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

89-270 PS 2003

H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960 

AND H.R. 2991

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, September 10, 2003

Serial No. 108-53

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member

George Radanovich, California 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Devin Nunes, California 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

George Miller, California 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 ................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement on H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960 and 

H.R. 2991 ............................................................................................... 3 

Dreier, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement on H.R. 2991 ........................................................... 6

Miller, Hon. Gary G., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement on H.R. 142 ............................................................. 9

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas .......................................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement on H.R. 2960 ........................................................... 13

Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement on H.R. 1156 ........................................................... 11

Statement of Witnesses: 

Atwater, Richard, CEO/General Manager, Inland Empire Utilities 

Agency ............................................................................................................ 18

Prepared statement on H.R. 142 and H.R. 2991 ................................... 20

Bilodeau, Denis, President, Board of Directors, Orange County Water 

District ........................................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement on H.R. 1156 ........................................................... 29

Campirano, Eduardo A., Assistant General Manager and COO, 

Brownsville Public Utilities Board .............................................................. 31

Prepared statement on H.R. 2960 ........................................................... 33

DeLoach, Robert, CEO/General Manager, Cucamonga County Water 

District ........................................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement on H.R. 2991 ........................................................... 36

Letters submitted for the record .............................................................. 39

Rinne, William, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Bureau of 

Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................................... 14

Prepared statement on H.R. 142 ............................................................. 15

Prepared statement on H.R. 1156 ........................................................... 16

Prepared statement on H.R. 2960 ........................................................... 17

Prepared statement on H.R. 2991 ........................................................... 17

Additional materials supplied: 

Ovitt, Hon. Gary C., Mayor, City of Ontario, California, Letter submitted 

for the record ................................................................................................. 55

(1)

H.R. 142, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND 

GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE 

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 

INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROJECT, 

TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY TO CARRY OUT A PROGRAM TO ASSIST AGENCIES IN PROJECTS TO CONSTRUCT 

REGIONAL BRINE LINES IN CALIFORNIA, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LOWER 

CHINO DAIRY AREA DESALINATION DEMONSTRATION AND 

RECLAMATION PROJECT; H.R. 1156, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND 

FACILITIES ACT TO INCREASE THE CEILING ON THE FEDERAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF PHASE I OF THE ORANGE 

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION 

PROJECT; H.R. 2960, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO 

AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BROWNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD WATER 

RECYCLING AND DESALINIZATION PROJECT; AND H.R. 2991, 

TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE 

SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INLAND 

EMPIRE REGIONAL RECYCLING PROJECT IN THE 

CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING 

PROJECT. 

Wednesday, September 10, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Calvert, Napolitano, Tancredo, Inslee, 

Grijalva, Osborne, Rodriguez, Pearce, Baca and Ortiz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. The legislative hearing by the Subcommittee on 

Water and Power will come to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on four 

bills, H.R. 142, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and 

2

Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Inland Empire regional water recycling project, to authorize the Secretary to carry out a program 

to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine lines in 

California, and to authorize the Secretary to participate in the 

Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and reclamation project. 

Mr. CALVERT. H.R. 1156, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater 

and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to increase the ceiling 

on the Federal share of the costs in Phase I of the Orange County 

Regional Water Reclamation Project. 

Mr. CALVERT. H.R. 2960, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater 

and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of Interior to participate in the Brownsville Public Utility 

Board recycling and desalinization project. 

Mr. CALVERT. And H.R. 2991, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the 

Secretary of Interior to participate in the Inland Empire regional 

recycling project in the Cucamonga County Water District recycling 

project. 

Mr. CALVERT. I will begin with an opening statement. 

Throughout this year, the Subcommittee has focused on the need 

for non-traditional water supply projects that are regional in scope 

in an effort to help more communities become drought-proof. The 

constant and positive drumbeat on the need for these projects led 

me to include a competitive grants program and a number of other 

provisions that promote community-based water recycling and desalination efforts in H.R. 2828, my legislation to increase water 

supplies nationwide. Each of the bills that we will address today 

will qualify and, I believe, have a better chance of being funded 

and coordinated more efficiently through H.R. 2828 than the current mechanisms we have in place. 

However, I believe we need to continue to make the case for the 

important role of water recycling throughout the country, thus the 

need to hear these bills today. As we have often heard, there is a 

legitimate Federal role in helping communities develop new water 

supplies because existing traditional water sources are being 

stretched beyond their safe limits. 

Today, we will focus on how several communities plan to meet 

their water needs through non-traditional sources. In water-deficient traditions, such as South Texas and the Southern and Central coastal areas of California, advanced water treatment facilities 

and technologies are being considered to a greater extent than ever 

before in response to increasing demands on limited high-quality 

water supplies. 

As we know, the Bureau of Reclamation’s core function is to develop water supplies. As part of this responsibility, the Department 

of Interior held a rock-star-like tour this summer on its 2025 program. I am still waiting for the tour T-shirts, but they haven’t been 

delivered to my office. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CALVERT. The tour throughout the West received much input 

from water leaders on non-traditional ways to improve water supply conditions. I hope this input has reinforced the notion that the 

3

Department can do more to improve water supplies and water recycling and desalination technologies. Today, I look forward to hearing from the Bureau on how it will go about incorporating the 

tour’s input into its Water 2025 and Western Water Initiative programs and its level of support for water recycling and desalination 

legislation. 

H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960, and H.R. 2991 would allow the 

Secretary of Interior to provide technical and Federal financial resources through the use of the Title XVI program. We have the 

privilege of hearing from several leaders who are very aware of 

how water supplies are being stressed and how important it is for 

innovative and non-traditional ways to meet future water demands. 

I thank the panel for being here today and look forward to your 

testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 

Throughout this year, the Subcommittee has focused on the need for non-traditional water supply projects that are regional in scope in an effort to help more communities become ‘‘drought-proof.’’ The constant and positive drumbeat on the need 

for these projects led me to include a competitive grants program and a number of 

other provisions that promote community-based water recycling and desalination efforts in H.R. 2828, my legislation to increase water supplies nationwide. Each of the 

bills that we will address today would qualify, and I believe, have a better chance 

of being funded, and coordinated more efficiently through H.R. 2828 than the current mechanisms we have in place. 

However, I believe we need to continue to make the case for the important role 

of water recycling throughout the Country, thus the need to hear these bills today. 

As we have often heard, there is a legitimate federal role in helping communities 

develop new water supplies because existing, traditional water sources are being 

stretched beyond their safe limits. 

Today, we will focus on how several communities plan to meet their water needs 

through non-traditional sources. In water-deficient regions such as south Texas and 

the southern and central coastal areas of California, advanced water treatment technologies are being considered to a greater extent than ever before in response to increasing demands on limited high quality water supplies. 

As we know, the Bureau of Reclamation’s core function is to develop water supplies. As part of this responsibility, the Department of the Interior held a tour this 

summer on its Water 2025 program. 

This tour throughout the West received much input from water leaders on nontraditional ways to improve water supply conditions. I hope that this input has reinforced the notion that the Department can do more to improve water supplies from 

water recycling and desalination technologies. Today, I look forward to hearing from 

the Bureau of Reclamation on how it will go about incorporating the tour’s input 

into its Water 2025 and Western Water Initiative programs and its level of support 

for water recycling and desalination legislation. 

H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960, and H.R.2991 would allow the Secretary of the 

Interior to provide technical and federal financial resources through the use of the 

Title 16 Program. We have the privilege of hearing from several leaders who are 

very aware of how water supplies are being stressed and how important it is to look 

for innovative and non-traditional ways to meet future water demands. I thank the 

panel for being here today and look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. CALVERT. I will now recognize Mrs. Napolitano for her opening statement. 

4

STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thoroughly and 

sincerely appreciate your continued interest in the water recycling 

and desalination projects. My views in promoting these type of 

projects are very well known and I have been very outspoken in 

this Committee and to other Committee members about the necessity of increased funding for both of those type of programs. 

Our business community, our community leaders throughout the 

Western States continue to press for help with vital recycling 

projects, with desalination projects, with projects to clean up contaminated groundwater supplies, and funding for these projects 

would solve these costly problems. If we don’t care of them now, we 

pay much more in the future. 

And in most of these cases, three-quarters of the funding actually 

comes from local sources. In many of these cases, the Federal Government only provides seed money, serves as a partner and a 

facilitator in those projects. But for questionable reasons nobody 

can explain, we continue to see that these business-friendly and locally supported, cost-effective, locally driven projects initiated by 

the previous Bush Administration are lost on this current Administration. 

I and many of my colleagues remain extremely frustrated, confused, et cetera, by this Administration’s consistent and continued 

opposition to recycling and desalination authorization bills, funding 

specifically for recycling projects. How can Secretary Norton expect 

us to support the Interior Department’s Water 2025 program when 

this same Department continues to oppose technology-based proven 

and effective projects? As I expect we will hear in today’s testimony, what credibility does the Interior Department have when 

they refuse to meet our many and repeated requests that they release the reports on the California water recycling mandated by 

Congress in 1992 that would, without a shadow of a doubt, prove 

the effectiveness of these projects? 

Mr. Chairman, you and I are not the only ones in Congress who 

are not only puzzled but angered by the Administration’s denial of 

water recycling as an important tool for giving the Nation the 

reuse of our precious commodity, water. I recall seeing the recent 

report from Chairman David Hobson of the Appropriations Subcommittee urging the Administration to reconsider its lack of support for this program. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, who, I am 

sure, will explain the many benefits of these projects to our many 

communities and send a clear and simple message to this Administration that it cannot afford to turn its back on locally supported 

beneficial water recycling projects. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I again, for the record, request 

that report again. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:]

5

Statement of The Honorable Grace Napolitano, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California 

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate your continued interest in water recycling 

and desalination projects. My views on promoting these projects are well-known, 

and I have been very outspoken to you and other Committee Members about the 

necessity of increasing funding for them. 

Business and community leaders throughout the Western States continue to press 

for help with vital recycling projects, with desalination projects, and with projects 

to clean up contaminated groundwater supplies. These projects will solve costly 

problems, and in most cases, 3/4th of the funding comes from local sources. The Federal government merely provides seed money and serves as a partner and a 

facilitator in these projects. 

But for questionable reasons nobody can explain, we continue to see that these 

business friendly and supported, cost-effective, locally driven projects, initiated by 

the previous Bush Administration, is lost on the current Bush Administration. 

I and many of our colleagues remain extremely frustrated and confused by this 

Administration’s consistent continuance of opposition to authorization bills and 

funding for recycling projects. How can Secretary Norton expect us to support the 

Interior Department’s ‘‘Water 2025’’ program when this same Department continues 

to oppose technology-based projects, as I expect they will in their testimony today? 

What credibility does Interior Department have when they refuse to meet our many 

and repeated requests that they release the reports on California water recycling 

mandated by Congress in 1992? 

Mr. Chairman, you and I are not the only ones in Congress who are not only puzzled but angered by this Administration’s denial of water recycling as an important 

tool for water supply nation-wide. I recall seeing the recent report from Chairman 

David Hobson of the Appropriations Subcommittee, urging the Administration to 

‘‘reconsider its lack of support for this program.’’

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, who I am sure will explain 

the many benefits of these projects to their communities and send a clear and simple message to this Administration that it cannot afford to turn its back on locally 

supported water recycling projects. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady and I will second her 

request. 

Our first panel, we are joined by our colleagues and friends and 

I have the opportunity and privilege to introduce my neighbor, Mr. 

Dreier, who also is the Chairman of the Rules Committee, to give 

his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

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

Napolitano, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. Ortiz. 

As I look at the combination of the Committee dais and the panel 

at this juncture, I am happy that Californians outnumber the other 

members who are in the room at this juncture, but it does not in 

any way indicate the fact that we don’t want to enjoy very strong 

bipartisan and a broad geographic base of support for recycling initiatives. 

I am here very briefly, Mr. Chairman, to simply congratulate you 

and Mrs. Napolitano on your commitment to our focus on recycling 

and to say that I have introduced legislation, which members of 

this Subcommittee and Mr. Miller, you especially, Mrs. Napolitano, 

are cosponsors, along with our colleague, Mr. Baca, and it is the 

last measure that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. It is the 

H.R. 2991. 

I am pleased that there is an emphasis here from the Congress, 

and I would say to Mrs. Napolitano, having listened to her 

slightly—I put you in the undecided column on the administration 

6

on this based on your comments. I don’t take it as a negative. I will 

say that often, the legislative branch does provide encouragement 

to the second branch of government, the executive branch, and 

clearly, the leadership role that you and Mr. Calvert are showing 

on this, I believe will play a role in it, as well as moving the very 

important legislation that we are going to be here talking about. 

I am very pleased that we have Richard Atwater, who is the 

General Manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and he is 

going to be testifying here on behalf of this important legislation, 

because as you said in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, we 

are looking for a locally led coalition that does include people at the 

various levels of government, but it needs to be locally driven. I 

think that is one of the things that we focus on when it comes to 

environmental issues, when it comes to water issues, because obviously that is the appropriate thrust to take, rather than having it 

dictated from a higher level. 

So I hope very much—I believe that is what H.R. 2991, which 

I have introduced along with our colleagues, is designed to do, and 

I hope very much that you will be able to move ahead on that. I 

thank you very much for having me and I hope you will—you 

know, we just went through that series of votes and I had a 2:30 

meeting, so I hope you will excuse me and allow me to go back up 

to try and make sure we keep the flow of legislation for you all to 

vote on the House floor in order. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreier follows:]

Statement of The Honorable David Dreier, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on pending water legislation. 

I am pleased to submit this statement for the record on behalf of the Inland Empire 

Regional Water Recycling Initiative, H.R. 2991, legislation I recently introduced to 

authorize water recycling projects under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI 

program. 

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative includes two projects, the 

first of which will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and 

will produce 70,000 acre-feet of new water annually. This project is expected to be 

fully constructed and on-line by 2008. The second of these projects, to be constructed 

by the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), will produce an additional 5,000 

acre feet of new water annually. This project is expected to be fully constructed and 

on-line by 2010. Between these two projects, 75,000 acre feet of new water will be 

produced annually before the end of the decade. 

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced a new 

initiative—Water 2025 - Preventing Crisis and Conflict in the West—aimed at preventing chronic water supply problems in the Western United States resulting from 

drought, growth, or other challenges. In addition to the federal strategy, California, 

more than a year ago, established a special Water Recycling Task Force, managed 

by the State Water Resources Control Board. The Task Force concluded that by the 

year 2030, California should develop 1.5 million acre feet of new recycled water. 

In addition to being consistent with these broad studies, H.R. 2991 directly impacts the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI program, which is dedicated to investigate and identify opportunities for water reclamation and reuse. The Bureau’s 

budget is consistently underfunded. The Fiscal Year 2004 request from the Administration was $878 million. While this is an increase of $23.1 million from the Fiscal 

Year 2003 request, it is approximately $33.3 million less than Congress appropriated for FY03. Currently under Title XVI, there are $580 million worth of existing authorized projects that have yet to receive any funding. 

This is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of Chairman Calvert’s Water 

Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, H.R. 2828. With the 

7

introduction of this legislation, it is clear that the time has come to focus efforts 

on water reuse, a critical component in a balanced water supply. Title I of 

H.R. 2828 established a competitive grants program for desalination, groundwater 

recharge, brine removal, water quality, and water reuse projects. With the federal 

share set at 35 percent of the project’s total cost, the federal government can partner with local governments and local water agencies, in a fiscally responsible manner, to meet our serious water needs. This new program will only bolster ongoing 

activities within the Bureau, and bring focus to an area of water policy that has 

gone largely ignored for far too long. 

