U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

42–250PS 2008

WATER SUPPLY CHALLENGES

FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 14, 2008

Serial No. 110–102

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

VACANCY

(III)

C O N T E N T S

May 14, 2008

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 7

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking Member,

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 9

Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Committee

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 10

Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................. 10

Prepared Statement by Representative Adrian Smith, Member, Committee

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 10

Witnesses:

Dr. Stephen D. Parker, Director, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Biography .......................................................................................................... 16

Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth;

Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18

Biography .......................................................................................................... 23

Dr. Robert C. Wilkinson, Director, Water Policy Program, Donald Bren School

of Environmental Science and Management, University of California–Santa

Barbara

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25

Biography .......................................................................................................... 90

Mr. Marc Levinson, Economist, U.S. Corporate Research, J.P. Morgan Chase

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 90

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 92

Biography .......................................................................................................... 94

Dr. Roger S. Pulwarty, Physical Scientist, Climate Program Office; Director,

The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), Office of

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 94

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 96

Biography .......................................................................................................... 101

Page

IV

Discussion

Expanding the Federal Government’s Role in Water Research and Development ................................................................................................................... 101

Water Information and Technology Abroad ....................................................... 104

Biofuels ................................................................................................................. 105

Climate and Water Quality and Quantity ......................................................... 105

Workforce and Education .................................................................................... 106

More on Climate and Water Quality and Quantity .......................................... 106

Population Growth and Water Supply Concerns ............................................... 108

Water Quality Concerns ...................................................................................... 109

Ocean Desalinization’s Environmental Impacts ................................................ 110

Water Storage ....................................................................................................... 110

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Role .................................................... 113

Can We Capture and Store Rain Water? ........................................................... 114

More on Ocean Desalinization’s Environmental Impacts ................................. 115

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Stephen D. Parker, Director, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council ....................................................................................... 118

Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth;

Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona ...... 177

Mr. Marc Levinson, Economist, U.S. Corporate Research, J.P. Morgan Chase . 181

Dr. Roger S. Pulwarty, Physical Scientist, Climate Program Office; Director,

The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), Office of

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce .................................................... 184

(1)

WATER SUPPLY CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST

CENTURY

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

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

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

2

3

1 ‘‘Report to Congress on the Inter-dependency of Energy and Water,’’ U.S. Department of Energy. December 2006. 2 U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2003 Report: Freshwater Supply States’ Views of How

Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Water Shortages. GAO–03–

514; National Research Council, 2004. Assessing the National Streamflow Information Program.

National Academies Press, Washington, D.C 3The Council, established by the Water Resources Planning Act in 1965 (P.L. 89–80), comprising the heads of several federal departments and agencies, such as Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, has not been funded since 1983. U.S. Government Accounting Office,

2003 Report: Freshwater Supply States’ Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet

the Challenges of Expected Water Shortages. GAO–03–514.

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Water Supply Challenges

for the 21st Century

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. the House Committee on Science and

Technology will hold a hearing entitled ‘‘Water Supply Challenges for the 21st Century.’’ The purpose of the hearing is to examine the challenges of managing water

supplies to meet social, economic and environmental needs in the United States.

Population growth, changes in water use patterns, competing demands for water

supply, degradation of water quality, and climatic variation are all factors influencing the availability and use of water. The hearing will also examine the role of

the Federal Government in helping states and local communities adopt and implement sensible and cost-effective water resource management policies.

Background

Water is necessary to every aspect of life. Although some regions of the U.S. have

limited water supplies, especially areas west of the Mississippi River, the U.S. is

endowed with substantial supplies of fresh water. However, population growth, increased per capita water use, water quality degradation, and increased withdrawals

to support agricultural, industrial, and energy production activities combined with

climate variability have increased water shortages across the country.

In order to meet the challenge of providing safe, reliable water supplies for society

we need improved information about the status of our water resources, policies to

encourage water conservation, and technological improvements that will enable us

to maintain and improve water quality and to improve our water-use efficiency to

allow us to accomplish society’s goals with less water. Through this hearing, the

Committee hopes to ascertain how and to what extent water science and technology

can ease the Nation’s water resource challenges.

