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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–514 PDF 2006

CONJUNCTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT: A SOLUTION

TO THE WEST’S GROWING WATER DEMAND?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 5, 2006

Serial No. 109–142

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, NORTH CAROLINA

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

DIANE E. WATSON, California

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

TOM LANTOS, California

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

DAVE SOLAN, Professional Staff Member

LORI GAVAGHAN, Clerk

RICHARD BUTCHER, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 5, 2006 ................................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Peltier, Jason, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of Interior; P. Joseph Grindstaff, director, California Bay-Delta

Authority; and Anthony J. Pack, general manager, Eastern Municipal

Water District, Perris, CA ............................................................................ 12

Grindstaff, P. Joseph 20

Pack, Anthony J. 32

Peltier, Jason 12

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Grindstaff, P. Joseph, director, California Bay-Delta Authority, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 22

Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California:

Briefing memo ................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of ...................................................................................... 3

Pack, Anthony J., general manager, Eastern Municipal Water District,

Perris, CA, prepared statement of ............................................................... 35

Peltier, Jason, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of Interior, prepared statement of ..................................................... 15

(1)

CONJUNCTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT: A SOLUTION TO THE WEST’S GROWING WATER

DEMAND?

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Issa and Kucinich.

Staff present: Larry Brady, staff director; Lori Gavaghan, legislative clerk; Tom Alexander, counsel; Dave Solan, Ph.D., and Ray

Robbins, professional staff members; Richard Butcher, minority

professional staff member; and Cecelia Morton, minority office

manager.

Mr. ISSA. This meeting will come to order. A quorum being

present, this hearing of the Government Reform Subcommittee on

Energy and Resources will come to order.

Good afternoon.

We want to welcome our distinguished panel for today’s subcommittee hearing. Today, we will highlight the growing demand

for water in Western States and how conjunctive water management provides a partial solution.

Booming population growth, coupled with arid climates, have intensified the need for more efficient water supply management systems. In response, several methods have been employed to maximize water supply, such as conservation programs, construction of

new dams, and desalination plants.

Despite these methods of water supply and infrastructure in

California and throughout the West, we continue to remain vulnerable to an impending crisis. This issue is of paramount importance

to my constituents in southern California and throughout the entire West.

Some experts propose that conjunctive water management is the

leading and most effective method of resolving water shortage problems. Conjunctive—thank you, gentlemen. I know you will say it

better than I do. Conjunctive water management is a tool which coordinates the use of surface and ground water, focusing on the creation of additional water storage.

This method of water management has the potential to double—

I repeat, to double—the amount of on-demand water supply in my

2

home State of California. However, there also are some challenges

to the expansion of conjunctive use management.

These include acquiring necessary resources to build new or refit

current facilities, possible environmental problems—which we will

deal with today—and lack of data on regional water tables.

The hearing today will provide an overview on how well current

conjunctive water management projects are working. Our hearing

will also address the benefits and shortcomings of conjunctive

water management systems. Finally, we will look at the Federal

role in the design, funding, or implementation of conjunctive water

management systems.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel today.

And today, we have Mr. Jason Peltier, Deputy Assistant Secretary

of water and science, Department of Interior.

Mr. Joseph Grindstaff, director of California Bay-Delta Authority. And Anthony Pack, general manager, Eastern Municipal Water

District, Perris, CA, within my district, I will mention.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. ISSA. I look forward to hearing all of your testimony, and I

ask unanimous consent that the briefing memo prepared by the

subcommittee staff be inserted in the record, as well as all relevant

material.

Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

6

7

8

9

10

11

Mr. ISSA. Now for the opening statement, I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio, who is serving for the ranking member today.

Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I was called by Congresswoman Watson and informed that a

death in her family made it imperative that she attend a service

in California, and I am glad to fill in so we can start this hearing.

After I make this statement, I am going to have to go to another

previously scheduled meeting. But I want to welcome the witnesses, and I want to thank the Chair for calling this hearing on

conjunctive water management.

Mr. Chairman, the need for reliable, high-quality water sources

in the United States is clear. The population continues to grow

steadily, especially in the arid, thirstiest parts of the country. Demand for water is growing even faster.

In fact, many experts fear that the thirsty and rapidly growing

Southwestern United States will need water so desperately that it

will soon become financially viable for them to try to divert it from

the Great Lakes. And that region is expected to experience more

frequent, prolonged, and more severe droughts as a result of climate change, making the outlook even more dire. We must look for

alternatives.