Water supply issues in California and other Western states are of paramount concern, especially in light of ongoing challenges with the Colorado River Quantification 

Settlement Agreement. In order to meet the water needs of the Inland Empire, and 

to help alleviate California’s over-dependence on the Colorado River, I see this legislation as a key federal-local partnership to bring a significant amount of new water 

supply to the region. 

The local support for IEUA’s ongoing efforts is so strong because water recycling 

is such an innovative and environmentally sound tool for meeting our water needs. 

IEUA currently offers disinfected, tertiary recycled water through its four treatment 

facilities, that meets all standards under California’s Title 22 requirements for nonrestricted recreational use, which includes full body contact activities, such as swimming. Monitoring and reporting to the Regional Water Quality Control Board is required to ensure recycled water quality standards are being met. 

IEUA also produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable purposes, such as 

landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. By 

replacing these water-intensive applications with high-quality recycled water, fresh 

water can be conserved or used for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence on 

expensive imported water. In addition, by recycling water which would otherwise be 

wasted and unavailable, IEUA provides that the water available goes through at 

least one more cycle of beneficial use before it is ultimately returned to the environment. 

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all 

member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange 

County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities 

of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana (through the Fontana Water Company), Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga (through the Cucamonga County Water District), and the Monte Vista Water District. The Initiative is also consistent with regional watershed plans, the California Department of Water Resources water recycling task force, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s comprehensive water study, and 

the Department of Interior’s ‘‘Water 2025’’ plan. 

I look forward to working closely with the Subcommittee on Water and Power as 

well as the full House Resources Committee to see that H.R. 2991 receives strong 

consideration, approval for House Floor consideration, and eventual passage and enactment. Again, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Mr. CALVERT. Unless there are any questions, you are free to go. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No questions, but Chairman Dreier, and I understand what you are alluding to, but understand that when we 

are faced with the cuts in the Bureau of Reclamation’s water recycling, none of these projects would go forward. 

Mr. DREIER. Well, I understand, and that is why I am saying 

that the stellar leadership that you and Chairman Calvert are providing— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We need some help. 

Mr. DREIER. Well, listen, I am sitting here and I am ready to 

stand up. And so once I get in motion, I will be ready, willing, and 

able to do even more on behalf of it. Thank you very much again, 

Mr. Chairman, and now the first string, Mr. Miller and Ms. 

Sanchez, are going to take over. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much for having me. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Dreier. 

8

Next, our friend, my colleague and also my neighbor, Mr. Miller, 

to give his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY G. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GARY MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this important hearing. We spend a lot of time talking 

about these issues and how it really impacts California, so this is 

a real pleasure to be here before you and the Committee. 

This is a matter that is critical for the Southern California region. I am pleased to be here with my colleagues from California, 

both Mr. Dreier and Ms. Sanchez, who have very similar bills, but 

we are all trying to accomplish the same process. 

Many States today are faced with the formidable task of providing reliable and safe water resources for a rapidly increasing 

population. Southern California’s arid climate makes it difficult for 

this region to find a viable, dependable source of water. The Interior Department’s ruling to reduce the availability of Colorado 

River water to Southern California exacerbates the area’s water 

supply problem by diverting approximately 700,000 acre feet of 

water a year alone. Not having a reliable source of water discourages economic growth, imperils the environment, and compromises 

the health and safety of Southern California residents. 

It is for this reason that Congress must work to find an innovative and effective solution to the challenges posed by such debilitating water shortages, and I believe H.R. 142 offers such a viable 

solution. This bill will help significantly enhance the region’s water 

quality and safety by constructing a water recycling project, regional brine lines and desalination demonstration reclamation 

projects. 

First, to the construction of the water recycling project, Southern 

California will be provided with a critical 70,000 additional acre 

feet of new water annually. In a region that is prone to drought, 

the expansion of this water supply will deliver safe and much needed water to the area’s outdoor recreational facilities, waters, parks, 

freeways, landscapers and irrigators. 

Second, the construction of the desalination reclamation project 

to the Lower Chino Dairy Area offers a viable solution to the region’s water woes, and as you know, Mr. Calvert, we have about 

380,000 adult dairy cows sitting on that aquifer that causes a tremendous problem. As former President Dwight D. Eisenhower once 

said, we need a far-sighted program for meeting urgent water 

needs by converting salt water to fresh water. Once deemed impractical and costly, desalination has evolved into one of America’s 

most effective and reliable solutions to water shortages. 

The project provided for in H.R. 142 would expand groundwater 

desalination to the Chino Basin from the current 9,000 acre feet 

per year to 40,000 acre feet per year, which would provide a vital 

new drinking water supply for the rapidly increasing population in 

San Bernardino County and Orange County. 

Finally, H.R. 142 provides a means to safely and effectively discard excess brine from the desalination plants. Specifically, this 

legislation calls for construction of a regional line to transport excess brine to the Pacific Ocean, where it can be safely filtered 

9

through an ocean outfall pump station. This will prevent many of 

the environmental hazards that can occur from the inadequate disposal of excess brine, thus benefiting the quality of life of over the 

six million residents of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino 

County. 

In conclusion, I believe Mr. Atwater and Mr. Grindstaff will illuminate the critical need for these projects in Southern California 

and I welcome them to the Committee today. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for your leadership on this issue and I know you have 

fought hard for years to deal with this problem and I trust in your 

leadership in the future. I am looking forward to working with you. 

Thank you 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Gary G. Miller, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, on H.R. 142

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding a hearing on this important issue. As this 

is a matter that is critical for the southern California region, I am pleased to be 

here with my colleagues from the California Delegation, Congressman Dreier and 

Congresswoman Sanchez. 

Many states today are faced with the formidable task of providing reliable and 

safe water resources for a rapidly increasing population. Southern California’s arid 

climate makes it difficult for this region to find viable and dependable sources of 

water. The Interior Department’s ruling to reduce the availability of Colorado River 

water to Southern California exacerbated the area’s water supply problems by diverting approximately 700,000 acre feet of water this year alone. Not having a reliable source of water discourages economic growth, imperils the environment and 

compromises the health and safety of southern California residents. It is for this 

reason that Congress must work to find innovative and effective solutions to the 

challenges posed by such debilitating water shortages. H.R. 142 offers such viable 

solutions. 

H.R. 142 will help significantly enhance the region’s water quality and safety by 

constructing a water recycling project, regional brine lines, and a desalinization 

demonstration and reclamation project. 

First, through the construction of a water recycling project, southern California 

will be provided with a critical 70,000 additional acre feet of new water annually. 

In a region that is prone to droughts, the expansion of this water supply will deliver 

safe and much-needed water to the area’s outdoor recreational facilities, parks, freeway landscaping and irrigators. 

Second, the construction of a desalinization demonstration and reclamation 

project in the lower Chino Dairy area offers a viable solution to the region’s water 

woes. As former President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, ‘‘We need a farsighted 

program for meeting urgent water needs by converting saltwater to fresh water.’’ 

Once deemed impractical and costly, desalinization has evolved into one of America’s most effective and reliable solutions to water shortage. The project provided for 

in H.R. 142 would expand groundwater desalination in the Chino Basin from the 

current 9,000 acre feet per year to 40,000 acre feet per year, which would provide 

a vital new drinking water supply for a rapidly increasing population in San 

Bernardino County. 

Finally, H.R. 142 provides a means to safely and efficiently discard excess brine 

from desalinization plants. Specifically, this legislation calls for the construction of 

a regional line to transport excess brine to the Pacific Ocean, where it can be safely 

filtered through an ocean-outfall pump station. This will prevent many of the environmental hazards that can occur from inadequate disposal of excess brine, thus 

benefitting the quality of life of the over six million residents of Orange, Riverside 

and San Bernardino counties. 

I believe Mr. Atwater and Mr. Grindstaff will illuminate the critical need for these 

projects in southern California and I welcome them to the Committee today. I thank 

the Chairman for his continued leadership and dedication to addressing southern 

California’s critical water shortage needs. I urge the Committee to move expeditiously on this important legislation. 

10

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for your testimony. We will 

work on this legislation together and hopefully be able to get it 

passed. 

Next, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, also my neighbor to the 

Southwest. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first, I would like 

to thank you and also Ranking Member Napolitano for convening 

today’s hearing and allowing us to bring forward these bills and get 

a hearing on them. I only hope that we are as lucky with your push 

to get a markup on these so that we can get them signed into law. 

This hearing is an important step toward addressing Southern 

California’s water supply and water quality needs. The legislation, 

H.R. 1156, would authorize the Federal Government to provide increased assistance for the ongoing construction of Orange County 

Water District’s water reuse project, what we call the Groundwater 

Replenishment System. 

Today, you will hear from Mr. Denis Bilodeau, the President of 

the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. He 

will speak to the importance of this project and he will emphasize 

the need for increased Federal assistance. The Orange County 

Water District is not only responsible for providing Orange County 

constituents with their drinking water, it is also responsible for 

managing one of the largest water basins in California. 

He was elected to the Orange County Water District Board of Directors in November of 2000 and he currently sits as the President 

of that board. As a licensed civil engineer, he is ideally suited to 

comment on how this legislation would lead to improved capability 

to manage the scarce potable water supplies in Orange County. 

In addition to his role as the Board President, he is also a member of the Orange County Water Management—Waste Management Commission and also the Orange County Water Task Force 

He clearly has the background and the knowledge to highlight the 

importance of the regional needs and how this Groundwater Replenishment System will support that goal. 

I would like to take just a brief minute to explain why I think 

H.R. 1156 is so important. As any Southern Californian knows, we 

have for decades had a lack of local water resources in our area. 

This is a straightforward measure to ensure that the district’s 

groundwater replenishment project already in development can deliver improved water supply reliability, enhanced economic activity 

to the region, and improved protection of our natural resources. 

The increased authorization, which is what we are asking—that 

is what the bill is about—would represent an important commitment to providing the largest such facility in North America with 

an appropriate level of Federal support. Furthermore, securing an 

equitable Federal share would guarantee that this project, which is 

proceeding in construction, is funded in a manner consistent with 

other Title XIV type project authorizations. 

The members of this Subcommittee, particularly you, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Napolitano, have been tireless in advocating for 

maintaining a strong Federal role in the development of alternative 

11

water development projects. You have supported a Groundwater 

Replenishment System in the past. That has been vital to its 

progress to date and I hope that we can continue to support it in 

the future. This project will provide reliable water supply to meet 

the ever-growing demand in Orange County in Southern California. 

Again, I look forward to hearing the testimony and to the Subcommittee’s swift consideration of bringing this legislation forward, 

Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for allowing us to have this 

hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, on H.R. 1156

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Napolitano for convening 

today’s hearing to consider vital water reclamation legislation. This hearing is an 

important step toward addressing Southern California’s water supply and water 

quality needs. 

My legislation, H.R. 1156, would authorize the federal government to provide increased assistance to the ongoing construction of Orange County Water District’s 

water reuse project known as the Groundwater Replenishment System. I am hopeful 

that after today’s hearing, this Subcommittee will move expeditiously to markup the 

bill and permit floor passage without delay. 

Today you will hear from Mr. Denis Bilodeau, President of the Board of Directors 

of Orange County Water District. Mr. Bilodeau will speak to the importance of this 

project and emphasize the need for increased federal assistance. The Orange County 

Water District is not only responsible for providing Orange County constituents 

with their drinking water, it is responsible for managing one of the largest water 

basins in California. 

Mr. Bilodeau was elected to the Orange County Water District Board of Directors 

in November 2000 and last year was selected by his colleagues to serve as President. As a licensed civil engineer, he is ideally suited to comment on how this legislation would lead to an improved capability to manage the District’s scarce potable 

water supplies. In addition to his role as Board President, Mr. Bilodeau is also a 

member of the Orange County Waste Management Commission and the Orange 

County Water Task Force. He clearly has the background and knowledge to highlight the importance of meeting regional needs and how the Groundwater Replenishment System will support that goal. I look forward to his testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a brief moment to explain why I think 

H.R. 1156 is so important. As any Southern Californian knows, for decades a lack 

of local water resources has been one of the primary problems facing the region’s 

economic future. H.R. 1156 is a straightforward measure to ensure that the District’s Groundwater Replenishment project, already in development, can deliver improved water supply reliability, enhanced economic activity in the region, and improved protection of our natural resources. This increased authorization would represent an important commitment to providing the largest such facility in North 

America with an appropriate level of federal support. 

Furthermore, securing an equitable federal share would guarantee that this 

project, which is proceeding to construction, is funded in a manner consistent with 

other Title XVI type project authorizations. The Members of this Subcommittee, particularly you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Napolitano, have been tireless advocates of 

maintaining a strong federal role in the development of alternative water development projects. Your past support of the Groundwater Replenishment System has 

been vital to its progress to date, and I look forward to your continued support. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, this project will provide a reliable water supply to 

meet an ever-growing demand. As our region grapples with the realities of diminishing available potable water supplies and increasing demands from our citizens, 

industries and environment; the Groundwater Replenishment System provides an 

effective and efficient response. Again, I look forward to Mr. Bilodeau’s statement 

and the Subcommittee’s swift consideration of this legislation. 

Thank you. 

12

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady and I appreciate her testimony and for her bringing this good legislation forward. 

Next, we will listen to our colleague here on the dais, Mr. 

Solomon Ortiz, on H.R. 2960, concerning Brownsville, Texas, our 

favorite Texas town. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mrs. Napolitano’s hometown. 

Mr. ORTIZ. That is right. That is right. Brownsville is very fortunate in that they get two Congressmen for the price of one. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ORTIZ. We were very honored today to have these four members of Congress testify before this Committee today, but let me 

begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member 

Napolitano. Both have a unique perspective on this particular problem because both came to the Committee to a hearing that we had 

in the Rio Grande Valley to see the problem up close and personal. 

All South Texans are grateful to Chairman Calvert’s leadership on 

this issue. We are grateful for your commitment to solving longterm water shortages in South Texas. We will continue to work together to find solutions to the unique situation associated with 

Mexico water debt. 

Ranking Democrat Napolitano is a native of Brownsville, also is 

known as the other Congressman from Brownsville. I just hope she 

doesn’t run back in Brownsville. 

The genesis for this begins in the mid-1990s when Mexico failed, 

then repeated again and again in each successive treaty cycle, to 

fulfill the obligations under a 1944 treaty dividing the waters of the 

Rio Grande Valley, or the Rio Grande. South Texas is the last stop 

of the water of the Rio Grande as it flows, and without Mexico releasing their annual obligations of water to flow down the river, 

our farmers and our municipal water users have been devastated 

during the past ten, 15 years. 

We tried repeatedly and successfully to engage the United States 

State Department given this is a treaty issue, but that was profoundly unsatisfactory when their solution was for the United 

States to buy that water from Mexico. So we are continuing our 

legislative journey to find creative solutions for this continuing 

problem. Brownsville and Cameron County are left to find legislative relief from this situation anyway and anyplace that we can. 

One of the innovative things Brownsville is doing is exploring 

creating a river dam to catch the unused water in the Rio Grande 

Valley called the Weir Dam. We are also working with local irrigation districts to improve the canals and ditches themselves, lining 

them, repairing cracks to keep water that we have flowing normally without losing it. This Committee has been generous in that 

regard. 

H.R. 2960 makes the Brownsville Public Utilities Board eligible 

for a Federal share of Title XVI funding for design, planning, and 

construction of facilities to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters in the Brownsville, Texas, area. The Public Utility Board’s 

water supply planning includes water reclamation and desalination 

13

projects. I will let a very energetic public servant from PUB offer 

more detailed analysis of the bill, but it includes reclaiming brackish water, not obligated under the treaty, through desalination and 

building a pipeline to transport treated sewage for irrigation. 

Today, we will hear from a very committed South Texan to the 

Committee. He is Mr. Ed Campirano, who is with us today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas 

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member Napolitano—

both have a unique perspective on this particular problem. 

