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

87-233 PS 2003

H.R. 1598 and H.R. 1732

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

May 22, 2003

Serial No. 108-23

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

VACANCY

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)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on May 22, 2003 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

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

California ....................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Carter, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas . 3

Cox, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, Statement and letters submitted for the record .................. 6

Edwards, Hon. Chet, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas .............................................................................................................. 4

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

of California ................................................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses:

Beal, Joseph J., General Manager, Lower Colorado River Authority,

Texas .............................................................................................................. 24

Prepared statement on H.R. 1732 ........................................................... 26

Brady, Brian, President, Board of Directors, Irvine Ranch Water District,

California ....................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement on H.R. 1598 ........................................................... 18

Heiligenstein, Hon. Mike, County Commissioner, Williamson County,

Texas .............................................................................................................. 21

Prepared statement on H.R. 1732 ........................................................... 23

Limbaugh, Mark A., Director, External and Intergovernmental Affairs,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior ......................... 10

Prepared statement on H.R. 1598 ........................................................... 10

Prepared statement on H.R. 1732 ........................................................... 11

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 35

McKenney, Larry, Manager, Watershed and Coastal Resources, County

of Orange, California .................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement on H.R. 1598 ........................................................... 14

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1598, TO

AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER

AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY

OF THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN

PROJECTS WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO CREEK

WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1732, TO AMEND THE

RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO

AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE

WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE PROJECT, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES.

Thursday, May 22, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Calvert, Osborne, Pearce, Nunes,

Napolitano, Inslee, Grijalva and Cardoza.

Mr. CALVERT. The oversight hearing by the Subcommittee on

Water and Power will come to order.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on

H.R. 1598, a bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and

Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of

the Interior to participate in projects within the San Diego Creek

Watershed, California, and other purposes, and H.R. 1732, a bill to

amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and

Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of Interior to participate

in the Williamson County, Texas, Water Reclamation and Reuse

Project, and for other purposes.

2

Under Rule 4[g], the Chairman and the Ranking Minority

Member may have an opening statement. I will start with mine.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. Recent drought conditions, critical water shortages, and increasing water competition are requiring communities

to look beyond the traditional ways of developing and maintaining

dependable and safe water supplies. The Subcommittee heard in

previous testimony and hearings that water recycling is one option

that communities have successfully utilized to become more

‘‘drought resistant’’ and less dependent on imported and traditional

water sources.

This is certainly the case in Southern California which is faced

with substantial Colorado River reductions and inefficient conveyance from Northern California. Even while some affected parties

constantly try to move the goal post back in attempting to find a

solution on Colorado River reductions, one thing remains clear:

California communities will continue to examine ways to develop

water from their own backyards.

Although water recycling has played a major role in developing

and providing water security to California, communities throughout

the West have enjoyed the benefits of water recycling. Today, we

will focus on how two communities plan to meet their water needs

through water recycling in water-deficient regions, such as SouthCentral Texas and Southern California. Recycled water technologies are being considered to a greater extent than ever before

in response to increasing demands on limited, high-quality water

supplies.

H.R. 1598 and H.R. 1732 would allow the Secretary of Interior

to provide technical and Federal financial resources through the

use of the Title XVI Program. Today, 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 nontraditional ways to meet our future water demands.

I thank the panel for being here today and certainly look forward

to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Recent drought conditions, critical water shortages, and increasing water competition are requiring communities to look beyond the traditional ways of developing

and maintaining dependable and safe water supplies. The Subcommittee heard in

previous hearings that water recycling is one option that communities have successfully utilized to become more ‘‘drought resistant’’ and less dependent on imported

and traditional water sources.

This is certainly the case in Southern California, which is faced with substantial

Colorado River reductions and inefficient conveyance from northern California. Even

while some affected parties constantly try to move the goal post back in attempting

to find a solution on Colorado River reductions, one thing remains clear: California

communities will continue to examine ways to develop water from their own backyards.

Although water recycling has played a major role in providing water security to

California, communities throughout the west have also enjoyed the benefits of water

recycling. Today, we will focus on how two communities plan to meet their water

needs through water recycling. In water-deficient regions such as south-central

Texas and southern California, recycled water technologies are being considered to

3

a greater extent than ever before in response to increasing demands on limited high

quality water supplies.

H.R. 1598 and H.R. 1732 would allow the Secretary of the Interior to provide

technical and Federal financial resources through the use of the Title 16 Program.

Today, 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 am happy now to recognize Ms. Napolitano, the

Ranking Member, for any statements she may have.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I join you this morning in welcoming the witnesses from Southern California, and from the great State of Texas, and also the Bureau of Reclamation, and our colleagues who are here in support

of our projects.

Mr. Chairman, you and I very strongly support our communities

in the West as they apply innovative technologies to their water

supply problems, and it is very unfortunate that this administration finds it so difficult to support these projects. So I look forward

to discussing these bills with our witnesses this morning, and I am

particularly interested to learn more about how the Irvine Ranch

projects are related to other recycling projects and groundwater

projects that are planned to run the construction in the Santa Ana

Watershed.

And we trust that our witnesses from Williamson County, Texas,

and the Lower Colorado River Authority can provide details on how

they can better use water through water recycling to help drought

proof their service areas. Knowing that a lot of the border area is

facing critical drought, we hope that we will continue to have those

communities come to this Committee and request assistance in

making sure that they become more drought proof in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your continued support in these

critical issues and look forward to the testimony.

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

I would like to recognize our first panel of witnesses, which includes our distinguished colleagues from Texas and our good

friends: Representative John Carter, Texas, 31st District, and Representative Chet Edwards, Texas, 11th District, my old neighbor

here in Washington, D.C. Glad you are both here, and we would

like to recognize Mr. Carter first.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT, STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I

wish good morning to you and all the members of the Committee.

Unfortunately, this morning, time is a precious commodity in Congress, and I have got great things I have got to look after this

morning, but I want to stop and personally thank this Committee

for holding this hearing on H.R. 1732, the Williamson County

4

Water Recycling Act of 2003. It is important. I am proud to represent Williamson County, one of the fastest-growing counties in

America, and I can assure you that we have two very fine gentlemen and good friends of mine who are appearing before you today

to offer testimony about this gentleman.

Joe Beal, the general manager and chief executive officer of the

Lower Colorado River Authority, has the responsibility of running

an organization that provides electricity for over one million people

and also provides water resources, resource management, flood protection, drought management, agricultural irrigation and water

and wastewater utility services throughout 58 county service territories in Texas. Joe is an outstanding leader, and the great reputation of the LCRA that it enjoys throughout the State of Texas is,

in no small part, part of his efforts.

I am also pleased to introduce to you a long-time friend of mine,

Mike Heiligenstein. Mike has been active in Williamson County for

over 20 years; first, as a Round Rock City Council member, as a

member of numerous task forces and steering committees, and now

as a Williamson County Commissioner. Mike has truly made a

positive difference in the Williamson County community. He has

been especially active in the areas of water resources and has been

instrumental in regional water planning efforts.

Again, I want to apologize for not being able to stay for the remainder of this hearing, but I am in full support of this legislation

and look forward to working with the members of this Committee

to ensure this bill’s success.

I thank you for your time and yield back my time.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Edwards?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHET EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 11TH DISTRICT, STATE OF

TEXAS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, what oil and gas were to Texas in

the 20th century, water will be to our State in the 21st century,

and that is specifically why I want to thank you specifically for

your leadership, in terms of water recycling, water conservation in

this Congress. You have been a tremendous leader in that area,

and that is going to have long-term positive impact on families all

across our country, both in California, and Texas, and elsewhere.

Mrs. Napolitano, thank you for your leadership as Ranking

Member of this Committee on these important issues of water conservation and water use.

I am primarily here to salute my colleague, Congressman John

Carter, for his vision and leadership in putting together this legislation. He has been a distinguished selected official from

Williamson County, which I now share with my representation of

the county seat, but Mr. Carter is known as ‘‘Mr. Williamson

County.’’ He has lived in and represented that county ably for well

over two decades.

As he said, this is one of the fastest-increasing population counties in the country, and we have not been sitting back idly waiting

for Federal resources to come in. We have worked at the local,

State, Federal level together in partnership building pipelines to

5

Stillhouse Hollow Lake in my congressional district, working on a

study right now, through my Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water in the House to figure out if at Lake Georgetown

in Williamson County we can find a better way to conserve water

and use water there.

This bill is simply asking for a Federal partnership in helping

the local communities and Mr. Carter’s leadership to provide water

for Williamson County for many, many years to come.

I salute him, I salute Mr. Joe Beal, with the Lower Colorado

River Authority, and Commissioner Mike Heiligenstein, who has

been a leader on this issue for many, many years.

I understand that some of the folks from the Bureau of Reclamation take a standard policy of opposing these bills, saying we have

got a lot of them backed up. Well, perhaps we need to work more

closely with our Appropriations Committee. If we haven’t done our

job in funding these projects, Mr. Chairman, like you have done

your job in authorizing them, then maybe we need to get to work.

I don’t find in our Committee the Bureau of Reclamation suggesting a lot of new dams being built across the country, and it

seems to me that recycling of water, so you are not pumping drinking water on the golf courses and parks for grass, would be a lot

cheaper way to go than building dozens of new major lakes and

dams across the country.

So I salute Congressman Carter for his leadership and vision on

this bill, and I am just honored to be here to support him in that

effort.

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank you for your testimony, and I agree with

both of you. We need to concentrate with our colleagues on making

sure that we fund these reclamation projects throughout the

United States, and especially the arid parts of the United States,

such as Texas, California, New Mexico, and Nebraska, wherever we

may have these problems because you are right, we are not going

to be building a lot of dams in the country, and we need to look

at new and innovative ways to meet our problems.

I don’t have any questions for you because I know you have to

run off, but I would be happy to recognize Mrs. Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, it is great that you are here on behalf of your constituency, and I look forward to working with both of you because

these issues affect California and affect every other State in the

Nation. And if we don’t work together, if we don’t shed some light

and—how would I say it gently—get the Administration off their

‘‘duff’’ to fund it so we can have those projects moving forward, it

is that important, and hopefully you will be able to get the message

that they need to increase the budgeting in those areas that are

critical to be able to fight the drought, to be able to have liberal

communities again.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

The only thing I would add to that, that is not just the Administration, but the Appropriations Committees.

