many of our water projects throughout the Nation were 

designed decades ago and were built around the concept of using 

water once and then discharging it. Yet if water is recycled and reused, it stretches out water supplies with three primary benefits. 

First, recycled water is drought proof, which means it is available when other supplies are not. Second, the reliability of recycled 

water means that it is a core supply that agencies can rely upon 

to help adapt to climate change impacts. And third, having recycled 

water as part of an agency’s supply enables our agencies to optimize the delivery of potable supplies and non-potable supplies to 

the appropriate use. What we want to do is reserve the best quality 

water for drinking water purposes. 

Similarly, the development of local resources—capture of 

stormwater, rainwater, conjunctive use of our groundwater basins, 

desalination—all are parts of a comprehensive strategy to improve 

water supply reliability. The EPA’s State Revolving Funds program 

is a core source of funding for water reuse and other local water 

supply infrastructure, as well as for water efficiency. 

So all of these projects—water efficiency, recycling, local 

stormwater capture—all these projects that make improved use of 

existing water supplies, should be recognized as green infrastructure, and the funding priority established for these projects similar 

to what occurred under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009. 

Third, preparing for climate change, both through adaptation 

and mitigation strategies is something our water agencies have to 

start doing now. Our agency participated in a National Science 

Foundation grant that was conducted by the RAND Corporation 2 

years ago, which concluded that the development of a multifaceted 

strategy, increased water efficiency, recycled water, stormwater 

capture, reclaiming of poor quality groundwater supplies, was the 

most cost-effective utility strategy for meeting the impacts of future 

climate change. 

We also know, as you pointed out in your opening statement, 

that the use of water is very energy intensive, with 18 percent of 

the Nation’s electricity used to pump, treat and deliver water supplies. And we also know that the energy generation required to provide this power creates high levels of carbon emissions. 

Use of water supplies that have a lower embedded energy requirement can significantly contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, and I provide an example in my testimony comparing 

the use of our recycled water to imported water, which is our most 

energy-intensive water supply because it has to be pumped up and 

over the Tehachapis to come into Southern California. 

We can save an estimated 7,500 kilowatt hours per million gallons of recycled water used. In real terms, we are on track to be 

able to use 50,000 acre feet of water per year in our service area 
39 

within the next 3 years. And if we do this, this is roughly equivalent to taking 6,500 cars off the road every single day. 

So clearly, more information is urgently needed to document the 

energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits from water 

efficiency and from the development of local supplies that can replace more energy-intensive water supplies. 

In closing, we believe that the U.S. EPA has a core role to play 

in helping to develop information and technologies to improve 

water efficiency and the development of local water infrastructure. 

In my testimony, I called out H.R. 631 as the type of legislation 

that I think is the right approach. Quite frankly, it is a modest investment, a down payment if you will, on the development of information that will help guide all of our water agencies and our Nation to figuring out how to do a better job of increasing water efficiency and developing water supply reliability, and actually meeting the climate change and water supply reliability challenges of 

the future. 

And I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for 

this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Ms. Dickinson. 

STATEMENT OF MARY ANN DICKINSON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR WATER EFFICIENCY 

Ms. DICKINSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

opportunity to come and testify. 

I represent the Alliance for Water Efficiency, which is a North 

American nonprofit organization composed of diverse stakeholders 

with significant experience in cost-effective water conservation programs and policies. 

We represent water utilities, plumbing and appliance manufacturers, the irrigation industry, government agencies, retailers, academic researchers. We have a list of our representatives on the 

board in our testimony. 

Our mission is to promote the efficient and sustainable use of 

water, to promote the cost-effective measures that you have mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, that will reduce wasteful consumption, reduce the need for additional drinking water and wastewater 

capacity, and provide multiple energy, economic and environmental 

benefits. 

And in that mission, we work closely with the staff at the Environmental Protection Agency, as the Nation’s steward of ambient 

water quality as well as safe drinking water. They have been a 

very strong promoter of water efficiency’s many benefits. Programs 

have existed at EPA for well over 20 years in the Office of Water 

and Wastewater, albeit modestly funded and staffed. 

But the limited focus began to grow within EPA with the launching of the WaterSense program in 2006. Like it Energy Star cousin, 

WaterSense is aimed at product efficiency, product labeling, and 

consumer messaging. And unlike its Energy Star cousin, it is funded at a very modest level, $2.4 million annually, 20 times less than 

the Energy Star program. 

