U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

38–865 PDF 2007

H.R. 135: TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 

WATER COMMISSION ACT OF 2007 

(110–87) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 8, 2007 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice Chair 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Conrad, David, Senior Water Resources Specialist, National Wildlife Federation ........................................................................................................................ 9 

Georgakakos, Ph.D., Aris P., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia 

Institute of Technology ........................................................................................ 9 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, 

United States Environmental Protection Agency .............................................. 9 

Linder, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia .... 7 

Lynch, Robert S., Robert S. Lynch and Associates ............................................... 9 

Mullican, III, William F., Deputy Executive Administrator for Planning, 

Texas Water Development Board ....................................................................... 9 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana .................................................................... 26 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 30 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 31 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 33 

Linder, Hon. John, of Georgia ................................................................................ 36 

Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California ...................................................................... 40 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 42 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Conrad, David R. ..................................................................................................... 45 

Georgakakos, Aris Peter ......................................................................................... 49 

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H. ................................................................................. 54 

Lynch, Robert S. ...................................................................................................... 67 

Mullican, III, William F. ......................................................................................... 71 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

City of Atlanta, Georgia, Hon. Shirley Franklin, Mayor, written statement ..... 80 

National Water Resources Association, Thomas F. Donnelly, Executive Vice 

President, written statement .............................................................................. 85 

vi 


38865.001
vii 


38865.002
viii 


38865.003
(1) 

HEARING ON TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 

WATER COMMISSION ACT OF 2007 

Thursday, November 8, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Good morning. Today’s hearing comes during a historic week where the House of Representatives came together in 

a bipartisan fashion and soundly overturned the President’s veto of 

the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, the WRDA Bill, and 

I especially want to applaud all of my colleagues from the Committee, both Democrat and Republican alike who unanimously 

voted for overriding the veto. WRDA authorizes vitally important local projects for a wide array of water resources needs including water supply, flood control, navigation and environmental restoration. WRDA recognizes 

the vital importance of taking a watershed approach to water resource needs. This bill includes dozens of projects to provide for watershed management and water supply needs in communities 

across the Country. 

Provisions were also included to reinvigorate broader watershed 

planning authority including a federally-funded assessment of 

water resources needs for the river basins and watersheds of the 

Southeastern United States and a region-wide study to review 

drought conditions in the Southeastern U.S.A. These region-wide 

assessments are especially critical to the Southeastern U.S. including the States of Georgia, Alabama and Florida which are experiencing the ever increasing challenge of balancing water needs during a record drought. 

Earlier this year, the Committee received testimony from experts 

that highlighted the need for a comprehensive watershed approach 

to water resource planning, one that is not limited to just water 

supply needs but takes a comprehensive view of all the water resource activities in a watershed including local, State and Federal 

roles and activities in water supply, flood control and environmental restoration. 

The experts also advised taking into account the impact of global 

climate change on water resource capacity and future needs. 

As a result of these hearings, this past July, the Committee approved, by a voice vote, legislation to create a comprehensive reVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38865 JASON
2 

view of national water policies also called the Twenty-First Century Water Commission. This provision, which was included in the 

Transportation Energy Security and Climate Change Mitigation 

Act of 2007, establishes a commission to provide expert scientific 

guidance on future water supply and demand projections, climate 

change impacts to our Nation’s flood risk and water demand and 

associated climate change impacts on water quality. 

This commission would study current Federal, State and local 

water resources management programs and activities and ensure 

that the Nation is adequately prepare to meet the water supply, 

water quality and water resources demands of the next 50 years. 

This provision was incorporated into H.R. 3221, New Direction for 

Energy Independence, National Security and Consumer Protection 

Act which was approved by the House, August 4th, 2007. 

My home State of Texas has had long experience in water resource planning. Following the drought of the 1950s, Texas began 

its initial efforts in statewide water planning. 

In 1957, the State Legislature created the Texas Water Development Board. The board has prepared and adopted eight State 

water plans. Early efforts focused mostly on describing the State’s 

water resources and then evolved into a focus on developing plans 

addressing water supply, conservation and environmental issues. 

But, drought in 1997 was a watershed event for Texas. This devastating drought caused nearly $5 billion in losses for agriculture 

and related industries and caused widespread loss and anxiety over 

water supply shortages. 

As a result of this statewide event, Texas totally changed its approach to water planning and moved from a very centralized approach to a decentralized process that put primary responsibility 

for water planning at the regional and local governments’ level. 

The new process greatly increased public participation and implemented a bottom-up local and regional planning process. This new 

effort emphasized conservation and increases in environmental protection. 

Texas has just released its 2007 water plan which is one of the 

most comprehensive State water plans produced, and I am pleased 

that we have William Mullican, Deputy Executive Administrator 

for Planning of the Texas Water Development Board here today to 

tell us more about this plan. 

Mr. Baker. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I certainly appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing, and 

I look forward to hearing from our colleagues from Georgia and 

those with concerns around the Great Lakes this morning to learn 

their perspectives on this obviously critical circumstance. I also 

look forward to the second panel of experts who I hope will have 

what is not apparent to me, the appropriate remedies for us to 

adopt. 

It is unfortunate that we really have to have a hearing this 

morning on the Water Commission Act as the past two Congresses 

have passed the measure. Had it made it through, we perhaps 

would have had an operational plan in place to more adequately 

prepare for these circumstances and for all involved to know what 

3 

appropriate steps to take. Not to speak ill of my colleagues on the 

other side of the Capitol, but a little production would be helpful. 

Ensuring that we all have access to clean and sustainable quantities of water is an enormous responsibility. It is also very evident 

that the demand for clean water is expanding rather dramatically. 

Even though States like Georgia which would ordinarily not be 

viewed as a likely location for drought, it can happen and public 

water supplies are dangerously low. It goes beyond the mere convenience of watering one’s lawn or washing your car on a Saturday 

afternoon. It goes to the very quality of basic life. 

I am hopeful that there are remedies within our reach, but I 

think it is tragic we find ourselves in this circumstance. We all 

knew this day would come. We just weren’t sure when. Now we 

know. It is here and, perhaps, the remedies that can be attained 

will take considerable time, perhaps more time than citizens have 

available to them. 

I just want to again express appreciation to the Committee and 

to my colleagues in the Congress for their generous and repetitive 

response to those in need in the State of Louisiana in our terrible 

time and absolutely commit the Louisiana delegation to be responsive to any region of the Country’s needs, knowing that you were 

there when we needed you, and we certainly want to be helpful to 

you in bringing this to a speedy conclusion. 

Madam Chair, I look forward to continuing work with you. Now 

having WRDA out and soon to be overridden in the Senate in about 

an hour, it gives us time to turn our attention to essential matters. 

I look forward to working with you. 

I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Just a question, do you think anybody who didn’t vote for the bill 

won anything out of it? 

Mr. BAKER. Oh, no, no. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Chair recognizes Mr. Salazar. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Today, I believe that Congress has to examine the alternatives 

for funding and updating our aging infrastructure when it comes 

to water, but I would like to give today a perspective from the 

western States of America. As you know, we have been suffering 

a drought for many, many years, and we deal a lot with agricultural water. We deal a lot with urban water needs as well. 