Mr. EDWARDS. Absolutely.

6

Mr. CALVERT. So we have a responsibility in the governance

process, too.

So thank you gentlemen for coming out today. You are excused.

Mr. CALVERT. We will now hear testimony from our second panel,

which includes testimony on H.R. 1598 and H.R. 1732. While the

gentlemen are coming up, the author of 1598, Chris Cox, is unable

to be with us today because there is a hearing on homeland security, which he chairs, and obviously he could not forfeit that responsibility, but we will submit his written testimony for the

record, if there is no objection.

[No response.]

Mr. CALVERT. Hearing none, his testimony is submitted.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in

Congress from the State of California

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on H.R. 1598, the

Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act. I am proud to have sponsored this legislation as it will be tremendously beneficial for both water quality and

water availability in Southern California, particularly in Orange County. I’d also

like to thank Mr. Brian Brady, President of the Board of Directors for the Irvine

Ranch Water District and Mr. Larry McKenney, Manager of Watershed and Coastal

Resources for the County of Orange, for agreeing to testify today.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the San Diego Creek and

the Upper Newport Bay to be ‘‘limited’’ in water quality, meaning that drinking or

swimming in the water is hazardous. This designation is due to drainage from

urban surfaces that flows unfiltered into the watershed.

Thankfully, Orange County is working successfully to combine the treatment of

drinking water with the important goal of protecting the environment. The Natural

Treatment System currently being developed by the County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, and the Irvine Ranch Water District will have a tremendous impact on

the water quality of the Bay. The process will remove unwanted sediment, nutrients, and other contaminants which, if left untreated, will pollute and clog up the

Upper Newport Bay. That is why this legislation is endorsed by local environmental

groups like the Orange County Coastkeepers and the Newport Bay Naturalists and

Friends.

As you are well aware, with the growing demands for water in Southern California, it is important that communities take steps to treat and conserve existing

water resources. H.R. 1598 will authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to assist in

the planning, development and design of a series of man-made wetlands that will

help clean up polluted surface runoff within the San Diego Creek Watershed. Because the Bureau of Reclamation has extensive experience with such projects, its

participation will be important in ensuring that the project moves forward as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.

The total cost of designing and constructing the Natural Treatment System will

be $41 million. A majority of these funds will come from the private sector, and the

Irvine Ranch Water District, state, and local governments will contribute significant

additional resources as well. To ensure strong local support for the project, I included language in H.R. 1598 limiting the Federal Government’s involvement to no

more than 25% of the project’s total costs. Once construction is completed, annual

operating funding will be provided entirely by local agencies.

Finally, there is the potential for significant cost savings for the Federal Government: by reducing silt runoff into Upper Newport Bay, the Natural Treatment System will reduce the need for the Corps of Engineers to regularly dredge the bay to

remove the accumulation of silt and pollutants.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support for this important legislation

and for the opportunity to speak about it today.

7

8

9

Mr. CALVERT. And we are going to be receiving testimony from

Mr. Mark Limbaugh, Director of External and Intergovernmental

Affairs, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

I think we are first going to be hearing from Mr. Limbaugh who

will testify on both bills. Be gentle, Mr. Limbaugh, and you are

recognized.

10

STATEMENT OF MARK LIMBAUGH, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL

AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, U.S. BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION

Mr. LIMBAUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano,

members of the Committee. I would like to make some oral comments and submit my written statement, if you so desire.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Mr. LIMBAUGH. Thank you.

Again, my name is Mark Limbaugh. I am the Director of External and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Bureau of Reclamation

here in Washington. I am pleased to be here to talk to you about

the Department’s views on H.R. 1598.

This Act would obviously amend the Reclamation Wastewater

and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, commonly known as

Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary to participate in projects in

the San Diego Creek Watershed in California and for other

purposes.

Reclamation has had preliminary discussions with Irvine Ranch

Water District on the proposed surface water treatment, groundwater treatment and brine disposal components of their project.

However, we believe that because there is a lack of a feasibility

study at this time, that this legislation is premature in authorizing

the design and construction of a project.

Also, we have concerns about the burdens on our budget from additions to Title XVI projects, which already there is a large backlog

of unconstructed and authorized projects, but we will continue to

work with the district in California on this project to help get to

the point of at least the feasibility level study. However, we cannot

support this bill at this time, Mr. Chairman.

I am also pleased to be here to present the views of the Department on H.R. 1732, concerning the Williamson County Reclamation Project in the State of Texas. Again, this bill would amend the

Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities

Act, authorizing the Secretary to participate in the design, planning and construction of a reclamation project in Williamson County, Texas.

We have only recently met with local representatives of the

Lower Colorado River Authority and have not had sufficient time

to really discuss and review the merits of this project. So at this

time we cannot support H.R. 1732, but we will continue to work

with the Lower Colorado River Authority to investigate the merits

of this project at this time.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my comments on the two bills.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Limbaugh follow:]

Statement of Mark A. Limbaugh, Director, External and Intergovernmental

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

H.R. 1598

My name is Mark Limbaugh and I am the Director of External and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to appear before this

Subcommittee to provide the Department’s views on H.R. 1598.

H.R. 1598 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study

and Facilities Act (Public Law 102–575), commonly called Title XVI, to authorize the

Secretary of Interior to participate in projects within the San Diego Creek Watershed in California and for other purposes.

11

Reclamation has had some preliminary discussions with the Irvine Ranch Water

District about proposed surface water treatment, groundwater treatment, and brine

disposal components of their project. However, H.R. 1598 authorizes the design and

construction of the project before Reclamation or the project sponsors have completed a feasibility study that meets the legal requirements of Title XVI. Reclamation requires that feasibility studies be completed first to determine whether these

particular projects warrant Federal construction authorization. Therefore, the Department believes the legislation to be premature and cannot support H.R. 1598 at

this time.

The Department also believes that this legislation would likely place an additional

burden on Reclamation’s already tight budget. With the tremendous backlog of existing Title XVI projects, we do not support the addition of new projects at this time.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1598. That concludes my

statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Statement of Mark A. Limbaugh, Director, External and Intergovernmental

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

H.R. 1732

My name is Mark Limbaugh and I am Director of External and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views

of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1732, concerning the Williamson County

water reclamation project in the State of Texas.

H.R. 1732 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study

and Facilities Act (Public Law 102–575), authorizing the Secretary of the Interior

to participate in the design, planning, and construction of a water reclamation

project in Williamson County, Texas. The authority provided in H.R. 1732 is an

amendment to limit the Federal share of project costs to 25 percent of the total

project costs, caps the maximum Federal share of each project at $20 million and

restricts the Secretary from providing funding for the operation and maintenance.

Reclamation only recently met with representatives of the Lower Colorado River

Authority and thus we have not had sufficient time to review the merits of the

project. In that respect, until we have more information, we cannot comment on the

merits of the project itself and therefore cannot support H.R. 1732.

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. With the tremendous backlog of Title XVI projects that already exist,

we do not support the addition of new wastewater projects at this time.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, in 1992, the Reclamation Projects Authorization

and Adjustment Act (Public Law 102–575) was enacted. Title XVI of this Act, the

Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, authorized construction of five water reclamation and reuse projects. The Secretary also was authorized to undertake a program to identify other water recycling opportunities

throughout the 17 western United States and to conduct appraisal level and feasibility level studies to determine if those opportunities are worthy of implementation.

In addition, the Secretary was authorized to conduct research and to construct, operate, and maintain demonstration projects. Reclamation has been administering a

grant program to fund these Title XVI activities since fiscal year 1994.

In 1996, Public Law 104–266, the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation

Act, was enacted. This Act amended Title XVI and authorized the Secretary to participate in the planning, design, and construction of 18 additional projects, including

two desalination research and development projects. To date, Congress has provided

funding to plan or construct 19 of 25 specifically authorized projects. Under the general authority of Title XVI, funding has been provided to identify and investigate,

at the appraisal or feasibility level, eight potential water recycling projects, and to

conduct three research and demonstration projects.

In summary, the Department strongly encourages local water recycling efforts and

is engaged in numerous water reuse and recycling projects around the West. However, for the reasons provided above, the Department cannot, at this time, support

authorizing this new construction request.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1732. This concludes my

statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. I would only add, before we get to the testimony of the other gentlemen that are here

to testify on behalf of H.R. 1598 to 1732, that I believe that you

12

are going to be, and I am going to be talking to others in the

Administration, a considerable amount of support on both sides of

the aisle, for reclamation projects, because if we don’t start developing additional resources by reusing an existing resource, then I

don’t see how we can meet our water demands in the future. I

understand the budget constraints that we are operating under,

but we will need to deal with that.

With us today testifying on H.R. 1598 is Mr. Larry McKenney,

the manager of the Watershed and Coastal Resources for Orange

County, California, and Mr. Brian Brady, President of the Board of

Directors, the Irvine Ranch Water District of California.

Testifying on H.R. 1732 is the Honorable Mr. Mike

Heiligenstein, Commissioner, Williamson County, Texas, and Mr.

Joe Beal, general manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority

in Texas.

So, with that, we will start off with Mr. Larry McKenney. We are

on a 5-minute rule, Mr. McKenney. As a matter of fact, there is a

town of McKenney, right there in Denton County, Texas, where my

dad was born, so it must be nearby.

So, with that, Mr. McKenney, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF LARRY McKENNEY, MANAGER, WATERSHED

AND COASTAL RESOURCES FOR ORANGE COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA

Mr. MCKENNEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished members of the Committee. I am Larry McKenney. I do

manage the Watershed and Coastal Resources Division, which is

part of the Public Facilities and Resources Department of the

County of Orange. My task in that position includes the watershed

management efforts for the 13 watersheds that comprise Orange

County and also our Stormwater Compliance Program.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today about the

Irvine Ranch Water District Natural Treatment Systems Project

and the water resources that that project would help to steward

and protect.

My comments today can be epitomized by the idea that we

should be using public funds as much as possible for multiple purposes and that that is really the essence of the watershed approach, an effort to manage water resources on the scale of the watershed as a physical system, where there are many competing and

conflicting interests that can be resolved in efficient ways if we look

at it on a systems basis.

The County of Orange obviously exists to provide for and protect

the public health of its residents, and that includes protecting its

water resources, including both the adequacy of the quantity of our

drinking water and also the health of our ecosystems, and the

water quality of our streams and beaches.