As has been stated before, conjunctive water management is the

simultaneous operation of surface water storage and use, ground

water storage and use, and conveyance facilities to meet water

management needs and crop demand. In a nutshell, it allows storage of large quantities of water, which would help areas weather

the fluctuations in water supply that climate change will bring.

For several decades, the Federal Government, along with many

State and local governments, has used conjunctive water management projects for a variety of purposes, such as flood control, power

generation, irrigation, and several other purposes. It has also been

a resource to improve water supply reliability and protect water

quality to improve environmental conditions.

At the same time, there are concerns, especially about potential

environmental effects. If the recharge water is contaminated, an

entire water supply could be permanently ruined. For example, an

illegal discharge of a gallon of gas is enough to render millions of

gallons of water undrinkable. If the recharge water will filter

through the soil to reach the storage aquifer, some contaminants

might still make it through to the water, even in tight soil.

The lands required to allow such infiltration through soil can

concentrate water contaminants over time in the soil, rendering the

land useless in the future. And the physical infrastructure could

adversely affect wildlife habitats.

Conjunctive water management has the potential to alleviate

some of the pressure on an expanding population and economy. But

we must move forward with our eyes open to ensure our environment is fully protected. And I am hopeful that the testimony before

this subcommittee today, Mr. Chairman, will help the Congress

better understand some of the potential benefits and pitfalls of conjunctive water management.

I yield back my time, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich.

12

As is the rule of this subcommittee, I would ask that all the witnesses and any persons who may advise the witnesses rise to take

the oath, please.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. ISSA. Let the record show all answered in the affirmative.

And thanks again, Mr. Kucinich.

Now I will give you the good news and the bad news here today.

The good news is that we won’t hold you strictly to your 5 minutes

for your presentations. The additional good news is that your entire

written statement will be placed in the record. So you need not repeat it, if you choose not to.

Now, the bad news is at some time, potentially, between now and

3, there will be an unexpected vote, at which time this will end.

So the time used, you know, if a vote gets called, we will not make

up.

Additionally, because of a classified briefing being held today,

this hearing must end at 3. So I don’t expect us to go past that,

but I wanted to give you all that opportunity.

And last, but not least, I want to ask if you would all agree, since

many Members are in other committee markups right now, to answer additional questions placed to you in writing after the hearing? OK. Then by unanimous consent, I would ask that we be able

to do that. And so ordered.

We will begin with Mr. Peltier.

STATEMENTS OF JASON PELTIER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; P. JOSEPH GRINDSTAFF, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA BAYDELTA AUTHORITY; AND ANTHONY J. PACK, GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, PERRIS, CA

STATEMENT OF JASON PELTIER

Mr. PELTIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’m pleased to be here today and to talk about conjunctive use

with the subcommittee. Indeed, in your opening statement, you put

your finger on it. There is an expanding use of this water management strategy where it is possible.

It’s not possible—it takes a right combination of surface and

ground water resources to be able to make it work. But it is indeed—we’re seeing increased use of this approach.

I’m going to talk a little bit about the Bureau of Reclamation’s

role, but also about the U.S. Geological Survey role because they

both have unique and can make significant contributions to conjunctive use.

Relative to the Bureau of Reclamation, it’s important to recognize

that Reclamation’s role in all cases that I’m aware of—and I will

give you some specific examples—but it focuses on supplying surface water. Reclamation is on the surface water side of the equation. We are very deferential to State law, which regulates ground

water. And so, as a matter of water rights law, we stay away from

injecting ourselves—and excuse the pun—into this—into local conjunctive use projects.

There’s another Federal component also, which is on the regulatory side, and that has to do with compliance with the Clean

13

Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Those are outside of

Reclamation or the GS’s purview. But we are all mindful that those

processes do exist.

I’d like to give you a few examples. One, starting in California.

Many of the customers of the Bureau’s Central Valley Project do

participate in water banks, local water banks. In fact, also the entire Friant Division of the Central Valley Project, approximately a

million acres from Bakersfield to Fresno, is one large conjunctive

use program. Not operated by us, but our customers—when in

years like this, when there’s ample surface water, will turn their

wells off. Natural recharge will occur, and in drier years, when we

cannot deliver surface water, they will turn their wells on, and

that’s the way they will sustain their irrigation.

In Arizona, unused—Central Arizona Project water is stored underground in the Arizona water bank for use in future years, when

the allocation may not be adequate for Arizona’s needs. They can

then withdraw from their water bank.