Assessment of U.S. Water Supply

In the 19th century, U.S. population stood at a little more than five million citizens. By 1959, the U.S. population had grown to almost 180 million people. Our population is now over 300 million with a one percent rate of growth. Available surface

water supplies have not increased in the United States since the 1990s, and groundwater tables are continuing to decline.1 It is clear that the U.S. water supply cannot

support future populations and economic activity at its current rate of consumption.

In order to better manage water supplies, there is a critical need for good data

about our water resources and how supplies vary over time. Currently, quantitative

knowledge of water supply is inadequate in the United States.2 The U.S. Water Resources Council completed the most recent, comprehensive, national water availability and use assessment in 1978.3

In response to increased concerns about future increased water shortages, the

Bush Administration created the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality

4

4The Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality. A Strategy for Federal Science and

Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in the United States. September 2007.

35pp. 5 Congressional Research Service, Memorandum to the House Committee on Science and Technology, ‘‘States involved in Interstate Water Disputes,’’ May 9, 2008. 3pp. 6 U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2003 Report: Freshwater Supply States’ Views of How

Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Water Shortages. GAO–03–

514

(SWAQ) of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources to coordinate a multi-year plan to improve research on

water availability and quality. The Subcommittee concluded in a 2007 report that

a robust process for measuring water requires a systems approach to assess surface

water, ground water, rainfall, and snowpack from the perspectives of quantity, quality, timing, and location.4

Initiatives to Address Water Supply Shortages

States have initiated a number of steps to address water shortages. These activities include: Development of drought preparedness plans to reduce their vulnerability to droughts and development of drought response plans to provide assistance

to communities and businesses that are vulnerable to drought; monitoring water

availability and water use of major water supplies; coordinating management of

ground and surface water supplies; developing and implementing policies to encourage water conservation and allocate water among competing uses within their jurisdictions; exploring options for increasing water supply such as cloud seeding to increase rainfall or investment in desalinization plants.

At the federal level, there are numerous federal departments, independent agencies, and several bilateral organizations have some responsibility for water programs and projects within the United States. The federal agencies with primary responsibilities for water resources include: The Bureau of Reclamation which provides municipal and irrigation water and operates hydroelectric facilities in the

western states; the Army Corps of Engineers which has responsibility for projects

involving flood control and flood plain management, water supply, navigation, and

hydroelectric power generation; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is responsible for weather and climate prediction through the National

Weather Service, including the operation of the National Drought Information System and maintains wildlife habitat and ecosystem protection through its coastal

zone and fisheries management programs; the U.S. Geological Survey which assesses the quality, quantity, and use of U.S. water resources and maintains a national stream gauge network used for monitoring stream and river flows and flood

forecasting; the Environmental Protection Agency which protects public health and

the environment by ensuring safe drinking water, controlling water pollution, and

protecting ground water.

The Federal Government has also established standards for toilets and the Environmental Protection Agency recently established a voluntary program, WaterSense,

to encourage the marketing and adoption of water conserving technologies and practices.

Most of the authority for allocating water resides within State governments.

When water disputes arise involving two or more states, the federal government has

a role to play based upon Congress’s power to regulated interstate commerce and

through congressional approvals of binding agreements known as compacts. The

seven Colorado Basin states have a long-established compact governing water allocation of the Colorado River. The extended drought in the Southeast has brought

attention to an ongoing interstate conflict among Alabama, Florida, and Georgia

over water allocation in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river system.