We are very fortunate in Orange County to have a number of

special districts, like Irvine Ranch Water District, who bring great

expertise to the water business and help us to protect these

valuable resources. So even though the county itself is not a water

supplier, we work very closely with special districts like RWD to

manage our water supply and our other water resources.

13

Orange County has taken a particular interest in Upper Newport

Bay, which is at the bottom end of the San Diego Creek Watershed,

where the natural treatment systems project is proposed. Upper

Newport Bay is an ecological jewel. It is a recreational and aesthetic amenity as well, and it has been severely threatened by development in the urbanized San Diego Creek Watershed from pollutants like sediment, nutrients, pathogens, and toxic metals.

The most efficient solutions to these problems are not to treat

the water near the bottom of the watershed, but to try to address

the pollution up in the watershed where the sources are and to use

the territory that we have as effectively as we can.

By improving water quality further up in the watershed, the

health of the stream channels all the way to the ocean will benefit.

One interest that the county has is that we are the lead permittee

under two separate stormwater permits. Under these permits, the

county, all 34 cities, and the Orange County Flood Control District

are co-permittees, and so we have the legal responsibility to reduce

pollution in the streams and bays to the maximum extent

practicable.

Our permits include provisions that strongly support our own impetus toward a watershed approach. And in implementing our

stormwater program, we have created watershed groups that include all of our co-permittees that have territory within each watershed, and also special districts, property owners, business interests,

environmental and recreational interest groups who are active in

the watershed, and these groups help us to balance the often competing environmental concerns and to agree on priorities within

that watershed.

One example of the conflicting interests that are typically found

in an urban watershed is the need for flood protection, which then

conflicts with the need to conserve rainfall for water supply and

the need to maintain the health of ecosystems and rivers and

streams.

In the San Diego Creek Watershed, the Orange County Flood

Control District has been doing an admirable job of protecting the

developed property in the watershed from damage from devastating

floods. And to achieve this, the flood control district has improved

miles of channel to carry peak flows reliably and quickly downstream and has constructed detention basins to hold water and

dampen the peaks of flood flows downstream.

One view of the world is that this flood control infrastructure has

been a tradeoff, a major public investment in flood protection necessarily at the expense of other natural features in the watershed.

But the IRWD approach challenges that paradigm and sees these

flood control facilities as an opportunity, where we can retrofit into

that physical system water quality features.

Their proposal includes numerous sites throughout the San

Diego Creek Watershed where wetlands could be constructed, often

within flood control facilities, and then these wetlands will restore

some of the lost functioning of the natural system, including filtering out water impurities, encouraging recharge of groundwater

to improve water supply, and enhancing the habitat values of the

region.

14

This approach capitalizes on the fact that the full flood-carrying

capacity of the system is not necessary the vast majority of the

time and that we can build a water quality improvement feature

in the system and still have the flood-carrying capacity available

when it is needed.

The project is important to the region’s overall management of

water supply as well. Orange County can’t survive on the local natural supply that is available to it, and we have to use every other

resource to ensure a reliable supply, including importation, of

course, as well as conservation and recycling. It means also the use

of groundwater and surface water conjunctively in a coordinated

way to optimize supply.

Maximizing the use of recycled water will allow us to use every

drop of water several times before it reaches the ocean. All of these

techniques are being used in Orange County, and you can see that,

like our emphasis on watersheds as the appropriate physical frame

of reference, this is a systems approach, and it provides the most

benefit when we are able to use water from various sources with

as much flexibility as possible.

To be able to maximize recycled water use, to use imported water

from different sources at will, to manipulate groundwater levels to

optimize supply and at the same time maintain flood-carrying capacity in our improved channels and not endanger habitat values

and overall water quality, to achieve all of those goals, natural systems within the channels need to be strong and healthy, robust

enough to withstand the stresses of that kind of system management.

IRWD’s projects are great examples of innovation and technical

excellence. The Natural Treatment Systems Project is an innovative concept. It is one of those concepts that, once somebody has described it to you, it seems perfectly obvious, and yet it is innovative.

My division was created within the county to encourage collaboration between Government agencies that have activities that affect water, and I am very happy to be able now to move outside

of the county and collaborate with special districts like IRWD. We

are very hopeful that the Bureau of Reclamation will be authorized

to collaborate with us as a partner as well and bring their expertise

to bear in helping us solve our problems.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKenney follows:]

Statement of Larry McKenney, Manager, Watershed and Coastal Resources,

County of Orange, California

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cox, and other distinguished Members of this Committee. My name is Larry McKenney, and I manage the Watershed

and Coastal Resources Division of the Public Facilities and Resources Department

in the County of Orange. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today

on H.R. 1598 and to discuss the water resources that it would help to protect. I am

grateful to Congressman Cox for introducing this bill, and also to Senator Feinstein

for the related bill in the Senate.

The County of Orange exists to provide for and protect the health and welfare of

its citizens. That includes water resources, both the adequacy of the supply of potable water, and the quality of water in our streams and on our beaches. In particular,

our bays and beaches are very important because of their national ecological significance and because they are the beating heart of the Orange County economy.

15

We are fortunate in Orange County to have a number of special districts, like the

Irvine Ranch Water District, that bring to bear great expertise in addressing the

water and wastewater service needs in the County. These water resources issues are

critically important in a densely urbanized region that cannot survive on the

amount of local water that is naturally available. Several of our cities also have

water and sewer departments. The County itself is not a water supplier, but has

other water resources interests and has been a leader in the watershed approach

that Mr. Brady mentioned. Our approach is to look at water resources holistically

within the physical system of a watershed, or single drainage area.

Water resources issues have a very high profile in Southern California. If the adequacy of our water supplies comes into question, even if the question is not justified,

the public perception of a problem is acute. Similarly, any threat, even a merely perceived threat, to the quality of our recreational waters has a negative effect on tourism, the economy, and the quality of life of the residents and visitors in Orange

County.

Starting more than ten years ago, Orange County began to look at watersheds

as the proper scale for the management of our water resources. The County has led

this effort, serving in different roles—as committee chair, as facilitator, as technical

expert—in the thirteen different watersheds the comprise the County. The earliest

example was in the San Diego Creek and Newport Bay watershed. As that watershed developed and an urban infrastructure was constructed, the County and its

municipal partners and other stakeholders have kept a close watch on sediment, nutrients, and other water quality problems.

Orange County has taken a special interest in Upper Newport Bay. It is an ecological jewel, and is also a valuable recreational and aesthetic amenity. It has also

been severely threatened by the effects of development in the San Diego Creek watershed, particularly from sediment, nutrients, and toxic metals. The County and

other local stakeholders have partnered with the Army Corps of Engineers to address sediment issues, which affect not only habitat, but also navigability in the

upper and lower bays. Notably, the Army is starting an ecosystem restoration

project that will restore and improve significant habitat areas in the Bay. The most

efficient solutions to some of the other problems facing the Bay must be implemented throughout the watershed, and not just at the bottom of the system. Not

only is this approach more efficient, but it is substantially more effective in achieving multiple goals. By improving water quality further up in the watershed, the

health of the stream channels all the way to ocean will benefit, rather than simply

cleaning the water near the end of the system. More subtle, but more important,

is the effect this approach has on our overall ability to manage water resources.

One interest the County has is that we are the lead permittee under two areawide

municipal stormwater permits. All 34 cities in the County, and the Orange County

Flood Control District, are co-permittees. Special districts, like Irvine Ranch Water

District, are not covered by those municipal permits. Our permits include provisions

strongly supporting our own focus on the watershed approach. In implementing our

stormwater program, we have created watershed groups that include the co-permittees with territory within the watershed, and also the special districts and property

owners, business interests, and environmental and recreational interest groups who

are active in the watershed. These groups do real work in helping the government

agencies with responsibilities for resources to see their needs and interests in the

context of the entire watershed, to balance often competing environmental concerns,

and to agree on priorities.

An example of the conflicting interests typically found in an urban watershed is

the need for flood protection, which conflicts with the need to conserve rainfall for

water supply, and the need to maintain the health of ecosystems in rivers and

streams. In the San Diego Creek watershed the Orange County Flood Control District is doing an excellent job of protecting developed property from damage from

devastating floods. To achieve this, the Flood Control District has improved miles

of channel to carry peak flows reliably and quickly, and has constructed detention

basins to hold water and dampen the peaks of flood flows downstream.

One view of the world is that this flood control infrastructure has been a trade

off, a major public investment in flood protection at the expense of the natural features and functions of our streams and waterways. The IRWD Natural Treatment

Systems project changes the paradigm and sees these flood control facilities as an

opportunity to retrofit water quality features into the flood control system. The proposal includes numerous sites throughout the area of the San Diego Creek watershed where wetlands would be created, often within flood control facilities. These

wetlands will restore some of the lost functioning of the natural system, including

filtering out water impurities, encouraging the recharge of groundwater, and enhancing the habitat values of the region. The approach capitalizes on the fact that

16

the full capacity of the flood control facilities is not needed the vast majority of the

time, and it can be available to carry flood flows when major rains do come.

Since Orange County cannot survive on its own local, natural water supply, we

have use every other source to ensure a reliable supply. This includes importation,

of course, as well as water conservation. It also means use of groundwater and

surface water in a coordinated way to optimize supply—an approach called conjunctive use. And it also includes maximizing the recycling of water so that it gets used

several times before being discharged to the ocean. All of these techniques are being

used in Orange County, and you can see that this is, like our emphasis on watersheds, a systems approach. It provides the most benefit when we are able to use

water from various sources with as much flexibility as possible. To be able to maximize recycled water use, use imported water from different sources at will, and manipulate groundwater levels, all in order to optimize water supply, and maintain

flood carrying capacity in our streams, but without endangering the habitat values

and overall water quality in our streams and channels, the natural systems within

the channels need to be strong and healthy, robust enough to withstand foreseeable

stresses.