In Washington State, a program was developed for local users to

pump ground water and store it artificially in a surface reservoir,

which has provided a multitude of benefits and maximized use of

the Federal facility. Reclamation is also working with the city of

Albuquerque in New Mexico on a project to reuse industrial and

municipal effluent, to treat and put it underground for future use.

So Reclamation has a number of roles. Mostly, though, it is working with their local customers who have the resource to match up

to the surface water.

The U.S. Geological Survey has a number of unique scientific capabilities and skills that they bring to the table to assist local entities that are trying to develop conjunctive use programs. They can

provide hydrologic data for planning of these systems. They can

provide hydrologic modeling and have techniques to help the planning and design process.

They can apply their ground water models to specific regional

systems to evaluate the potential for conjunctive use. And they also

have a wealth of hydrologic data that goes into the planning processes for these projects.

As I said, most of the GS’s work is conducted through the U.S.

GS Cooperative Water Program, and that’s on a cost-share basis

with local interests. We try to match up our skills and capabilities

with the needs of our partners and work together in that constructive manner.

In addition, GS has the capability to provide monitoring of existing and then once constructed facilities to give the project managers the ability to understand—know and understand how the

project is going to perform and is performing.

So, in summary, I would just say that we do see it as you do,

Mr. Chairman, as a valuable tool. A tool that avoids—and as Mr.

Grindstaff will let you know, in California, there has been a significant investment in conjunctive use ground water programs. In fact,

significant progress has been made.

And while there is, as you say, significant interest in surface

water projects, these ground water projects are quicker, easier to

get off the ground. The only caution that I would have is, that we

need to be mindful of, I think, is that a lot of ground water banks

14

and conjunctive use programs have been developed over the last

decade in California, where conditions have been relatively wet.

So I don’t think we’ve experienced—we haven’t tested the withdrawal part of the formula. We’ve tested and are capable of getting

the water underground. When we have repeat of 1977 or the

drought of the late 1980’s and we have to extract, that’s when we’ll

see whether the projects that we’re investing in today really work.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peltier follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

I will take that there has never been a run on the bank, and we

are waiting for a 1929 test.

OK? Only I can say that, I suspect.

Mr. Grindstaff.

STATEMENT OF P. JOSEPH GRINDSTAFF

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I won’t refer to my written testimony, but I’ll talk about our experience. I actually have experience both at a local and regional

level and now at the State level.

In California, 15 years ago, everyone knew that conjunctive management was a great thing to do, that ground water storage was

really important. Over the last 15 years, we’ve developed more

than 7 million acre-feet of ground water storage.

Jason is absolutely right. We have yet to test the extraction because we’ve really been in a wet cycle since then. But I think even

the most optimistic person 15 years ago would never have guessed

that we could actually develop the amounts of ground water storage that we’ve developed today.

The State’s role has been, in some cases, to help finance technical

studies, and we’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in helping to do that across the State. In some cases, helping to build facilities, both facilities to put water in and extraction facilities, and

in general to encourage that.

I also want to point out that you are exactly right in your opening remarks. This is only a part of the solution. Without having the

conveyance and the ability to take surface water deliveries when

times are wet, having a place to store water doesn’t do us a lot of

good. So we really have to have a full program in order to truly

develop conjunctive use programs.

I also want to address water quality problems. One of the things

that happens as you store water is not that you put poor quality

water in, but that when you put water in, you actually raise the

ground water table. And it comes up into an area where there is

contamination.

So one of the largest costs that sometimes occurs actually, is the

cost of treating water when you extract it. Some of the contamination problems are natural. So you may find an aquifer that has

high arsenic, for example, and that can be a challenge.

But given our need in the West—and in the world, really—for a

reliable water supply, it’s the kind of investment we have to make.

We’re past the time of cheap alternatives. We’re in a time where

we truly have to invest in the future, and we have to understand

that some of those things are going to cost more money than we

would have paid in the past. But they’re worth it.

20 years from now, people will say, boy, those people were visionary because they invested in these things. They cost a lot, but

they’re very much worth it.

The other point that I’d really like to make is that, in some

cases, doing conjunctive management dramatically improves water

quality in a region. So there is conjunctive management, for example, what the Orange County water district is doing, where they’re

21

taking recycled water, running it through desalters, and putting

that water—or they’re planning to put that water into the ground.

That will dramatically improve the water in the Orange County

ground water basin, in addition to firming up their supply. So

these projects can have multiple benefits that truly are farsighted.