So what we are recommending, as WaterSense being an important flagship program with very visible links to the water utilities, 

the private sector and the public, we are recommending that that 

funding level be measurably increased. WaterSense has made extraordinary strides in the past 3 years, launching a nationwide program, testing and labeling hundreds of products such as high efficiency toilets and faucets. 

Their effort in rolling out the program quickly has been truly remarkable and commendable. However, it must be acknowledged 

that that quick success was primarily possible because important 

work had already been done in the water efficiency community to 

help pave the way. Now that other product specifications need to 

be fully researched and tested, it is critical that WaterSense be provided sufficient funds to carry out the mission and to keep its partners engaged. 

The private sector also strongly supports the WaterSense program and has demonstrated its desire to be participating partners, 

to see faster progress, and to see the labeling of more product categories. By comparison, WaterSense has so far been able to label 

fully three product categories versus Energy Star’s 60, so there is 

quite a bit of work to do. 
50 

WaterSense also has some important differences. No label goes 

to a product that isn’t 20 percent more efficient than the national 

efficiency standard for that product. And as we have already discussed, it is third-party verified. So it provides, the label provides 

the consumer with not only a guarantee of water efficiency, but a 

guarantee of superior performance. So the double-flushing toilet of 

the past will not be returning. 

So to continue this work, we recommend that WaterSense be authorized by Congress, to be given official status, not only to ensure 

its longevity, but to signal important policy approval from this current Administration. We recommend that its funding be increased 

to at least $10 million annually, which is still only one-quarter of 

the Energy Star program. 

If you leave it at its current annual funding level of $2.5 million, 

they will only be able to label one to two product categories a year, 

which is not sufficient to meet the true needs that are now in the 

marketplace. There are literally dozens of products waiting to be 

considered, both in the commercial as well as residential sectors. 

And so addressing the largest water use, which is urban irrigation, 

is a critical need that WaterSense must spend considerable time 

working on and working in cooperation with the stakeholder community. 

We also have a number of detailed recommendations for the 

WaterSense program that are contained in our testimony. We have 

also developed very specific recommendations for funding of State 

Revolving Loan Funds and continuing the 20 percent set-aside that 

was instituted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

We would like to see that 20 percent set-aside continued, and we 

would like to see it continued in a way that perhaps required planning and water efficiency performance improvements in the water 

utilities that are applying for those funds. So we have recommendations in our testimony on that. 

And I would like to conclude by saying that our testimony also 

has a list of water efficiency research needs that were developed in 

response to earlier drafts of Congressman Matheson’s bill, H.R. 

631. We have developed a list of about $31 million worth of projects 

which are just the beginning of what we have identified as research 

opportunities in the United States. So clearly, as Martha mentions, 

$100 million would be a very minimal amount to devote to this 

topic. 

Successfully reducing water consumption requires careful examination of products, programs and practices, and the research that 

we are recommending is applied research. It is not technical or theoretical. It is applied research that guarantees the water savings 

and documents those cost-effective benefit cost savings. 

So we want to thank you for the opportunity for this testimony, 

and I encourage you to take a look at the detailed recommendations that we have provided. And I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dickinson follows:] 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Shannon. 

STATEMENT OF MARK A. SHANNON, JAMES W. BAYNE PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER OF ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR THE PURIFICATION OF WATER AND SYSTEMS, 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

Mr. SHANNON. Thank you so much for having me, Mr. Chairman. 

I am really excited to be here to talk to you about these issues. 

I again am going to hit just some really quick points. We passed 

the 300 million mark and we are growing in population. This graph 

is just to show, if you look at the top graph, the top curve there, 

the green one, that is showing that if we stay on the current path 

of consumption that was outlined actually by the Texas Commission, we are going to have to grow our water supply by 62 percent 

by 2040 because of population growth. 

The bottom one is if we conserve, and really conserve. That bottom growth details a 60 percent drop in domestic use, 30 percent 

in energy, and 20 percent in agriculture. We are still going to have 

to grow water supplies by 29 percent. 

So we are going to have to conserve and we are going to have 

to be efficient with water, and we have to come up with new ways 

to do it. And it is not just averages. This next graph projects water 

use, using the projections from the same Texas Commission report 

for the United States, versus population growth, and local areas 

are going to see dramatic increases in demand on water. 

And this is going to be very expensive to try to be able to do it, 

as you noted in your opening remarks about using just the current 

infrastructure approach. It is just going to be amazingly expensive. 

So we need new ways to think about this problem. And that is 

what our Center is really trying to do. It is trying to understand 

how we can tackle some of these problems. 