IRWD’s projects are great examples of innovation and technical excellence. The

Natural Treatment Systems Project is one of those innovative concepts that seem

entirely obvious once someone has described it. It truly illustrates the watershed approach in an urbanized watershed. Each of Orange County’s thirteen watersheds is

a unique situation in terms of problems, opportunities, partners, and priorities. In

the San Diego Creek watershed, the Natural Treatment Systems project is the right

approach, and we have stakeholders who are willing to work on it. My division, the

Watershed and Coastal Resources Division, was created within the County to encourage collaboration and innovation between other County programs that touch

water quality, including the flood control, transportation infrastructure, parks, and

development planning. It is especially exciting to be able to work in the same way

with other stakeholders within the County like IRWD who share that vision. The

County and the Flood Control District are proud to be partners with IRWD. We are

hopeful that the Bureau of Reclamation will be authorized to participate with us

as well so that we can benefit from their knowledge and expertise with regard to

constructed wetlands, water quality, and the systems approach to water supply

management. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you

today. I am very excited about the great work that the Irvine Ranch Water District

has done in my community and we look forward to partnering with the Bureau of

Reclamation to ensure the project’s success.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Next, Mr. Brady, Brian Brady, the President of the Board of

Directors, Irvine Ranch Water District. You are recognized.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN BRADY, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF

DIRECTORS, IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA,

ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL JONES, GENERAL MANAGER,

IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Brian Brady, the president of the board of Irvine

Ranch Water District. We appreciate the opportunity to testify

today on H.R. 1598, the Irvine Basin Groundwater and Surface

Water Improvement Act of 2003.

I would like to thank Congressman Cox, especially, for introducing this bill and for Senator Feinstein for introducing an identical piece of legislation on the Senate side.

As you may know, the Irvine Ranch Water District provides domestic water service, wastewater collection and treatment, water

reclamation and urban runoff treatment for the city of Irvine, and

portions of four surrounding cities, as well as unincorporated areas

of the County of Orange. In total, the district serves a resident population of over a quarter of a million people and a daytime population of about a half a million people.

17

I have with me today the General Manager of the Irvine Ranch

Water District, Mr. Paul Jones, to help answer any technical questions that the Committee might have.

As background, as Mr. McKenney has mentioned, San Diego

Creek Watershed encompasses over 120 square miles in Central

Orange County. The watershed’s boundary approximates that of

the Irvine Ranch Water District and includes, as I mentioned before, the city of Irvine, also Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange

and Tustin.

Surface drainage or urban runoff containing fertilizers, pesticides, sediments and pathogens flow through the San Diego Creek

Watershed into the Upper Newport Bay, severely impacting the

water quality of the watershed and the bay. As a result, the EPA

has identified the San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport Bay as

impaired water bodies.

In order to protect the water quality of the San Diego Watershed

and the Upper Bay, and it is the largest marine estuary in Southern California, IRWD, in collaboration with the County of Orange,

and the cities I have mentioned, is proposing to develop and maintain a system of manmade wetlands—31 in total—throughout the

area that would utilize natural process to capture unwanted sediment, remove nutrients, pathogens and other contaminants from

the runoff and ensure that dry weather flow and first flush from

rains reaching the bay meet Federal clean water standards.

In addition to completing the San Diego Creek Water Shed Natural Treatment System or NTS, the proposed legislation would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation assistance in developing a related component of the project to treat and reuse impaired groundwater within the groundwater basin. This will be built in conjunction with the local groundwater management agency, the Orange

County Water District, and with financial assistance from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

This project, known as the Irvine Desalter, will consist of a well

system and purification plant which will remove salts and nitrates

caused by natural geology and past agricultural drainage. The

project will employ reverse osmosis technology and create a new

highly reliable local drinking water supply at a cost to Irvine

Ranch Water District comparable to imported water supplies from

the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and the Colorado River. The

project is consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation’s objectives of

reclaiming impaired water for beneficial uses.

The final component of this project will be a regional brine line.

In Orange County, as well as throughout California, wastewater

reclamation for reuse is a critical component of the region’s current

and future water supply portfolio. Our region enjoys one of the

most advanced systems of wastewater treatment distribution and

reuse in the world.

Currently, brines are disposed in the sewer from industrial

sources and from groundwater treatment facilities. This method of

disposal is problematic as it dramatically increases the cost of

treatment and impairs water and wastewater agencies’ ability to

implement additional wastewater reclamation. To alleviate this

problem, we propose to construct a regional brine line that consists

18

of separate systems of pipes to segregate the brine from sewage

and dispose of it directly to the ocean.

Providing a new local water supply such as that created by the

Irvine Desalter, and facilitating additional reclaimed water

development through projects such as the regional brine line, are

important strategies in reducing Southern California’s reliance on

imported water supplies from the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary

and the Colorado River. In fact, both the CALFED program for the

San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and the California 4.4 Plan for

the Colorado River assume aggressive development and implementation of local water resource projects.

Under CALFED, the fundamental objective of the Water Management Program Element is to: ‘‘Reduce the mismatch between

Bay-Delta water supplies and current and projected beneficial uses

dependent on the Bay-Delta system,’’ through a strategy to ‘‘increase the utility of available water supplies by making water more

suitable for uses and reuses.’’ As noted earlier, the Irvine Desalter

makes unused water resources suitable for use, while the regional

brine line promotes additional water reuse through reclamation.

Similarly, for California’s consumers of Colorado River water to

stay within the 4.4-million-acre-feet of entitlement, numerous new

local water supply and reclamation projects will need to be implemented. A recent report completed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, entitled, ‘‘Report on Metropolitan’s

Water Supplies: A Blueprint for Water Reliability,’’ identifies a 32-

percent increase in local water supply project yield by the year

2025, as a key component in reducing reliance on imported water

from the Colorado River.

The total cost of the projects authorized by H.R. 1598 is slightly under $80 million. As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title

XVI allows a 25-percent contribution or up to a limit of $20 million.

To date, the District, that is, IRWD, has spent over $2 million toward completing comprehensive project development work, including feasibility analysis, master plan and project engineering report

preparation, water quality and groundwater modeling, environmental documentation, cost estimates, design plans and specifications.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, that completes my

comments.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brady follows:]

Statement of Brian Brady, President of the Board of Directors,

Irvine Ranch Water District

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cox, and the other distinguished

Members of this Committee. My name is Brian Brady and I serve as President of

the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water District. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on H.R. 1598, the Irvine Basin Groundwater and

Surface Water Improvement Act of 2003. First, let me express my sincere gratitude

to Congressman Cox for introducing this legislation, and also thank Senator Diane

Feinstein who has introduced an identical piece of legislation in the Senate.

If I may, I’d like to briefly describe the role that the Irvine Ranch Water District

plays in our community and the context within which our project is proposed. The

Irvine Ranch Water District provides domestic water service, wastewater collection

and treatment, water reclamation, and urban runoff treatment for the city of Irvine

and portions of four surrounding cities as well as the County of Orange. In total,

the District serves a resident population of over 266,000 with a daytime population

19

of approximately 500,000. We employ approximately 275 well-qualified employees

who are committed to the mission of providing a safe, reliable water supply to our

customers without sacrificing the environment. In fact, because of our outstanding

staff, the District has been recognized with numerous regional, statewide and national awards for our leadership in developing innovative ways to provide water

while protecting the environment. The District’s General Manager, Paul Jones, is

with me here today to assist in answering any technical questions that the Members

of the Committee may have about the projects that would be authorized by this legislation.

We are extremely excited about this legislation, as it will allow the Irvine Ranch

Water District to even better serve the community and the environment. The Irvine

Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act would authorize the Bureau of

Reclamation to participate in the design and construction of projects that will enhance the environment of a large portion of Orange County. This partnership would

be a tremendous help to the District as we work to develop new groundwater supply

projects and to protect the San Diego Creek watershed and Upper Newport Bay.

Before I talk about the specifics of our proposed project, it is important to discuss

the regional context and approach used by water and wastewater agencies in San

Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties to address water resource and urban

runoff issues. Contemporary surface and groundwater resource management relies

heavily on addressing issues on a ‘‘watershed-wide’’ basis. The Southern California

coastal plain and its watersheds extend from the mountains to the ocean. One watershed, that of the Santa Ana River, extends 96 miles from the San Bernardino

Mountains to the Pacific, between Huntington and Newport Beaches. In terms of

management, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, or SAWPA as it is

known, provides watershed-wide coordination of water resource management

projects through a joint powers agreement among five regional agencies. These

agencies have worked to develop numerous water reclamation, brackish desalting

and water quality wetland projects in the three-county region.

In the lower portion of the Santa Ana River system in Orange County, Orange

County Water District, one of the five SAWPA members, manages the groundwater

basin, and as discussed later, is a key partner in the groundwater component of the

proposed project.

With respect to coordination of surface drainage, or ‘‘urban runoff’’ issues, the

County of Orange, in collaboration with the cities and agencies within the County,

are developing new, innovative methods to treat contaminated surface runoff, including another component of this proposed project referred to as the Natural Treatment System. Larry Mc Kenney of the County of Orange is here today and will be

providing testimony regarding the County’s watershed management efforts, and the

role the proposed Natural Treatment System component of the proposed project

plays in those efforts.

All these aforementioned partnerships provide the basis for, and examples of, collaborative water resource management using a comprehensive ‘‘watershed-wide’’ approach.

This brings us to the San Diego Creek watershed, which encompasses over 120

square miles in central Orange County. The San Diego Creek watershed’s boundary

is approximately the same as Irvine Ranch Water District’s and includes the City

of Irvine and portions of the Cities of Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, and

Tustin, as well as unincorporated areas of the County. Surface drainage or urban

runoff containing fertilizers, pesticides, sediment, and pathogens, flows through the

San Diego Creek watershed and into the Upper Newport Bay, severely impacting

the water quality of the watershed and the Bay. As a result of these water quality

concerns, EPA has identified San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport Bay as

‘‘impaired water bodies.’’

In order to protect the water quality of the San Diego Creek watershed and Upper

Newport Bay, the largest marine estuary in Southern California, Irvine Ranch

Water District, in collaboration with the County of Orange and the aforementioned

cities, is proposing to develop and maintain a system of man-made wetlands

throughout the area that will utilize natural processes to capture unwanted sediment and remove nutrients, pathogens and other contaminants from the runoff,

thus helping to ensure that the dry weather and ‘‘first flush’’ flows and reaching the

Bay meet Federal clean water standards. The Natural Treatment System portion of

the project will provide a cost effective method to help the community protect the

water quality and beneficial uses in San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport Bay,

and will also provide additional neighborhood open space and wildlife habitat.