Many of the Western water users are ag users and, without the 

financial resources to fund these necessary investments, they can’t 

be made. While water allocation is a State water rights issues, 

much of the arid West’s ag water infrastructure is from Federal resources. I believe that as we recently have seen in the Southwest, 

that drought, without Federal involvement, would leave us in dire 

straits. 

I think consistent with reliable water-related data is a prerequisite for good water planning, and I certainly respect exactly 

what you are doing, Mr. Linder. 

I believe that Congress has routinely reduced funding for the 

U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging program. Already a cost 

share program, the Federal share has now dropped below 50-50 

partnership. I think that as we look forward to the 21st Century, 

4 

our commitment to our water infrastructure needs has to include 

at least a 50-50 partnership. 

And so, with that, Madam Chair, I would like to turn my statement in for the record, but I would also urge you to look at the severe droughts that we are having not only in the Southeast but in 

the Southwest. 

I certainly want to thank you for your commitment to addressing 

the water infrastructure needs of this Country. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Salazar. 

The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I certainly appreciate your calling this hearing. 

I also voted for the override for WRDA and am pleased that we 

did work in a very bipartisan way on that. That is a critical piece 

of legislation, very, very important for the entire Nation. One of the 

reasons I was in support of it and voted for the override was because of the authorization for a number of projects that were critical to the Great Lakes. 

I have a statement I would like to enter into the record, without 

objection, but briefly I would like to say this: I appreciate Mr. Linder being here. I have a high regard for him. I must tell you I have 

huge consternation about his bill that he will be testifying about 

today. 

When we voted on this in the last Congress, I was one of 22 

Members who voted against that, and let me tell you why. In full 

transparency, my principal advocacy, coming from the Great Lakes 

State of Michigan and that basin, is the protection of our magnificent Great Lakes which is 1/5 or 20 percent of our fresh water supply on the entire planet. 

As other parts of the Nation are having droughts, which we have 

great empathy for and sympathy for what is happening there, I 

don’t want to be looking at a national approach about anything 

that might talk about diversion of the Great Lakes to any other 

part of the Nation. I think that this bill could very well, in my 

mind, be looked at as a way of socialism almost for a national 

water policy, a national approach to water policy that needs to be 

looked at on a regional basis. 

I don’t think I am being too alarmist about this, and I would 

make just one example here. Recently, about three weeks ago, Bill 

Richardson, who is a Presidential candidate, the Governor of New 

Mexico, this is what he said. He said, I want a national water policy. We need a dialogue between States to deal with issues like 

water conservation, water reuse technology, water delivery and 

water production. 

Okay, fair enough until he said, States like Wisconsin are awash 

in water. You can imagine the red flags that sends up to a State 

like Michigan and others around the Great Lakes Basin at a time 

when we are having historic low water levels in the Great Lakes. 

As we have lost population and jobs to other parts of the Nation, 

people want to build subdivisions in deserts or whatever they are 

doing, God bless them, but do not look to the Great Lakes to solve 

the Nation’s water problem. 

I look forward to the testimony this morning. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

5 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks for 

holding today’s hearing. 

As you know, we are long overdue for a comprehensive review of 

water policy, Federal water policy, and we haven’t had one since 

1973. This is particularly distressing to a State like Arizona whose 

population has more than tripled since then and whose habitability 

is so closely tied to the availability of a safe, reliable water resource. 

Currently, Arizona is experiencing its 11th, and some people say 

13th, year of drought. The Colorado River system as a whole is now 

in its 8th year of drought, and I believe it is past time for the Federal Government to study these issues. 

I want to extend a special thank you and welcome to Robert 

Lynch who will be testifying before us today on the second panel. 

Bob knows these issues as well as anyone. He has worked on them 

for decades both in Washington and in Phoenix, and we are very 

lucky to have him here with us today. 

I look forward to today’s testimony. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. 

Anyone else? 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank 

you for calling this hearing. 

Water is the essence of life, and I am sure all of you know it is 

important because you like to drink it and you need to drink it, but 

as a matter of fact the majority of our bodies is water. By far the 

greatest concentration of chemicals in our bodies is H2O, and that 

illustrates the extreme importance of water not just for us but also 

for plant life which also is largely water. That is why water becomes so extremely important and agriculture, forestry and so 

forth. 

I would certainly like to second the comments of my colleague 

from Michigan, Congresswoman Miller. I would like to strengthen 

them, but the only way to make them any stronger than she has 

would be to add profanity, which I don’t do, but this is a very serious matter. 

The feelings in the Great Lakes States are so strong that if anyone tried to divert water, I suspect we would call up the militia and 

come to arms. We feel that strongly about it. 

Our very existence depends on having that water. We have a 

major fishery, an $18 billion a year fishery in the Great Lakes. 

Some 40 million people get their drinking water out of the Great 

Lakes. 

Frankly, the Great Lakes are going down as well. Lake Michigan 

has dropped almost two feet in the past couple of years. So the 

drought or whatever other conditions are causing this are affecting 

us as well. 

So water is crucial. I think it is very important to have this hearing, and it is fine to get a national water policy. But I might point 

out that Congress has already passed legislation signed by the 

President, giving the governors of the Great Lakes States the authority of any diversion of water from the Great Lakes, and you 

can be assured that they would never allow diversion outside of the 

water basin. That is totally understood. 

6 

With that, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Water is one of the naturally limiting factors that impacts the 

growth and development and the economy of any State. The State 

of Hawaii has a statewide water commission which is charged with 

deciding who gets what water. So, even within the State, it is a 

very, very difficult process. 

I have no problems with the Federal Government coming in and 

acknowledging the importance of water resources throughout the 

Country, but at the same time I would like to make sure that the 

State of Hawaii, which is not even contiguous to all of the other 

States, if we are going to proceed in this way, that we acknowledge 

the unique circumstances of Hawaii in whatever we do. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Any other opening statements? 

The Chair recognizes Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to acknowledge your leadership on the Water Bill. That is very important to California and to the Nation. So I was proud to be a part 

of that, and I look forward to working in those issues. 

I want to follow up on Mr. Baker’s remark that we all knew this 

day was coming. Well, it is here now. What we are seeing in Georgia, I think we are going to be seeing elsewhere across the Country 

with increasing frequency. 

In the West, we are used to droughts. We see those periodically. 

The demand for water is only going to continue to increase. 

We are seeing severe problems with the ecology of the San Joaquin Delta. We are having to shut down pumps that transport 

water to 23 million people in California now to protect marine life. 

So we certainly appreciate the dilemma that the people in Michigan are facing with people exporting water from our region. 

I think it is our responsibility in this body to plan for water supplies that could take up to 10 years or so or more to develop. So 

we have a lot of work to do. 

I am anxious to see this hearing come forward and the testimony. Thank you, Mr. Linder, for your testimony and for your 

work. With that, I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this very important hearing and I welcome our guest, the Honorable Mr. Linder. 

We have discussed this issue on the Floor in regard to the necessity of being able to establish a commission that is going to take 

a wide and deep look at the status of water. We have not had to 

face it. I think it is very apropos at this time that we begin. We 

should have started 10 years ago, but then that is hindsight. 

I strongly support your bill and look forward to working with you 

on being able to identify those areas that we know from our experience in the West, how we have either been able to deal with it or 

things that we need to begin to get the Federal Government involved in. 