With that, thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grindstaff follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Once again, all of your statements will be in the record. I do appreciate it when you are able to add to the base text.

Tony, it is all yours. Everyone has been so good. There is high

hurdle here.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. PACK

Mr. PACK. Mr. Chairman, you believe how much I’ve struggled

to get this thing down to 5 minutes, and I’m glad it’s in the record.

My name is Tony Pack, and I’m the general manager of Eastern

Municipal Water District. On behalf of my organization and my

board of directors, it’s a real privilege to be here to present this testimony on a local agency’s perspective on conjunctive water management and the potential participation of the Federal and State

government.

EMWD provides water, waste water, and recycled services for

about 580,000 people in Western Riverside County in southern

California, including parts of the chairman’s district, one of the

fastest-growing regions in the Nation.

EMWD relies on imported water to meet 65 percent of its needs

and supplements the remainder with recycled water, ground water

wells, two desalters, a fledgling conjunctive use program, and additional supplies, which have been developed almost entirely through

the development of locally funded and managed projects.

Based on our experience with the development of new water

through conjunctive use and our efforts to develop a ground water

management plan with the local agencies, we would suggest several recommendations in the area of partnership, funding, and environmental areas.

An essential element of the development of a conjunctive water

management program is the administrative and operational procedures that are necessary to develop and maintain such an agreement. These rules can be established through a court order adjudication, which requires many years of expensive legal efforts, or

a cooperative community effort.

In our area, the two cities, the two water agencies, and the private well users voluntarily began the process to develop a ground

water management plan to permit a major conjunctive use project

to be implemented and also to resolve a longstanding Indian water

rights claim.

It was necessary to overcome years of perceptions, mutual distrust and suspicion, and parochialism. And this was only possible

through the efforts of Mr. Grindstaff’s Department of Water Resources, which provided an independent facilitator and a technical

team of DWR employees and consultants that created a

nonconfrontational and credible forum for discussion and validation

of data.

First recommendation. Encourage programs similar to DWR’s

local agency partnership program throughout the Western States

and create a similar program within the Federal agencies, perhaps

under the auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation.

Recommendation. Except for very large projects that provide a

State-wide benefit, design and implementation of conjunctive use

projects should be under local control.

33

The infrastructure costs of implementing a conjunctive use program can be beyond the reach of many agencies. One solution is

to develop financing for storage projects through a cooperative costsharing agreement with other agencies that recognize the multiple

benefits of the project.

Recommendation. Where multiple benefits can be incorporated,

work with other local agencies to share the costs.

Serving rapidly growing areas like ours requires enormous capital to provide water and waste water infrastructure. In many

cases, it is more efficient and economical to oversize those facilities,

although it may take many years to recoup that financial investment.

Faced with limited financial resources, agencies are forced to use

available cash to satisfy immediate needs for infrastructure, and

beneficial projects such as new sources of water supply which do

not always rise to the top of the priority list.

Recommendation. State and Federal assistance for loans and

grant programs for the development of new water supplies must

continue to be funded. The economic returns of these programs far

exceed the investments.

EMWD has developed a highly structured and successful process

for securing loans and grants to partially finance resource projects.

Not all agencies have the resources to pursue State and Federal financial assistance programs. And therefore, we recommend the development of less costly and cumbersome application processes or,

at a minimum, provide assistance to those agencies lacking resources to apply for loans and grants both at the Federal and State

level.

The last area is the area of environmental. Environmental permitting processes and the local coordination between Federal agencies is, in many cases, the major challenge in the development of

a conjunctive use program. EMWD has spent the past 5 years and

$1.8 million in an attempt to obtain a permit for an expanded recharge program in the San Jacinto riverbed.

The proposed approval after 5 years from Fish and Wildlife Service is completely unworkable and will cause the project to be terminated. A chronology of our environmental activities and permitting

attempts was provided in my written testimony.

Common threads in this history are a lack of technical knowledge

on the part of the agency’s staffs, frequent changes in staff contacts, continuous requests for more documents and information,

delays and missed deadlines, and, most annoying, a lack of response in just simple communications like a return telephone call

or an e-mail.

Our recommendation is to create regional interagency task forces

of Federal agencies, such as the EPA, the Corps of Engineers, Fish

and Wildlife, and the Bureau that would meet on a quarterly basis

to provide for regional coordination of projects where multiple Federal agencies are involved. Agency decisionmakers would be required to attend, and project proponents would have an opportunity

to bring up their concerns and issues.