Both came with the Committee to a hearing in the Rio Grande Valley to see a 

problem up close and personal; all South Texans are grateful to Chairman Calvert’s 

leadership on this issue. 

We are grateful for your commitment to solving long-term water shortages in 

South Texas. 

We will continue to work together, to find solutions to the unique situation associated with Mexico water debt. 

Ranking Dem Napolitano is a native of Brownsville—also known as Brownville’s 

Representative in Congress—her familiarity with the area is quite an asset for the 

Committee in this regard. 

The genesis for this begins in mid-1990s when Mexico failed—then repeatedly 

failed in each succeeding treaty cycle—to fulfill obligations under a 1944 treaty dividing the waters of the Rio Grande. 

South Texas is the last stop of the waters of the Rio Grande—and without Mexico 

releasing their annual obligation of water to flow down the river—our farmers and 

municipal water users have been devastated. 

We tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to engage the United States State Department, given this is a treaty issue—but that was profoundly unsatisfactory given 

their solution was for the United States TO BUY THAT WATER FROM MEXICO. 

So we are continuing our legislative journey to find creative solutions to this continuing problem. 

Brownsville and Cameron County are left to find legislative relief from this situation anyway—and any place—we can. 

One of the innovative things Brownsville is doing is exploring creating a river 

dam to catch unused water in the Rio Grande, called the Weir Dam. 

We are also working with local irrigation districts to improve the canals and 

ditches themselves, lining them, repairing cracks—to keep water we do have. 

This Committee has been generous in that regard. 

H.R. 2960 makes the Brownsville Public Utilities Board (PUB) eligible for a federal share of Title 16 funding for design, planning and construction of facilities to 

reclaim, reuse and treat impaired waters in the Brownsville, Texas, area. 

PUB’s water supply plan includes water reclamation and desalination projects. 

I will let Eddie Campirano, a very energetic public servant from PUB, offer more 

detailed analysis of the bill, but it includes: reclaiming brackish groundwater (not 

obligated under the treaty) through desalination—AND building a pipeline to transport treated sewage for irrigation. 

Today, we will hear from a very committed South Texan to the Committee. 

Eddie Campirano is the Assistant General Manager for the Brownsville PUB and 

will expand on the bill. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Now, I would like to recognize our next witness, 

Mr. William Rinne. This is our panel of one here. Oh, we will have 

everybody come on up, I guess. Excuse me. 

Mr. William Rinne is the Deputy Commissioner of Operations, 

Bureau of Reclamation. Also with us today is Mr. Richard Atwater, 

CEO and General Manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. 

Testifying on behalf of H.R. 1156 is Mr. Denis Bilodeau, President 

of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. TesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:57 Feb 06, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89270.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
14

tifying on behalf of H.R. 2960, as Mr. Ortiz recognized, is Mr. 

Eduardo A. Campirano, Brownsville Public Utilities Board. And 

testifying on behalf of H.R. 2991 is Mr. Robert DeLoach, CEO and 

General Manager of the Cucamonga County Water District. 

Everybody has their chairs. I would be pleased to now recognize 

Mr. Rinne for his opening statement. Please try to stay, by the 

way, on these opening statements, within the 5-minute rule. Certainly, your full comments will be entered into the record. With 

that, Mr. Rinne, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM RINNE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Mr. RINNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is William 

Rinne, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations for the Bureau of 

Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the Department 

of Interior on H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960, and H.R. 2991, all 

amending the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 

and Facilities Act, commonly known as Title XVI. I prepared four 

written statements, and in the interest of time ask that they all be 

entered into the record. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. RINNE. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as these four bills amend 

the same law and our comments are similar on all four proposals, 

I will be providing a general statement and then mention some additional comments relative to a few of the bills. 

H.R. 142 would amend Title XVI to authorize the Secretary of 

Interior to participate in the Inland Empirial regional water recycling project. The bill would also authorize the Secretary to carry 

out a program to assist agencies in projects to construct regional 

brine lines in California and to authorize the Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy desalination demonstration and reclamation project. 

H.R. 1156 would specifically amend Section 1631(d) of Title XVI 

to authorize the Secretary of Interior to increase the Federal share 

of the cost of Phase I of the Orange County regional water reclamation project from its current cap of $20 million to $80 million. As 

you are aware, current Federal law limits the Federal share of the 

individual project cost to 25 percent of total project costs, for a 

maximum Federal contribution of $20 million. 

H.R. 2960 would amend Title XVI to authorize the Secretary, in 

cooperation with Brownsville Public Utility Board, to participate in 

design, planning, and construction of facilities to reclaim, reuse, 

and treat impaired waters in the Brownsville, Texas, area. 

And finally, H.R. 2991 would amend Title XVI to authorize the 

Secretary to participate in the Inland Empire regional recycling 

project, virtually the same as to H.R. 142. The bill would also authorize the Cucamonga County Water District to pilot a recycling 

plant. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Department has consistently testified before this Subcommittee that we 

have a great deal of concern about authorizing new Title XVI 

projects due to the large number of existing authorized projects 

with a potential Federal contribution of at least $580 million. With 

15

Reclamation’s already tight budget, the addition of more projects 

makes it even more difficult to meet our current obligations. 

Additionally, while I commend those project sponsors that have 

worked with Reclamation on preliminary work prior to authorization, the Department has concerns that none of the new projects 

before you today have undergone complete feasibility analysis, 

which includes things like environmental review. The Department 

believes it is essential to complete the feasibility studies to fully inform Congress, the project sponsors, and the Department itself 

about vital project information such as cost, project features, environmental impacts, et cetera prior to any consideration of authorization. 

Primarily for these reasons, the Department cannot support 

H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960, and H.R. 2991. In addition to the 

general concerns I just mentioned, there are a few specific comments I would like to make about some of the bills. 

Section 2 and 3 of H.R. 142 deviate from the Title XVI statute 

capping the Federal cost share at $20 million. These sections propose to increase the Federal cost share at 25 percent, or $50 million. The Department does not believe that there is justification to 

support altering the statutory cap on these projects, particularly 

since they have not been previously authorized or currently under 

consideration. 

With respect to H.R. 1156, through Fiscal Year 2003, Reclamation will have spent approximately $8 million in Phase I. This 

leaves around $12 million in Federal funds still available for this 

project. The project is currently on schedule to be completed sometime in 2007. Given the fact that Phase I of the project is not 

scheduled to be completed until 2007 and there remains approximately $12 million still available, the Department believes a Federal cost share increase is unwarranted and inconsistent with the 

Title XVI Act limiting the Federal cost share to $20 million. 

In summary, the Department strongly encourages local water recycling and desalination efforts and is engaged in numerous water 

reuse and recycling projects around the West. However, for the reasons previously mentioned, we cannot support the bills before you 

today. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these bills today, 

Mr. Chairman, and this concludes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 142 follows:]

Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior 

My name is William Rinne and I am Deputy Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the Department of the Interior on 

H.R. 142, authorizing Reclamation to participate in various reuse and desalination 

projects in the State of California. 

H.R. 142 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 

Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575 and commonly known as Title XVI), authorizing 

the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project. The bill would also authorize the Secretary to carry out a program 

to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine lines in California, and to 

authorize the Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy desalination demonstration and reclamation project. 

16

Section 1 of the bill amends Title XVI to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to participate in design, planning and construction of the Inland Empire Regional 

Water Recycling Project. 

Section 2 of H.R. 142 amends Title XVI to authorize regional brine lines in Southern California. 

Section 3 of the bill authorizes the Secretary, in cooperation with the Chino Basin 

Watermaster, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the Western Municipal Water 

District, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, acting under federal reclamation laws, to participate in the design, planning and construction of the Lower 

Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration and reclamation project. 

As the Department has consistently stated in previous testimony, it does not believe it is prudent to authorize new projects Title XVI projects while there is a major 

backlog of projects that already exist. The Department also believes enactment of 

this legislation authorizing new construction projects is likely to place an additional 

burden on Reclamation’s already tight budget. For these reasons, the Department 

cannot support H.R. 142. 

In addition to the ongoing concerns I just mentioned, Section 2 and Section 3 of 

the bill deviate from the Title XVI statute capping the federal cost share at $20 million. These sections have increased the federal cost share cap to $50 million. The 

Department does not believe there is justification to support raising the cap on 

these projects, particularly since they have not yet been previously authorized or are 

not currently under construction. 

The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the Department of Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water recycling and desalination efforts. Partnering with state and local governments is in accord with the Secretary’s 

Water 2025 framework for anticipating water supply crises and preventing them 

through communication, consultation and cooperation, in service of conservation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 142. This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 1156 follows:]

Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner, Operations,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior 

My name is William Rinne and I am Deputy Commissioner, Operations for the 

Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the Department of the 

Interior on H.R. 1156, a proposal to increase the federal share of the costs of Phase 

I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water Reclamation project. 

H.R. 1156 would amend Section 1631(d) of Title XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, of Public Law 102-575, the Reclamation Projects and Authorization Adjustment Act of 1992, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to increase the federal share of the costs of Phase I to no more 

than $80 million. As you are aware, current federal law limits the federal share of 

individual project costs to 25 percent of the total, or a maximum federal contribution 

of $20 million. 

This project is being constructed in three phases. When completed, the first phase 

will produce about 60,000 acre-feet per year of water to recharge the region’s 

groundwater basin. Currently, the project is about 10 percent complete. To date, 

Reclamation is only authorized to participate in the first phase of the project. 

Through Fiscal Year 2003, Reclamation will have spent approximately $8 million on 

Phase I—leaving about $12 million in federal funds still available for this project 

through 2007. 

In this context, the Department believes that this legislation, which would authorize another $60 million, is unwarranted at this time and therefore, we cannot support its approval. Furthermore, of the currently authorized Title XVI projects, only 

four have received full funding of the maximum federal share—and more than $580 

million in federal funding would be needed to fully fund the Federal portion the remaining projects. As Reclamation has testified before in this Subcommittee, the Department believes it is prudent to complete currently authorized projects before authorizing additional projects or increasing the Federal cost share of existing projects. 

The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the Department of Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water recycling and desalination efforts. Partnering with state and local governments is in accord with the Secretary’s 

Water 2025 framework for anticipating water supply crises and preventing them 

through communication, consultation and cooperation, in service of conservation. 

17

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1156. This concludes my 

statement and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 2960 follows:]

Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner, Operations,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior 

My name is William Rinne and I am the Deputy Commissioner, Operations, of 

the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the Department 

of the Interior on H.R. 2960, concerning the Brownsville Public Utility Board water 

recycling and desalinization project in the State of Texas. 

H.R. 2960 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 

and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, 

in cooperation with the Brownsville Public Utility Board (BPUB), to participate in 

the design, planning and construction of facilities to reclaim, reuse and treat impaired waters in the Brownsville, Texas, area. As you know, the Federal share of 

project costs is limited to a maximum of 25 percent of the total, and the Secretary 

is prohibited from funding the operation and maintenance of the project. 

All projects implemented pursuant to Title XVI require that a feasibility study be 

conducted by Reclamation or the non-Federal project sponsor. Reclamation has completed an appraisal study with the Brownsville Public Utilities Board and is currently beginning a feasibility study to more completely assess which of the proposed 

actions would be the best to implement. Reclamation commends the project sponsors 

for their work with us prior to authorization in completing the appraisal study and 

beginning the feasibility study. However, it is essential to complete the feasibility 

study to fully inform Congress, the project sponsors and the Administration regarding vital project information such as costs, project features, benefits, and other factors, before the project can be authorized. Completion of the feasibility study prior 

to authorization of construction is a necessary component of informed decision 

making. 

Moreover, enactment of this legislation authorizing new construction projects will 

place an additional burden on Reclamation’s already oversubscribed budget. In light 

of the tremendous backlog of currently authorized Title XVI projects, we cannot support H.R. 2960 at this time. 

The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the Department of Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water recycling and desalination efforts. Partnering with state and local governments is in accord with the Secretary’s 

Water 2025 framework for anticipating water supply crises and preventing them 

through communication, consultation and cooperation, in service of conservation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 2960. This concludes my 

statement and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 2991 follows:]

Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner, Operations,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior 

My name is William Rinne and I am Deputy Commissioner, Operations, for the 

Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the Department of the 

Interior on H.R. 2991, a bill to authorize the Inland Empire and Cucamonga County 

recycling projects. H.R. 2991 would amend Title XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater 

and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (P.L. 102-575) to include design, planning and construction authority for these two projects. 

The bill would authorize the Inland Empire recycling project with a Federal cost share not to exceed 25 percent, and a funding authorization of $20 million. The bill 

would also authorize the Cucamonga County Water District Pilot Satellite Recycling 

Plant with a Federal cost share not to exceed 25 percent, and a funding authorization of $10 million. The local water district had a feasibility report prepared that 

reviewed the proposed regional plans for the area and recommended, among other 

things, a more localized recycling system consisting of several smaller plants located 

closer to their demand centers. 

The Department cannot support enactment of this legislation for two primary reasons. First, any new project authorized at this time will place an additional burden 

on Reclamation’s already tight budget, and could potentially delay the completion 

of other currently authorized projects. With the tremendous backlog of existing Title 

XVI projects, we cannot support the addition of new projects at this time. Second, 

18

in the case of the Cucamonga County Water District Pilot Satellite Recycling Plant, 

the feasibility study prepared by the local water district was not done in consultation with Reclamation and thus would need to be reviewed to assure it meets our 

criteria. 

The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the Department of Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water recycling and desalination efforts. Partnering with state and local governments is in accord with the Secretary’s 

Water 2025 framework for anticipating water supply crises and preventing them 

through communication, consultation and cooperation, in service of conservation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 2991. That concludes my 

statement and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. CALVERT. Testifying on behalf of H.R. 142 and H.R. 2991 is 

Mr. Richard Atwater. Mr. Atwater, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. ATWATER, GENERAL MANAGER,

INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY 

Mr. ATWATER. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert and 

members of the Committee. It is my pleasure to be here today. In 

the past, I have testified in front of the Committee, going back the 

last few years when Congressman Calvert held field hearings in 

Southern California about the water problems. I think the record 

is clear about the opportunities to develop new local supplies in 

Southern California. 

And let me just say on behalf of my Board of Directors and Joe 

Grindstaff and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, which 

we are a member of, Joe couldn’t make it today, but we strongly 

want to endorse the three Southern California bills, but certainly 

the ones that directly affect my service area, both H.R. 142 and 

H.R. 2991. 

Let me just stop for a moment and talk about the big picture. 

These projects represent within the Santa Ana watershed, as the 

Chairman and the Ranking Member well know through their field 

hearings and previous hearings on water recycling and desalination, a strategy that throughout Southern California and Statewide 

is the most significant new supply available to California. 

Let me just highlight, first, since this isn’t just Commissioner 

Bill Rinne’s statement, I would like to just enter for the record, and 

since Bill and I used to work at the Bureau of Reclamation in the 

1980s, we talked about it. Let me just say that in 1992, I was 

working very closely with this Committee when we passed Title 

XVI and was General Manager of Western Central Basin, which I 

think many people would recognize as probably the most successful 

Title XVI projects that were authorized, the largest, and initiated 

the Southern California regional study. As a member of the Board 

of Directors of the Water Reuse Association and the California 

Water Commission, very familiar with the Bay Area study, I would 

like to ask to enter in the record, since in Southern California a 

local sponsor spent over $3.5 million to prepare this study over the 

last 10 years, and in the Bay Area, about $1.5 million. We would 

certainly like to submit the Southern California Comprehensive 

Water Reclamation Reuse Study that you requested for the record. 

It is a feasibility study. 

Our projects that we are submitting under H.R. 142 and 

H.R. 2991 are consistent with the feasibility study. They track 

19

with it nicely. And, by the way, we have fully complied with the 

California Environmental Quality Act. We have completed all the 

environmental reports for these projects and they are broadly supported by the public, editorial boards, mayors, local districts, the 

environmental community. We have businessmen who are demanding the use of recycled water. 