7 

It is also, Madam Chair, very important that our agencies that 

deal with water work in tandem with Congress to be able to work 

out the solutions specifically dealing with contaminated areas, with 

being to address the filtering of water to be able to make it potable 

and not carry anything that has not been able to be filtered, and 

I am talking about drugs and things that get into the water, and 

ensure that there is sufficient water for the continued growth of 

the communities that we all serve. 

The climate change has been diminishing our supply. We have 

heard how we can expect 100 years of climate change, that we have 

had 100 years of moist climate and now we are going to be having 

dryer climate. All of those are important issues so that we can take 

a look at not only our above-ground but our underground resources 

and how do we clean what we have so that we are able to face the 

challenges of the future. 

We have no new water sources, so we must figure out a way of 

being able to identify where we can capture water and where we 

have contaminated aquifers that we can clean and be able to put 

to production. 

The Federal Government has over 10 different water supply programs to recycle, reuse, desalinate, clean up and conserve our 

water resource within 4 Federal agencies, and we should bring 

those Federal agencies together to work out the solutions that we 

can all be supportive of. Your commission would create a national 

strategy to address the water shortages and recommend the improvements. 

I am hoping that as we move along that it is done expeditiously 

rather than in the next 10 years. I think we need to face the fact 

that we need strong and fast action. 

I thank you Congressman for bringing this to us and for authoring this important legislation. 

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

We will now go to our first witness. We are pleased to have Congressman John Linder, sponsor of H.R. 135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act of 2007, and we are pleased that you 

were able to make it this morning. 

Your full statement will be placed in the record. We ask that you 

limit your testimony to a five minute oral summary from your written statement. 

Congressman Linder, thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN LINDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Baker and Members 

of the Committee. I am pleased to be here to talk about the Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act. 

But, first, I want to hasten to assure my friends from Michigan 

that the only thing worse than a national water policy is a global 

water policy. This is not to establish a national policy for using 

water but to get people around the same table, to bring all the 

knowledge we have about water to the same place to advise the 

Congress and the President. 

8 

For example, California has the best conservation record in the 

Country. The rest of the States need to know how they do it. California has one other problem, though. Fifty percent of the water 

that falls on California goes to the sea, unused even once. They 

have to start using that water and reusing that water. 

Tampa is doing a great job in desalinization. They are bringing 

the cost down to make it almost commercially reasonable. They 

have to improve that and share that technology with the other 

States, but the most important thing is there are ideas all across 

this Country and across the world that are making their way into 

the discussion. We have to get at the same table. 

It is my fondest hope that some obscure expert from some obscure part of the world will bring some knowledge to us that we 

had no idea existed, so we can improve our storage, both above 

ground and underground, our conservation and, most important, 

repair our leaky pipes. Philadelphia loses 85 million gallons of 

water a day through leaky pipes. 

We need to increase the revolving loan fund in the Clean Water 

Act, so that more States can fix their problems. We are fixing in 

Atlanta, a $3 billion problem with our sewage treatment. We ought 

to be able to borrow that money at low interest rates from the Federal Government under the Clean Water Act. 

This is not to establish any new policy at the Federal level. This 

is not to establish any new Federal policy to tell people at the 

Great Lakes what to do with their water but to tell us all how to 

store more of it, how to use more of it. We are going to have to 

have Federal help with the borrowing of the money from the Clean 

Water Act at low interest rates, the revolving loan fund. 

This was started after looking at what happened. How did we get 

our interstate highway system established? It was started in 1938 

by FDR with a commission to bring all the knowledge and engineers to the same table. In three years, they came up with a proposal. 

That proposal took 70 years to enact and get completed, but it 

got completed and the individual States controlled what went on in 

their States with their development. That is exactly how I see this 

happening. 

Bob Lynch from Arizona, a water expert in the West, will testify 

after me. He will note that in 2003, when he testified for the first 

time, he was just as concerned as the folks in Michigan are about 

a national water policy. We hastened to assure him and others at 

that meeting, that that was not our intention. 

Our intention is just to say what do we know about water, what 

do we know works across the Country, bring it to the President and 

the Congress, so the Congress can look at it and decide how to help 

improve our storage. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Linder. I appreciate 

your cooperation and your valuable participation this morning. We 

will not pose any questions to you. We will talk about you when 

you are gone. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The second panel of witnesses consists of the Honorable Benjamin Grumbles—I don’t think he misses one of our 

9 

Committee meetings—Assistant Administrator for the Office of 

Water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

We have Mr. William Mullican, Deputy Executive Administrator 

for Planning of the Texas Water Development Board; Mr. David 

Conrad, Senior Water Resources Specialist, National Wildlife Federation; Mr. Robert Lynch from Robert Lynch and Associates; Mr. 

Aris Georgakakos, Professor of the Georgia Institute of Technology. 

As I noted to the first panel, your full statements can be placed 

in the record, and we ask that you try to limit your testimony to 

about five minutes as a courtesy to other witnesses. Again, we will 

proceed in the order in which the witnesses are listed. 

Mr. Grumbles, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF WATER, 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; 

WILLIAM F. MULLICAN, III, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANNING, TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT 

BOARD; DAVID CONRAD, SENIOR WATER RESOURCES SPECIALIST, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; ROBERT S. 

LYNCH, ROBERT S. LYNCH AND ASSOCIATES; ARIS P. 

GEORGAKAKOS, PH.D., CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am Ben Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. 

EPA, and it is an honor to appear before the Committee to talk 

about sustainable water policy and improving the coordination and 

integration at a national level and also a chance for EPA to discuss 

the three Rs of water sustainability: reducing waste, reusing water 

and restoring watersheds. 

EPA, as you know, has over the last five years been implementing its four pillars of sustainability for infrastructure: better 

asset management, full cost pricing, water efficiency and the fourth 

pillar of a watershed approach. 

But, today, as all of us are focusing in on the importance of 

water resource management, including quantity issues, it is important for us to articulate some enduring policy approaches, some 

guiding principles, and that is where the three Rs come into play. 

Reducing waste and inefficiency is the first. EPA is not a regulatory entity when it comes to water quantity or water allocation. 

However, we, like everyone else, recognize the importance, the inextricable connection between quantity and quality, and so we are 

using our non-regulatory authorities to encourage and to provide 

technology and innovation for water efficiency, to cut the water 

waste. 

I have spoken before to the Committee about the WaterSense 

program. We feel it is an extremely important part and it certainly 

would be a part of discussion, I am sure, with a water commission 

for the 21st Century to instill an ethic of efficiency and conservation. 

As Congressman Linder noted, there is a tremendous amount of 

water waste, and the WaterSense program is based on the principle of there doesn’t need to be sacrifice. Through technology and 

providing information to consumers and utilities across the CounVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38865 JASON
10 

try and manufacturers, we can see water efficient products and appliances where families save money and water and energy as well. 

So the WaterSense program is a very important part of reducing 

waste and inefficiency. 

The other R is reuse, reclamation and reuse of water, recycling 

water. I know this Committee is aware of that when you held hearings on water is the oil of the 21st Century. One of the solutions 

is technology. So to view water as a true resource and to reclaim 

it, the continued press for innovation on desalination and wastewater reclamation, indirect reuse, potable reuse is an important 

one. 

It also includes stormwater. One of EPA’s visions is to work with 

communities to view stormwater not as a waste product but as a 

water resource. 

The Administrator has kicked off a campaign, a movement, a 

green infrastructure movement which is supported by grassroots 

and national organizations across the Country to view stormwater 

as a true resource and use rain gardens and wetlands and greening 

watersheds, retaining water to reuse it at a later point in time. So 

that is a very important component of water resource sustainability. 