But along with demand, at the same time as you heard comments already, we are seeing declines in the actual supply because 

of primarily mining of aquifers and loss of snowpack storage. So we 

are seeing this perfect storm of increasing demand and decreasing 

supply at the same time. 

So rather than just getting morose about this, I really like to 

think about the fact that there are lots of really good opportunities 

out here. We are really far from the natural law limits, which 

means we can do things and separations that we haven’t done before. 

And we in the United States are really one of the best innovators 

in the world in these types of technologies and types of science that 

we can change the equation fundamentally about how we can save 

large amounts of water and conserve large amounts of water. So 

I think it is very important that we look at doing this. 

One of the things you have heard discussed many times now is 

about this connection between water and energy. Well, in wastewater there is a huge amount of energy in wastewater that we 

spend a huge amount of energy to destroy currently, with our techniques of pumping air and using ozone and chlorine. I mean, when 

you think about it, we burn up, I just calculated, 100 million kilowatt hours a year just to destroy the energy that is in there. And 
84 

we have new technologies that can recover this in a very distributive fashion so that one can put it in like in the Solara Building 

in New York city, where they have put these types of treatment 

right in their basement. They don’t even discharge it as sewage, 

and they have cut their water use by 50 percent. We can go all the 

way to 80 percent and not have a drop in the standard of living. 

So we don’t have to think that water-conservation equation 

means you have to deal with less. That is not necessary. 

So one of those things that I would like to point out is that there 

is a water innovation imperative occurring across the world right 

now. It is very exciting, but unfortunately it is not happening in 

the United States. It is happening in Singapore. It is happening in 

Switzerland, the Netherlands, China, India. It is not happening 

here. Large investments are being made. The companies are going 

there, GE, Siemens, and they are investing large dollars there. 

I think we need to lead this imperative here so that we can have 

U.S. companies, U.S. workers help develop these technologies that 

can really fundamentally change our water equation. 

So just some quick recommendations. I think we need to increase 

the investment in water R&D to provide these technologies so that 

U.S. companies and workers can do this, and all types that you 

heard discussed here, plus increasing water efficiency and energy 

efficiency at the same time, getting low energy reuse and desalination technologies that can really fundamentally change the equation. So we don’t have to sit there and say we can’t make up water 

demand without extra supply. 

And I think the EPA would be a perfect place for looking at how 

you can test that, verify it, to diffuse it into the marketplace, because we need that diffusion in the marketplace to be successful. 

We could create national centers that could focus on efforts coming out of our universities and our labs and companies so we can 

make this change. So it is really at many different levels that we 

have to do this. And I think the Federal Government can reinvigorate this sector in a way that hasn’t been seen since, say, the 1960s 

when they made those really early initial investments that we are 

still benefiting from today, those investments in membranes and 

desalt technologies that are now the state of the art. It came out 

of the U.S. It came out of Federal investment, and it would be a 

great opportunity. 

So I want to thank you very much, and I hope that you can read 

my full testimony. 

Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon follows:] 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 

Senator CARDIN. We have. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 

Mr. Mehan. 

STATEMENT OF G. TRACY MEHAN, III, PRINCIPAL, THE 

CADMUS GROUP, INC. 

Mr. MEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Tracy Mehan. I am Principal with the Cadmus 

Group, an environmental consulting firm. Prior to that, I was Assistant Administrator for Water at EPA through 2003. 

Before I start, in my written testimony I mention the classic paradox of diamonds and water that Adam Smith identified, that we 

view diamonds, which are purely for adornment and decorative use, 

as priceless, but water we hardly put a value on it. That paradox 

as to the value or lack of value we place on water is something we 

need to address, and which I think everyone’s testimony here is 

part of that response or that answer. 

When I was at EPA, we came out with the Four Pillars of Sustainable Infrastructure, which included full-cost pricing and water 

efficiency, which will be the focus of my testimony today. I am 

pleased to see the progress on the water efficiency front. Mary Ann 

Dickinson is here with the Alliance, which is part of the fruits of 

that effort, as is the WaterSense program, both efforts of which I 

am big fans and supporters and urge your continued support of all 

those efforts. 

I am here basically just with one message to sort of supplement 

all the tremendous things we have heard here today and all the 

worthwhile ideas for research priorities at EPA relating to water 

efficiency, and that has to do with the economics and other social 

sciences which can basically provide drivers or incentives to adopt 

all these wonderful new water efficiency technologies, as well as 

traditional low-tech responses such as taking a shorter shower or 

not watering your lawn all night. 