In addition to completing the San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System, the proposed legislation would authorize Bureau of Reclamation assistance in

developing a related component of the project to treat and reuse impaired groundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:19 Aug 20, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 87233.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
20

water within the groundwater basin. This will be built in conjunction with the local

groundwater management agency, the Orange County Water District, and with financial assistance from of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

This portion of the project, known as the Irvine Desalter, will consist of a well

system and water purification plant that will remove salts and nitrates caused by

natural geology and past agricultural drainage from a portion of the groundwater

basin underlying the San Diego Creek watershed. The project will employ reverse

osmosis technology to create a new, highly reliable local drinking water supply at

a cost to Irvine Ranch Water District comparable to imported water supplies from

the San Francisco Bay–Delta Estuary and the Colorado River. The project is consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation’s objectives of reclaiming impaired water for

beneficial uses.

The final component of this project will be a regional brine line. In Orange County, just as it is throughout California, wastewater reclamation for reuse is a critical

component of the region’s current and future water supply portfolio. Our region enjoys one of the most advanced systems of wastewater treatment, distribution and

reuse in the world. Currently, brines are disposed in the sewer from industrial

sources and existing or proposed impaired groundwater treatment facilities. This

method of disposal is problematic as it dramatically increases the costs of treatment

and impairs local water and wastewater agencies’ ability to implement additional

wastewater reclamation. To alleviate this problem, Irvine Ranch Water proposes to

construct a Regional Brine Line that consists of a separate system of pipes to segregate brine from sewage and dispose of the brine directly into the ocean where salinity is not a concern.

Providing new, local water supplies such as those created by the Irvine Desalter,

and facilitating additional reclaimed water development through projects such as

the regional brine line, are important strategies in reducing Southern California’s

reliance on imported water supplies from the San Francisco Bay–Delta Estuary and

the Colorado River. In fact, both the CALFED program for the San Francisco Bay–

Delta Estuary and the California 4.4 Plan for the Colorado River assume aggressive

development and implementation of local water resource projects. Under the

CALFED program, the fundamental objective of the Water Management Program

Element is to: ‘‘Reduce the mismatch between Bay Delta water supplies and current

and projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay Delta system’’ through a strategy to ‘‘Increase the utility of available water supplies and by making water more

suitable for uses and reuses.’’ As noted earlier, the Irvine Desalter portion of the

proposed project makes unused water resources suitable for use, while the regional

brine line promotes additional water reuse through reclamation.

Similarly, for California’s consumers of Colorado River water to stay within the

state’s 4.4 million acre feet of entitlement, numerous new local water supply and

reclamation projects will need to be implemented in urban southern California. A

report recently completed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

entitled: ‘‘Report on Metropolitan’s Water Supplies: A Blueprint for Water Reliability,’’ identifies a 32% increase in local supply project yield, from 2.2 million acre

feet 2005, to 2.9 million acre feet in 2025, as a key component in reducing reliance

on imported water from the Colorado River. As such, the proposed project is consistent with these local supply development strategies and will incrementally help

southern California meet its water supply management goals on the Colorado River.

The total cost of the projects to be authorized in H.R.1598 is slightly under $80

million. As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI program allows the Bureau to contribute to 25% of the costs of planning, designing, and constructing

projects like the ones that would be authorized by H.R. 1598 up to a limit of $20

million. To date, the District has spent over $2 million toward completing comprehensive project development work including feasibility analyses, master plan and

project engineering report preparation, water quality and groundwater modeling,

environmental documentation, cost estimates, design plans and specifications. In

total, our District and other local sponsors are committed to providing over $60 million toward the construction of these important projects.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman, thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to

share my testimony with you. The Irvine Ranch Water District is committed to serving its customers in the most efficient, cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner. I am proud to serve as President of the Board for such an outstanding

public agency. We are looking forward to working with the Bureau of Reclamation

to make this project a success. Again, thank you for your time and consideration

of my testimony. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have at this time.

21

[NOTE: A document entitled ‘‘Irvine Basin Groundwater and

Surface Water Improvement Projects’’ by Paul D. Jones II, P.E.,

submitted for the record has been retained in the Committee’s

official files.]

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Next, testifying on H.R. 1732, Commissioner Mike, you are recognized.

[Laughter.]

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE HEILIGENSTEIN,

COMMISSIONER, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS

Mr. HEILIGENSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Mike Heiligenstein, and I might say that the Village

of Heiligenstein is on the border of France and Germany. And I

used to be able to claim one or the other, depending upon whose

policies I agreed with. Right now I am having a really hard time

because I don’t agree with either one.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HEILIGENSTEIN. I have also chaired for the National Association of Counties, and I am sure you hear from your county commissioners all the time, I also chair for them, I have chaired Water

Quality, and I currently chair Air Quality for the National Association. This year, the Western Interstate Conference is in Tahoe, so

I am sure water resources will be a huge factor in their conference

at the end of May.

I am here to testify on H.R. 1732 for Williamson County and the

Williamson County Recycling Act of 2003. I also want to thank

Congressman Carter and Congressman Edwards for their support.

As a county commissioner in Texas, I and my fellow Commissioners Court members, are the overall governing and management

body of the county. The Commissioners Court is responsible, of

course, for all budgetary decisions and setting the tax rate.

Commissioners Courts in Texas are also charged by our legislature to establish a courthouse and jail, build roads, bridges and

provide law enforcement through a county sheriff. Williamson

County’s general fund is in excess of $66.5 million, and the road

and bridge is in excess of $10.7 million.

While the county has been given recent authority to provide

water and wastewater services through the legislature, it has neither the budget nor the technical expertise to provide those services. We do, however, consult frequently with the Lower Colorado

River Authority to be sure that the residents are getting the best

water and wastewater service.

Since 1990, Williams County has experienced phenomenal

growth, and Williams County is located just north of Austin. We

are the home of Dell Computer, Westinghouse and Motorola. According to the 1990 census, there were 139,000 residents in

Williamson County. In just 10 years, we added over 100,000 new

residents to the county. For that decade, we became the second

fastest growing county in the State and the 19th fastest in the

country. Population projections show that in the year 2025, we

should be approaching 750,000 people. In fact, the city of Austin

will be the largest governmental entity in my particular precinct.

22

The Texas Water Development Board has required all retail providers to develop water conservation and drought contingency

plans. All of the water providers in Williamson County have completed, and implemented, very restrictive water conservation lands.

Even so, the current water supplies of Williamson County will meet

the demand in the year 2017. As our population has grown, we

have struggled to keep up with the demand for water. But because

it is such a scarce and precious resource, we are constantly looking

for ways to conserve what resources we do have and plan for the

development of additional.

There have been two major studies completed recently regarding

the supply of water to Williamson County. In 1997, the Texas State

Legislature determined the need to facilitate long-term water planning throughout the State and approved what was called Senate

Bill 1. This statewide effort resulted in 15 water plans throughout

the entire State. One of those, Region G, included detailed evaluations of the 50-year plan for Williamson County.

As I said before, a significant conclusion of that report is that the

existing sources of water will be fully utilized by 2017. Possible alternatives to meet the long-term needs of the county included, one,

the construction of a nominal earnings reservoir; two, the development of groundwater; three, the inter-basin transfer of additional

water from the Colorado River to the Brazos River.

The second study was the Williamson County Water Supply Facilities Plan that was prepared by the LCRA and the BRA. It

looked at how best to meet the 50-year needs of the cities and other

retail providers in 10-year increments. Both reports placed significant emphasis on reuse. However, so far only three cities in the

county have begun reuse projects and with only limited success.

This is, in part, due to the fragmented approach now being taken,

as well as the high initial cost to implement the reuse in

Williamson County. The county believes that a significant reuse

program can both reduce and postpone the need for the development of one or more of these new water supplies. This will have

a direct impact on every water customer in the county.

There has been a long-term relationship between the LCRA and

Williamson County because LCRA has been a major power provider

for nearly 75 years for much of the county. And during the last 10

years, the LCRA has been instrumental in bringing a regional approach to water and wastewater needs in the county.

It is my understanding that the LCRA also has a long history

with the Bureau. We believe that these two organizations can bring

a truly regional approach to reuse in Williamson County. The initial infusion of Federal funds from the Bureau can jump start this

important program. The LCRA’s leadership and expertise in project

management and delivery will ensure its long-term success.

Since the county has no experience with major water and wastewater projects, we look to the LCRA and the BRA to provide their

expertise to such a project. County Governments throughout the

United States, as you probably know, are looking more and more

toward regional approaches to solving problems that we have, including water.

The county recently acquired 800 acres for a regional park, and

we have constructed the first phase of that park. We use 200,000

23

gallons per day of drinking water, and that contract with the city

of Round Rock will expire in just 3 years. Until a better, more reliable, source of water can be developed, the county will be limited

in its development of the remaining portion of that park. The proposed reuse project will provide that new source of irrigation.

On behalf of the Commissioners Court of Williamson County and

the citizens, I would like to thank the Committee for considering

this bill. I can also assure you that the cities within Williamson

County are aware of this important legislation and wanted me to

acknowledge their support.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to appear, and I would

be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heiligenstein follows:]

Statement of Mike Heiligenstein, County Commissioner,

Williamson County, Texas

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Mike

Heiligenstein and I serve as a County Commissioner in Williamson County, Texas.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1732, the Williamson County

Water Recycling Act of 2003. I also want to thank Congressman John Carter for introducing this legislation and Congressman Chet Edwards for cosponsoring. I am

proud to have them representing my county in Washington, D.C.

As a County Commissioner in Texas, I and my fellow Commissioners Court members, are the overall governing and management body of the County. The Commissioners Court is responsible for all budgetary decisions and setting the tax rate each

year. Commissioners Courts in Texas are also charged by the Legislature to establish a courthouse and jail, build roads and bridges and provide law enforcement

through the County Sheriff. Williamson County’s general fund budget is in excess

of $66.5 million dollars and the road and bridge fund is in excess of $10.7 million

dollars. While the county has recently been given legislative authority to provide

water and wastewater services, it has neither the budget nor technical expertise to

effectively provide such services. We do, however, consult frequently with LCRA to

be sure that the residents are getting the best water and wastewater service.

Since 1990, Williamson County has experienced phenomenal growth. Williamson

County is located just north of Austin and is the home to Dell Computer. According

to the 1990 census, there were 139,551 residents in Williamson County. By 2000,

that number had grown to 249,967. For that decade, Williamson County was the

second fastest growing county in Texas and the 19th fastest growing county in the

country. Although the growth has slowed recently, population projections still estimate we will have over 750,000 residents by 2025.