According to the Congressional Research Service, at least 47 states and the District

of Columbia at some time have been involved in disputes over water that have resulted in litigation or initiated negotiations to establish an interstate compact.5

In a 2003 report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, states

identified five federal actions they believed could best support their efforts to improve water management. Better coordinated federal participation in water management agreements along with financial assistance to increase storage and distribution capacity, improved water data, flexibility in the administration of environmental laws, and increased consultation on federal or tribal use of water rights.6

Economic Impacts Associated with Water Shortages

In the United States, over 50,000 water utilities withdraw approximately 40 billion gallons per day of water from the Nation’s resources, to supply water for domesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
5

7 ‘‘Water Loss Control,’’ George Kunkel, Jr. Water Efficiency. 8 U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2003 Report: Freshwater Supply States’ Views of How

Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Water Shortages. GAO–03–

514. 9 ‘‘California Water Supply Crisis Affecting Economy,’’ Water and Wastewater News. April 21,

200810 ‘‘Fuel for Thought,’’ National Academies in Focus. Volume 8 Number 1. 11 ‘‘Water Energy Use in California,’’ California Energy Commission.

tic consumption, industry, and other uses.7 When severe water shortages occur, the

economic effect can be substantial. According to a 2000 report from the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, eight water shortages from drought or

heat waves each resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses over the past 20

years.8

An adequate supply of treated water is integral to many industries, including agriculture and food processing, beverages, power generation, paper production, manufacturing, and mineral extraction. Water shortages can negatively affect companies

and entire industries and reduce job creation and retention. Current industry trajectories, population growth, and dwindling water supplies all point to increased water

shortages. Increased water demand will come with increased costs to all businesses,

industries, and municipalities which rely on the same water resources. The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) reported in April 2008 that California is

now losing income and jobs due to the state’s water supply crisis.9

Water Energy Nexus

Water is a vital component of our economy’s energy sector. Water is used for resource extraction, refining and processing and transportation. Water also is essential for electricity generation. The expansion of biofuel supply is also going to require substantial water resources. The National Research Council predicts that the

surge in ethanol production is likely to lead to adverse effects on local water sources

and water quality.10

The use of water in the extraction and processing of petroleum-based transportation fuels is relatively small compared to the electric-generating industry. According to the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, the

thermoelectric power sector accounts for 39 percent of total freshwater withdrawal

in the United States, and 3.3 percent of total freshwater consumption. This consumption for electricity production accounts for over 20 percent of nonagricultural

water consumption. Water is also used directly in hydroelectric generation, which

constituted approximately 14 percent of energy produced in the United States in

2006 according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Not only do we need vast quantities of water for energy production, but we also

need energy to transport and treat water. DOE estimates that nationwide, about

four percent of U.S. power generation is used for water supply and treatment.

Across the country, the amount of energy used to provide water to meet agriculture

needs represents the most significant regional difference. However, the supply and

transport of water can be quite energy-intensive. For example, pumping water to

consumers that live far away from the source can be energy intensive. California’s

State Water Project pumps water 444 miles of aqueducts from three recreational

lakes in Plumas County in Northern California to Riverside County in Southern

California and is the state’s largest energy consumer using between two to three

percent of California’s energy (5,000 GWh per year).11

Witnesses

Dr. Stephen Parker, Director, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council. Dr. Parker will discuss the recent work undertaken by the Water

Science and Technology Board of the National Academy of Sciences on water supply

and water management. He will also discuss the major challenges facing states and

local governments in providing adequate water supply to meet societies competing

needs.

Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, and

Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona. Dr.

Overpeck will discuss the potential impacts of climate change on water supply, particularly in the Southwest.

Dr. Robert Wilkinson, Director, Water Policy Program, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California-Santa Barbara. Dr.

Wilkinson will discuss the linkage between energy and water supplies both in terms

6

of the water needed to provide energy and in terms of the energy needed to transport and treat water.

Mr. Marc Levinson, Economist, U.S. Corporate Research, JPMorgan Chase. Mr.

Levinson will discuss the key findings of JP Morgan’s recent report ‘‘Watching

Water: A Guide to Evaluating Corporate Risks in a Thirsty World,’’ and the potential

impacts of water supply shortage on businesses and the economy.