The Western Governors Association, which is focusing in on 

water sustainability, is also very much aware of the need to reuse 

and reclaim. We see communities throughout the Country, desal 

plants, as the Congressman mentioned, in Tampa Bay or El Paso, 

a desalination plant, are very important ones. 

The third R is restoring, restoring watersheds. We all live downstream. So if steps are taken upstream to reduce the pollution 

through wetlands and buffer strips and through pollution prevention practices, that can reduce the treatment costs downstream and 

help provide for a healthier watershed. 

Those are the three Rs. 

What I would like to articulate, Congresswoman, is that a very 

important part of all of this, which is one of our pillars of sustainability, is full cost pricing. A key to making true progress toward 

sustainability is for citizens, governments, communities to pay the 

true value, to recognize the true value of water and water infrastructure, so that we all appropriately invest in those assets. 

The last thing I would like to say is with respect to H.R. 135, 

I commend Congressman Linder for his leadership on this issue. 

While the Administration doesn’t have an official position on the 

bill at this time, we recognize there are some very, very important 

and timely components that are part of this legislation and the discussion. 

I, myself, do not read the bill as providing some type of mandate 

or a hint towards looking at interstate diversions or threatening 

other water bodies or about water grabs, but I do see value in having discussions that emphasize the importance of State and local 

rights when it comes to water quantity and focusing in on private 

sector and entrepreneurial solutions and better integration among 

the Federal agency programs. 

Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to be part of this important panel and the discussion, and I look forward to answering 

questions you or your colleagues may have. 

11 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mullican. 

Mr. MULLICAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members 

of the Committee. 

For the record, my name is Bill Mullican with the Texas Water 

Development Board. I would be remiss this morning, Madam 

Chair, without recognizing on behalf of the citizens of the State of 

Texas, your own work in the development and passage of the 

Water Bill. In Texas, this has become of paramount importance to 

us. So we just want to thank you for all your efforts in that regard. 

I also thank you for your introductory remarks about the regional water planning process in Texas, and that is really what I 

want to talk about primarily this morning. In 1997, the State 

changed the way we do water planning. 

We had been doing it for 40 years, but the reality of what we 

learned is that if there is this top-down planning process put in 

place, then the reality of it is the local and regional project sponsors will not have any buy-in or support to that planning process. 

Therefore, the chances of implementation are almost zero. 

As such, we now have a process that is based on local and regional participation in that planning process. Already, just after 10 

years of being engaged in this effort, we have produced two State 

water plans that were solely based on the recommendations of the 

local and regional water providers and 11 other interest groups 

that are required to be part of that planning process through a consensus-building process, and we are already seeing remarkable levels of implementation of that process. 

Just in brief, the results of the 2007 State water plan are that 

Texas will more than double its population over the next 50 years 

from about 23 million to over 46 million people by 2060. 

As part of that planning process, you have to understand that 

this is not just a plan based on regional plans, but in Texas it is 

based on about 2,600 individual local plans. The decisions and recommendations are developed by those local and regional entities 

that participate in the planning process. 

Of those 2,600 entities, those local plans are then integrated into 

the 16 regional water plans which are then integrated into a State 

water plan. 

The results of the most current planning process are that, and 

they are rather sobering results, for the very first time our demands for water supply in Texas during drought conditions will be 

increasing from over 18 million acre feet today to over almost 22 

million acre feet by 2060. This is compared to a currently available 

water supply of about 17.9 million acre feet today decreasing to 

about 14.5 million acre feet by 2060. 

As such, we already have right now today, during drought conditions, about a 3.3 million acre feet per year deficit of water supply. 

If we do nothing in Texas, we project that number will increase to 

almost 9 million acre feet. In 2060, if we do nothing, we project 

that 85 percent of the people in the State of Texas will not have 

adequate water supply during drought conditions. 

Due to the enormity of those conclusions, the Texas Legislature 

in its most recent session not only enacted several of the policy recommendations that came out of that planning process including the 

12 

designation of 19 unique reservoir sites, but they also appropriated 

over $760 million to begin the process over the next two years of 

building the water supply projects that are going to be needed to 

meet our future water supply needs. 

With that success, I would just point out a few things about the 

bill that I think are appropriate to H.R. 135. 

First and foremost, Texas has a long experience in water planning. When you look at the kind of success that we are having in 

our water supply planning today and you look at the diversity that 

occurs within the State of Texas, where in far west Texas our precipitation average is about six inches a year and in far east Texas 

our precipitation averages about 60 inches a year, there is an order 

of magnitude difference in the amount of precipitation that Texas 

receives from west to east. 

When you look at that kind of diversity, it seems to me it would 

be appropriate to make a comparison on a national scale to what 

we are facing today. 

As a result of that, I think it is incumbent upon you to consider 

ensuring in this planning process, in this evaluation process that 

it is truly a grassroots effort, that the local and regional water providers, the tribes and the States are the people that are driving 

this process and making the recommendations to Congress on what 

needs to happen from a national water policy perspective. 

Second, I work with a lot of States in the United States on their 

water planning process as they try to move towards implementation of the Texas model. The reality of it is the data, the basic data 

needed for this kind of planning simply does not exist in a vast majority of the States. 

Third and in conclusion, the reality of it is there is a $9 million 

authorization in this bill. Take it from someone who has been responsible for doing the budgets for the State of Texas over the last 

10 years for this process, $9 million not only is totally inadequate 

to do this job, but the reality of it is it sends a message for a deliverable or a product that will be totally inadequate in the end for 

this process. 

Thank you very much for the invitation to be before you today. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. David Conrad. 

Mr. CONRAD. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Member Baker and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is David Conrad. I serve as Senior Water Resources 

Specialist for the National Wildlife Federation, the Nation’s largest 

conservation education and advocacy organization. 

On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify on H.R. 135, the Twenty-First Century Water 

Commission Act. We applaud Representative Linder for introducing 

this bill and the now 27 other Members who have joined as cosponsors. This is a vitally important subject for legislation, and we 

believe there is a strong need for a new national water commission. 

The issue of water resources is critical to national security, economic security, the health and well being of our citizens and the 

wildlife and ecological health of our Nation. International tensions 

over shared water resources are increasing as water becomes 

scarcer and water quality is compromised. 

13 

Many of our communities cannot afford necessary upgrades to 

their antiquated sewers, water treatment and delivery systems. 

Wetland resources continue to decline. Our Nation’s flood risk is increasing. The need for broad-based planning in water resources in 

virtually every area of the Country is increasingly clear. 

For these reasons, we would urge an expansion of the scope of 

the commission in the bill from its current narrow focus on water 

supply. We believe a broader mandate that reflects the wide variety of water resources issues that we face would better serve the 

Nation’s interests. 

Thirty-five years have passed since the last national water commission issued a report to Congress and the President on our Nation’s water resources. The duties of the 1973 commission were 

very broad, and the commission’s report provided insights on a 

wide range of issues ranging from the effects of water management 

on the economy, groundwater issues, State and Federal water law, 

interbasin transfers, the emerging concerns about the environment, 

financing, project evaluations and the roles and governance of 

water. 