It seems to me that in order to really drive these projects, these 

practices, these technologies into the water sector, pricing and 

water rates are important part of this process. At the most basic 

level, the impetus for water efficiency and conservation comes either from just absolute scarcity in the real world, or from pricing 

structures which go beyond just mere replacement costs of the 

hard, grey infrastructure. 

In truth, both full-cost pricing for infrastructure and water conservation pricing can be complementary or mutually reinforcing. 

Scarcity, of course, is usually the result of human need, but we can 

also experience scarcity in terms of ecological function. We can be 

meeting human needs while destroying ecological functions because 

of unsustainable water use. 

So again, these are the kinds of issues I think we can address 

through some economic techniques and certainly through rate and 

price design. 

Many water managers traditionally, and for understandable reasons given their professional training, emphasize demand management as an engineering problem, rather than economic one. They 

tend to resort to non-price options as they should, in many cases, 

to reduce water use, rather than looking at the rate structure or 

the price increases. 
108 

Again, this is understandable, but not necessarily sufficient, and 

again I think both responses, the engineering and the economic, 

are required. And of course, one barrier we have to adopting something like conservation-based pricing of demand-based pricing is 

the fact that we are not really doing a cost recovery just for the 

hard infrastructure right now. Our price structure is well below 

where it should be just to put in capital structure, maintain it, operations and maintenance, as well as replace it. My paper deals 

with that issue in some detail. 

Traditionally, demand management focused on restrictions such 

as water uses, rationing, promotion of water-efficient technologies 

and fixtures, all of which will continue, all of which is important. 

And these non-price demand management actions were favored, 

again as I say, because managers did not believe that consumers 

necessarily changed their water consumption habits in response to 

changing prices. 

Without spending a lot of time on it, my paper gets into greater 

detail regarding the economic literature on the whole issue of the 

elasticity or inelasticity of response to prices in the water realm. 

I think it is sufficient to say that it is an issue that has to be addressed and it is an area for fundamental and increased research, 

again in the economics profession and the social sciences generally. 

It comes down to the sophistication of the design of the rates, 

and we get into that in much more detail in the paper. Again, a 

lot of economists will note that all things being equal, price elasticity can be expected to be greater under higher prices. In other 

words, behavior will change in relation to higher prices. 

Although it is difficult to estimate, elasticities are higher with 

non-linear increasing block prices or pricing than they are under 

linear uniform prices. It has been estimated that as of 2000, and 

this is the last study I have been able to find, one-third of residential water customers were already under an IBP regime, but that 

is really a far cry from where we need to get as a Country. 

IBPs may simply make prices more salient to consumers. In 

other words, they see it and they feel it in their pocketbook. Improvements in the presentation of water price information on water 

bills has shown to increase consumers’ price responsiveness, and 

IBPs seem to provide a similar signal. 

That said, price structure, income, demographics, rainfall and 

weather, seasonal factors including evapotranspiration rates appear to influence price responsiveness. That is, again, the elasticity 

of demand. Thus, when setting conservation prices or rates, it is 

important to use background elasticity information from local studies, regional studies and the like. 

All this is to say a lot more research is required for this to make 

sense. Of course, equity must be reconciled with efficiency. The sophistication of these new price structures must deal with poor people, low income people. We need to guarantee a household what 

they need to survive and to prosper as a household. But when you 

move up the scale to greater consumption, you know, watering your 

lawns with electronic devices, using swimming pools, drought conditions, the price should reflect the scarcity of the resource. 

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mehan follows:] 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

We will start this round of questioning with Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me thank you on being the first of our class out of the 

block to chair a subcommittee hearing and get it organized and together. It is an honor to be here with you and I salute you on being 

the first to go. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. For the witnesses, my question is about 

bottled water. When you are talking about the waste associated 

with water use, it is hard to overlook the extraordinary waste of 

energy and oil and everything associated with bottle water. Many 

people will walk by a tap that at the flick of a wrist will produce 

better quality water than the water that has been sitting in that 

plastic bottle for however long, or at least as good. 

How is it that we begin to attract Americans back to the tap, assure them that the quality of water that they are drinking is as 

good, if not better than the bottled water, and reduce the energy 

waste associated with bottled water? 

I am told that every time you pick up a bottle of water, if you 

can imagine it being one-quarter filled with oil, that is about how 

much it takes to get that water to you in order to drink that bottle 

of water. 

I would be interested in hearing the panel’s thoughts on that 

question. 