Dr. Roger Pulwarty, Program Director, National Integrated Drought Information

System (NIDIS) NOAA Climate Program Office. Dr. Pulwarty will discuss what information is currently available through NIDIS to regional, State and local water

decision-makers. He will also address what future information is required for better

water policy planning.

7

Chairman GORDON. Good morning and welcome everyone, and to

our witnesses, thank you for letting us conduct a little business

here.

As was stated, this is a busy time. We have several Members in

markups elsewhere. They will be coming back, but their staff is either here or in the anteroom watching. This will be televised, so

we will have the opportunity for this to go out, and we appreciate

you being here.

Water is an essential input to virtually everything we do, from

growing and processing food to manufacturing the products we use

to date, to producing the energy we need to power our economy.

Water is essential to all life and to maintain public health and the

diversity and beauty of our environment.

The recent droughts experienced in the West and the Southeast

and increased competition for water supplies suggest that we must

take a closer look at how we are managing our water resources.

Thirty-six states expect to experience significant water shortage by

2013, population growth, increased per-capita water use, degraded

water quality, and climate change have all impacted our availability, our available supplies of water.

In my district water sources have dried up, and wells have run

dry. Towns have been forced to implement water restrictions to

deal with a decreased supply. According to the Tennessee Valley

Authority, the first eight months of 2007 were the driest in the last

118 years of Tennessee history. When severe water shortage occurs, the economic impact is substantial. In 2007, the Tennessee

Valley Authority was forced to shut down a nuclear reactor due to

a lack of acceptable cooling water in the Tennessee River.

According to a 2000 report from NOAA, each of the eight water

shortages over the past 20 years from drought or heat wave resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses. A recent report by

J. P. Morgan indicated that a single production interruption at a

semiconductor plant could cost $200 million in lost revenue.

I believe with investment in research and development, public

education, and better information on the status of our water supplies, we could avoid the high cost, social disruption, and environmental damage associated with water shortage.

Our committee has already begun to bring forward legislation to

help us better utilize water resources. Last week the Subcommittee

on Energy and Environment reported bills by Representative Hall

and Mr. Matheson to authorize research at the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency on water treatment and

to increase the efficiencies of our water use.

We will be looking for more opportunities to address this important issue.

I would like to thank our panelists for appearing before us today

to share with us their views on the problems we currently face in

water supply and their suggestions for addressing these problems

in the future, and I look forward to a lively discussion from this

impressive panel.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing.

8

Water is the essential input to virtually everything we do—from growing and

processing food to manufacturing the products we use everyday to producing the energy we need to power our economy. Water is essential to all life and to maintain

public health and the diversity and beauty of our environment.

The recent droughts experienced in the West and the Southeast and increased

competition for water supplies suggest that we must take a closer look at how we

are managing our water resources.

Thirty-six states expect to experience significant water shortages by 2013. Population growth, increased per-capita water use, degraded water quality, and climate

change have all impacted our available supplies of water.

In my district, water sources have dried up and wells have run dry, and towns

have been forced to implement water restrictions to deal with decreased supply.

According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the first eight months of 2007 were

the driest in the last 118 years of Tennessee history.

When severe water shortages occur, the economic impact is substantial. In 2007,

the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut down a nuclear reactor due to

a lack of acceptable cooling water in the Tennessee River.

According to a 2000 report from NOAA, each of the eight water shortages over

the past 20 years from drought or heat waves resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses.

A recent report by JP Morgan indicated that a single production interruption at

a semiconductor plant could cost $200 million in lost revenue.

I believe with investment in research and development, public education and better information on the status of our water supplies we can avoid the high costs, social disruption, and environmental damage associated with water shortages.

Our committee has already begun to bring forward legislation to help us to better

utilize water resources.

Last week, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment reported bills by Rep.

Hall and Rep. Matheson to authorize research at the Department of Energy and the

Environmental Protection Agency on water treatment and to increase the efficiency

of our water use.