So I just for the record would like to ask if the Chairman 

would— 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, the report is made part of the 

record. 

[NOTE: The report, ‘‘Southern California Comprehensive Water 

Reclamation and Reuse Study, Phase II,’’ has been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. ATWATER. The second thing I would like to highlight is that 

we identified in Southern California, not just my service area but 

throughout Southern California, that we could develop by 2010 

over 450,000 acre feet of new water. In the last week, we have 

heard some good news about the Colorado River QSA, but let me 

just remind everybody with the QSA and what is occurring on the 

Colorado River. It means that the Metropolitan Water District will 

have an aqueduct that is not full, 1.2 million acre feet, but an average flow of 700,000 acre feet. 

What we are doing with that report that you have in front of you, 

we could implement, we could offset that loss from the Colorado 

River. To put things in perspective—the Federal investment is 

much less than 20 percent. Let me illustrate by example. 

In H.R. 142 and in H.R. 2991, we are talking about 70,000 acre 

feet in the Inland Empire area. We are going to invest $125 million 

and the Federal cap is $20 million. That is a 15 percent cost share 

to develop 70,000 acre feet of new water. 

The channel desalters the Assistant Commissioner referred to 

and the rationale for the 50 percent models exactly the language 

in 1996 when you reauthorized Title XVI for the Long Beach desalination project, so that language does mirror that. I would certainly be happy to work with the Committee to make sure that it 

is consistent with cost sharing policies. 

But let me just highlight that through desalination and water recycling in Southern California, we could develop over three-quarters of a million acre feet of water. And in fact, in May, the California Water Recycling Task Force published a report, and we 

would be happy to submit it for the record. The report identified 

over 1.5 million acre feet Statewide and it is being included in the 

California water plan, which the Bureau of Reclamation is participating in and was part of that group. The report also identified 1.5 

million acre feet of potential throughout the State through these efforts under Title XVI. 

And I must say, Chairman Calvert’s new legislation really would 

provide an opportunity to implement this not just in California, but 

as a member of the Water Reuse Association, I think in Arizona, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Florida. If you look nationally, 

there really is a huge opportunity to develop new supplies in a very 

cost effective way. 

20

With that, I see that my time is over. Let me just ask that my 

written testimony be entered in the record and I would be more 

than happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. Just for your attention is that the record will be 

held open for 10 days for any additional information, and certainly 

your full written comments will be made part of the record. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, can we also ask for a copy of that 

report he is talking about that just was completed that he will 

submit? 

Mr. CALVERT. We will make sure that you are given a copy of 

that report. 

Mr. ATWATER. Absolutely. 

Mr. CALVERT. It will be made part of the record within 10 days, 

and I will make sure it is distributed. 

[NOTE: The California Water Recycling Task Force report has 

been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Atwater follows:]

Statement of Richard W. Atwater, General Manager,

Inland Empire Utilities Agency

I. Introduction 

Thank you Mr. Chairman Ken Calvert and members of the Subcommittee for 

Water and Power for the opportunity to testify today regarding the water problems 

facing Southern California. I am the General Manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. On behalf of the Board of Director’s of the Inland Empire Utilities 

Agency, I am testifying today in support of H.R. 142 and H.R. 2991.

A. Inland Empire Utilities Agency/Chino Basin 

The Inland Empire Utilities Agency, a municipal water district under California 

law, was formed in 1950 by a popular vote of its residents. The service area of the 

Agency is entirely in San Bernardino County and has a current population of approximately 700,000. The IEUA service area is rapidly growing and will probably 

double in population within the next 20 years. The Chino Basin also has 350,000 

dairy cows, the most densely concentrated population of dairy cows in North America. Overall water use is about 350,000 acre-feet annually, 70 percent of the supplies 

are from local sources within the Santa Ana Watershed. With the rapid growth, demand from MWD could increase from 70,000 acre-feet per year currently to 200,000 

acre-feet in 2020! However IEUA, Chino Basin Watermaster and in cooperation with 

many other agencies have developed a ‘‘Drought Proof Plan’’ that will develop over 

100,000 acre-feet of new local supplies to minimize the need for additional imported 

water from MWD.

B. Background and Interagency Relationships 

The Inland Empire Utilities Agency has been a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District since 1950 and distributes about 70,000 acre-feet of imported 

water to the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana (through the Fontana Water Company), Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga (through the Cucamonga 

County Water District), and the Monte Vista Water District. The Agency also provides wastewater treatment service (four regional water recycling plants that 

produce about 60 million gallons per day or 63,000 acre-feet per year). Excess recycled water flows downstream into the Santa Ana River and the Orange County 

Water District recharges that water into the Orange County groundwater basin for 

drinking water. 

The Agency is also a member of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority 

(SAWPA) and is an active member of the Santa Ana River Watershed Group and 

the Chino Basin Watermaster. As a member agency of SAWPA, the Agency’s water 

projects are closely coordinated with the SAWPA watershed wide planning and the 

funding of priority projects through the Water Bond Prop.13 grants.

Public and Private Partnerships to Improve the Santa Ana Watershed 

• SAWPA and the Santa Ana River Watershed Group have maintained an inclusive dialogue with all interested parties; 

• All local governments within the three counties (San Bernardino, Riverside and 

Orange) are working cooperatively together to manage growth and plan for the 

21

water/wastewater infrastructure needed to meet the needs of this rapidly urbanizing watershed; 

• Partnerships with industry including dairies, manufacturing, and developers 

have resulted in creative solutions to local water quality problems (e.g. the 

Santa Ana brine sewer to the ocean); 

• Industrial customers throughout the area are planning on using recycled water 

to reduce costs, ensure reliability, and to be excellent environmental stewards. 

The Chino groundwater basin is one of the largest in Southern California. The 

Chino Basin Watermaster adopted an Optimum Basin Management Plan to protect 

the water quality of the basin and to manage the local supplies effectively to the 

maximum benefit of the local ratepayers. A key element is the expansion of the conjunctive use operation of the Chino Basin to expand the storage and recovery by approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000 acre feet, roughly equivalent to the $2 billion Diamond Valley reservoir built by MWD. 

Other key components are the Inland Empire Utilities Agency regional water recycling project to develop new local supply 70,000 acre-feet per year and the Chino 

Basin desalters that would develop an additional new local supply of 40,000 acrefeet per year. 

The key benefits of the Chino Basin regional ‘‘OBMP’’ water plan are as follows:

Benefits 

• Provide a more dependable local water supply and reduce the likelihood of 

water rationing during future droughts; 

• Lower cost of water to industry and provide incentives to attract new industry 

and jobs in the Inland Empire region; 

• Environmental protection—reduce wastewater discharges into Santa Ana River 

by 50 percent through local water recycling and protect Orange County drinking 

water supplies through implementation of comprehensive lower Chino Dairy 

area manure management strategy; 

• Reduce imported water use in the rapidly growing Inland Empire region (upper 

Santa Ana River Watershed) and thereby contribute in a significant manner to 

the statewide CALFED Bay-Delta and Colorado River solutions through more 

efficient use of existing local supplies; 

• Assist in solving multiple Endangered Species Act problems within the Santa 

Ana Watershed, the CALFED Bay-Delta program, and the Colorado River/

Salton Sea; and 

• Implement a sustainable long-term water resources management program that 

maintains the salt balance of the Santa Ana River watershed.

II. Chino Basin OBMP ‘‘Drought Proofing Strategy’’

The IEUA Urban Water Management Plan, adopted in December 2000 and the 

Chino Basin Watermaster Optimum Basin Management Plan adopted in July 2000, 

document the overall strategy for improving the water supply reliability in the 

Chino Basin area. 

• Water Conservation 

• Water Recycling 

• Local Groundwater Storage and Conjunctive Use 

• Groundwater Cleanup 

• Storm water 

• Renewable Energy and Organics Recycling 

• Water Quality Management

A. Water Conservation- (35,000 acre-feet per year, 10 percent of overall use) 

IEUA and its retail utilities are committed to implementing the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) regarding Urban Water Conservation in California. IEUA is 

an active member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). 

Currently, the Agency is expanding its conservation efforts to promote both water 

and energy conservation programs to our customers. IEUA’s goal is to reduce water 

demands by 10 percent (35,000 acre-feet per year) through aggressive implementation of customer conservation programs. IEUA has initiated a number of new innovative programs, including water brooms, outdoor native landscape policy and rebates for x-ray machines besides promoting many residential and school conservation programs.

B. Water Recycling (70,000 acre-feet by 2010) 

IEUA owns and operates four water recycling plants that produce high quality 

water that meets all state and federal requirements for non-potable landscape 

irrigation, industrial uses, and groundwater replenishment. The Agency recycles 

about 6,000 acre-feet annually and has a plan to increase to approximately 70,000 

acre-feet annually over the next decade by constructing ‘‘purple’’ recycled water 

22

pipeline system to hookup existing large customers (Inland Paper, golf courses, city 

parks, Reliant power plant). 

Blend recycled water with storm water and imported water in a coordinated fashion with flood control district to ensure that all water is conserved and replenishes 

the Chino Basin in an optimal manner (targeted goal is an additional recharge of 

80,000 acre-feet per year). 

Build in the future new smaller water recycling plants in the northern part of our 

service area to provide recycled water to communities (Upland, Fontana, and Rancho Cucamonga) without the need to pump the water to them. The Cucamonga 

County Water District (CCWD) proposed satellite plant authorized by H.R. 2991 

would be the prototype water recycling plant to reduce energy use of pumping recycled water to the higher elevations along the San Gabriel Mountains. 

Coordinate with cities and developers on new urban development projects so that 

dual ‘‘purple’’ piping is installed up-front to maximize non-potable uses with recycled 

water.

C. Local Groundwater Storage and Conjunctive Use (500,000 acre-feet of new storage 

by 2010) 

Without the Chino Basin area, the Watermaster is implementing an Optimum 

Basin Management Plan to enhance the conjunctive use storage of the Chino Basin. 

The Optimum Basin Management Program developed over the past two years by 

the Chino Basin Watermaster would implement a comprehensive water resources 

management strategy to drought proof the area and enhance the yield of the 

groundwater basin. The Chino Basin Watermaster has developed a conjunctive use 

program to store 500,000—1,000,000 acre-feet of imported water in wet years for 

drought year withdrawal for both local, regional and statewide availability. In June, 

2003 IEUA, Chino Basin Watermaster, Three Valleys MWD and the Metropolitan 

Water District executed an agreement for the initial 100,000 acre-feet of storage and 

recovery projects ($27.5 million funding from MWD and Calif. DWR).

D. Groundwater Cleanup (40,000 to 50,000 acre-feet annually by 2020) 

Historically, Colorado River water (relatively high salinity) and agricultural practices have caused areas of the Chino Basin to have high salts that make the water 

unfit for domestic uses. To correct this problem and to recover this poor quality 

water, the Chino Basin Optimum Management Plan recommends implementation of 

groundwater cleanup projects to pump and treat poor quality groundwater to meet 

drinking water standards. 

Additionally, the desalination projects of the lower Chino Basin area will protect 

and enhance the water quality of the Santa Ana River and the downstream use by 

Orange County. H.R. 142 would provide authorization under the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI program to provide funding for the third Chino desalter and 

brine line improvements with the SAWPA SARI brine system recommended in the 

Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study (USBR, 

2003) and the joint MWD/USBR Salinity Management Study (1999).

Groundwater cleanup projects: 

i. Lower Chino area—groundwater desalination 40 mgd (or approximately 

45,000 AF per year), $250 million capital improvement program over 20 

years. 

ii. Jurupa Community Services District-emergency need to build an ion exchange desalination project (about 4 million gallons per day facility) because 

Riverside County residents have well water approaching drinking water 

standards for nitrates. 

iii. City of Chino Hills-local Chino Basin well water has elevated arsenic (average 

concentrations over five times the proposed EPA drinking water standard of 

10 ppb). 

iv. Additional treatment for nitrates in groundwater in the communities of Chino, 

Ontario, Fontana, Upland, Montclair, Pomona, and Rancho Cucamonga is 

needed. Approximately six treatment plants are proposed that will pump and 

treat about 25,000 acre-feet annually of nitrate contaminated groundwater for 

municipal drinking water supplies through funding from the Metropolitan 

Water District and the California Dept of Water Resources).

E. Storm water (25,000 acre-feet annual average of new percolation) 

A critical issue facing the coastal plain of Southern California as the region continues to urbanize and hardscape our landscapes will be how to implement both 

small scale and larger scale projects for storm water capture to allow percolation 

into our groundwater basins. IEUA in coordination with the Chino Basin 

Watermaster, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the Chino 

Basin Water Conservation District is developing an integrated recharge master plan 

to optimize the capture of storm water with replenishment of imported water from 

23

MWD and our local recycled water to enhance the storage and recovery of water 

from the Chino Basin. 

IEUA is also sponsoring work, in part funded by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, with the Rocky Mountain Institute on small scale, on-site (neighborhood development) storm water management strategies to enhance percolation of rainfall to 

minimize runoff, contamination of rainfall before it percolates, and cost effectively 

reduce flood control requirements.

F. Renewable Energy and Organics Management (50 megawatts of renewable energy) 

The energy crisis reminds all of us working on the water problems facing California how incredibly dependent the imported water infrastructure of southern California is on cheap, low cost electricity to pump imported water into our region. 

IEUA in response to the energy crisis and our need to be a steward of our environment has developed a Chino Basin Organics Management Strategy that will: • Produce through anaerobic digestion enough methane gas for 50 megawatts of 

clean, renewable electric energy by 2006; • Cost effectively recycle organic wastes into fertilizer products in an environmentally safe manner that will reduce many thousands a year of long haul diesel truck trips per year; • Reduce significantly air and water pollution from dairy cow manure; and • Eliminate the need for electric power from the grid for operating the Chino 

Basin desalination and water recycling plants. 

IEUA and Chino Basin Watermaster are very proud of our efforts with the Milk 

Producers Council to develop these innovative dairy manure to energy/clean air/

clean water projects.

G. Water Quality Management (natural treatment of Santa Ana River base flow) 

IEUA and Orange County Water District executed a Memorandum of Understanding in October 2002 to cooperate in water quality management issues in the 

Prado wetlands area. Current projects include Chino Creek watershed planning, hydrologic control of the lower Chino Basin, expanded natural wetlands to treat urban 

runoff and dairy washwater. OCWD’s goal is to have the total flow of the Santa Ana 

River be treated with natural wetlands within the Prado Dam ‘‘flood pool’’. 

Within H.R. 142, IEUA would recommend that a new provision be 

included to add authorization for the Prado ‘‘natural wetlands treatment’’ 

project.

III. IEUA Proposed Regional Water Recycling Projects—H.R. 2991/H.R. 142

In August, 2002 the Board of Directors of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 

after receiving approval and endorsement by the Chino Basin Watermaster, SAWPA 

and all the local cities and retail water agencies within its service area adopted its 

Regional Water Recycling Feasibility Study and certified the Environmental Impact 

Report. The feasibility study fully complied with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s 

guidelines for Title XVI Projects (December 1998) and is consistent with the regional water plans for southern California. • USBR’s Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse 

Study • MWD’s Integrated Water Resources Plan • SAWPA’s Comprehensive Watershed Plan • SARWQCB Santa Ana River Basin Plan • California Water Recycling Task Force Report • MWD/USBR Salinity Management Study • California Water Plan, Bulletin 160

Need for Proposed Recycled Program 

• Provide a more dependable local supply and reduce the likelihood of water rationing during future droughts, lower cost of water and sewer rates to customers, and economic development incentives to attract new jobs and industry 

in the Inland Empire Region of southern California. • Consistent with Legislative Policy (Water Code 13550), State Water Plan and 

California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) policies. • Consistent with CALFED Bay-Delta Water Use Efficiency Program and Colorado River 4.4 Plan. • Consistent with Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) Integrated Water Resources Plan (1996) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse study (authorized by Congress in 

1992).