A lot has changed since the 1973 report, not just technologically 

but also ecologically as well as our understanding of water concerns. Today, we are becoming increasingly aware of the delicate 

nature of our aquatic ecosystems and how dependent we are on the 

natural services that in the past we have often taken for granted. 

We have learned that interbasin transfers often are accompanied 

by transfers of invasive species, which do ecological harm, and increased political tensions due to threats to downstream communities’ water supplies. 

The reality of global warming can no longer be denied. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear that global 

warming is expected to result in profound effects on water cycles, 

more drought in the West, more flooding and droughts in the East, 

higher sea levels along our coasts. Therefore, we urge the Committee to specifically require the commission to examine the impacts of global warming on our Nation’s water resources including 

flood risks, water quality and wetland habitats. 

We would draw the Committee’s attention to Section 8207 of the 

House-passed Energy Bill that the Chairwoman mentioned in her 

opening statement. This would authorize a commission similar to 

the commission in H.R. 135. 

The language, in addition to projecting future water development 

and optimizing future water supply, would also suggest strategies 

to use best available climate science and projections of future flood 

and drought risk, promote incentives for development of comprehensive water plans, support low impact development, encourage the use of and reduce biases against nonstructural elements 

and approaches when managing stormwater, address sewage overflow problems and support regional watershed planning. We urge 

the Committee to consider adding these important components to 

the duties of the commission. 

We also believe that the commission should definitely include 

members appointed by the Congress as well as the President. This 

would likely give the commission a broader base of support for the 

difficult tasks it would face. 

14 

Finally, we would also like to draw the Committee’s attention to 

the Water Resources Council which acted as a Federal integrated 

water resource planning entity from 1965 to 1983. The Water Resources Council assessed the adequacy of U.S. water supplies and 

produced the principles and guidelines which are guidelines for 

evaluating federally-funded water projects. 

We strongly urge the Committee to consider requiring the 21st 

Century Water Commission to evaluate the possibility of reviving 

the Water Resources Council or an entity with a similar function. 

Again, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, we 

applaud your work in holding a hearing on this important legislation. We all share a moral responsibility to protect our water resources and to protect our children’s future. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Conrad. 

Mr. Robert Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Good morning, Madam Chairman and Members of 

the Committee. 

I am Bob Lynch. I am an attorney in Phoenix, Arizona. I really 

don’t want to talk about the bill so much as how we got here. 

Before I start, I want to bring greetings to you from Leroy 

Goodson. Leroy is at the NWRA, the National Water Resources Association annual meeting, where I was going to be until you graciously decided to have this hearing. He also wanted me to advise 

you that he has a candidate for the commission if this bill becomes 

successful. 

I serve, among other things, as the Chair of NWRA Water Property Rights Taskforce which is probably the reason I ended up getting involved in this, and I actually testified against the original 

version of this bill in 2002. Western States had great concerns 

about the sovereignty of their adjudication and water rights management processes which we, I will tell you, you already know, 

guard very jealously. 

I will assure the Members from Michigan that there will be 

World War III before you get raided because if you can get raided, 

so can we, and that will happen over my dead body. 

So this commission has a very important role to play, and we 

hope that you will favorably consider this bill, but we started with 

a dialogue. Once the original bill was introduced and some problems were identified, I and others literally shopped the idea around 

the Western United States to water professionals, water lawyers, 

water buffalos, anybody who would talk to us, and we got a lot of 

input. We got a lot of support. 

I am here to tell you that for its third go-round in the House of 

Representatives, this bill is supported by State water agencies in 

the West. It is supported by the Western States Water Council, the 

water arm of the Western Governors Association. Everybody who 

cares about water in the West has had a look at this from the getgo, two Congresses ago, and has supported it. 

I testified in favor of this bill in 2003 because we had that 

iterative process that made things work and made the people in 

the West, who guard their sovereignty very, very carefully, comfortable. 

I call your attention to the provision in the bill on page three 

that says that this task will include respecting the primary role of 

15 

States in adjudicating, administering and regulating water rights 

and water uses. Without that provision, I would not be here in support of this bill, and Western water interests would not support it. 

It is that critical. 

So, for those of you from other areas of the Country who are concerned about the ability of your States to deal with their resources, 

I am here to tell you we share that concern and that has been a 

primary motivating factor for us to be very careful about the language of this bill and to protect the rights of the States concerning 

water. 

I hope that if you decide to move in the direction or in some part 

of the direction of the provision that is in H.R. 3221, that you give 

some of us the opportunity to assist you in developing some language. I am troubled by some of the verbiage in H.R. 3221. I don’t 

know that it was intended to have some of the consequences it has, 

but it appears in certain phraseology in some of the paragraphs to 

be more limiting than I think you probably intend it to be. 

So, in closing, I just want to say that we do support this bill. It 

is an important bill. 

I was at the Justice Department in the late 1960s and early 

1970s when the National Water Commission was doing its work 

and litigating these issues. It has been a long time and, as Mr. 

Conrad said, this is an issue that needs focus from this Congress. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Georgakakos. 

Mr. GEORGAKAKOS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My name is Aris Georgakakos, and I am Professor of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, Georgia. I 

am also Director of the Georgia Water Resources Institute. 

GWRI has been developing and implementing information and 

decision support systems for water resources planning management 

in several world regions including the Southeastern U.S., California, Europe, China, East Africa and South America. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in support 

of H.R. 135 advocating the establishment of a water commission to 

develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy. I 

cannot overemphasize the need for a comprehensive strategy as 

water challenges are becoming increasingly complex, threatening 

our quality of life, compromising the integrity of the Nation’s environment and ecosystems, and undermining economic growth and 

prosperity. 

In 2001 and 2004, two National Research Council studies thoroughly examined the urgency and complexity of water resources 

issues facing the U.S. Among others, the report cited that: 

There is abundant evidence that the condition of water resources 

in many parts of the Country and the world is deteriorating. 

Our institutions appear to have limited capacity to manage the 

provision of ecosystem services while concurrently supplying 

human needs. 

Demands for water resources to support population and economic 

growth continue to increase although water supplies to support this 

growth are fixed and already fully allocated in most areas. 

16 

The frequency and magnitude of damages attributable to 

droughts and floods are increasing and so is our society’s vulnerability to extreme climate and weather events. 

My own State of Georgia is presently in the second year of an 

unprecedented drought, rapidly depleting our water supplies, halting our economy, threatening the sustainability of aquatic ecosystems and increasing tensions among water users in our State 

and across the borders with Alabama and Florida. 

While droughts are the result of a natural climate cycle, drought 

stresses and impacts reach a new height with every new drought 

as urban, industrial and agricultural water demands rise steadily. 

Georgia, as well as most U.S. regions, is not well prepared to effectively manage these unprecedented water stresses. 

The main reasons are lack of comprehensive knowledge and information on the interdependencies of natural process and water 

uses, narrow perspective of water user groups on local rather than 

basin-wide interests, lack of Federal and State agencies coordination and cooperation, insufficient Federal and State research investments on the modernization of management processes, and 

weakening of water resources research and education programs. 

I would like to briefly comment on each one of those areas. 

On knowledge and information, the NRC reports developed a 

comprehensive list of 43 areas needing further scientific inquiry. 

These areas pertain to the interdependence of water quantity and 

quality, the balance between human and ecological water uses, and 

the legal, institutional and social factors that contribute to sustainable water resources management. 

While there is a lot to learn, a lot is already known and can significantly benefit the water resources planning and management. 