We will be looking for more opportunities to address this important issue.

I would like to thank our panelists for appearing before us today to share with

us their views on the problems we currently face in water supply and their suggestions for addressing these problems in the future. I look forward to a lively discussion from this impressive panel.

Chairman GORDON. At this time I would like to yield to my distinguished colleague from Texas, our Ranking Member, Mr. Hall,

for an opening statement.

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am, of course,

pleased that we are having this hearing here today.

Water supply is, as you say, a very critical issue facing our country. Water is the lifeblood of our economy. Every sector requires it

and would be crippled without it. Energy and agriculture are the

two largest consumers of water, I understand, but it is also a vital

part of manufacturing, fishing, and obviously, everyday living.

Water’s importance to U.S. prosperity is one that has been discussed in various reports over the last decade, government sponsored and private sector alike. It has hit home for some of us where

our districts have been subjected to periods of long drought or massive flooding. This Congress is well aware of the dangers of water

shortages and over-abundance.

Two years ago we passed, and the President signed, the National

Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006. We did this in

response to a need for a centralized location for drought information. I am very pleased that Dr. Pulwarty is here to talk about it.

Although this law is not the only answer, it is part of the larger

solution required for good water policy and good management.

What we need are the proper tools and resources for local, State,

and regional decision-makers to adapt to changing conditions. I

9

look forward to hearing from the panelists today on possible solutions to our nation’s water challenges.

And I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we are having this hearing today. Water

supply is a very critical issue facing our country. Water is the life-blood of our economy. Every sector requires it and would be crippled without it. Energy and agriculture are the two largest consumers of water, but it is also a vital part of manufacturing, fishing, and obviously, everyday living.

Water’s importance to U.S. prosperity is one that has been discussed in various

reports over the last decade, government-sponsored and private-sector alike. It has

hit home for some of us, where our districts have been subjected to periods of long

drought or massive flooding. This Congress is well aware of the dangers of water

shortages and overabundance.

Two years ago, we passed, and the President signed, the National Integrated

Drought Information System Act of 2006. We did this in response to a need for a

centralized location for drought information. I am very pleased the Dr. Pulwarty is

here to talk about it. Although this law is not the only answer, it is part of the larger solution required for good water policy and management.

What we need are the proper tools and resources for local, State and regional decision-makers to adapt to changing conditions. I look forward to hearing from the

panelists today on possible solutions to our nation’s water challenges. I yield back

the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and thank you for your

hospitality. We had a hearing down at Texarkana on the COMPETES Bill this Monday, and it was very interesting. It adds to

our committee’s institutional memory and knowledge in this very

important area.

And I ask unanimous consent that all additional opening statements submitted by the Committee Members be included in the

record. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and

Environment, this issue is very important to me.

Dallas, as does other cities, has a propensity to flood. Adequate infrastructure is

important to properly manage water and avoid flooding problems.

On the other hand, the State of Texas has encountered years of tremendous

drought. Our cattle ranchers and farmers have depended on disaster relief from the

devastating lack of water.

The Science Committee has a role to play in water issues.

We can invest in research to examine infrastructure needs.

We can support efforts to improve water clarity and purity, to protect the health

of our populace.

We can direct studies on climate change and its impact on our water resources.

We are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring a safe, reliable water supply for

society.

We need improved information about the status of our water resources and policies to encourage water conservation,

We must discover technological improvements that will enable us to maintain and

improve water quality and to improve our water-use efficiency to allow us to accomplish society’s goals with less water.

Today’s witness panel includes individuals representing federal advisory groups

such as the National Research Council and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).

It also includes academic witnesses, such as Dr. Overpeck from the University of

Arizona and the University of California–Santa Barbara.

The Committee will be interested to hear the panel’s suggestions as to water research and development priorities at the federal level.

10

Again, welcome to today’s witnesses. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member

for their leadership on this issue and yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this important hearing on managing the

U.S. water supply. Population growth, variation in our climate and degradation of

water quality all complicate current water supply management in our nation.