Ms. DAVIS. It is an extraordinary phenomenon and an interesting 

marketing question. The United States, the water quality here, is 

the envy of the world. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am the son of a Foreign Service family. 

I grew up in places where you actually couldn’t drink the water, 

so it is particularly astounding. 

Ms. DAVIS. Exactly. And yet, what we have developed in the 

United States is a market of convenience where the bottled water 

has met a need in the sense that people that are, oh, I want a glass 

of water, will then go to the market and buy something that is cold. 

And I don’t think they realize the full cost of that water, both in 

terms of the cost of the bottling of the water, which is no different. 

It is just tap water that has in most cases been put in the bottle. 

There is no difference in quality. It is the same quality, except for 

the fact that you do have issues related to when you open up the 

plastic bottles and then you get heat and that kind of a thing. You 

can end up with some water quality issues. 

I think at the end of the day, there is an interesting campaign 

going on in California where a citizen group is now distributing the 

new special water bottles that don’t have any kind of degradation 

problem. And they are distributing it and calling it Take Back the 

Tap, with the notion that if it is a matter of convenience, we can 

supply that convenience by the right container and trying to get 

the container in the hands of people so they can refill them easily 

and therefore have the convenience of having drinking water when 

they want it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Anyone else, in a minute and a half? 

Ms. DICKINSON. Yes, I would like to comment on that. I think the 

phenomenon of bottled water has arisen primarily because of two 
120 

reasons. One, the consumer doesn’t necessarily trust the taste factor coming out of the tap. It is the chlorine residual that often is 

not very attractive from a taste perspective. And when I worked for 

a water utility in Connecticut, near Rhode Island, we did a bottleyour-own campaign where we actually encouraged people to take 

the glass bottles that we gave them and refrigerate the water, because once the water was refrigerated over a period of time that 

chlorine residual would no longer be noticeable in a taste. 

And that was one factor, was the taste issue that we noticed. 

That was why people were drinking a lot of bottled water. 

But the second one is really very simple. We have lost the public 

drinking fountain. It has become, you know, a scuzzy disgusting facility that, for the most part, people will not want to drink from 

anymore. And from a technology perspective, there are ways to fix 

that problem and we should think about how we can make public 

water supplies available on a public fountain basis that is sanitary, 

that is going to provide the measure of comfort level to the user. 

I am a tap water drinker and I struggle to find public fountains 

in airports and other public places. They are just disappearing, 

largely disappearing from our buildings. And so I think that is part 

of what we need to also look at, is how we provide the substitute 

for the consumer that wants to make that switch. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. More infrastructure, Mr. Chairman. Infrastructure. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank the witnesses. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, very much. And 

congratulations to you also for being the first in your class to hold 

a hearing. I served with you in the House and we have always 

known you were a great leader, and you are once again leading out, 

and you beat Sheldon to the punch. That is the thing I like. 

Senator CARDIN. Your class is coming soon. 

Senator UDALL. OK, OK, as soon as you get me one of those 

chairmanships. 

Senator CARDIN. Right. 

Senator UDALL. But I’d like to put my opening statement in the 

record and just go directly to questions. 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, all Members of the Committee will have the opportunity to include opening statements. We 

have heard from Senator Inhofe who had planned to be here, will 

not be able to be here, and his opening statement will also be included in the record. 

Senator UDALL. There was some discussion early on about 

through the panel, and thank you all for being here; we very much 

appreciate your testimony, on the issue of desalination. And that 

is a big issue in the west, because we are seeing an interest in getting into these brackish underground aquifers and bringing them 

up and desalting them. 

And developers are looking at different ways to get water supply 

there. But it is my understanding there are several concerns. First, 

the process is very energy intensive, so in order to desalinate water 
121 

on large scales, we would be forced to consume large amounts of 

new power, the equivalent of several very large power plants. 

Second, these inland saline aquifers, unlike freshwater aquifers 

or the ocean, are nonrenewable and may not recharge naturally. As 

a result, the price for desalinated water is much higher than from 

freshwater resources. 

I would like to ask you, any of you, to comment on this. If all 

the desalination research we talked about, the projects, the research, we push the envelope on it, how realistic are the efforts on 

a large scale in the near term, say 5 years? And how much can we 

expect to bring the costs down, if you talk about where the cost is 

now and how far we would bring it down? 

Mr. SHANNON. OK. I would like to weigh in on this. I think this 

is a fantastic question you asked, Senator, and it is something that 

we spend lots of our time thinking about. 