And the last recommendation is ESA reform is currently being

discussed in the Congress and is desperately needed. ESA reform

needs to move forward.

34

I thank you and your subcommittee for allowing me, on behalf

of my board of directors, to provide this testimony, and I’ll now respond to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pack follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Mr. Pack, I think I will come right back to you. I actually have

a very good memory. It is just short, so I will start with you first.

Jason, just because that rings a bell, don’t get too attached to it.

I, too, am very disappointed in the lack of accountability and the

lack of performance by sort of this combination of the Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife, and I think you touched on it very

well. But when you talked about having a task force, if I understood correctly—and I am not trying to put words in your mouth.

But I mean, the failure that we have now is strictly the absence

of accountability, absence of a mandate either to the Corps or to

Fish and Wildlife. If I understand correctly, what you would like

to see is one individual or accountable agency that would be responsible for timelines and, in fact, for the completeness of a request rather than, as I understand it, an infinite amount of, if you

answer a question, then 6 months later, they come up with a new

one.

I know I am putting a lot in, but is that pretty much what you

are trying to avoid?

Mr. PACK. That may be one way to accomplish that, sir. But one

of the agencies is usually the lead in the environmental permitting

process. We started out with Fish and Wildlife. After about 3 years

without any progress, based on a recommendation, the Corps of

Engineers took over as lead under a 404 permit.

The problem is that even the agencies, in our case, the Corps had

identified our project as their No. 1 priority and communicated that

to the Fish and Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife never responded even

to the head of the regional Corps office, and much less to me.

So I think there’s—they all need to be in a room, and they need

to be the principal decisionmakers, not the staff. We need to be

able to have a forum somewhere with all the participating agencies

that we can bring these issues up, and we can discuss where we

haven’t made progress.

Mr. ISSA. I want to be very clear on this point because throughout my district and my experience, that has been one of the problems, Fish and Wildlife more than the Corps.

But the bottom line is that you don’t get to the decisionmaker

normally. Even when you ask for a meeting, the person they send

is the person who is going to get back to you. And when they do

get back to you, it is someone saying no or coming up with a creative new answer.

If I understand correctly, you are calling for as often as quarterly

meetings that would include the decisionmakers to make sure that,

in fact, the project stayed on schedule? Is that roughly what you

would like to see?

Mr. PACK. That’s a proposal. It doesn’t necessarily have to be

quarterly, but it has to be frequently. And in our case, we’re trying

to meet our own obligations to the State of California for a $5 million grant that we’ve been awarded for this project. And we’ve had

to extend the timing of that grant twice because of the failure to

obtain the permits.

Mr. ISSA. I would be remiss if, as a Californian, I didn’t ask you

to contrast Fish and Wildlife versus Fish and Game. [Laughter.]

Mr. PACK. Actually——

47

Mr. ISSA. Sorry, Tony. No easy questions here.

Mr. PACK. No. Fish and Game sometimes is difficult to deal with,

but I have access to the people there, and I have my phone calls

returned.

In fact, we’re working—we have, for many years, provided recycled water to the San Jacinto Wildlife Refuge, and we are expanding that project four times to provide additional water storage for

us. The cooperation in that particular project from Fish and Game

has been good.

Mr. ISSA. Excellent.

Mr. Peltier, Mr. Kucinich alluded to taking water from a fifth of

the water on the face of the Earth, which lies in the Great Lakes.

Is that something you are aware of impending?

Mr. PELTIER. No, sir.

Mr. ISSA. OK. I am just checking. I won’t ask you to elaborate.

Mr. PELTIER. I won’t even joke about it.

Mr. ISSA. OK. Fair enough.

Dennis and I, by the way, are both native Clevelanders, so I just

had to get that one in for my mom.

However, I would like to ask each of you to comment, because

we have talked about California, and we will continue to stay on

it mostly. But I think, particularly from Mr. Peltier, Florida.

One of our members of this subcommittee who isn’t here because

she has her own chair that she is presently in—Florida is a place

that has a lowering water table and the intrusion of salt water.

How do you view conjunctive use relative to regions outside California and Florida, as an example, if you can include it?

Mr. PELTIER. The most relevant thing I can bring to the table in

the situations in Florida is that is a great place for the U.S. Geological Survey to deploy its scientific resources to inform the decisionmakers.