It is incumbent upon those of us in Congress to examine ways that we can improve water conservation efforts, and research both new technologies such as desalinization to increase water supply as well as avenues to improve water quality. I

am particularly concerned about water quality in my own congressional district. One

county within my district is changing from a rural to more suburban county, which

has created pressure to supply more water to more people. Septic tanks are leaking

into tributaries and streams with the potential for contaminating water supply. In

another area, sewer overflows occur due to an aging infrastructure.

I am also interested in the link between energy and water, which I anticipate Dr.

Wilkinson will address in his testimony today. I would appreciate hearing more

about his views on hydroelectric power in this country, whether this untapped resource is worthy of additional federal investments and if he sees room for further

research into more efficient power generation from hydroelectric dams.

I would like to thank today’s witnesses, Dr. Parker, Dr. Overpeck, Dr. Wilkinson,

Mr. Levinson and Dr. Pulwarty, for taking the time to appear before us. I look forward to hearing all of our witness’s testimonies.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The diminishing supply of water is an issue that truly hits home.

In Arizona, our habitability is closely tied to the availability of reliable safe water

sources.

According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Arizona has experienced drought for over a decade. The Colorado River system as a whole is now in

its eighth year of drought.

I believe that it is absolutely critical that we address the growing shortage of our

nation’s water supply and work to establish progressive and cost-effective water resource management policies.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the challenges of managing

water supplies.

I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ADRIAN SMITH

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Water supply issues are a challenge in my home State of Nebraska. Water availability is a critical concern in much of my district where center pivot irrigation is

the lifeblood of farmers. A nearly decade-long drought in Nebraska’s Panhandle has

put extreme stress on water resources and those who rely on them.

Water quality problems are potentially burdensome for small towns in my district,

which face high costs for remediation of their drinking water supplies in order to

comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations pertaining to naturally-occurring contaminants, such as arsenic, in their wells.

Energy is a topic on everyone’s mind and many energy generation methods require water to produce power. Hydropower, nuclear energy, petroleum refining,

clean coal technologies, and biofuels production all require large amounts of water.

I have long been an advocate of keeping all energy options on the table. I want to

ensure the water needed is available for the energy choices of the marketplace.

Balancing the various uses of water is a constant challenge as various groups demand its use for drinking water; agriculture; energy generation; habitat, especially

for endangered species; and recreation. As a Nebraskan and a Congressman, I want

to ensure these demands are properly prioritized, and, as possible, they each are

recognized for their contribution to Nebraska’s economy and quality of life.

11

I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses and hope they will be

able to shed light on each of these problems and offer practical steps for their resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Chairman GORDON. It is my pleasure now to introduce the witnesses this morning.

Dr. Stephen Parker is the Director of the Water Science and

Technology Board at the National Research Council, and Ms. Giffords, I would like to yield to you. Somehow we always work Arizona into most hearings, so you are up.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a privilege for me to introduce a tremendous colleague from

Arizona, Dr. John Overpeck, who is one of the brightest stars of the

University of Arizona. Dr. Overpeck is a Climate Systems Scientist

at the UofA, where he is also the Director for the Institute for the

Planet, for the Study of Planet Earth, Professor of Geosciences and

a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences.

Dr. Overpeck has published over 120 papers on climate and the

environmental sciences. He recently served as a Coordinating Lead

Author for the Fourth Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel

Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

And I want to thank you and your colleagues for coming to

present before our committee the reports from that very important

document.

For his interdisciplinary research Dr. Overpeck has also been

awarded the U.S. Department of Commerce bronze and gold medals, as well as the Walter Orr Roberts Award of the American Meteorological Society. He has been a Guggenheim Fellow and serves

on the Board of Reviewing Editors for Science Magazine.

Dr. Overpeck’s research focuses on global change dynamics with

a major component aimed at understanding how and why key climate systems vary on time scales longer than seasons and years.