Right now, there are efforts around the world to bring the cost 

of energy use and desalinization way down. In fact, we are being 

funded by groups out of the EU and Saudi Arabia to do just this, 

to be able to use solar-powered desalination of both sea water and 

inland. 

And so there is a group that is now working on cogenerating energy, generating energy at the same time you are generating water, 

and having the brine so concentrated at near zero discharge that 

you can get at that inland issue. There are key issues that one can 

do there, and I think the costs can be brought down considerably 

from where it is currently at. 

That is one of the things that we talk about. We are not near 

the natural law limits, and when people think about it, they think 

about known technologies. And known technologies are very energy 

intensive that are currently being used. 

The other issue is that if you are trying to transport water long 

distances, this is one of the things that people don’t really compare, 

as discussed, taking the water over the Tehachapis. That takes just 

as much energy as it takes to desalinate water from sea water, so 

one needs to compare those two costs. 

But there is research going on. Unfortunately, not a lot in this 

Country, but a lot of research going on overseas and large companies are looking at developing new technologies. We should see the 

energy drop by a factor of two to four over current technologies, 

and being able to do this recovery. 

If you couple it with the reuse factor, where you can then, after 

it has been desalinated and use the non-potable water, you can 

then drop the total water needed by a factor of four as well. 

So I think it does become quite possible in these arid regions to 

be much more efficient about use of water. These deepwater 

aquifers that you are referring to, many places are already getting 

to that point. Outside of El Paso, Texas, the water is so deep that 

they are now desalinating and spending a lot of water to re-inject 

it down into the deep oil wells. 

So the technologies are here, but they can be made much better, 

I guess, is the take-home message. 

Mr. MEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with Dr. 

Shannon’s remarks completely. I would also maybe call your attention, Senator, to a recent report by the National Research Council 
122 

on desalt technologies. It is a very good report. It does point to just 

the cost dropping like an anchor, and that is going to continue. But 

there are residuals. There are issues that require further research. 

I think there are some good American companies working in this 

area like G.E. and Dow, and they would be very pleased to come 

in and tell you how the technologies are improving and the costs 

are dropping. 

So it is part of the solution. I am not one that thinks that technology will save us. That is why I believe in full cost pricing and 

conservation pricing and water efficiency. But it is definitely a 

bright spot on the horizon. And when you look at the application 

of those same technologies to water reuse and recycling, tremendous opportunities. 

Ms. DAVIS. If I might add just one point, I agree with the foregoing comments, and I just would add that desalination, particularly in the interior areas, needs to be looked at. And an integrated 

water management strategy, which is exactly what we are doing 

within the Chino Basin. We have two desalters that are operating 

now that are helping us to reclaim water that otherwise would not 

be usable. We are integrating that water supply into treated water 

into our water supplies. 

So we are generating right now about 26,000 acre feet of new 

water supplies from the treatment of brackish groundwater that 

otherwise would not be available. We were able to integrate the 

project with renewable energy development of biogas from a digester. We actually did a partnership with the agricultural community. So we are taking dairy manure and treating it and producing 

the biogas that then runs the generation at the desalter. 

And then we are also looking at recharge strategies with recycled 

water, where because we are taking the salts out of the groundwater basin, our regional board under the Clean Water Act is enabling us to go ahead and use recycled water as part of the replenishment cycle, along with stormwater and imported water, to manage the groundwater basin. 

So in a bigger picture, how do we fit all of these different water 

strategies together? And I would also concur that we are really 

very low on the learning curve of really how to do this and to figure 

out ways in which our local water supplies can be optimized, maximized in order make these strategies really work and drought-proof 

our economies. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. 

We have, as you know, hearings at the same time. I would love 

to stay at this the entire time, but I am going to have to get over 

to the Commerce Committee. 

Senator CARDIN. We appreciate your being here. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. We certainly understand that. 

One of the things that is different between the Senate and the 

House that Senator Udall and I both experienced. In the House, we 

serve on one or two committees. In the Senate, they put us on four 

or five committees. So I think they try to keep you out of trouble 

by having you at hearings all day long. 

Professor Shannon, you pointed out in your charts and in your 

comments the benefits from research in the area of water effi-
123 

ciency. Could you just comment how the Federal Government compares in its commitment to supporting research for water efficiency 

with perhaps what is happening in other countries or in the private 

sector? 

You heard EPA testify earlier. We do have research programs. 

They are not centered only on water efficiency, but they do cover 

water efficiency. How do we compare to what is happening around 

the universe on water efficiency research? 