However, making this knowledge and information meaningful for 

and accessible to those involved in decision-making is a very serious challenge. 

Paradoxically, in spite of our information age, water resources 

policymakers, managers and stakeholder groups are becoming ever 

more removed from current scientific and technological advances. 

There is thus a compelling need to establish and invest in effective 

information and technology transfer mechanisms. 

On local versus system-wide scope, water stresses are often compounded by the efforts of individual stakeholders acting to safeguard their own local interests without regard of the long term 

risks of their actions. A local and short term scope by each stakeholder group, sharing the resource, cannot be sustainable and only 

serves to hasten the depletion of water reserves and the onset of 

disastrous impacts for all. 

This tragedy of the commons scenario is likely to occur when 

water uses and impacts are planned and managed individually 

without regard for their multiple temporal and spatial linkages. It 

is thus imperative that the proposed water commission take a holistic perspective in the development of a comprehensive national 

water strategy. 

On Federal and State agency coordination and cooperation, water 

resources management falls within the mandates of many Federal 

agencies. In reviewing the existing Federal coordination mechanisms, the NRC reports concluded that ‘‘coordination among agenVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:33 May 07, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\38865 JASON
17 

cies has occurred only sporadically over the last several decades, 

despite repeated calls for more coordination.’’ 

As a result, the national water resources agenda among the Federal agencies is fragmented, has a disciplinary rather than a broad 

and holistic scope, and is unable to provide the breadth and depth 

of information needed by the political process. 

Furthermore, although Federal and State agencies must work together to ensure harmonization of and compliance with Federal 

and State laws in the management of trans-boundary water resources, the existing coordination and cooperation mechanisms, if 

any, have been ineffective, and more often than not turn water conflicts and disputes into costly litigious battles. 

This ineffective Federal and State agency culture and modus 

operandum need to be improved so as not to undermine implementation and positive impact of the H.R. 135 commission strategy recommendations. 

On the lack of investments, a striking finding of the NRC reports 

was that over the last 30 years total funding in the areas of water 

supply augmentation and conservation, water quality management 

and protection, water resources planning and institutional issues, 

and water resources data collection declined severely. As a result, 

long term basic research and technology transfer in modern methods of water resources planning and management have been neglected, and the majority of our water resources are managed by 

reactive, disciplinary and inefficient methods and procedures. 

In a recent assessment of the ACF River Basin in the Southeast, 

GWRI demonstrated that the use of modern forecast decision methods can mitigate drought impacts and sustain adequate water services for all human users and ecosystem. Similar assessments and 

similar findings have been carried out and obtained for the Northern California river system as well as for other river basins. 

The main impediments in the use of modern management methods are, first, the inflexible bureaucracies that have evolved around 

the use of old management procedures and, two, inadequate training of agency personnel. Thus, a promising and largely unexplored 

strategy to address water scarcity is the modernization of the current management procedures through recent but proven scientific 

advances which are transferred to professional practice through 

education and training. 

The other casualty of declining funding has been the weakening 

of our water resources research and educational programs. At a 

time when universities increasingly depend on soft funding, faculty 

positions and student support migrate to other higher priority 

areas. In sharp contrast to the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, very few 

academic programs can now claim significant expertise in water resources. 

This is not to imply that academic programs are shrinking. On 

the contrary, they are expanding to cover much finer and very exciting frontiers of geophysical, environmental and life sciences. In 

doing so, however, universities have lost their commitment to interdisciplinary education and are becoming overspecialized. 

An important role that water resources programs can play is to 

provide a scientific and policy framework for interdisciplinary research, education and technology transfer. Such a framework is 

18 

necessary to create broadly educated scientists, engineers and policymakers able to invent technological and institutional solutions 

for the Nation’s water resources and environmental challenges. 

In this regard, the Water Resources Research Institutes provide 

a unique network to address the need for interdisciplinary research, education and technology transfer. However, the Institutes 

cannot fully realize their potential at the current low rate of Federal and State funding. I hope the commission envisioned by H.R. 

135 will also address the need for sustainable and sufficient investments needed to reverse the continued weakening of our water resources programs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee. 

I strongly support the establishment of a national water commission to study and develop recommendations for a comprehensive 

water strategy to address our Nation’s future water needs. Thank 

you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Unfortunately, we will have to have a short recess so that we can 

vote, and we will return for the questions. 

The Subcommittee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Committee comes to order, and we are now 

ready for our questioning. 

I would like to first ask Mr. Mullican a question. It appears that 

Texas’ long experience with water planning has evolved from a relatively narrow focus on water supply to a broader look at the comprehensive watershed planning. Have you found this approach to 

be more satisfactory in planning for future water? 

Mr. MULLICAN. Yes, ma’am. The point of looking at our planning 

process from a watershed basis is that until you get to a level of 

sophistication where you can truly integrate all of the demands and 

all of the supplies and the interaction of those demands and supplies on a watershed basis, you are going to continually overlook 

opportunities for optimizing the system. 

So, for example, in Texas, one of the things that we look at is 

rather than operating a series of reservoirs within a watershed on 

an individual basis, we will look towards operating them as a system. Simply as a function of operating those reservoirs as a system 

within a watershed can result in significant increases in the supplies available to meet water needs. 

Ms. JOHNSON. You discussed the lack of data, that Texas is investing heavily in data and science for water resources. Do you feel 

it should be a Texas responsibility or do you see a greater Federal 

role? 

Mr. MULLICAN. Well, Texas is more than willing to assume its 

fair share of the costs and effort that is required for water data collection and for the science that goes along with it, but the reality 

of it is when you look at the impact on a variety of Federal acts 

such as the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, you cannot ignore the fact that those actions do 

have a consequence and do establish a Federal role at least in the 

aspect of making sure that we have adequate data to make the 

wise policy decisions that we must make. 

19 

As was mentioned earlier in the panel, it is very frustrating to 

have this deterioration in Congressional funding for the USGS for 

their basic data collection program because what that does is it just 

simply transfers that cost share responsibility on to the State. We 

have for the last several sessions and will continue this session and 

into the next to work with you and Congress on getting back to a 

point where we are truly in a 50-50 working relationship on the 

data collection activities. 

But we are not going to stop there because the reality of it is 

there are many parts of the United States—and again this comes 

from my working with other States—where the data simply is not 

being collected. There are huge gaps in the data that are needed 

to make the financial decisions and the policy decisions with respect to our water resources. 

One does not want to go out and build a billion dollar water supply project that may have an environmental component to it, that 

may have a power, hydroelectric component to it. You do not want 

to make that kind of investment when you have inadequate data 

to ensure that the water supplies that project is supposed to be developing will actually occur. 

And so there must be a balance. That is what Texas has been 

working on for a time now, a balance between State and Federal 

roles in the basic data collection and science development, the development of new techniques and scientific models that we need to 

ensure our future water supplies, and I think that also goes over 

into climate change issues. 

We must look at adaptive management tools so that we can be 

responsive to the needs of the States to develop their water supplies. I think that when you look at the national perspective of 

things like that, it is really more appropriate for the Federal Government to be involved in the science of developing those new models rather than having 50 different States making an investment 

basically to develop the same tool. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Grumbles, climate change is likely to impact a host of water 

resource areas, and these include increases in water pollution, 

more extreme weather events impact on water, reduced availability 

of water supplies in some areas because of drought or saltwater intrusion, and change in aquatic biology. EPA is obviously involved 

in these areas, but so are many other Federal agencies, not to mention State and local governments. 