Proposed Regional Recycled Water System 

The expansion of the Regional Recycled Water Program has been designed to 

occur in a series of five phases in order to maintain a balance between capital expenditures, sources of funding, and the development of a customer base for the deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:57 Feb 06, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89270.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
24

livered water. In 2001, IEUA conducted a market survey to identify potential customers and their relative demand in relation to existing treatment and distribution 

facilities. A primary recommendation from the study was that the expanded distribution facilities should be developed in the central portion of the Chino Basin 

where the greatest industrial demand is located and where the greatest number of 

groundwater recharge basins can be serviced. The construction of the pipelines will 

be phased so that the most cost-effective projects will be brought on-line first. 

IEUA evaluated the capital funding needs for the Recycled Water Expansion Program and determined that, with the provision of State and Federal funding assistance, it could be financed through the Regional Wastewater Treatment Program 

without an additional increase in the connection fee. This financing structure provides a significant opportunity for local retail agencies to implement recycled-related 

projects without the capital costs impacting the region’s sewage rates and charges. 

With full implementation of the program, it is possible that the regional water and 

sewer rates could be lowered by 20-30 percent. 

In closing, Chairman Calvert and members of the Committee I appreciate very 

much your consideration and support for H.R. 142 and H.R. 2991. Water recycling 

and groundwater desalination are critical new supplies for Southern California that 

have statewide benefits and also help solve the Colorado River issues for all seven 

basin states. The federal government through the U.S. Department of the Interior 

since the Colorado River Compact in 1922 and the authorization of the Boulder Canyon Project Act in 1928 supported the development of supplies on the Colorado 

River Basin to meet the economic needs of all the residents of the arid southwest. 

It was this Committee in 1968 that in the Central Arizona Project Act that made 

it federal policy to explore options to augment the supplies of the Colorado River 

to meet the future needs of the Lower Basin States (Arizona, Nevada and California). Clearly, water recycling and desalting in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson and 

throughout Southern California have the potential to be a significant portion of the 

new supply developed to meet the statutory requirements of the 1968 Act authorizing the CAP. It is imperative for the Bureau of Reclamation to provide the technical leadership and to increase funding through Title XVI to assist in meeting 

these critical water supply issues facing the arid southwest portion of the United 

States.


89270.001
25


89270.002
26


89270.003 89270.004
27

Mr. CALVERT. Next, Mr. Denis Bilodeau, President of the Board 

of Directors, Orange County Water District, testifying on behalf of 

H.R. 1156. Thank you for your attendance. You are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DENIS R. BILODEAU, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 

Mr. BILODEAU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Napolitano and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee 

for Water and Power, for this opportunity to testify today regarding 

California water issues. 

My name is Denis Bilodeau. Currently, I have the privilege of 

serving as the President of the Board of Directors of the Orange 

County Water District. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R. 1156, to amend the Reclamation 

Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to increase 

the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of Phase I of the Orange County, California, regional water reclamation project, also 

known as the Groundwater Replenishment System. 

First of all, let me express my sincere gratitude to Congresswoman Sanchez for introducing this legislation and also thank you 

to Congressman Gary Miller for serving as the coauthor of this important piece of legislation. 

As you are well aware, California is grappling with many water 

issues today. Colorado River supplies, drought, CALFED, and the 

restoration of the San Francisco-San Joaquin Bay Delta are some 

of the issues that make the headlines. 


89270.005
28

Orange County has developed a significant recycled water project 

that addresses the multiple local issues and provides regional 

water supply benefits. We have named it the Groundwater Replenishment System. This system will provide enough new water for 

114,000 families each year. It could be expanded to double that capacity in the future. While others are talking about water, we are 

making it. We are making it at home and we are making it of extremely high quality, similar to bottled water. The citizens of Orange County are supportive of the project and they are supportive 

of meaningfully contributing to increasing and diversifying the region’s water supply portfolio and sharing this benefit with the citizens of California. 

Orange County is very dependent on imported water. Imported 

water totals approximately half of our water supply. The Groundwater Replenishment System is a visionary water supply project 

that will create 72,000 new acre feet of water supplies for residences and businesses in Orange County, therefore reducing our 

need for scarce imported water. The Groundwater Replenishment 

System has significant support in Orange County from the medical, 

health, community, elected, business, agricultural, media, and environmental organizations. The project is a partnership between the 

Orange County Water District, the Orange County Sanitation District, the State of California, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the 

cities of Orange County. 

I am proud to say that the Groundwater Replenishment System 

is currently under construction and will be operational in the 

spring of 2007. The project’s source of water is highly treated secondary sewage from the Orange County Sanitation District, which 

is currently being discharged into the Pacific Ocean, which we see 

as a wasted resource. This highly treated water will be further purified by the finest water purification technologies in existence 

today. It will undergo advanced water treatment that will include 

microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light disinfection 

with hydrogen peroxide. This very pure water will meet or exceed 

all State and Federal drinking water standards. 

Some of the purified water will be pumped to recharge basins 

and naturally filtered again as it is introduced into the groundwater basin, where it will eventually blend into the groundwater 

and be extracted and made available for consumptive uses. Some 

purified water by our project will protect the groundwater from 

seawater intrusion through our injection into our Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier along the coast. 

In the past, some recycled water projects have been criticized for 

not achieving their full yield potential. For example, a planned 

10,000 acre feet per year project might initially only achieve a 

project yield of 8,000 acre feet a year. We know this will not be the 

case with our project. The full production of the treatment plant 

will be utilized by the Orange County Water District to enhance 

the management of the groundwater basin. We are the producers 

and we are the consumers. All of the purified water will be placed 

in the groundwater basin either through direct replenishment and 

percolation or direct injection at our seawater intrusion barrier. We 

will use 100 percent of the water to maximize use of our local 

groundwater basin and reduce our imported water use. 

29

The cost of the system is $450 million to produce 72,000 acre feet 

a year. We anticipate the unit cost will be about $500 per acre foot, 

or roughly equivalent to imported water cost. We are very pleased 

that the project has several financial partners, including the Bureau of Reclamation under Title XVI, the State of California, as 

well as the Orange County Water District and the Sanitation District ratepayers. 

H.R. 1156 will increase our Title XVI authorization from $20 

million to $80 million, thus providing equity, as many other Title 

XVI projects enjoy a 25 percent Federal cost share. 

I see my time is up, so I will wrap this up just by saying that 

our project currently is receiving a 4-percent cost share from Title 

XVI. The cap, of course, is 25 percent, and what we are asking for 

is an $80 million authorization, which would bring our share to 18 

percent. Given the magnitude of our project and the regional benefits, we feel that this is a fair request. 

With that, we look forward to working with you on this legislation and address any questions you may have now or in the coming 

weeks. In the course of preparing for markup of H.R. 1156, we 

would encourage the incorporation of our ideas to supplement this 

project with a regional wetlands treatment program. Thank you 

very much for your time. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilodeau follows:]

Statement of Denis R. Bilodeau, President of the Board of Directors,

Orange County (California) Water District 

Introduction 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ken Calvert, and the other distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee for Water and Power for the opportunity to testify today regarding California water issues. My name is Denis Bilodeau. I appear before you today 

as President of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R. 1156, to amend 

the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, to increase 

the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of phase I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project also know as the Groundwater Replenishment System. First, let me express my sincere gratitude to Congresswoman 

Sanchez for introducing this legislation, and also thank you to Congressman Gary 

Miller for serving as the co-author of this important piece of legislation 

Orange County Water District 

Orange County Water District was formed in 1933 by a special act of the California Legislature. Created to protect Orange County’s rights to Santa Ana River 

water, Orange County Water District’s primary responsibility is managing the vast 

groundwater basin under north and central Orange County. Since 1933, Orange 

County Water District has replenished and maintained the groundwater basin at 

safe levels while more than doubling the basin’s annual yield. This important source 

provides local groundwater producers with a reliable supply of high-quality water. 

Orange County’s groundwater basin supplies water to more than 2 million Orange 

County residents. OCWD primarily recharges the basin with water from the Santa 

Ana River and imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of 

Southern California. Water enters the groundwater basin via settling or percolation 

ponds in the cities of Anaheim and Orange. Behind Prado Dam (constructed and 

owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood prevention), OCWD owns 

2,400 acres in Riverside County, which OCWD uses for water conservation, water 

quality improvement and environmental enhancement. 

Groundwater Replenishment System 

As you are well aware, California is grappling with many water issues today. Colorado River supplies, drought, CALFED and restoration of the San Francisco-San 

Joaquin Bay Delta are some of the issues that make the headlines. No new water 

30

supply projects have been built in the State since the l960’s, and any new projects 

must be more environmentally friendly than those of the past. Orange County has 

developed a significant recycled water project that addresses multiple local issues 

and provides regional water supply benefits—the Groundwater Replenishment System. The Groundwater Replenishment System will provide enough new water for 

114,000 families each year. It can be expanded to double that capacity. While others 

are talking about water, we are making it. And we are making it of extremely high 

quality—similar to bottled water. The citizens of Orange County are supportive of 

the project and they are supportive of meaningfully contributing to increasing and 

diversifying the region’s water supply portfolio and sharing this benefit with the 

citizens of California. 

Orange County is very dependent on imported water—imported water totals approximately half of its water supply. A look into the future indicates continued population growth and political, environmental, and water quality issues threatening 

both local and imported water supplies, making water reliability a very significant 

issue. 

The Groundwater Replenishment System is a visionary water supply project that 

will create 72,000 acre-feet of new water supplies for residents and businesses of 

Orange County and thereby reducing our need for scarce imported water. The 

Groundwater Replenishment System has significant support in Orange County from 

medical, health, community, elected, business, agriculture, media, and environmental organizations. The project is a partnership between the Orange County 

Water District, the Orange County Sanitation District, the State of California, the 

Bureau of Reclamation, and the cities of Orange County. 

I am proud to say that the Groundwater Replenishment System is currently 

under construction and will be operational in Spring 2007. The project’s source 

water is highly treated secondary sewage, from the Orange County Sanitation District, which is currently discharged into the ocean. This highly treated water will 

be further purified by the finest water purification technologies in existence today. 

It will undergo advanced water treatment that will include microfiltration, reverse 

osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection with hydrogen peroxide. This very pure water 

will meet or exceed all State and Federal drinking water standards. 

Some of the purified water will be pumped to recharge basins and naturally filtered again as it is introduced to the groundwater basin, where it will eventually 

blend into the groundwater to be extracted and made available for consumptive 

uses. Some purified water produced by the project would protect the groundwater 

from seawater intrusion through injection into the Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion 

Barrier. 

Benefits 

The Groundwater Replenishment System solves five regional and local issues: 

1. It produces a new supply of water in an arid region that will help mitigate future recurring droughts and their impact on the groundwater basin. 

2. It will provide new water for a larger, expanded barrier against seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin along the coast. 

3. The new water produced will be a quality similar to or better than bottled 

water that will eventually improve water quality in the local groundwater 

basin by lowering the mineral content. 

4. Environmental Protection—It will delay, perhaps indefinitely, the need for an 

additional ocean wastewater outfall in northern Orange County and reduce our 

volume of daily wastewater discharge into the Pacific Ocean. 

5. Finally, it will help mitigate future predicted water shortages and augment 

Southern California local water supplies, reducing our need for imported water. 

H.R. 1156

In the fall of 2002, after receiving support and endorsement from virtually all of 

the local cities and retail water agencies in Orange County Water District’s service 

area, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority and the State of California; Orange County Water District adopted a Joint Operation Agreement that enabled construction of the Groundwater Replenishment System to commence. The Groundwater Replenishment System feasibility study fully complied with the U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation guidelines for Title XVI Projects and is a component of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s water supply reliability plan. The 

Groundwater Replenishment System is contained in and consistent with many regional water plans for Southern California. 

• SCCRWS 

• MWD’s IRP 

• SAWPA’s IWP 

31

• SARWQCB Santa Ana River Basin Plan • California Water Recycling Task Force Report • California Water Plan, Bulletin 160

H.R. 1156 would provide an increased Federal authorization for the Groundwater 

Replenishment System. The increased authorization would provide financial equity 

and ensure that 72,000 acre-feet of additional water supplies will be created and 

used. 

In the past, some recycled water projects have been criticized for not achieving 

their full yield potential. For example, a planned 10,000 acre-feet per year project 

might initially only achieve a project yield of 8,000 acre-feet per year. We know this 

will NOT be the case with the Groundwater Replenishment System. The full production for the treatment plant will be utilized by Orange County Water District to enhance the management of the groundwater basin. We are the producers and we are 

the customers! All of the purified water will be placed into the groundwater basin, 

either through direct replenishment and percolation or direct injection at the 

Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier. We will use 100% of this water to maximize use of our local groundwater basin and reduce our imported water use. The cost of the Groundwater Replenishment System is $450 million to produce 

72,000 acre-feet per year. We anticipate the unit cost of Groundwater Replenishment System water will be about $500 per/acre-foot, or roughly equivalent to the 

current imported water rate. We are very pleased that the project has several financial partners. • United States Bureau of Reclamation existing Title XVI Authorization—$20 M • California State Grants—$70 M • Orange County Water District & Orange County Sanitation District Rate 

Payers—$300 M 

H.R. 1156 would increase the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI authorization 

from $20 million to $80 million. This increase provides financial equity to the 

Groundwater Replenishment System Project and enables local dollars to be spent 

in developing other water supply projects. Many Title XVI projects enjoy a 25% Federal cost share. The current $20 million authorization means the Groundwater Replenishment System Project receives a 4% Federal cost share. An $80 million authorization increases the Federal cost share to 18%, still well below the 25% cap. 

Given the magnitude and regional benefits of the project—in terms of new water 

supply created, ability to provide a measurable relief to California’s imported water 

woes, and the project’s certainty that 100% of the proposed yield will be utilized—

we believe the Federal cost share is appropriately set at 18% or $80 million. Thank 

you for your time. 

[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Bilodeau’s statement have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, to testify on behalf of H.R. 2960, is Mr. 

Eduardo A. Campirano, Brownsville Public Utilities Board. Sir, you 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EDUARDO A. CAMPIRANO, ASSISTANT 

GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 

BROWNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, Congresswoman Napolitano, and Congressman Ortiz and members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on 

H.R. 2960. 

My name is Eduardo Campirano and I am the Assistant General 

Manager and Chief Operating Officer of the Brownsville Public 

Utilities Board. As it has been stated in many of the comments 

today, Brownsville is located in deep South Texas. Are you familiar 

with the area? Our dependency on water is totally surface water 

from the Rio Grande, and not only Brownsville, but all of South 

Texas. The situation for us is not getting any better for the reasons 

that were so eloquently described by Congressman Ortiz. 

H.R. 2960 is a bill that would provide opportunity for Brownsville to participate in the Title XVI funding for design, planning, 

32

construction of facilities for the treatment of recycled water as well 

as impaired waters in Brownsville. The use of water reclamation 

and desalination is in our long-term water strategy plan, and what 

I would like to do, if I may, is just kind of describe one specific 

project that is currently underway. 

As I stated, we currently depend 100 percent on surface water 

for use. Brownsville is part of a regional effort called the 

Southmost Regional Water Authority. The Authority represents 

Brownsville as the largest community, but also smaller communities in the area. We currently have a project that takes the treatment of brackish groundwater and utilizes it for producing topquality water, bottle-quality water, it was stated earlier. The 

project actually will be producing water under Phase I as early as 

next month, and full production by the end of this year. 