We don’t have a water management—Interior doesn’t have a

water management role, per se. But the science behind making

conjunctive use work in holding back sea water and so forth is essential to make sure that any investment is, indeed, a wise investment. And——

Mr. ISSA. Please.

Mr. PELTIER [continuing]. Might I comment on Tony’s concerns?

Nobody will give me permission to talk on behalf of the Fish and

Wildlife Service, so I’m a little bit limited in responding to him in

that regard.

But I did, when I got an advance copy of his testimony, read it

and provided it to Fish and Wildlife Service management and had

discussion with them about it. So one—one accomplishment has already occurred, which is getting on the screen of management that

we got a problem—or they have a problem here.

I will be pleased to continue to try and facilitate some dialog and

discussion between Tony and the service because any citizen can

listen to him and say that doesn’t sound like the way we want government to work. I don’t know all the facts and details, but—so I

don’t want to dis the Fish and Wildlife Service, but I’ll try to see

what I can do to help.

Mr. ISSA. Well, I certainly appreciate it. The Fish and Wildlife

obviously has an important role. This committee and other commitVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:59 Jun 29, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27514.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
48

tees in the Congress rely heavily on their providing real protection

for not just fish and wildlife, but, in fact, for endangered and potentially endangered species and a maintenance of a lifestyle that

American people count on us for. I also don’t want to throw them

under the bus unnecessarily.

However, when we look at the availability of both surface and

ground water, it is one of those areas in which we are supposed to

be on the same side. We are supposed to agree to the beneficial effects. Often, we agree to it in principle, and in the case of another

project that I have in another part of my district, you end up with

a water project that, in fact, is now breeding birds, which is fine,

except it is supposed to be a levee to prevent flooding. So we often

find some very unintended consequences.

To that extent, and maybe perhaps beyond Fish and Wildlife for

a moment, are there Federal actions, policies, or regulations that

inhibit or deter local adoption of conjunctive water management?

I could probably look at each of you, and from three different places

on the totem pole, you could answer that.

Mr. PELTIER. Sure. There are a suite of environmental laws and

regulations that are designed to make sure that if people want to

propose an infrastructure development, a project, that the values

and goals of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, etc.,

are taken into account and accounted for. And then some of those

could have an inhibiting impact.

There is, however, also a great desire within Reclamation and in

the GS to partner up with folks and make progress because the

challenges associated with limited water supply have the potential

for great economic impact. It’s the kind of the mission of the agencies to be a helpful partner. So there’s a little of both there, I would

say.

Mr. ISSA. Well, of course, for Interior, if you are going to—speaking as a Californian—if you are going to play Solomon with the

Colorado River water allocation, we definitely think we ought to all

be working together.

Joseph.

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. Yes, I want to agree with a lot of what both my

co-panelists have said.

Mr. ISSA. By the way, this is not one of those in which controversy is required. It often occurs, but we actually don’t demand

it as a condition of your being on the panel.

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. Oh, good. Good, because I don’t think this will

be controversial, although my most recent assignment in the last

few months has been CALFED. And CALFED was built on, first,

trying to get agencies to work together.

And for those that don’t know, 15 years ago, California Delta was

dysfunctional because the agencies couldn’t get together and

couldn’t develop a plan. We have in fact, developed a plan that

hasn’t been perfectly successful, but we do have people talking to

one another and have a process that I think over time, with probably lots of money, will make a real difference.

I very much support the suggestion by Tony that it’s important

to have decisionmakers come together and discuss issues because,

in the end, we all have to balance the different responsibilities that

are out there. And you can’t do that by just saying, ‘‘Here’s a rule,

49

and here’s a rule.’’ If we followed all of the rules, many—you would

find that many of them conflict.

It is the responsibility of administrators, at least at a high level,

to try and see how do we live within the rules, but also accomplish

the major objective that we have, which is to make this a better

place for our citizens to live.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Mr. PACK. A couple of points, and I want to acknowledge, Jason,

that the local head of the Fish and Wildlife did contact me. I had

informed him that I was going to testify and told him basically

what I intended to say. And also the regional director received a

copy of the testimony ahead of time.

And we’re proposing now, the three of us, to get together and see

if we can work out some kind of mutual solution to this issue.

On the issue of Federal regulations, I’m a little puzzled why we

start with the same Federal/Nation-wide regulations, and they end

up so differently interpreted in different places. Jason, you mentioned Florida. I was lucky to live in St. Petersburg for several

years while I was stationed with the U.S. Central Command, and

we had in my development, we all used recycled water for landscaping for our entire yard.