In your opinion, how should the Federal, State and local governments, not just EPA, best plan and prepare for limiting the impact 

of climate change on these vital shared resources? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

A couple points I would make, one is making sure that we can 

all identify appropriate issues, so we can be proactive about the 

range of climate change impacts. 

EPA has developed and we have an internal work group. We 

have been spending an enormous amount of time and effort identifying potential issues, a range of different effects and considerations so that we can be proactive and have adaptive management, 

and we are working on developing a draft strategy that we would 

then finalize after public comment and input. 

20 

The key is coordination with other agencies and levels of government and move forward in a responsible manner that recognizes 

that there is a need for adaptation and continued research on some 

emerging areas. 

There is also an important component of working on mitigation 

of greenhouse gases. So a good example of interagency collaboration is with the Department of Energy where we are recognizing 

the potential of aquifers, not aquifers but underground storage 

areas for deep injection of carbon dioxide to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. That is an emerging area. 

We are working with them and working with the Interior and 

Army Corps of Engineers, looking at a range of wetlands and water 

supply issues and impacts. 

At the same time, it is very important to be working with those 

who are closest to the ground, and that means the utilities, water 

and wastewater utilities, and State agencies on what their particular needs, whether it is a coastal concern about sea level rise 

or an inland concern about potential water quality or water quantity-related impacts from ethanol or other biofuels. 

There is no doubt this is an important component of climate 

change, looking at the water-related aspects, and we are certainly 

committed to doing that within EPA and coordinating with other 

agencies at the Federal, State and local levels including tribes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record about the Great 

Lakes, that is why I came here today, so I am going to say my 

peace about our Great Lakes here again. 

Notwithstanding some of the comments earlier from Mr. Lynch 

and your assurances that under no circumstances do we ever have 

to worry that any part of this legislation would ever be a problem 

for us, I have red flags all over the field on this piece of legislation. 

I just have to keep reiterating that. 

I say that, the huge consternation that we have, because in the 

Great Lakes Basin we have had bad experience in the past every 

time the Federal Government has gotten involved with anything 

regarding the Great Lakes. I will just give you two quick examples 

of things that have happened, that are manmade by the Federal 

Government, by the Army Corps of Engineers, that are literally diverting billions of gallons of Great Lakes water right now. 

In one instance, if you think of Michigan, right here in the St. 

Clair River, as Lake Huron comes into the St. Clair River, the 

Army Corps of Engineers in the early 1960s did extensive dredging 

there actually to open up the upper Great Lakes to shipping which 

was a great thing, but subsequent dredging and erosion has, we 

think—there is a huge theory out there—it has actually effected 

something like a bathtub effect, like the drain out of a bathtub. We 

are literally diverting billions of gallons over the Niagara into the 

big pond there because of that. 

Another example is at the mouth or the foot of Lake Michigan, 

the Chicago diversionary canal, again constructed by the Army 

Corps of Engineers years ago, and I appreciate the drinking water 

part of that, but billions of gallons of Great Lakes water is being 

21 

flushed down the Mississippi River to float the barges in the Mississippi, again at a time when we have historic low lake levels. 

We are very, very concerned about this piece of legislation. I just 

want to tell you that I intend to make sure that every Member of 

Congress in the Great Lakes Basin from every State, which would 

be Michigan, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, receive my own lobbying, I guess, to 

make sure that they understand that this piece of legislation could 

have negative ramifications for us in the Great Lakes Basin. 

I think, as you look at a national model, for instance, in the 

Great Lakes, our governors have a covenant, an annex actually, the 

governors in the Great Lakes Basin as well as the provinces of 

Canada because we share the long liquid border there, to ensure 

that there is never any diversion of the Great Lakes. 

Let me just say accolades to all of you for your fantastic water 

conservation and things that you are doing in your own States, in 

your own regions. God bless you. I think it is wonderful. 

I am very parochial about this, and I know you might think I am 

alarmist, but this is where I am going with this. It is such a big 

issue for all of us. 

If you just think of this, I don’t know how much this water costs. 

Maybe it is a buck, right? If you think about how much it costs for 

a gallon of gasoline, let’s say it is $3, maybe a little bit more. Let’s 

say it is $3. I mean a gallon of bottled water is $6 to $8, and you 

can actually live without the gas, but you cannot live without fresh 

water. 

So it is an asset that we have in the Great Lakes Basin, and we 

do intend to make sure it is not diverted to other parts of the Nation. 

My question would be to each one of you. I have only one question. I would like you each to answer this. Would you still support 

this bill if there was language in the bill which clearly spelled out 

that under no set of circumstances could any national commission 

that would be comprised by this bill ever consider any diversion of 

Great Lakes water? 

If there was boilerplate language to iterate that in the bill, would 

you still support this bill that you have all testified on? That is my 

question for the panel. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I will start, Congresswoman. I think it is important for any commission or any entity or agency to recognize existing law, Section 1109 of WRDA 1986, which makes it very clear 

that if there is a Federal agency involved in a project or even study 

of a diversion from the Great Lakes that doesn’t have the support 

of the Great Lakes governors as spelled out in Federal law, then 

that is prohibited. 

I think the value of having certain savings clauses or provisions 

in the bill that identify what is the scope of the commission’s considerations is an important one. I think there can be a danger, 

though. It runs the slippery slope of starting to take broad discussion areas off the table. 

But I certainly understand that, and I think other regions of the 

Country would understand that it should be a discussion about not 

perpetuating problems but coming up with solutions and then suggesting them to policymakers. 

22 

I think the bill, as currently written, does make a pretty strong 

signal about deferring to States on water quantity, water allocation, water diversions. I see value in clarifying that or strengthening it, but I do think there can be a danger to starting to take 

specific issues or areas off the table for a commission to consider. 

Mrs. MILLER. I will take that as a definite maybe. Thank you. 

Mr. Mullican. 

Mr. MULLICAN. Well, in 1968, the State of Texas passed a water 

plan that would have in part put an interbasin transfer that would 

have diverted water perhaps out of the Mississippi, perhaps from 

as far as your part of the world, and the voters of Texas voted it 

down. And so, I think I can say that we would not have a problem 

just on the face of it with excluding the Great Lakes from consideration as far as water supply to Texas is concerned. 

But I would even go further, though, to say that based on the 

Texas experience, that I think there has to be a certain amount of 

buy-in to anything that comes out of this process for there to be 

any chance of any consideration or implementation by those that 

are responsible. I mean the local and regional water providers. 

As such, it seems to me that the focus of this particular first step 

is a true assessment of what and where are the demands and when 

are they going to occur and where are the needs because until we 

get that fundamental understanding of our water supplies, then to 

me you are putting the cart before the horse when you start worrying what are the recommendations for how we are going to meet 

our future water supply needs. You are making an assumption that 

we know what those needs are. 

I will argue, having worked with a number of States across the 

United States, that that very basic understanding does not exist in 

most States in the United States. So, first and foremost, there has 

to be some sort of assessment to understand what those needs are 

and where they are going to occur. Then you can think about what 

the potential solutions might be, but I really want to emphasize 

that putting the solutions before the assessment is, as Mr. Grumbles said, a very slippery slope. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. 