Mr. SHANNON. Well, thank you very much. 

I actually have been traveling the world trying to answer this 

exact question. I went to Switzerland because Switzerland, you 

know, is a country of 7.7 million people. And they are spending 

about $400 million a year on it right now. And you are saying, well, 

why would they be doing this? This is a water-rich country. It is 

beautiful. 

It is because they are a net-exporting energy nation in electricity 

and their snowpack storage and glacial storage is decreasing. And 

so they have decided to become very efficient about water, and 

moved to a lot of reuse, looked at low water footprint technologies 

for energy and other applications, so that they can become self-sustaining when this snowpack storage disappears. 

Singapore is investing some $300 million over 5 years and getting concurrent investments by, unfortunately, U.S. companies. On 

March 19, G.E. just announced they are investing $100 million in 

the effort in Singapore. And unfortunately, it is not coming to the 

United States. 

The Netherlands, a country of 16 million, also invests on the 

order of $100 million a year on water reuse and conservation technologies. China, it is very difficult to tease where China is, but 

China is spending lots of money at this point, as well as India. 

So we are seeing this resurgence around the Country. And so 

much so that our students that we are graduating with Ph.D.s are 

being literally taken away and given great salaries, and we are seeing a reverse brain drain, leaving this Country, which is very disturbing to me, particularly when one thinks about it and projects 

it out into our future. 

So, you know, in comparison, our investments are quite modest 

in total, not even comparing against population. I think our needs, 

actually, are quite high. So I think there is a mismatch in our investments versus other countries. 

Senator CARDIN. One of the strategies we have tried to use on 

energy efficiency and renewables is that it is good economic sense 

for Americans. Our technology and jobs should stay here. I think 

same thing is true with water efficiency, that we are losing an economic opportunity here that we need to figure a strategy to deal 

with. 

That leads me, Mr. Mehan, to your point about pricing of water, 

which would be a rather controversial issue if we tried to put the 

true cost of water on the users. It wouldn’t be a popular decision 

by those who have to run for office locally. 

But you raise a very good point. I want to take it to a different 

level, though. You say you then reward water efficiency, which I 

agree. Use less, you are rewarded on the price structure. But it 
124 

seems to me that with volume purchases, you might work counter 

to that. 

Have you thought about how you deal with the volume issue, 

with efficiency, so that we use less, but still have a pricing mechanism that reflects true cost? 

Mr. MEHAN. Absolute key issue, Senator. Unfortunately, I didn’t 

have time to get to it in my testimony, my oral testimony. But in 

my paper testimony submitted, I discuss the whole issue of decoupling, which is not a new issue in the energy field, but it is still 

a new issue in the water sector. Decoupling, in other words, pricing 

of revenue for the water system from volumetric sales. 

Certainly, California I think has done this I think on energy, and 

ahead of that. But we haven’t really begun to explore the kinds of 

price structures that would allow us to take the incentive out of 

selling a lot of water. I don’t know how many corporate environmental officers I have talked to who have said you know, we have 

put in this really wonderful water efficiency program in our plant. 

We cut our water use, and then our water rates went up. And as 

I remember, one officer from Coca-Cola in particular said that 

sends a very mixed signal. 

And I think that points to the problem and the need to explore 

decoupling between volumetric sales and a legitimate rate of return 

for the water system. Key issue, and one that could use a lot of research work, and I cite my written testimony. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I appreciate that. I think that can be very 

helpful to us. 

Ms. Davis, what are the major obstacles in the way of utility 

companies adopting water efficiency types of improvements? 

Ms. DAVIS. You know, for a long time, they have been willing to 

move along with programs that supported their customers in being 

more efficient. And so it has been dominated over the last decade 

or so with a focus on provision of rebates for more water efficient 

devices, like the ultra-low flow toilets. And quite frankly, they have 

been very successful. 

The city of Los Angeles today announces that it is using the 

same level of water supplies as they did in 1990, even though their 

population has grown by over 1.5 million to 2 million people. They 

credit back to simply the programs of switching out toilets and putting in, building in structural water efficiency. 

What is happening in California and I think some of the, you will 

see the same issues carrying across the Nation, is how do you take 

the next step in building in efficiency? And I think there has always been a fear factor that in part in asking people to be more 

efficient, that maybe you are asking them to change their lifestyle 

or to make choices that they don’t want to make. 

And I think we see this debate in the outdoor sector very visibly 

exposed, where people are saying, if you ask me to reduce my outdoor landscaping, does that mean I get to keep a lawn? 