The Texas Water Development Board has required all retail water providers to

develop Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plans. All of the water providers in Williamson County have completed and implemented very restrictive

water conservation plans. Even so, the current water supplies in Williamson County

will be exhausted in 2017. As our population has grown, we have struggled to keep

up with the demand for water. Because it is such a scarce and precious resource,

we are constantly looking for ways to conserve what sources we have and to plan

for the development of additional sources before they are needed.

There have been two major studies competed recently regarding the supply of

water to Williamson County. In 1997, the Texas State Legislature determined the

need to facilitate long- term water planning throughout the state and approved Senate Bill 1. This statewide effort resulted in fifteen regional water plans being developed. One of those plans, the Region G plan, included detailed evaluations of the

50-year water demands and supplies for Williamson County. This study was partially funded by the Texas Water Development. As I said before, a significant conclusion of that report is that the existing sources of water will be fully utilized in

2017. Possible alternatives to meet the long term water needs of the county include

(1) the construction of a new reservoir on the Little River, (2) the development of

ground water in an area 50–75 miles east of the county or (3) the inter-basin transfer of additional surface water from the Colorado River to the Brazos River basin.

The second study was the Williamson County Water Supply Facilities Plan that was

prepared by the Lower Colorado River Authority and the Brazos River Authority.

It looked at how best to meet the 50-year needs of the cities and other retail proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:19 Aug 20, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 87233.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
24

viders in ten-year increments. Both reports placed significant emphasis on reuse in

their water supply calculations. However, so far only three cities in the county have

begun reuse projects and with only limited success. This is in part due to the fragmented approach now being taken as well as the high initial cost to implement

reuse in Williamson County. The county believes that a significant reuse program

can both reduce and postpone the need for development of one or more of these new

water supplies. This will have a direct directly impact on every water customer in

the county.

There has been a long-term relationship between LCRA and Williamson County

because LCRA has been a major power provider for nearly 75 years for much of the

county. During the last 10 years, LCRA has also been instrumental in bringing a

regional approach to the water and wastewater needs in the county. It is my

understanding that LCRA also has a long history of working with the Bureau of

Reclamation. We believe that these two organizations can bring a truly regional approach to reuse in Williamson County. The initial infusion of Federal funds from

the Bureau of Reclamation can jump-start this important program. LCRA’s leadership and experience in project management and delivery will insure its long-term

success. Since the county has no experience with major water and wastewater

projects, we look to LCRA and the Brazos River Authority to provide their expertise

to such a project.

The County recently acquired 800 acres for a regional park and has completed the

construction of the first phase of its long-term plan for the park. Further development is now limited by the availability of irrigation water. The county now purchases 200,000 gallons per day of drinking water from the City of Round Rock. This

contract will expire in 2006. Until a better, more reliable source of water can be developed, the county will be limited in its development of the remainder of the park.

The proposed reuse project will provide that new source of irrigation water.

On behalf of the Commissioners Court of Williamson County, I would like to

thank the Committee for considering this bill. I can also assure you that the cities

within Williamson County are aware of this important legislation and wanted me

to acknowledge their support. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to appear

before your Committee today. I would be glad to answer any questions at this time.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.

Mr. Joe Beal, the General Manager of the Lower Colorado River

Authority, Texas.

STATEMENT OF JOE BEAL, GENERAL MANAGER,

LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY, TEXAS

Mr. BEAL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished

members of the Committee. My name is Joe Beal, and I am general

manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority, headquartered in

Austin, Texas.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1732, the

Williamson County Recycling Act of 2003. I also want to express

my sincere gratitude to Congressman John Carter for introducing

this legislation and to Congressman Chet Edwards for co-sponsoring this measure. Both Congressman Carter and Congressman

Edwards have been very supportive of LCRA and Central Texas,

and I appreciate their work on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly describe to the Committee

the mission and role of LCRA in communities throughout Central

Texas. LCRA was created in 1934 by the Texas Legislature as a

regional conservation and reclamation district in Central Texas.

The Federal Government and LCRA have had a close and beneficial relationship since our creation, when LCRA received Federal

loans and grants to build six reservoirs that form the Highland

Lakes, and those loans have been repaid.

These lakes have protected communities from destructive floods,

provided a reliable water supply for one of the fastest-growing reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:19 Aug 20, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 87233.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
25

gions in the United States, produces renewable hydroelectric

energy and created opportunities for parks and water recreation.

Today, our energy and water service areas cover all or part of 58

counties in Central Texas. Thanks to the original Federal investment, LCRA generates wholesale electric power for more than one

million people. We also manage a 600-mile stretch of the Texas

Colorado River from West Texas to the Gulf of Mexico, and we provide raw water to cities, farmers, and industries in the Lower Colorado River Basin. Of course, this is not to be confused with the

other Colorado River a little bit further west.

The LCRA owns or operates 35 water and wastewater systems

that serve more than 112,000 residents in 11 counties. The soul of

LCRA is in our water services. We are a leader in Texas in promoting long-term water supply management planning and conservation practices. That is why I am here today to talk to you

about water reuse for Williamson County.

In 1997, the Texas Legislature divided the State into 15 regions,

as Mike has said, and mandated that each region develop a 50-year

water plan. Through this planning process, water recycling in

Williamson County was identified as an alternative water supply

that would have three positive outcomes:

First, it would reduce or postpone the need to develop more surface water.

Second, it would delay and reduce the need for costly imports of

groundwater from as far away as 75 miles east of the county.

Third, it would postpone the need for interbasin transfers of

water from the Colorado River to the Brazos River Basin.

Studies conducted under the State planning process show that

current water supplies will only meet Williamson County’s needs

through the year 2017. That is just 14 years from now. Water

reuse, water sharing, and the development of new water sources

are necessary to meet the county’s long-term water needs.

Mr. Chairman, we strongly support H.R. 1732, and we have committed significant funding to support this project because we believe it will have a major impact on the water supply in Williamson

County.

Currently, parks, schools, and other recreational areas in the

county are literally dumping drinking water on the ground. This

obviously does not make sense. We welcome the opportunity to

partner with the Bureau to design, plan and construct a consolidated system to improve the efficient use of water resources in the

county.

There is regional support for the use of recycled water in

Williamson County, and from a number of entities, including the

Cities of Round Rock and Leander, Williamson County and the

Round Rock Independent School District. The project will be part

of an alliance between LCRA and the Brazos River Authority and

will be completed in two phases.

Construction of Phase I would begin as early as 2005, will take

1 year and will accomplish two goals:

First, two golf courses in the county use about 600,000 gallons

of raw and drinking water a day for irrigation. This project would

transport effluent from an existing wastewater treatment plant to

the golf courses, freeing up drinking water for thousands of homes.

26

Second, two large regional parks that also used drinking water

for irrigation would begin to use transported recycled water. This

will end a wasteful use of the city’s critical water drinking supply

and will cost city and county Governments and ratepayers far less.

Phase II could begin construction in 2006 and will take 1 year.

It would expand delivery of recycled water to meet irrigation needs

of several middle schools and high schools, other city and county

parks and at least one more golf course.

The use of recycled water is the most reliable source of irrigation

for parks, school athletic fields and golf courses. We estimate that

this project annually will save about 5,000 acre feet or 1.6 billion

gallons of raw and treated drinking water.

The total cost of the project authorized in H.R. 1732 is $29

million. The Bureau’s Title XVI Program allows the Bureau to contribute up to 25 percent of the cost, with a limit of $20 million. So

that means that the Federal part would be about $7.5 million, and

LCRA is prepared to put up the balance of $21.5 million.

We are very excited about this project and the opportunity to

work with the Bureau to ensure its success.

Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before you today, and I am happy to answer any

questions that you might have for me.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beal follows:]

Statement of Joseph J. Beal, P.E., General Manager,

Lower Colorado River Authority

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Joe Beal and I am General Manager of the Lower Colorado

River Authority, headquartered in Austin, Texas.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1732, the Williamson County

Water Recycling Act of 2003. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to Congressman John Carter for introducing this legislation and to Congressman Chet Edwards for cosponsoring this measure. Both Congressman Carter and Congressman

Edwards have been very supportive of LCRA and Central Texas, and I appreciate

their work on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly describe to the Committee the mission and

role of LCRA in communities throughout Central Texas. LCRA was created in 1934

by the Texas Legislature as a regional conservation and reclamation district in Central Texas. The Federal Government and LCRA have had a close and beneficial relationship since our creation, when LCRA received Federal loans and grants to build

six reservoirs that form the Highland Lakes.

These lakes have protected communities from destructive floods, provided a reliable water supply for one of the fastest-growing regions in the United States, produced renewable hydroelectric energy, and created opportunities for parks and

water recreation. The Federal Government’s investment has paid a huge dividend

to Central Texas and, by the way, LCRA repaid all the loans years ago.

Today our energy and water service areas cover all or part of 58 counties. LCRA

generates wholesale electric power for more than 1 million people. LCRA also manages a 600-mile stretch of the Texas Colorado River from West Texas to the Gulf

of Mexico, and provides raw water to cities, farmers and industries in the lower Colorado River basin.

LCRA owns or operates 35 water/wastewater systems that serve more than

112,000 residents in 11 counties.

LCRA also provides community services such as parks and recreation, water quality protection, and economic and community development.

But the soul of LCRA is in our water services. We are a leader in Texas in promoting long-term water supply management planning and conservation practices.

That is why I am here today to talk to you about water reuse for Williamson

County.

In 1997 the Texas Legislature divided the state into 15 regions and mandated

that each region develop a 50-year water plan. Through this planning process, water

27

recycling in Williamson County was identified as an alternative water supply that

would have three positive outcomes:

• First, it would reduce or postpone the need to develop more surface water.

• Second, it would delay and reduce the need for costly imports of groundwater

from as far as 75 miles east of the county.

• Third, it would postpone the need for interbasin transfers of water from the Colorado river to the Brazos River basin.

Studies conducted under the state planning process show that current water supplies will only meet Williamson County’s needs through the year 2017. Water reuse,

water sharing, and the development of new water sources are necessary to meet the

county’s long-term water needs.

Mr. Chairman, we strongly support H.R. 1732, and we have committed significant

funding to support this project because we believe it will have a major impact on

water supply in Williamson County.