This was in the mid 1980’s, and there never was any issue at all.

And of course, recycled water did percolate into the ground and became a major source of natural recharge.

In California, California has been very slow to move to tertiary—

to use of recycled water for residential irrigation. They’re just beginning. There’s been a couple of projects completed, and we have

two projects in my district underway right now.

I think California has been a little more conservative in interpreting the same rules and regulations. And even we see that on

the State and local—between the State—between the local regional

water quality control boards. There’s a vast difference in the way

that they interpret and the way they work with the agencies, just

between two regional boards.

Mr. ISSA. Tony, if you could, for the record, give a rough ratio in

California, because we are an interesting place, from the standpoint of our use outside the home versus inside the home, in those

communities that already have it, what the quantity of this not potable water consumption is versus the interior drinkable water,

wash your clothes and your dishes with it water?

How big a part of the equation that can be if we were to move

to dividing our water throughout California?

Mr. PACK. I’m not sure I understood your question, but 40 to 50

percent of all water use is used outside the home is for irrigation.

In the State of California, virtually none of that on a residential

basis is recycled water.

On large landscapes, we’ve been very aggressive in moving ahead

with recycled water use, and we’re now the fourth-largest user of

recycled water in the State of California, following only Los Angeles, Orange County, and large cities.

Mr. ISSA. All right, and I want to commend you for that.

The reason I asked the question, as confusing as it might have

been, is that we are dealing with 40 to 50 percent of the water that

50

we presently go through additional treatment, chlorinate, deal with

lines that have to be maintained and kept clean.

Concerns about lead, arsenic, all kinds of other substances, even

in microscope amounts—or parts per billion amounts—on twice as

much water as we would if, in fact, California over a period of time

adopted a two water supply use. Then that would be fair to say?

Mr. PACK. Yes, sir.

Mr. ISSA. You can tell I am not only thrilled with what you are

doing in Riverside County, but I am hoping that California sees

that as a way to dramatically reduce the amount of chemicals and

cost that we put into our water supply.

One thing that I don’t think we have touched on was the role of

conjunctive use in habitat projects. We talked about Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game. But where do you see the potentials or do

you see potentials where conjunctive use can also add to potential

habitat in the projects?

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. Looks like I get this one.

Mr. ISSA. You get the whole State of California here.

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. The whole State of California. Conjunctive use

is really—in the first place, the places where you can store water

are typically places where we’ve pumped the ground water table

down. So when you add water to the ground water table, you are

naturally providing more water for habitat, and that can make a

significant difference directly overhead.

And typically, if you’re next to a stream, then you’re going to

have water flowing out, and that’s going to help provide year-round

flow to that stream. That’s a critical thing over the long term as

a critical way to help provide water for habitat.

It is a significant benefit when we develop those programs. And

when we evaluate, as a State, when we give a grant to Tony or to

any other entity, that’s one of the things that we look for is: have

we incorporated that value into the program as we move ahead?

In most cases, where we develop a program, they have. That is

one of the benefits that we receive.

Mr. ISSA. I am going to probably close with one last question, but

it again goes to Mr. Kucinich, who couldn’t remain. He seemed, in

his opening remarks, to have considerable concern for ground

water contamination, the other potential problems with—Joseph,

you were pretty good at saying it can be a factor.

I am not, by any means, experienced as an engineer in any of

this. But I do own a swimming pool, and I have a filter. The filter

becomes pretty useless if you simply continue to use it to filter forever. But, in fact, you can back-flush it after you run the back-flow,

essentially sending down to, in my case, the ocean in San Diego.

The water, you, in fact, have a filter that can be reused again.

How does that work or does it work as part of the consideration

when we are using the ground table and you potentially, let us say,

get a high salt content over time, something along that line? Are

there factors where, in fact, there is some similarity, and you can

manage the ground as a filter?

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. From my perspective, one of the great benefits

of conjunctive management is that you can improve ground water

quality, and you have to design that in. You have to think about

that when you’re starting.

51

But the solution to poor water quality is to not just leave it in

the ground and let the contaminant, whatever it is, buildup there.

The solution is to get it out of the ground. And over time, the best

way to do that, typically, is to pump the water out and treat it and

remove the contaminant.

So whether in Orange County, they’re doing the ground water replenishment system, where they’re dealing with salt by putting virtually salt-free water into the ground water table, and they’re going

to reduce the TDS of their ground water table significantly.