That particular project is strictly a local effort. It is a $30 million 

project. All of it is coming from the local entities. It will take ten 

million gallons of brackish groundwater and produce 7.5 million 

gallons of treated water. For Brownsville, that represents approximately 30 percent of the potable water use in our community. For 

the surrounding communities, it represents an equal amount, getting away from a water supply that is obviously not influenced 

heavily by the drought conditions and certainly by the increased 

pressures of a growing South Texas on the water from the Rio 

Grande. 

This particular project has the potential to be expanded to double 

its capacity for half of the amount of money that the local entities 

have put in to initiate the project. It can easily be doubled under 

Phase II to produce 15 million gallons of water per day. 

We believe that H.R. 2960 provides an opportunity for Federal 

participation. In July, I had the opportunity to come and testify before this Committee on Chairman Calvert’s bill, H.R. 2828, and 

that particular bill provides again creating those opportunities for 

local participation along with Federal participation in expanding 

projects that use non-traditional sources of water. 

For Brownsville and South Texas, these projects represent strategies that are not currently being implemented and would provide 

not only an opportunity for Brownsville, but all of South Texas to 

begin to wean itself from the dependency of surface water from the 

fragile Rio Grande. 

I had submitted comments before and I ask that those comments 

be submitted for the record. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. I want to end my testimony by simply saying 

that I commend Congressman Calvert and members of the Committee for what you are doing in efforts to provide these kinds of 

strategies and alternatives in local communities. The water situation is not getting any better, and until we begin to explore nontraditional uses to supplement the already fragile resources, we are 

not really going to address the problem. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have 

and again want to commend you for your efforts. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campirano follows:]

33

Statement of Eduardo A. Campirano, Assistant General Manager and Chief 

Operating Officer, Brownsville, Texas, Public Utilities Board 

Good afternoon Chairman Calvert and Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you today regarding H.R. 2960. My name is 

Eduardo A. Campirano and I am the Assistant General Manager and Chief Operating Officer of the Brownsville Public Utilities Board in Brownsville, Texas. 

The Brownsville Public Utilities Board is a municipally owned utility company 

providing electric, water and wastewater services to the citizens of Brownsville, 

Texas and the surrounding area. Brownsville is located on the southern tip of Texas 

along the US/Mexico border, and is currently of the fastest growing metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSA) in the United States. The Brownsville MSA experienced a 

30% population growth from 1990-2000 with a fairly young population, where the 

median age is 29. The area has experienced significant growth on both sided of the 

US/Mexico border and Brownsville in particular is experiencing unprecedented 

growth. 

This growth poses significant challenges to the Brownsville Public Utilities Board. 

With the increased issuance of building permits and the increased demand placed 

on the utility systems, there is a tremendous demand for infrastructure improvements and additional water supply. Brownsville and other communities in the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley have been working together with the State of Texas and 

the Mexican State of Tamaulipas to solve our need to ensure our long-term water 

supply. This is the top environmental and quality of life issue for the entire region. 

The Brownsville Public Utilities Board has developed a water supply plan that 

projects the demand and supply of water for the City of Brownsville for the period 

of 2000—2050. At the current rate, water demand will deplete supply by the year 

2010. However, we have not been idle in planning for our future water needs. The 

water supply plan incorporates various elements including water conservation, increased surface water capacity, groundwater treatment and development, water reclamation and desalination. However, employing these strategies is dependent on implementation of legislative and funding recommendations. 

Several years ago, the Brownsville Public Utilities Board began planning the construction of the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project between the U.S. and Mexico on the Rio Grande River. The concrete/gated weir structure will create riverine 

impoundment of water within the banks of the Rio Grande River located approximately four (4) miles southeast of the City of Brownsville. The project can store up 

to 6,000 acre feet of water consisting of flood spills and releases from Falcon Reservoir, excess and unused releases from Falcon Reservoir, flood flows below Falcon 

Reservoir and Mexican water flow with Mexico’s permission. The Brownsville Public 

Utilities Board is in the final stages of securing federal approval under the Section 

404 permit of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project cost is estimated to 

be $40 million and significant funds have been spent to date to get the project 

through state and federal permit processes. As you very well know, gaining the support of interest groups and guiding the project through permitting can be a very 

challenging task. It has been very frustrating to move the project through the maze 

of federal and state reviews, but we are near our goal. 

On July 24th of this year, I had the opportunity to present comments before this 

Committee in support of Chairman Calvert’s bill, H.R. 2828. On that day, I testified 

about the importance of a federal and local partnership to plan, design and construct water reclamation and desalination facilities. The Brownsville Public Utilities 

Board believes that H.R. 2960 provides great opportunity to secure federal participation in the development of a viable project(s) that will help diversify and expand 

a water supply that is currently dependent on the Rio Grande River. 

H.R. 2960 is a bill that would add the Brownsville Public Utilities Board (BPUB) 

as an entity eligible for a federal share of Title XVI funding for design, planning, 

and construction of facilities to reclaim, reuse and treat impaired waters in the 

Brownsville, Texas area. BPUB’s water supply plan includes water reclamation and 

desalination projects. 

BPUB is currently exploring the potential for using reclaimed wastewater for industrial prospects at the Port of Brownsville. The Port of Brownsville is a deep 

water sea port for the movement of raw and bulk materials via barge and oceangoing vessels. The Port also has domestic and international rail crossings. The potential for using reclaimed water for industrial use at the Port could result in reclaiming up to six (6) million gallons per day of effluent discharge form the North 

Sewage Treatment Plant. The proposed project would result in the construction of 

a ten inch (10’’) waterline to transport the reclaimed water to the Port of Brownsville. The estimated cost of constructing, designing, securing right-of-way and constructing the line is $3 million. 

34

In addition to the reclamation project at the Port of Brownsville, BPUB in conjunction with the University of Texas/Texas Southmost College has developed a 

project that would utilize effluent discharge from the South Sewage Treatment 

Plant for use by the University for its irrigation purposes. The University is situated 

on 380 acres that includes the university campus, athletic facilities and a golf 

course. The project will use up to four (4) million gallons per day of effluent discharge for use by the University. The cost of constructing a pipeline to transport 

the treated effluent to the University is approximately $2 million. 

In addition to wastewater reclamation, the BPUB is very interested in federal desalination efforts. The Brownsville area has substantial impaired groundwater and 

our location provides strategic access to seawater, both of which are essential to our 

future water supply strategies. 

We are currently involved with the Southmost Regional Water Authority in the 

construction of a regional brackish groundwater desalination facility. This project 

provides for the deployment of a water supply that is a source of water independent 

of the Rio Grande River. Brackish groundwater is not subject to water rights purchases. This project does not have the prohibitive environmental, capital and operating costs of a seawater desalination facility while at the same time developing a 

water supply that is drought tolerant and provides for an improved potable water 

supply. Phase I of this project will produce 7.5 million gallons per day of drinking 

water per day. The cost of developing this project is $30 million. 

The expansion of the brackish groundwater desalination facility or Phase II provides for securing federal participation in this project. Phase I is being funded with 

local resources and Phase II would double the size of the facility. Phase II would 

expand the potential for expanding the regional impact of this facility to include 

other surrounding communities who might otherwise could not undertake such a 

project on their own. The desalination facility could be expanded to produce 15 million gallons of water per day at an estimated cost of $15 million. 

These projects represent a tremendous opportunity for Brownsville to enhance 

and expand its water supply. There is a great dependency on water from the Rio 

Grande River and these projects represent the first steps in deploying strategies 

that will lessen the dependency on this fragile water supply. 

This concludes m testimony. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear at 

this hearing. Chairman Calvert and members of this Committee, I commend you for 

your efforts to assist our communities in finding ways to deal with the increased 

demand for water supply is a diminishing resource. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

Mr. CALVERT. Next, Mr. Robert DeLoach, testifying on behalf of 

H.R. 2991. Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. DeLOACH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER AND GENERAL MANAGER, CUCAMONGA COUNTY 

WATER DISTRICT 

Mr. DELOACH. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert and 

Ranking Member Napolitano and members of the Subcommittee. I 

do appreciate the opportunity to be here today and request that my 

previously submitted written testimony be submitted as a part of 

the record here today. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. DELOACH. Our agency is not unique amongst many agencies 

in Southern California. We are a retail water and sewer agency located within the Inland Empire Utilities Agency service area in 

San Bernardino County in the Greater Santa Ana River watershed. 

Our agency currently provides water and wastewater services to 

more than 160,000 people in a 47-square-mile area and is expected 

to reach over 230,000 population by the year 2020. According to a 

Census Bureau report released earlier this year, the city of Rancho 

Cucamonga alone was identified as the third largest growing city 

in the Nation with a population over 100,000. 

35

Our agency supplies retail and water services to a variety of communities, primarily the city of Rancho Cucamonga and portions of 

the cities of Fontana, Ontario, Upland, as well as the unincorporated area within San Bernardino County. Our agency receives 

approximately 50 percent, if not more at certain times of the year, 

of its water supply through the Metropolitan Water District of 

Southern California as delivered through IUA. Approximately 40 

percent of our local developed water supply is actual groundwater 

supply in adjudicated groundwater basins. The remaining 10 percent of our supply is collected as surface water from the neighboring adjoining San Gabriel Mountains. By the year 2020, our 

agency will need an additional 20,000 acre feet of new water supply 

that we currently do not have to meet our existing and growing demand. 

In addition to our potable water supply, our agency is a member 

of the Chino Basin Regional Wastewater Program which is administered by Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Regional projects currently underway, as Mr. Atwater previously testified to, would generate 75,000 acre feet of new water supply by the year 2010. Of 

that amount, over 20,000 acre feet will be directly attributable to 

Cucamonga’s service area at full build-out. 

The rapid growth within our region has triggered several significant resource management issues. Local groundwater basins have 

a legacy of agricultural contamination, and as you know well, adjudicated groundwater basins have several limitations placed on 

them through the courts. Additionally, the goals and objectives of 

CALFED and the Colorado 4.4 Plan place long-term limitations on 

our ability to take imported water. 

We have adopted a goal at CCWD or a philosophy to make sure 

that every drop counts. Recycled water is a critical and extremely 

valuable component of our future. Our planning process established 

four major resource management goals. Maximize the beneficial 

use of recycling water. Decrease our reliance on the State water 

project system. Provide maximum flexibility for overall supply opportunities. And develop energy-efficient delivery systems. 

The use of recycled water within our area is not without its challenges. Much of our jurisdiction is built on an alluvial fan which 

requires innovative and new technology not previously used to the 

extent that we are proposing. Much of the water would need to be 

delivered and pumped uphill to parks, to schools, to neighboring 

landscaped areas. The energy costs alone would become a major obstacle to the use of recycled water. 

Our innovative strategy calls for the siting of small, localized satellite treatment plants adjacent to where the demand actually exists. This strategy will allow us to use the existing regional system 

for the peak demands of the gravity flow system. 

Each of these facilities is capable of producing up to 1,100 acre 

feet of new water. The avoided cost of moving off the Metropolitan 

Water System imported deliveries could equate to as much as 

$375,000 per site on an annual basis. 

Working in cooperation with the many agencies that we supply 

water to, we are proposing to site these facilities at the various 

parks throughout the recreational system, through schools and including a junior college. Each of these sites, if not all, are located 

36

between 600 and 750 feet in elevation above the nearest regional 

wastewater treatment facility. The energy cost to move this water 

to that location would be cost prohibitive. 

Of all the benefits that we derive out of these projects, I believe 

the key benefit would be that these satellite plants provide complete water supply reliability and dry year availability as a part of 

our drought-proofing program. Many of the goals that were listed 

for both regional, State and Federal programs have previously been 

spoken to. 

In the essence of time, I would just note that the Southern California Water Recycling Task Force identified the need for 1.5 million acre feet of new recycled water by 2030. Making maximum 

beneficial use of this supply would allow us to note only relieve the 

pressure on the State project system, but assist users in the valuable fertile San Joaquin Valley. 

We view the existing 25 percent Federal cost share formula as 

an investment at the local level that will allow our agency to leverage local funds to develop these worthwhile and very beneficial 

projects. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, since I see my time is up, I wish 

to thank you, Ranking Member Napolitano, and all the Subcommittee members for your valuable leadership on this issue. 

Thank you for your time. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeLoach follows:]

Statement of Robert A. DeLoach, General Manager/CEO,

Cucamonga County Water District, Rancho Cucamonga, California 

Introduction 

Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert DeLoach, the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer 

of the Cucamonga County Water District located in Rancho Cucamonga, California 

(San Bernardino County). Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

The Cucamonga County Water District supports H.R. 2991, and urges its markup 

without amendment. 

Cucamonga County Water District is a retail water and sewer agency located 

within the service area of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency in western San 

Bernardino County and in the greater Santa Ana River Watershed. Our agency currently provides water and wastewater services to more than 160,000 people in a 47 

square mile area. According to a United States Census Bureau report released earlier this year the City of Rancho Cucamonga was identified as the third fastest 

growing city in the nation with a population of over 100,000. Over the past five 

years our agency has averaged over one thousand new connected water and sewer 

customers annually. By the year 2020 our population is expected to reach approximately 230,000 people. 

Our agency supplies retail water and sewer services to the community of Rancho 

Cucamonga and portions of the communities of Fontana, Ontario and Upland as 

well as unincorporated areas within San Bernardino County. Our agency receives 

approximately 50% of its water supply from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, a 

member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Approximately 40% of our locally developed water supply comes from groundwater produced 

from the Chino and Cucamonga Basins, both of which are adjudicated groundwater 

basins. The remaining 10% of our supply is surface water collected from our local 

San Gabriel Mountains. Our present average daily water demand is 45 million gallons per day (MGD), with wastewater flows averaging 10 MGD. By the year 2020 

our agency will need an additional 20,000 acre feet of new water supply to meet 

our growing demand. 

Urban Water Reuse Management Strategy—‘‘Every Drop Counts!’’

Our agency is a member of the Chino Basin Regional Wastewater Treatment Program managed and administered by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Recycling 

37

projects currently underway or proposed within the Inland Empire region will generate 75,000 acre feet of new supply by 2010. Of that amount, over 20,000 acre feet 

will be directly attributable to Cucamonga’s service area at full build-out. 

The rapid growth within our region has triggered several significant resource 

management issues. The Chino and Cucamonga Basins have a legacy of agricultural 

contamination such as nitrates and other agricultural chemical residuals. As such, 

new groundwater production is limited without extensive treatment processes or due 

to limitations established in the court approved adjudications. Additionally, the 

goals and objectives of CALFED as well as the Colorado River ‘‘4.4 plan’’ place longterm limitations on imported water deliveries. 

Our philosophy of making sure that ‘‘every drop counts’ ’ recognizes the value of 

efficient water use. Recycled water is a critical and extremely valuable component 

of our future and as a preface to our planning process we have established four 

water resource management objectives: • Maximize the beneficial use of recycled water; • Decrease our reliance and dependence on imported water from the State Water 

Project; • Provide maximum flexibility of all supply opportunities; and, • Develop energy efficient delivery systems. 

Special Challenges to Deliver Recycled Water 

The use of recycled water within our area is not without its own challenges. Much 

of our jurisdiction is built on the alluvial fan of the San Gabriel Mountains and requires extensive pumping and energy cost to move water up the foothills to where 

much of our existing and future need exists. Given the condition of the California’s 

electricity situation, this becomes a major obstacle in utilizing recycled water. Additionally, the water conveyance facilities required to transport the treated water to 

the area of need are non-existent requiring extensive infrastructure investment and 

as a consequence increased costs to our ratepayers. 

Innovative Delivery of Recycled Water 

Our innovative strategy calls for the siting of small, localized satellite treatment 

plants adjacent to where the demand actually exists. This strategy will allow us to 

use the existing regional system to meet the peak demands of the gravity flow 

areas. A unique feature of this technology is that the individual satellite plants can be 

sized according to the actual demand of the individual locations. Our analysis indicates that approximately 1,120 acre feet of new treated water supply will be available at each location. In terms of imported water cost avoidance this equates to a 

savings of $375,000 per site on an annual basis. A variety of new customers have 

been identified and support for this initiative is very high. 