And I think what we are seeing now emerging, but there is a lot 

more work to be done on it, is how we can encourage people to have 

very attractive outdoor landscaping that is water efficient, that has 

these other benefits. 
125 

And for most water agencies, it is a new frontier of getting into 

recommendations that would go so foundationally into the way that 

people have structured their landscapes and their communities. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for that. 

Ms. Dickinson, I appreciated your comments on the WaterSense 

program. You did something which is kind of unusual. You gave us 

a specific number, $10 million. I am curious how you arrived at 

that number. 

Ms. DICKINSON. Well, I came up with $10 million because I wanted to at least get within shooting range of the Energy Star funding. 

So that is one-quarter of the Energy Star funding. It would be wonderful to have even more than $10 million, but that is already a 

fourfold increase over their current levels, and I thought maybe 

more than $10 million might not be easily justified. 

But clearly, I believe that additional investment in the 

WaterSense program will yield a lot more results, which will be 

positive in the marketplace. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I agree. We are going to have to take a 

look at that. I don’t think there is any disagreement about the need 

to center in on greater acknowledgment of water efficiency issues 

and WaterSense helps us in that. We need more research. We certainly need to concentrate on the cost-benefits of water efficiency 

that the pricing issues, I think, point out. 

The difficulty is do we take it out of existing, reprioritize, or do 

we add additional resources? And in a tough economic period that 

we are in now on budgets, it is going to be very difficult to see new 

funds made available. 

So one of the challenges to all of us is whether we can 

reprioritize within the resources that are currently being used. 

That may be a matter for another day’s discussion, but I think you 

all have made a very convincing case that we need to get the right 

public attention on water use and the concerns about water supply 

in America and international, and the fact that we can do a much 

better economic job for our Nation in better use of energy and better use of our natural resources. 

Our challenge will be how the U.S. Senate and Congress can 

work with this Administration to develop policies that will move 

these issues forward. Your testimony here today has certainly 

helped us in giving us the information necessary to move forward. 

So I thank all of you for your testimony. This will be a continued 

interest for our full Committee. I know Chairman Boxer is very interested in moving forward in this area, and we will take the information from today and move forward. 

Thank you all very much. 

Our Subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Today we are focusing on a very small piece of a very large issue: water efficiency. 

Our Nation currently has hundreds of billions of dollars of needs in both clean water 

and drinking water infrastructure. Many of our systems are reaching the end of 

their lifetimes and are going to need replacement and repair in the future. Using 

water more efficiently is one way we can help extend the life of current systems and 
126 

is important for planning for the future. Additionally, we can help address this need 

through a continued commitment to infrastructure. I am looking forward to working 

with Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Crapo on the water infrastructure bill. 

Consumers understand the importance of saving energy. Energy prices have risen 

around the Country and many people have chosen to cut their energy costs by purchasing products that save them money, such as more energy efficient appliances. 

EPA’s Energy Star program has been a great example of a public-private partnership that relies on market based principles to drive technology forward. EPA is 

working to do the same thing with its Water Sense program. Using the market and 

public-private partnerships along with education, water efficiency programs can be 

widely successful in saving water for communities and money for consumers. 

Using water more effectively helps reduce strain on existing water treatment 

plants and can help areas like Oklahoma, which has had to deal with drought conditions for several years, better use the water that is available. In addition to helping 

stretch our water resources further, water savings also saves energy. EPA estimates 

that 4 percent of the Nation’s electricity consumption is used moving or treating 

water and wastewater. In homes with electric water heaters, 25 percent of their 

electricity consumption is used to heat water for cleaning and cooking. 

I know there is a great interest in using water more efficiently. Currently, my 

home State of Oklahoma is doing a comprehensive State water plan. One of their 

main objectives is to focus on ways to improve water efficiency and water conservation. Additionally, the State legislature created a grant program last year to assist 

communities to implement pilot water conservation projects in Oklahoma communities. These projects will serve as models for other communities and result in significant water efficiency improvements and water savings. I believe that projects 

like these will demonstrate new cost-effective technologies and help spur new markets. 

I am looking forward to hearing from EPA what they are currently doing to promote and improve water use efficiency, what research and development initiatives 

they have begun and how they are reaching out to the public to educate them about 

opportunities to improve their water efficiency. I am also interested in discerning 

what some of the current barriers are with assisting and encouraging people to become more water efficient and if there is a role for Congress to play. 

Æ