Actually, I am out of time and, with the Chair’s indulgence, perhaps just another 30 seconds for the other three to answer if you 

could. Thank you. 

Mr. CONRAD. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I respond somewhat to some of the caveats that Assistant Administrator Grumbles has there about the commission being essentially a study group that wouldn’t be empowered to actually make 

decisions. 

I am going to say, first off, the National Wildlife Federation is 

one of the staunchest supporters of the integrity of the Great 

Lakes, and we strongly support both the law that was passed in 

1986, the compact that exists. 

In 2005, I believe it was, our organization, which has a kind of 

national legislature of affiliates, adopted a very strong policy view 

that interbasin transfers should really be discouraged and not allowed except under the most narrow circumstances. It was almost 

a don’t do it policy, and I think we believe that for all the major 

basins. 

23 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Lynch? 

Mr. LYNCH. Mrs. Miller, I must confess that I was born in 

Manistee on Lake Michigan, and my extended family still farms 

south of Grand Rapids. 

Mrs. MILLER. I knew there was something I liked about you. 

Mr. LYNCH. And so, all I can say is I experienced appropriations 

bills here, oh, for three decades from a gentleman by the name of 

Scoop Jackson who said there will be no transfers from the Columbia Basin to the Colorado, and everybody got the message. 

I hope that this commission would be able to consider your concerns that you have voiced today about things going on in the 

Great Lakes, but I would join Mr. Conrad. We are not interested 

in having you raided for anybody or solutions like that. 

The West is as paranoid about its sovereignty as you are about 

the Great Lakes, and we join you in that paranoia, and we will do 

everything we can to preserve the prerogative of the States in addressing these issues. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. [Presiding.] You are welcome, Mrs. Miller. 

Mr. Georgakakos, would you like to briefly answer the same 

question? 

Mr. GEORGAKAKOS. Thank you, yes. 

Water resources is a common good, and it is never meant to pit 

one part of the Country against another. So I would not support 

a bill that actually does that. 

But it should be a process that is the result of the consensus, a 

regional consensus, and only then if it is discussed democratically 

and is agreed upon that perhaps it is a solution, then it should become a bill and then we should be asked to vote for it. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mrs. Miller. 

You can add me to the list of people you will be lobbying because 

New York State also has a long stretch of Lake Ontario and little 

teeny bit of Lake Erie and, of course, we are concerned about Great 

Lakes water as well. 

Mr. Georgakakos, you discuss a reduction in funding for research 

and a decline in academic programs. Is this a U.S. problem or is 

this a short fall in research funding plaguing science globally? 

Mr. GEORGAKAKOS. I mentioned it specifically about water resources programs. As I said, back in the 1960s and 1970s and 

1980s, there were good programs in many universities of ours, but 

if you look now I think very few universities can claim the expertise that I talked about in terms of adaptive forecast decision methods and management. 

So somehow it is the natural consequences of actually moving 

into more finer frontiers of science and funding those as opposed 

to making sure that we maintain the integrity of our academic programs. 

I would say that if we are going to create solutions and invent 

solutions looking to this interdisciplinary question, we need to have 

people educating in that regard. I think this is the kind of funding 

24 

that we need to maintain the programs and have the people that 

are going to find the solutions. 

Technology is not going to do it by itself. It is the people that are 

going to put things together. I am worried that without this funding we are just putting ourselves in the situation that we cannot 

do that. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Grumbles, you mentioned in your testimony high efficiency 

toilets as a concrete or a ceramic way to make an immediate impact. I noticed on a recent trip to Israel that all of the toilets there 

had two buttons, the little button and the big button, and I think 

most people in the United States can figure out which was the one 

to hit. 

Is this something that you think the American public would accept and the Administration would look kindly on as a mandate, 

if I dare use that word? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I don’t think we would accept a mandate. The 

Administration feels that the most successful approach is to encourage the market to develop innovative, sustainable solutions. 

Our WaterSense is certifying. We have certified and given the 

WaterSense high efficiency label to over 80 different types of toilets 

now, and some of those are the dual flush toilets. We leave it to 

the consumer to choose. 

We see and want to encourage products like that that work well 

and save water and save money on the energy bills for utilities, to 

continue to use those. So the dual flush toilets are one of many exciting innovative technologies that are really taking hold and there 

is an increasing use of dual flush toilets. 

Mr. HALL. Excuse me for interrupting you because we have votes 

called and I only have a couple minutes, but I just wanted to ask 

you if the combination of public outreach and incentives are, in 

your opinion, working enough to make this change? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Right now, the law is 1.6 gallons per flush or less 

for toilets. What we are focused on is trying to increase the efficiency of that to 1.28 through incentives and encouragements, and 

we see that the marketplace will drive more and more consumes 

voluntarily to use those dual flush and other truly high efficiency 

toilets. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

I wanted to ask the question, and it bears on Mrs. Miller’s question about certain regional concerns but also on the regional supply 

of renewable energy that could be used for desalinization or for 

water purification. 

Now an Israeli company, Solel, which is currently building a photovoltaic in the Mojave Desert to supply electricity for about 

400,000 homes in partnership with PG&E. The nice thing about 

solar, among other renewables, is that it generates sometimes, it 

doesn’t at other times, but when it does you can use it for storage 

of whatever you are trying to produce, be it power or water. 

So I am curious of the commission, what do you foresee? 

I would ask maybe Mr. Conrad first, do you see the commission 

as studying desalinization technology and do you think that, for instance, in the Southwest where there is such an abundant supply 

of sunshine and also proximity to water, be it from the Gulf or from 

25 

the Pacific, that that is a viable way to try to bring a new supply 

of water on board? 

Mr. CONRAD. I believe that is the kind of forward thinking that 

a commission of this sort needs to do. It needs to look at technologies and mixtures of technologies that are being tried in other 

places or being tried within the United States and not generally 

known and whether they are valuable and to bring that forward to 

the Congress and to the public. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

We have to leave for another vote. At this time, if Mr. Brown and 

Mr. Arcuri will agree, we will ask Members to submit the balance 

of questions to the witnesses and answers will be taken for the 

record rather than having you sit here and go and vote for who 

knows how long. 

Thank you again for your testimony, and the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

26 


38865.004
27 


38865.005
28 


38865.006
29 


38865.007
30 


38865.008
31 


38865.009
32 


38865.010
33 


38865.011
34 


38865.012
35 


38865.013
36 


38865.014
37 


38865.015
38 


38865.016
39 


38865.017
40 


38865.018
41 


38865.019
42 


38865.020
43 


38865.021
44 


38865.022
45 


38865.023
46 


38865.024
47 


38865.025
48 


38865.026
49 


38865.027
50 


38865.028
51 


38865.029
52 


38865.030
53 


38865.031
54 


38865.032
55 


38865.033
56 


38865.034
57 


38865.035
58 


38865.036
59 


38865.037
60 


38865.038
61 


38865.039
62 


38865.040
63 


38865.041
64 


38865.042
65 


38865.043
66 


38865.044
67 


38865.045
68 


38865.046
69 


38865.047
70 


38865.048
71 


38865.049
72 


38865.050
73 


38865.051
74 


38865.052
75 


38865.053
76 


38865.054
77 


38865.055
78 


38865.056
79 


38865.057
80 


38865.058
81 


38865.059
82 


38865.060
83 


38865.061
84 


38865.062
85 


38865.063
86 

Æ 


38865.064