Working in cooperation with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, we propose to site 

a number of satellite treatment plants throughout their recreational park system. 

One such location, which is typical for many of their larger parks, will be at the 

Red Hill Community Park which is approximately 600 feet above the elevation of 

the nearest regional wastewater treatment facility. This park site and an adjacent 

high school are ideal candidates for recycled water use. Prior to development of this 

innovative technology, the energy costs alone would have made this project cost prohibitive given the state of their respective budgets. 

The key benefits of this innovative technology are obvious: 

• Locating the satellite plants where the need exists allows us to eliminate energy 

costs associated with pumping. • The need for imported water from the State Project system is now avoided. • Construction of new or expansion of existing regional wastewater treatment facilities is deferred saving valuable financial resources. • During times of drought the satellite plants will provide water supply reliability 

and dry-year availability which is a critical element of ‘‘drought-proofing’’ the 

region. 

Reuse Goals Consistent with Regional, State and Federal Programs 

The implementation of our unique wastewater management strategy expands our 

existing water supplies and is consistent with all regional, State and Federal programs. From the Federal perspective it meets the goals of the CALFED program 

through development of a new resource opportunity. The United States Bureau of 

Reclamation recently completed a Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Study 

for Southern California and concluded that water recycling projects in Southern 

California could produce almost 450,000 acre feet of new recycled water by 2010. 

Our project coupled with those proposed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency will 

produce approximately 75,000 acre feet of that new supply. 

38

The State of California’s Water Recycling Task Force identified the need for 1.5 

million acre feet of new recycled water by the year 2030. Making maximum beneficial use of recycled water creates additional benefits by relieving pressure on the 

State Water Project system which in turn assists users in the fertile San Joaquin 

Valley. 

Regionally, our project conforms to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California’s Integrated Resource Plan, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority’s 

watershed program, the Chino Basin Watermaster and the Inland Empire Utilities 

Agency’s water supply goals. 

As previously indicated, our watershed is one of the fastest urbanizing watersheds 

in the nation. We do not expect to receive more water from the State Water Project, 

and may well get less that originally planned. Nevertheless, we can expand our existing water supplies through development of local supplies to ‘‘drought-proof’’ our 

water district. 

H.R. 2991—The Dreier Bill 

The Dreier Bill proposes to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act and to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate 

in the Inland Empire regional recycling project and in the Cucamonga County 

Water District recycling project. We support this initiative because it would commit 

the Federal government to provide assistance to agencies who are trying to bring 

new water supplies online using innovative technologies. 

The existing 25% Federal cost share formula is an investment at the local level 

that will allow the Cucamonga County Water District to leverage local funds to develop these worthwhile and very beneficial projects. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you, Ranking Member Napolitano 

and all the Subcommittee members for your leadership on this issue. 

[Letters submitted for the record by Mr. DeLoach follow:]

39


89270.006
40


89270.007
41


89270.008
42


89270.009
43

Mr. CALVERT. We were up in Albuquerque, Mr. Pearce’s district, 

over the weekend, and a beautiful district that it is, but as I said 

at that hearing, it is kind of deja vu all over again. I hear a lot 

about the stress of the lack of water throughout the West, and 

whether it is the Colorado River or the Klamath Valley or the 

Snake River, the Upper Rio Grande, the Lower Rio Grande and 

Brownsville, Texas, certainly the issue of the quantification settlement agreement and our ongoing negotiations to get that resolved, 

we have a lot of water problems ahead of us. 

I am looking forward to working with the Bureau, Mr. Rinne, to 

resolve some of these issues, because if, in fact, and I understand—

I met with the Secretary this morning. I think we are very close 

to an agreement on the quantification settlement agreement. I 

think we have all the parties both in the Upper Basin and Lower 

Basin together on this. 

But as you know, even if we enter into that agreement and we 

are successful in putting that to bed, California, and rightfully so 

for our friends here in the Upper and Lower Basin States, we have 

to do our part and wean ourselves from the Colorado River for our 

friends in the other States can get their fair share and fair allocation of that water. 

However, as you also know, California is about half the population of the Reclamation States and for us, in order to meet those 

requirements, we must develop additional water resources. So as 

we look forward to dealing with you, I would hope that to continually promote to you and to your colleagues that this is absolutely 


89270.010
44

not something that we should be on the sidelines on. It is something we need to do. 

I want to ask to all of the witnesses here today, how do the cost 

benefits of desalination, brackish water treatment, wastewater recycling, all these things that have been brought up today, and 

other water supply enhancement options, what are the costs of 

these and what are our options if we don’t do them? Mr. Atwater, 

why don’t I start with you. 

Mr. ATWATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, at your field 

hearings and as we have talked about at the California Water 

Commission, there are no longer other options in California. Certainly in CALFED, we have talked about new surface storage and 

we hope that comes to pass. But from a groundwater storage and 

developing new supplies, realistically, water recycling, desalination, 

both groundwater and ultimately seawater at the Metropolitan 

Water District and working with some of the member agencies like 

L.A., West Basin, Long Beach, Orange County and San Diego, we 

do think there is a potential over the next ten, 15 years to develop 

about 100,000, maybe 150,000 acre feet of seawater desalting. 

But the projects that we talk about on the Santa Ana River are 

really incredibly important when you look at the growth in Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange County. And clearly, we think 

they are very cost effective. I would be happy to provide to the 

Committee a cost comparison between some of the reservoir 

projects and the other alternative supplies in California so that you 

can— 

Mr. CALVERT. That would be helpful, and the record, as I mentioned, will be held open for 10 days. We would be happy to get 

that. 

Any other comments? 

Mr. BILODEAU. Very quickly. The cost of our water to produce is about $500 an acre foot. Desalination—ocean desalination is about 

double that. We are able to do it cost effectively because it takes 

so much less energy to clean secondarily treated sewage than desalt ocean water. And also, our project is the largest of its kind in 

North America. Not a week goes by that we don’t have visitors 

from Asia or the Middle East or Europe that come to see what we 

are doing so they can emulate that in other parts of the world. 

Mr. CALVERT. Great. Mr. Rinne? 

Mr. RINNE. The only thing I would add to that, as I think about 

options, there may be more than this, but probably three or four, 

certainly the water recycling, desalination, water conservation, and 

then I would throw in—my term would be water transfers. All of 

it probably play into helping to solve the puzzle in the long term. 

In and of themselves, probably none of them, as we all would probably agree, would do it. But they all probably help. 

And then finally, in that regard, and I appreciate your comments 

to us, Mr. Chairman, about wanting to work with us. We do want 

to work with you on solving these problems and I think the area—

one of the areas we are trying to do is our part as we can in some 

of the—with an emphasis on research, say, in desalination, where 

it may help, this other gentleman before mentioned, to even bring 

the cost down further if we can and that would help, again, to 

make it more feasible to do some of these things. 

45

Mr. CALVERT. Robert? 

Mr. DELOACH. Mr. Chairman, I just offer two points. One I already spoke to earlier, and that was the cost avoidance for our customers, the actual ratepayer who pays the bill, and that is the 

avoided cost of not purchasing State project water, anywhere from 

$300,000 to $375,000 a year per one of these sites that we discussed. 

The second part is as we purchase this water through the Inland 

Empire Utilities Agency and build the infrastructure to deliver it 

to our customers, that rate is significantly less than the potable 

rate that we normally supply to our customers, about a 20 percent 

cost decrease. That helps the ratepayer to a significant degree to 

meet just the standard of living that we have grown accustomed to. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I sit here and wonder 

how we are going to get this done, but Mr. Rinne, one of the things 

you mentioned was that you would oppose all bills because of the 

reasons you stated—the cap was over, you didn’t think—they didn’t 

have any EIR review analysis. Yet, most of these programs have 

already—they are online. They have not been funded by the Bureau of Reclamation before, maybe in assistance with the planning. 

But how do we continue to move forward to try to meet the plan, 

and I am not talking about Texas, but the rest of the ones that are 

here from California, to be able to continue producing potable 

water for the communities, for the industrial community, for the 

needs that the growth demands? It isn’t a matter of we can stop 

the growth. We can’t. So how do we address that without saying, 

if we are going to build more new desalination plants, alone the 

cost, and then what do you do with the brine? So there are other 

issues that go into—if you just say, well, desalination might be the 

major answer. That is why we are focusing on that. Water transfers. 

I had asked when we were in Moab, Utah, when we were working on the Colorado River, the Utes were willing to sit at the table. 

But there is a Federal law that prohibits water transfers. They 

have plenty of water, they say. We would be willing to help transfer some of that. Federal law prohibits that. How do we do that? 

How can you come and say to us, here are things that we can do? 

Here are some of the solutions that some may need, legislative 

processing. Others may be working together, coalition building. I 

certainly hope my Texas Representative here would pick the brain 

of Richard Atwater, Mr. Bilodeau and Mr. DeLoach so that we can 

learn from each other, so we can help each other, so we can understand the priorities. 

When you have a Texas area that is not only drought—we have 

been working on that. We had that hearing in Texas with the Rio 

Grande. But the fact that they are right at the ocean, so they have 

saltwater intrusion. They have all kinds of problems. How do we 

help them deal with the increase in population, with the increase 

in being able to deal with the industrial growth, and address those 

issues. 

46

We are trying to help them so we have that assistance in our 

budgetary needs, and we can’t do it without the help of the agencies. I mean, what do we do, sir? 

Mr. RINNE. Maybe a couple of thoughts. First, I will restate 

again, while we cannot testify in support of the bills that are here 

today, we are not opposed to water recycling projects, and I think 

that is borne out by the program that we have ongoing over the 

last— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right, except that the funding has been decimated. So, in essence, you may not totally not support them, but 

you don’t fund them. 

Mr. RINNE. The second thing is that maybe —when you think of 

the proposed initiative for 2004, the Water 2025 as the Chairman 

had mentioned in opening remarks about the trips around the 

West, which is a pretty good active statement. I think, of a lot of 

going ons. The hope is that, and two of the key objectives as I understood them was, number one, it was an attempt to get people, 

all of us, not just the Federal people but locals and from all walks 

of water together and actually talk and do the very thing you are—

to look at the very questions you are asking. How do you best tackle these things? 

And that is why a moment ago, when I was talking, not that 

those four areas are the only areas that solve water problems. I 

don’t kid myself that I have all the answers there. But I think that 

is the way that we can do it, is get the people together in the same 

room as some of them have started. That is what some of the 2025 

meetings were about. Get the dialog going. The second thing was 

to then try to see if we could come up with solutions collectively 

that might help avoid these conflicts, you know, identify where the 

problems are. Again, I think they were characterized pretty accurately. You just look at about any river system and urban areas on 

it and it speaks for itself. 

I don’t know if there is a silver bullet. I just think that it is going 

to take a lot of hard work. I do think that—I also don’t think at 

this point that we are—you know, we are working hard on the 

projects that are authorized. We want to do the Title XVI ones, we 

want to do our part. But it is not an easy solution to solve that. 

We certainly look at it. We hear your concerns and we want to address them and work with them. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. I know my time is up, but in 

California, we are expected to meet 4.4 by 2016. How are we going 

to do that if we don’t have this additional tool of being able to increase the funding for recycled water projects? It is only seed 

money, but it is helpful because it then allows that project to move 

forward. It is just frustrating, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Pearce? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming to the Second District of New Mexico over the weekend. That 

was an excellent hearing and I am still getting favorable comments 

on that. 

My questions, we in the Southern District of New Mexico make 

millions of barrels every day of produced water that is manufactured—it is brought to the surface when you bring oil to the surface. We separate it out and typically we dispose of that water. 

47

Usually, it is coming from very deep production zones and it is a 

waste of water that could be cleaned up, the salt taken out, the hydrocarbons taken out. 

My question is, Mr. Bilodeau, as you talk about your costs, $500 

per acre foot. Is that cost including the cost of the plan, or are 

those just operational costs that you are referring to? 

Mr. BILODEAU. It is the cost of the production as well as the amortization of our debt. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. And when you talk about cleaning up your 

water to where it is well beyond the cleanliness required or the 

content required for drinking water, what part per million are you 

expecting that you would have as you discharge the water for, just 

approximately? 

Mr. BILODEAU. About 300 parts per million on that, total dissolved solvents. 

Mr. PEARCE. Three-hundred? 

Mr. BILODEAU. Yes. I believe the drinking water standard is 500. 

Mr. PEARCE. In my district, we are going to the sewage treatment plants and we are putting water into the Rio Grande River 

and the parts per million are down around two, two parts per million, and they were using a figure of 30 for drinking water, or for 

discharge into the rivers, and these are just your standard run-ofthe-mill sewage treatment plants. I am wondering what is different 

about your process than a standard sewage treatment plant that 

would—I mean, we looked at the filters of just tap water and then 

the filter of this water coming through. It is highly purified just in 

the normal sequence. Can you give me some clarity on that? 

Mr. BILODEAU. I think perhaps we will have to get back to you 

on that in terms of the— 

Mr. PEARCE. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. BILODEAU. We might be talking about a different measurement or a different— 

Mr. CALVERT. I think, Mr. Pearce, I think probably on the total 

dissolved solids, I am sure that it is somewhat higher than two 

parts per million that is coming out to the Rio Grande after treatment, because the Colorado River is approximately 700 parts per 

million on TDS, and if you can clean any water at 300, it is very, 

very, very, very good water. 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, I— 

Mr. ATWATER. Excuse me. And when you normally talk about 30 

parts, that normally equates under the Clean Water Act, for the 

wastewater sewage treatment plant, you are probably talking 

about 30 milligrams per liter biological demand, BOD, as we call 

it, or suspended solids, which is the normal measure of how much 

we cleaned up the wastewater. It is not salinity, but it is a different measure. So we may be talking about apples and oranges— 

Mr. PEARCE. I would suspect so, but if you could get me information, I would like to compare it to what I am saying— 

Mr. BILODEAU. Absolutely. 

Mr. PEARCE. —because we have got different communities there 

that are saying they are in single digits. Again, this is wastewater 

that is going back into the river. 

48

Mr. Campirano, as you talk about the input of the water that you 

want to desalinate, what parts per million are you looking at on 

some of the waters that you have in Brownsville there? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. The brackish groundwater that we currently are 

taking in is about 3,500 parts per million. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. So it is considerably less, obviously, than the access that we have to our seawater. 

Mr. PEARCE. Seawater is about 25,000 parts. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Actually, we have a very high salinity. I think 

we have one of the super-saline bodies of water in our area that 

can go as high as 45,000 parts per million, so in our particular 

case, it just—it is cost prohibitive to begin to look at the kind of 

operation where we can look to the Gulf for our source of water and 

we need to really explore all of the groundwater options before we 

begin to look at that. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask one last 

question. It will be kind of an open question to each of you who 

have projects, and that would be about the ownership of the water. 

Who would own the water that comes out as an output? And Mr. 

Rinne, at some point, I would like your comments on that. 

I have had friction with the Bureau of Reclamation before over 

them claiming that because they ever participated in any financial 

way, that they own the water, and we have got a circumstance in 

our district. So that I would caution each one of you water systems 

that if you take water from the Bureau of Reclamation at some 

point in the future, they may say, it is our water, it is not your 

water. The Elephant Butte is the only, the only irrigation system 

that has ever been paid off in the Bureau of Reclamation system, 

or was at the time that the Bureau of Reclamation decided to say 

that that water was theirs. 