Currently, parks, schools and other recreational areas in the county are literally

dumping drinking water on the ground. This obviously does not make sense. We

welcome the opportunity to partner with the Bureau of Reclamation to design, plan

and construct a consolidated system to improve the efficient use of water resources

in the county.

There is regional support for the use of recycled water in Williamson County from

a number of entities including the cities of Round Rock and Leander, Williamson

County and the Round Rock Independent School District. The project will be part

of an alliance between LCRA and the Brazos River Authority and will be completed

in two phases.

Construction of Phase 1 could begin as early as 2005, will take one year, and will

accomplish two goals:

• First, two golf courses in the county use about 600,000 gallons of raw and

drinking water a day for irrigation. This project would transport effluent from

an existing wastewater treatment plant to the golf courses, freeing up drinking

water for thousands of homes.

• Second, two large regional parks that also use drinking water for irrigation

would begin using transported, recycled water. This will end a wasteful use of

the county’s critical drinking water supply, and will cost city and county governments and ratepayers far less.

Phase II could begin construction in 2006 and will take one year. It would expand

delivery of recycled water to meet irrigation needs of several middle schools and

high schools, other city and county parks, and at least one more golf course.

The use of recycled water is the most reliable source of irrigation for parks, school

athletic fields, and golf courses. We estimate that this project annually will save

about 5,000 acre-feet, or 1.6 billion gallons, of raw and treated drinking water.

The total cost of the project authorized in H.R. 1732 is $29 million. The Bureau

of Reclamation’s Title XVI program allows the Bureau to contribute up to 25 percent

of the cost, with a limit of $20 million, for planning, designing, and constructing

projects like the ones that would be authorized by H.R. 1732. LCRA is ready and

able to provide the local cost share of $21.5 million.

LCRA is very excited about this project and the opportunity to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure its success. We have met with the Bureau to discuss

the need for developing a water recycling program in Williamson County.

Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, thank you for allowing me to appear

before you today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.

First, I wanted to ask a question of Mr. Limbaugh as far as if

you know the answer to this question. If not, maybe you can get

back to me. Since we are pretty much ending the rainy season, except here in Washington, D.C., obviously, but in the West, the Colorado River, where are we at as far as the snow pack and the Colorado River flows this year? Do you have any insight into that?

Mr. LIMBAUGH. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with today’s

forecast and will certainly get that information to you, but I do

know that on the drought map, the Colorado River Basin is almost

a bull’s eye in terms of a drought this year. So those reservoirs are

working and doing their job.

28

Mr. CALVERT. Right. Lake Mead, Lake Powell are at historic low

levels; is that correct?

Mr. LIMBAUGH. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That is correct.

Mr. CALVERT. The reason I bring that up, and obviously there

are other places in the country, rather than just the Upper and

Lower Basin States in the West that are experiencing drought

right now, the Bureau has a number of programs to enhance water

supplies. Could you explain, for the record, the role of Title XVI

water recycling programs and how they play in developing water

supplies?

Mr. LIMBAUGH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that

the act, as we call Title XVI, did authorize the Secretary to enter

into some specific projects for planning, designing, and constructing

originally and also gave us authority to work to identify pilot

projects, and demonstration projects, and bring those to feasibility

study level in terms of planning, in that light.

We believe that the Act was successful in its original intent, and

we certainly have been involved in those projects in the past. We,

however, are again dealing with limited dollars and very real demands on those dollars, in terms of our existing facilities that we

have to operate and maintain, along with security, and so we have

tried to put as much as we could into these programs, and we certainly have worked with the local folks to try to get them to the

place where they can at least get to the merits of their individual

projects on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Limbaugh, could you explain the role of water

recycling in your 2025 program?

Mr. LIMBAUGH. You are referring to Water 2025, the secretarial

initiative. We have four tools that we are outlining in that program, and one of which—well, I can just go through those real

quick, Mr. Chairman.

The first one is conservation and improved water management;

the second one is collaborative efforts to deal with water crises and

conflict; and the third one is research into desalination and advanced water treatment technologies to bring the cost down; and

the fourth one is better interagency working relationships, cooperation and use of existing infrastructure in a more efficient and effective manner.

Mr. Chairman, the third one is the one that I think would relate

to this because in Water 2025, we are trying to take a global view

of what would benefit all projects, in terms of an initial investment

in research and bringing the cost of water desalination down, and

especially in light of not only the technology, but also the brine disposal because we believe that water desalination is something that

is up and coming in terms of advancing future water supplies, not

only from the ocean, but from brackish or untreated, unusable

groundwater.

So we believe that that initiative would look at focusing funds in

that direction to benefit all of these types of projects.

Mr. CALVERT. The reason I bring that up, isn’t it true, though,

that you don’t mention water recycling, even though you probably

should under 2025’s Improved Technology section? There is no

mention of water recycling in the program; isn’t that correct?

29

Mr. LIMBAUGH. I would have to look at the document again, but

I would take your word for it, yes.

Mr. CALVERT. And the reason I bring this up, and I am sure we

will have time here, is California, Texas, throughout the country,

we are experiencing problems as far as water is concerned, and as

Mr. Edwards had mentioned in his initial testimony, that water is

almost more precious than oil in many parts of the country right

now. Obviously, reuse of water, recycling water is extremely important in these arid regions, and certainly we would like to get the

participation of the Department of Reclamation. And you are right,

we have responsibility here in the Congress to help you along in

that process, and I assure you of my continued support to do exactly that.

With that, Mrs. Napolitano?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow on your line of questioning to Mr. Limbaugh because in our

conversations, even in the budget, the recycled water budget has

gone from, what, $32.5- to was it $10-? There are very few projects

that are going to be able to be funded this year with that amount

of money.

And I think that our colleagues need to understand that it is not

that this Committee has not looked at water recycling, it is just

that the funding is being diminished, and in the Water 2025, it is

not even mentioned, which means it is being phased out. Whether

somebody wants to admit it or not, this is a reality.

And we are urging—I have talked to Commissioner Keys—and

we are urging that it be reconsidered because it is not just desal,

and conservation, and storage that is going to get the rest of the

United States to be able to deal with these water issues; it also includes recycled water. Because as we have pockets of water that

have been contaminated and treated that are being dumped in the

ocean, we should be having—our communities benefit from the

reuse of that water, and I certainly want to convey the message

very strongly. I have mentioned this many times.

To you, Mr. Limbaugh, or to Mr. McKenney, the three projects

that are included in the Bureau of Reclamation’s Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, the

three projects that you mentioned, are they included in that study?

And I must say, Mr. Limbaugh, for the record, that I am again requesting a copy for this Committee of the Bureau of Reclamation’s

Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation Reuse

Study. Someday we may get it.

But have you any idea whether they are, Mr. McKenney or Mr.

Brady, included in that study?

Mr. MCKENNEY. Well, as you know, Congresswoman, that study

hasn’t been released, but based upon discussions with USBR’s

staff, we understand that the desalter portion of the project is included in the study or will be included in the study and that the

study does discuss brine impacts on reclamation and the potential

for brine disposal facilities.

Now, the third part of our project, the Natural Treatment System, we understand is not in there. That is our best information.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Limbaugh?

30

Mr. LIMBAUGH. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Napolitano, we will take

your comments back, and I will check on the status of that study

and get back to you on that.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would appreciate it very much.

Mr. McKenney, are these projects part of the plan proposed by

the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority?

Mr. JONES. I am going to respectfully defer to Mr. Brady on that

question. He has been more directly involved in all of those discussions with SAWPA about the water supply projects.

Mr. MCKENNEY. And, once again, Congresswoman, the three

projects have been discussed at a staff level with SAWPA. As well,

Orange County Water District, which is a member agency of

SAWPA, is one of our partners in a portion of the—in the desalter

project, and SAWPA has indicated a strong interest in perhaps

partnering on the brine line, at least going up into the Santa Ana

River Watershed, as a partner with us.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the other two projects are not considered

in the context of the regional solutions?

Mr. MCKENNEY. Yes, they are. In terms of regional contexts, all

three projects are in regional planning. Yes, ma’am.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you anticipate any State assistance?

Mr. MCKENNEY. We are hopeful. As many agencies are doing,

Proposition 13 and Proposition 50 funding, it is a competitive process. If we were to receive everything that we have requested, it

would be perhaps as much as half of what we are requesting under

this Federal—

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good luck.

Mr. MCKENNEY. Thank you.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Could you tell me how, if either you or Orange

County, have prepared the engineering environmental studies on

these projects and how much money has been spent to date?

Mr. MCKENNEY. Oh, certainly.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Ballpark—I don’t need exact figures.

Mr. MCKENNEY. Well, ballpark, the short answer is about $2 million on feasibility and engineering studies, and in terms of having

the base data for feasibility studies, as mentioned by the Bureau,

we believe that all of the data is available, it is a matter of formatting into another agency’s requirements.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Osborne?

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the members of the panel for being here today. I really am somewhat removed from your area of jurisdiction.

I do have one question, though. I am interested in your comments on desalinization and also reuse of water. Are there any

plans or any projects that you have which would be for additional

water storage? I realize there is a reluctance to build new water

storage facilities, dams, those types of things, and I didn’t know if

this was part of the project or if you see any future in that type

of movement. And that is addressed to any of you who would care

to answer.

Mr. MCKENNEY. Congressman, we have additional storage

projects planned, but they are groundwater storage projects, not

31

conventional reservoirs. And, as well, we are a retail agency serving a large part of Orange County, California, but the Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California being the overall importer of

water and developer of large projects like the Diamond Valley Reservoir is involved with many potential storage projects. But for

Irvine Ranch Water District, in terms of storage, it would be

groundwater storage within our basin.

Mr. OSBORNE. Please say some more, would you about groundwater storage, exactly how you are going to accomplish that. I understand the concept, but I am not exactly sure how that plays out

in practical terms.

Mr. MCKENNEY. Well, I guess the basics of it in Orange County

is we have the Orange County Groundwater Basin that is fed primarily by the Santa Ana River Watershed. That provides a good

deal of recharge. There are recharge basins. And in addition to

that, the Orange County Water District has a separate agency that

is charged with replenishing the groundwater, buys both imported

water and other seasonal water to recharge.