Through his research Dr. Overpeck is working to help foster a new

paradigm of interdisciplinary knowledge creation between physical,

biological, and social scientists, all with the goal of serving the environmental needs of society in a more effective manner.

I am very pleased to have Dr. Overpeck here. He is an authority

in Arizona, and I am pleased to have such a distinguished panel,

group of panelists to talk about an issue that is vitally important

to the West and to our country.

Chairman GORDON. Thanks, Ms. Giffords.

Dr. Wilkinson, I won’t be quite as generous with you, but nonetheless you are very distinguished. You are the Director of the

Water Policy Program at the Bren School of Environmental Science

and Management, at the University of California-Santa Barbara.

Welcome.

And Mr. Marc Levinson is the Economist for the U.S. Corporate

Research at J.P. Morgan Chase and author of J.P. Morgan’s recent

report, ‘‘Watching Water, a Guide to Evaluating Corporate Risks in

a Thirsty World.’’

And finally, our last witness is Dr. Roger Pulwarty, Director,

Program Director for the National Integrated Drought Information

System at NOAA Climate Program Office.

12

We would like for you to try to keep your opening statement to

about five minutes and your written testimony will be made a part

of the record. When you have completed your testimony, we will

have questions by our Members.

Dr. Parker, please begin.

STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN D. PARKER, DIRECTOR, WATER

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD, NATIONAL RESEARCH

COUNCIL

Dr. PARKER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and others. I am Stephen Parker from the National Research Council, and I am pleased to participate in today’s hearing.

I have been in my position at the Water Science and Technology

Board for 26 years and have overseen about 200 studies relevant

to today’s topic. Thus my remarks are general and drawn from our

body of work, not one particular recent study.

It is hard to overstate the importance of high-quality water supplies to our nation, yet in many areas supplies are essentially fixed,

and the quality is deteriorating. At the same time, demands for

water to support population and economic growth, the environment, and other purposes continue to increase. Examples of the

mounting array of water-related problems exist in every region of

the country, especially the West and Southwest.

Both of these regions have rapidly-growing populations and have

been affected by climate variability, drought, and the tightening

water supply picture as many new users vie for limited supplies

and call for changes to traditional allocation rules.

Lasting solutions to these challenges of water supply and demand and water quality will require creative science-based strategies and innovative water technologies.

I have phrased my central concerns in the form of four questions.

If the answers to some of these questions are no, I fear that we

may be in for a national water crisis, something like that portrayed

in the media.

Question one, will there be sufficient water to support both future economic and population growth while sustaining ecosystems?

The fast-growing Southwest and Southeast face great challenges in

meeting increasing water demands. Most of the sources and supplies of water for these regions are fully allocated among environmental, urban, and agricultural uses. Unfortunately, the Nation

seems lacking in a long-term strategic vision of alternative means

for accommodating growth with existing supplies. We believe the

Nation has under-invested in research and development needed to

help municipalities augment water supplies in this post-dam-building era. For example, through waste water reuse, desalination, and

other approaches, including aquifer storage and recovery.

Question two. How effectively can our water management systems and institutions adapt to climate change? Existing data reveal

some significant climate changes in the U.S. in recent years.

Warmer temperatures in some regions and potential impacts on

water supplies are of special concern. Although there are uncertainties regarding future climate projections, there is broad scientific agreement that rising temperatures are having a number of

effects such as earlier melting of snowpack, which affects agriculVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

tural production, increases flood risks, and is forcing changes in

reservoir operations. Two, higher sea levels, which will increase salinity in coastal water supply aquifers and alter marshes and wetlands. And three, in changing amounts of precipitation and extreme climatic events.

My question three. Will drinking water be safe? Over the past

100 years investments in water treatment and distribution infrastructure has made the quality of U.S. drinking water among the

best in the world. Today we take safe water for granted. Nevertheless, new chemicals and biological agents continue to emerge and

intentional or unintentional contamination of drinking water supplies represents a real and continuing threat. Additionally, much of

our urban drinking water infrastructure is reaching the end of its

expected lifetime and will need to be replaced in the next 25, 10

to 25 years.