So my simple caution, and maybe it is a question, that you really 

look at this with your eyes open if you think this is going to be 

your water without context 20 and 4 years into the future. It is a 

very problematic question. If you would like to respond, I would 

like to hear from you, and then, Mr. Rinne, if you would like to. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Campirano, one question. Just following up with what Mr. Pearce 

said, just before we go to our next question, your 3,500 parts per 

million TDS, and what is your cost to clean up the water, approximately, per acre foot? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. In this—I don’t have that unit in cost per acre 

foot. I can break it down to you as compared to what it costs us 

in terms of 1,000 gallons, which is what we use to measure how 

we are going to sell the water. In our particular case, not only 

the—all of the infrastructure that is going into place for the brackish groundwater project as well as the treatment and the big cost 

of powering the facility. It comes out to about 92 cents per thousand. That is very—in our community, that is affordable. 

Mr. CALVERT. That is approximately the same price as the Orange County water price, I suspect. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Solomon Ortiz? 

49

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr. 

Campirano, maybe you can expand on some of the features that we 

have in the Brownsville area that you plan to use as part of your 

water supply system. I believe that we call them resacas and 

maybe you can talk to the Committee and explain how do you plan 

to use these features that we have. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Brownsville is unique that it has these features, 

bodies of water that essentially, I guess, could be described as ox 

bow legs that were part of the Rio Grande system many years ago 

that have been cutoff over time. In Brownsville, we currently have 

a project with the Corps of Engineers that is called the Resaca Restoration Project. Unfortunately, the resacas over time have been 

used as flood control for the city of Brownsville and consequently 

have been heavily damaged over the years as basically being the 

catch basins for all of the surface drainage. 

In Brownsville, those resacas actually serve as surface water 

storage for our surface water treatment. What we hope to do with 

the resacas is to essentially restore them to their original depth 

and that will, in effect, add approximately 1,700 acre feet of storage 

capacity to our surface water storage system. 

They also offer other benefits, but from a water supply standpoint, it is critical for us to be able to have as much storage capacity as possible simply because we are at the last leg of the Rio 

Grande. Nobody takes water out of the river any further south 

than Brownsville. So, consequently, taking advantage of those 

available releases when they are available in our water rights, we 

need to enhance our surface water storage capacity, and that is 

how we would do that, with the resaca system. 

Mr. ORTIZ. And I just have one more question. Going back to the 

funding, Mr. Deputy Secretary, do you make your own request or 

do you go by what the Administration requests as far as funding? 

Mr. RINNE. Congressman, each year, of course, as we develop our 

budget request, we look at our overall program, and just focusing 

in on, say, the Title XVI program, as part of that activity, we will 

try to work through and see what we—we would want it, obviously, 

to be in line with the Administration priority, but we will look at 

what projects—we are trying, first off, to complete all the projects, 

all the Title XVI projects. 

So we are trying to complete the ones that we have on the books 

and there are quite a few there, and so then we will just try to—

we work through a process of that along with our other programs 

and then we will make a submittal through the Department, 

which, of course, then gets worked by the Department and Office 

of Management and eventually becomes part of the Administration’s proposal. 

Mr. ORTIZ. But it just so happens that the ones that we are talking about today are not in the books, so that means that there is 

no money for them. Now, we want to work with you, and I know 

that if we don’t fund it, there is no way you can work on it. But 

in many instances, and I have said this before, the next war we 

are going to have is not going to be about oil. It is going to be about 

water. 

In my neck of the woods, you get down to the nitty-gritty. I 

mean, you go to the school children, you know, how they flush the 

50

toilet, and it sounds pretty nasty, but I have said this before. They 

even had a contest in the schools to see if the children could come 

up with something that would rhyme. Do you know what they 

came up with, because we were having a serious water shortage? 

And it sounds nasty, but this is the only way how they would get 

children not to flush the toilet. And they came up with an awardwinning slogan, Mr. Chairman. They came up and said, ‘‘If yellow, 

you let it mellow. If brown, you flush it down.’’ Can you imagine 

when we have to get to that level and we don’t find any relief? I 

mean, this is pretty serious. 

I know we have a hard-working Chairman here who is very conscious of the problems, not only in my district, but throughout the 

United States. We want to help you, Mr. Chairman. I am willing 

to do everything in my part to help. But, you know, I am at the 

last, like Mr. Campirano just stated, at the end of the Rio Grande. 

Besides all the stuff they flush into the river, we get the last of it. 

So this is very, very serious and I just hope that maybe we can find 

a solution. 

I am willing to—I mean, if—and I guess I was the only Hispanic 

member who supported the President on the war with Iraq, but I 

think that if we can go to Iraq and fund all these projects in Iraq, 

let us do something for our people here. I hope that we can find 

a solution, because our communities are in dire need of finding a 

water solution to our area. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Baca? 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I 

want to thank you for having this hearing and our Minority Ranking Member, Grace Napolitano. It is a serious problem and a top 

priority for a lot of us. 

Water is very critical in each and every one of our districts and 

I know the district that I represent and the Inland Empire, which 

is the fastest-growing region in the State of California, and I appreciate your leadership in reference to H.R. 2991, which I am a cosponsor of that legislation, which I think it is important for our 

area that serves both the city of Ontario and Fontana. 

As we look at our growth in our region, we continue to have people moving into the Inland Empire, so with housing, water then becomes a very critical problem in the Inland Empire to make sure 

that we have an abundant supply of water, and quality of water 

is very important as we look at the Inland Empire. 

That is why I am somewhat appalled to hear that the Administration does not support these initiatives that are before us because 

when you look at water, water is like gold, and without water, you 

can’t live. It seems like sometimes we try to look for other alternatives. The bottom line is that we need to supply water and quality water and we need it now and sometimes we wait a little bit 

too long. 

Based on that, I want to ask two of the members from my district, either Richard Atwater or Bob DeLoach, one of these questions, and either one of you can answer. More than one-third of the 

groundwater wells in the city of Rialto, California, are now closed 

because of perchlorate contamination. Drought conditions have 

51

added to the situation to cause a water emergency. I understand 

that the legislation discussed today does not address the issue of 

perchlorate contamination, but I would like to know how these 

water recycling projects will be able to benefit the areas facing 

hardships because of perchlorate contamination. Will it have an indirect effect on these issues? 

Mr. ATWATER. If I may, Congressman Baca, you raise a good 

point. If we develop recycled water, we can reduce the need for that 

local well water, or as Robert pointed out, imported water needs. 

By having the city parks in Rialto or in Fontana, the industrial 

users like Inland Paper in Ontario, using recycled water, it puts 

less stress on that valuable drinking water. 

It is kind of common sense. Why would you want to use the valuable drinking water to irrigate a golf course, the city park, the high 

school football, all that outdoor turf, or industrial uses. And with 

the perchlorate problem, what available good, clean drinking water 

we have, clearly, you don’t want to waste it. I don’t mean that in 

a bad term. But why would you want to use that really pure water 

for things that you could use the recycled water for? And that 

would stretch Rialto’s supplies if we could develop more recycled 

water in the area. 

Mr. BACA. Robert, do you want to attempt to add anything else? 

Mr. DELOACH. Thank you, Congressman Baca. I would agree 

with Mr. Atwater. I think the point of your question was, would recycled water alleviate this pressure? Obviously, it doesn’t clean up 

the perchlorate issue, but as Rich indicated, it does relieve the 

pressure so that communities such as Rialto in your district does 

not perhaps have to shut off as many wells. They can continue to 

supply water to their customers at a cheaper rate rather than 

going to the imported water. 

The whole issue of perchlorate, as you know, is another issue 

that is exploding in our area and is rapidly becoming the primary 

issue affecting water quality and water supply. But recycled water 

certainly will get to the point where you can offset that loss to 

some degree, but not completely. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. The next question I have, small satellite 

treatment plants are part of the plans to drought-proof the area. 

How long would you predict that it would take to build these treatment plants and put them into use, question one. Two, how cost 

effective are these treatment plants as opposed to other types of 

water projects? 

Mr. DELOACH. Thank you. Two good questions. Our plan that we 

have in place currently would have the sites developed and ready 

to go by 2010 delivering water. The actual cost differential would 

be about 80 percent of the Metropolitan rate, which is currently at 

$333 an acre foot. So they do represent substantial savings to our 

customers. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Once these projects are put into place, do 

you expect them to become models for other regions and States, 

question number one, and I am wondering if this could be another 

incentive for Congress to move this legislation through. Do you 

agree? 

Mr. DELOACH. Yes and yes. 

52

Mr. BACA. Thanks. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I want to 

thank you for taking the leadership and also going to New Mexico 

to Belen, the hometown where I was at, to deal with the water 

problems and the droughts that they are having in the immediate 

area. I know a lot of the farmers are very concerned because they 

didn’t have water in the immediate area and part of it was because 

of an endangered species that was identified there. But water is a 

problem and drought was a problem in that area, so thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Just as Brownsville, Texas, has two members of 

Congress, now Belen, New Mexico, has two members also representing their interests, so they are a very fortunate community. 

I would like to spend a little time here on my bill, H.R. 2828, 

promote that and ask Mr. Rinne about hopefully the Bureau’s support of that bill. As you know, as we talk about the issue of contaminants, whether it is perchlorate or arsenic or nitrate or any 

other number of contaminants that we must deal with under the 

Federal law and the State law, and so there is a Federal role to 

play, I think. And certainly desalination, as we meet the Federal 

requirements that are outlined to get out of the Colorado River and 

to utilize the bay delta to meet the guidelines of the Endangered 

Species Act, which is also a Federal law, there is a Federal role to 

play. 

In H.R. 2828, we try to outline legislation that meets the requirements that the Federal Government lays out, at the same 

time gives us additional water supply to meet the needs of the 

West and, in fact, the entire country as we get into these problems, 

not just in the West. We see some issues right now in Florida and 

Georgia. We certainly had a problem right here in Maryland until 

last year, I think. Happily, the drought ended. 

But I would hope—I think we are getting the support virtually 

of every water agency in the State of California and certainly most 

everybody in the West, and I think this is a great way and I am 

certainly happy. I think everyone here is supporting this legislation. But I want to hear from the Department, the Bureau. Have 

you had a chance to look at this legislation, and I would like to 

have your input on it a little bit. 

Mr. RINNE. Mr. Chairman, I honestly have not myself, and so I 

am feeling a little bit unprepared. But I guess if that would be 

helpful and with the record being open, I would be very glad to—

we could get back to you on that. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I know that when you went on your 2025 

road trip, you heard a lot about recycling, desalination, and the 

rest of it from everyone in the West, and so I would hope that you 

will take a good look at that because we intend to mark this bill 

up pretty quickly and to move it forward, because as we are here 

today, as I mentioned in my opening statement, addressing these 

bills. They are fine bills. They want to do the right thing for the 

country. 

We have a water crisis all over the country. It was like I mentioned in New Mexico. We have got problems in Nevada. Nevada, 

as you know, right now in this quantification agreement they are 

trying to figure out a way to buy some additional water, but you 

mentioned water transfers. They are not that simple, as you know. 

I don’t have to lecture you on this. You know that as people get 

53

water out of the river, if someone wants to sell it, it doesn’t necessarily mean they can sell it because of the way the water law 

within the States. They are allocated. 

So it is more, I think, an easier route for the Federal Government to take to leverage resources into developing water throughout the West, whether it is reclamation, desalination, and the rest. 

So I would certainly hope that we can continue to work with the 

Department and with the Bureau to make sure that we get that 

help. 

Mr. Pearce, any additional questions? 

We have a list of questions here that I am going to submit to all 

of our witnesses. If I could get some written answers back, I would 

appreciate that. 

Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a couple 

of things that I have left hanging here. 

One of the questions I have is for Mr. Campirano, whether or not 

you have been in contact with the Department of Interior, any previous contact with the Bureau regarding your projects and what 

kind of help have you gotten from them. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. We have actually worked with the Bureau in 

Texas and the Bureau is very, very helpful. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The Bureau in Texas, you mean the Texas Bureau. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But how about our Federal Bureau? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Well, I am talking about the staff in the Texas 

Bureau, out of Austin. In fact, we have been working with them 

on implementing one project at the present time. The problem that 

we see with the Bureau, again, as has been stated here, is they 

simply don’t have the resources to respond, and many of the issues 

that we face, as everyone else in this panel is, that they are critical. I mean, they are things that need to be done now and can’t 

be waited on. 

But the projects that we have and the discussions that we have 

had with the Bureau have been very, very helpful, and certainly we 

hope that the deliberations that you are having of being able to 

provide the resources to implement the projects will give them that 

much more opportunity to actually begin to, in a more expeditious 

manner, begin to address our concerns and get some of these 

projects implemented. But efforts to date have been very, very 

helpful with the Bureau. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Could you use some more? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. I beg your pardon? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Could you use some more help? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Absolutely. We—actually, some of these things 

we feel we are ready to implement, so we could save that money 

and go directly into implementation if they had the resources available to push these projects. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You border Brownsville, Texas—I mean, Matamoros. What is the population of Brownsville versus Matamoros? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Brownsville’s population is 150,000. 

Matamoros’s population is about 650,000. 

54

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. I thought it was closer to a million. But 

what is your daily traffic from south of the border? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Bridge crossings, I believe, average into the 

50,000 a day line on the three international bridges. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So that adds to your daily—because those people go to work, they go to eat, they go to shop, and that increases 

your use of your local resources, namely water, am I correct? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. That is correct. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. So I just wanted to see how that—because you haven’t had much of a population growth in Brownsville. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. On the contrary. Brownsville is one of the fastest-growing regions of the country and the population growth from 

the last census was roughly 30 percent and there is no indication 

that is going to slow down any. The same thing really goes for all 

of the border regions of Mexico. There is a tremendous influx of 

population from the interior of Mexico to the Fontana and Matamoros is also experiencing— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What about your snowbirds? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. That typically is a population that would begin 

to arrive in November and stay through March. Spring breakers 

run them out. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Numbers? 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. Roughly, in the Valley—I am going to talk about 

the Valley—according to studies done by University of Texas PanAmerican, we roughly get 150,000 what we call winter Texans in 

our area. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So you have all these added uses, or users, 

that require additional services. 

Mr. CAMPIRANO. That is correct. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Atwater, we have talked about the cap, the Federal cap, the 

25 percent or $20 million on Title XVI. Is that sufficient? 

Mr. ATWATER. I think certainly since 1992, Congress has articulated that 25 percent cap and it has worked well for many of the 

projects. Most of them actually, as Denis Bilodeau from Orange 

County Water District testified, they are at 4 percent now, so certainly 4 percent is a lot less than 25 percent. And in general, very 

few of the projects get over 20 percent. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But would there be a reason to have a review 

of the size of the projects, the amount of people it serves and the 

effect that that percentage may not be adequate? 

Mr. ATWATER. Certainly, that is a good question that ought to be 

revisited on a regular basis, is the cost sharing formula. In this 

case, very small Federal investment leveraging a large amount of 

non-Federal dollars to solve water problems throughout the West, 

and under the Chairman’s bill, nationally, which I think is a great 

idea. It is certainly something that ought to be revisited on a regular basis by Congress and the Administration. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That ends my questioning. 

Mr. CALVERT. I would just be happy if they would make the 25 

percent. That would be great, and we need to help you with that, 

I understand, Mr. Rinne. 

55

One further comment. In the issue with Texas, and this has the 

attention of the President of the United States. He brought it up 

to me, so he is very much aware of the issue in Texas. Of course, 

the problem in Brownsville, much of that is brought about by the 

situation with Mexico and their inability or their refusal to deliver 

the water under the treaty obligations that they are required to do. 

So hopefully, there is some small relief that is going in that direction, but certainly, we have the State Department that needs to do 

a better job of working that issue and making sure that Brownsville gets the water that is owed to them. 

Again, I thank all the witnesses for being here. I thank you for 

your support on H.R. 2828. Go out and tell everybody about it and 

pass the gospel. I appreciate it. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[A letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Gary C. 

Ovitt, Mayor, City of Ontario, California, follows:]

Æ


89270.011