In addition to that, the Orange County Sanitation District and

the Orange County Water District have embarked on a very large

what is called groundwater replenishment system, taking tertiary

treated water from the Orange County Sanitation District Waste

Treatment Plants and pumping that back up into the higher

reaches and elevation of the Orange County Groundwater Basin for

additional recharge. That is a large project. I don’t have the exact

size of the project, but it is certainly the largest to date in the

United States.

Mr. OSBORNE. So some of it would be putting more water in the

Santa Ana River; is that right? Some of this would be accomplished

that way?

Mr. MCKENNEY. In Orange County, we take out of the Santa Ana

River to recharge, and the groundwater replenishment system

pipes that water for recharge up into large settling basins.

Mr. OSBORNE. One more question, and this really relates more

to problems that we face in a different part of the country, and that

is the interrelation between surface water and groundwater. And

you hear terms like the alluvium, you know, the distance that you

can drill a well from a river without really draining a river. And

I wonder if you have developed models out there regarding the

interrelationship between the surface and groundwater; in other

words, exactly what impacts what and have you developed some

theoretical models that would pretty well illustrate the interrelationship?

Mr. MCKENNEY. That work is being done. However, that’s being

done by the Orange County Water District, not by Irvine Ranch.

We are a participant with them, and there is extensive modeling

being done at the groundwater, and its relationship to the Santa

Ana River, primarily, but we can, as Irvine Ranch Water District,

we can request more information for you to submit to the

Committee.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank the gentleman.

Does the gentleman have any questions for the panel?

32

Mr. GRIJALVA. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No questions at

this time.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Nunes?

Mr. NUNES. No questions.

Mr. CALVERT. Mrs. Napolitano, and then I will take it next. How

is that?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you.

Your desal project, Mr. Brady, will treat groundwater contaminants by salts and nitrates caused by natural geology, and of

course, as you mentioned, past agricultural damage. Have other

contaminants, such as perchlorates or the VOCs been found in your

groundwater?

Mr. MCKENNEY. Yes, Congresswoman. We have, at the former El

Toro Marine Air Base, they have found VOCs in the groundwater,

as part of a separate project in conjunction with the Department

of Defense, the Navy, Irvine Ranch Water District. That water will

be extracted and cleaned up. That water will go into the reclaimed

water system. It will not go into a potable water system.

The desalter operation is at a distance from that contamination,

and what we are treating there, as you have said, is total dissolved

solids and nitrates, and that water, once treated, will go into a potable water system, so we will be able to use that for drinking

water.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In your testimony and in your booklet that

you have handed out, you indicated that you have the funding request for the treatment of stormwater, which is now being used or

the Federal mandate is that all cities charged with the water that

is going into the ocean through the stormwater systems, is that

part of what Title XVI is charged with? And, Mr. Limbaugh, that

is a question for you, too.

Mr. JONES. Well, perhaps I will go first, Congresswoman. The

short answer is, yes, Title XVI includes provisions that say that the

money in Title XVI can be used to clean up impaired waterways,

and I guess another significant perspective on it for me is that the

Irvine Ranch project is a good example of taking money that can

be used for one purpose and having it accomplish multiple purposes. To me, that is what the watershed approach is all about.

And so the county, with the legal responsibility to comply with

the stormwater permits, is very excited about working with a

project that IRWD is pursuing because of the water supply aspects

of it, and it achieves multiple purposes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I totally agree with you. I just hope that

we and the Administration are able to have cities have enough

funding to be able to help get where you are going.

Mr. Limbaugh?

Mr. LIMBAUGH. I would agree with the witness on the applicability of Title XVI to the treatment of that source of water.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there a possibility then that the Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation might include that provision

in year 2025?

Mr. LIMBAUGH. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Napolitano, we are accepting comments on that, and we would certainly take your comments and your advice back, and take it under advisement as we

look forward to working with Congress and working with the stakeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:19 Aug 20, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 87233.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
33

holders out in the West on this vision for water management in the

21st century, yes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would be very pleased to see what the

results of the dialogue will be, but I would also hope that you

would include EPA, since they are the ones who are mandating it

on all cities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

A couple of quick questions here, and I am going to take off on

Mrs. Napolitano on the issue of point discharge, and I am getting

these questions throughout the West. I don’t know so much in

Texas, but certainly in the coastal regions of, and you may have

the same problem in the coastal regions in Texas, too, but on the

issues of point discharge the EPA standards, which are mandated,

are Federally mandated, to meet, and it is an expensive mandate.

And so it is another way of selling Federal participation to meet

standards that are being forced upon local communities, which

need to meet those standards, but are having a hard time paying

for those things and the types of projects that the Irvine

Company—I shouldn’t say the Irvine Company—the Irvine Water

District is developing helps meet those standards.

By the way, I was going to ask the question, if this project is

built, do you have the flexibility in that where the State that is apparently operating or is involved in the technicalities of meeting

these standards, are they continually going to take a look at every

opening, of flood control opening, or can you focus in more of a larger view here in what you are trying to do here? Will that satisfy

the regulators?

Mr. JONES. Sir, I don’t think that the regulators will ever be

completely satisfied. The stormwater standard that we meet is

maximum extent practicable, which is a flexible standard. So the

more we learn, the more we will probably be required to do. I think

that is the reality.

We do have some specific objective standards in the San Diego

Creek Watershed that have resulted in the listing of the water

body as impaired for several constituents, including sediment, nutrients, pathogens and toxicity, and this project certainly contributes significantly to meeting the TNVL goals, especially in the near

term.

I think one other comment I would like to make in response to

what you were saying is that it is important to note that when the

Clean Water Act first came into existence, the Federal Government

provided very substantial economic support to the industries and

sewage treatment plants that were being brought under point

source permits, and now that the regulations are being applied in

a new way to municipal stormwater systems, it is not always, that

kind of economic assistance is not always made available as readily. So we are really looking to be more creative in finding these

opportunities to collaborate with Federal agencies.

Mr. CALVERT. Commissioner and Mr. Beal, regarding Texas and

recycling, how much recycling is being done statewide in Texas?

Are you seeing a substantial increase? I know the city of Austin

has been here on a number of occasions talking about recycling. Do

you see it moving around throughout Texas?

34

Mr. BEAL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As the population continues to increase in Texas, and as our water supplies continue to be stressed,

we are seeing more and more recycling around the State. El Paso

has a program of recycling wastewater into drinking water. The

city of Austin has a very good program. The city of San Antonio,

also, with their short supplies, has instituted a significant recycling

program.

Mr. CALVERT. I know sometimes with an education process on recycling, are the people in Texas accepting the utilization of recycled

water for parks and recreation areas? Is there any political fallout

for this?

Mr. BEAL. I will let Commissioner Heiligenstein talk about the

political part of it, but the fact is that the people of Texas, with

most of the State having been in drought for a number of years,

and with the focus of the legislature on future water supplies, the

people of Texas are becoming used to recycling water, and it is very

much an acceptable practice today.

Mr. CALVERT. Commissioner, anything to add to that?

Mr. HEILIGENSTEIN. Just that, yes, in the county I think even in

the school districts and the public facilities it has become acceptable. I was telling Congressman Carter earlier today that even at

what we call Dell Diamond or Double A Ball Club we do use recycled water for that facility, and all you have to do is mix that smell

up with the popcorn, and the peanuts, and the hot dogs, and you

are just fine.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CALVERT. I guess that is why we call it ‘‘integrated water’’

supply.

Mr. HEILIGENSTEIN. Yes.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CALVERT. That is a good answer.

Are there any other questions of this panel, Mrs. Napolitano?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One more question, and I happened to read

some of the testimony, and it is an interesting terminology that is

used, and that is effluent reuse and, to me, I don’t know whether

you are talking about recycled water, is it secondary treated? Is it

tertiary treatment?

Mr. BEAL. When we say effluent reuse, what we mean is the recycling of the water. In Texas, the State Health Department has

standards about how recycled wastewater can be used. If there is

general access to the area that is being irrigated with that wastewater, the treatment levels are tertiary treatment. If there is very

limited access, it is secondary treatment, 10-15, and usually with

phosphorous removal.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is it treated for infectious, communicable?

Mr. BEAL. Yes, ma’am, but there are also signs posted announcing to the public that is recycled. There are precautions, but the

water is treated and generally filtered before it is ever reused.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I guess that is about most of the questions

that I have. I am hoping that we will be able to be more successful

in educating the general public throughout the United States about

the value of recycled water, and as we move forward in other new

treatments that we may be able to make a difference.

35

And I have made the statement before that we are drinking

water that was around eons ago. It is just being recycled by Mother

Earth, and refiltered and reused. So we are really reusing the reused water.

So thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Cardoza, do you have any questions of this panel?

Mr. CARDOZA. No.

Mr. CALVERT. I want to thank this panel for coming out. I think

both H.R. 1732 and H.R. 1598 are part of the solution to the problem we have in this country, and certainly I, as Mrs. Napolitano

and many of us, support water recycling. I think the Department

of Reclamation does also. I understand the budget constraints the

Department is under, and hopefully we can help out here. But in

order for us to meet the requirements that a growing population

needs, we are going to require the utilization of recycling and additional supply of water to make sure that we maintain a productive

economy.

With that, I want to thank you, and hopefully we can move these

fine pieces of legislation forward and find the money to do it.

Have a great day. We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Mr. Limbaugh’s response to questions submitted for the record

follows:]

JUNE 10, 2003

Honorable Ken Calvert

Chairman

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the follow-up question from the May

22, 2003 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power on H.R. 1598

and H.R. 1732.

Enclosed is Reclamation’s response to your question. I would appreciate your assistance in inserting it into the hearing record. If you have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

MARK A. LIMBAUGH, DIRECTOR, EXTERNAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

RESPONSE TO CHAIRMAN CALVERT S QUESTION

1) Question: Does Federal funding of these Title XVI projects imply ownership of water rights in these projects by Federal agencies, specifically by

the Bureau of Reclamation? If not, would you be willing to have an amendment placed in the bills specifying there is no ownership of water rights

by the Bureau of Reclamation to the projects they participate in?

Answer: Title XVI projects that are funded by the Bureau of Reclamation are

owned and operated by the non–Federal project sponsor. Reclamation has no responsibility in the project once the project has received its legislated full share of Federal

funds. Ownership of water that is reclaimed and available to be reused resides with

the local water agency and is not subject to Federal control or responsibility. Reclamation would not be opposed to an amendment to Title XVI that clarifies this, although it is not considered to be necessary.

Æ