Or if it’s a program where in the Chino Basin, they’re putting recycled water into the basin at a higher TDS level, but at the bottom end of the basin, they’re pumping it out and treating it and

removing all of the excess salt. Over time, they remove much more

salt than they put in. So they’re improving the water quality.

I think it’s a key element, and there are issues. But they are certainly the kinds of things that you can address. In fact, I think it

provides an economic incentive, if done right, to clean up the

ground water. So that Tony has an interest in maintaining quality

in that basin and improving that basin because he’s putting more

water in.

So I’m—you can tell I’m an unabashed supporter.

Mr. ISSA. Go ahead, Tony.

Mr. PACK. I would almost echo what Joe has said. In the

Menifee/Romoland/Perris/Moreno valley—that entire valley basin

there—the ground water levels are rising because many of the agricultural users have left. And as that has risen, it is going into the

Vatos, and it is picking up contaminants. But it also is four to five

times more saltier than we’re allowed to serve as drinking water.

So we’ve been developing an extensive well conveyance and desalination system in that area. We have two plants up and running

now and a third under design. And we’re actually removing all the

salts and sending them down through the SARI line to the Pacific

Ocean.

We’re not only preventing further contamination as the ground

water levels rise, but we’re actually taking out the salts and replacing it with lower salinity water.

Mr. ISSA. Yes, Jason.

Mr. PELTIER. Yes. The U.S. Geological Survey will be—is scheduled, anyway, to release a report. It’s kind of a national survey of

volatile organic compounds found in ground water across the

United States later this month. I think, you know, it’s safe to say

that we find VOCs a lot, not, however, at levels—very, very rarely

at levels which are of concern, but they’re there.

You have hit on something, that the re-injection or the percolation of chlorinated water back into the—in the ground water basin

has implications, and we need to be mindful of them. Because the

notion of what a gallon of gasoline can do to an aquifer is real.

So I think that’s part of those things that some might view an

impediment. Others with responsibility for protecting water resources would look at as that’s part of our role and responsibility

in making sure that future generations have the benefit of a good

water supply.

Mr. ISSA. I want to thank you all. I am going to revise and extend in one sense because you brought up gasoline.

52

California is very concerned about the legacy of MTBE. We continue to have, to be honest, a fertilizer is not an insignificant contamination, and I am always befuddled to realize that fertilizer

into the ground water is more of a problem in residential areas

than it is agricultural areas. It is always amazing. We assume it

is farms when, in fact, it is sod as often as not.

Is it fair to say—I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but

I am almost doing that—is it fair to say that in all cases, active

management of the water table, including conjunctive use, gives us

an opportunity to do more about taking out MTBE or other contaminants than, in fact, not doing it?

That there is no case, the reverse of it, there is no case in which

by definition we are better off not doing, injecting anything into the

ground table, dealing with the ground table and just hoping that

it goes away?

Mr. PELTIER. I’m really tempted to—my degree is in agriculture,

and my minor is in economics. It’s not in geohydrology or geochemistry. I don’t want to answer your question. I would say——

Mr. ISSA. But you were glad I defended the farmer on his fertilizer, weren’t you?

Mr. PELTIER. I would say the simple answer to your absolute

question is, no, it’s not always true. Because nothing is, in my experience, always true. There is always exceptions.

Mr. ISSA. Didn’t I say generally? I could have the record read

back, and I guarantee that they will read it back the way I want

it to. [Laughter.]

Generally?

Mr. PELTIER. Generally.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Joseph.

Mr. GRINDSTAFF. Active management, I think, is always better.

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t cases where, for example,

you have a concentrated plume of a contaminant, where it is not

better to treat that plume without putting water in there and

spreading it further.

I think you have to look at those issues on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. ISSA. OK. Tony.

Mr. PACK. The bottom line really is there isn’t any more surface

water. We’ve got to use conjunctive use, desalination, recycled

water. We’ve got to go to all these options to meet the future demands.

You really don’t have a choice not to use ground water, and like

Joe says, you manage it, and you look to what you’re treating. In

many cases, treatment is a function of how much money you want

to spend.

Mr. ISSA. Well, you have completed the record very well for us.

I thank you for doing it in a timely fashion.

The record will remain open for at least 10 legislative days so

that you may add any comments that you think of, things that you

want to revise and extend with, and so that Members that will

have an opportunity to put their comments or questions in.

53

And once again, I thank you all for your presence.

This meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

Æ