Question four. Can existing water policies effectively respond to

present and future challenges? Many of the Nation’s water policies

and practices were created and designed for yesterday’s water resources challenges and are becoming obsolete. For example, the

National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe

Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act were all

passed in the early 1970s. Likewise, many dam operators and

water allocation plans are designed for a set of users in an earlier

era and are being challenged by increasing demands from users

such as recreational, urban, and environmental interests.

It seems important that the Nation’s water management institutions and body politics stay vigilant to assure and perhaps restore

modern and appropriate management and legal instruments to

meet the challenges. The case is compelling for governmental leadership and support for water resources research and maintenance

of strong governmental scientific and technical capabilities.

My written statement discusses numerous examples of past federally-funded water research that have produced significant payoffs

to the Nation. The advances in water science and technology that

society is now requiring are likely to be inadequate if federal action

is not taken as the states and non-governmental organizations

have limited resources to invest in required research.

That concludes my statement. I commend the Committee for recognizing the importance of water resource and the role of the government in water resources to the Nation. I hope you act quickly

and strategically, as I often worry that we are living on borrowed

water capacity, created by conservative engineers in the past, and

that our water supply cushion is disappearing.

I would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Parker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN D. PARKER

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and others. My name

is Stephen D. Parker. I am Director of the Water Science and Technology Board

(WSTB) of the National Research Council. As you may know, the National Research

Council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, and

its goal is to provide elected leaders, policy-makers, and the public with independent, expert advice based on evaluations of scientific evidence.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing, which

examines the challenges of managing water supplies to meet social, economic, and

14

environmental needs of the United States. Population growth, changes in water use

patterns, competing demands for water supply, degradation of water quality, and

climatic variations all are factors that influence the availability and use of water.

I have held my position with the WSTB for 26 years and have overseen approximately 200 studies relevant to the topic of today’s hearing. Thus, my remarks are

drawn from a whole body of work, rather than just one recent report. (Note that

my written statement has attached to it a listing of some our most relevant reports

from the past several years.) Given the nature of the WSTB mission—to help ensure

and improve the scientific basis for water management—my statement tends to emphasize science and research.

High quality, reliable drinking water is fundamental to human existence and

quality of life. Not only is water a basic human need, but adequate, safe water supplies are crucial to the Nation’s health, economy, security, and ecosystems. A key

strategic challenge is to ensure adequate quantity and quality of water to meet

human and ecological needs, especially given the growing competition among domestic, industrial-commercial, agricultural, and environmental uses. To successfully address the Nation’s water resources problems likely to emerge in the next 10–15

years, decision-makers at all levels of government will need to make informed

choices among often conflicting and uncertain alternative actions.

There is abundant evidence that the conditions of water resources in many parts

of the United States are deteriorating. Further, demands for water resources to support population and economic growth continue to increase, although water supplies

generally are fixed in quantity and already are fully allocated in most areas. Examples of the mounting array of water-related problems exist in every region of the

country. Today, these problems are especially pronounced in the West and in the

Southeast. Both these areas are sites of rapidly-growing populations and have been

affected by climate variability, drought, and a tightening water supply picture as

multiple and new users vie for changes to more traditional allocation rules and patterns. Lasting solutions to these challenges of water supply and demand balances,

as well as water quality, will require creative, science-based, and economically feasible strategies. The following questions highlight the central concerns; if answers

to some of these questions are ‘‘no,’’ it portends a future with complex water resource problems that will challenge the capacities of our scientific, engineering, and

management organizations charged to address water resources issues. (Note that I

do not attempt to separate water quantity from water quality considerations as the

two are inextricably linked.)

• Will there be sufficient water to both sustain ecosystems and support

future economic and population growth? The fast-growing states and cities of the Southwest face great challenges in meeting increasing water demands. Most of the sources and supplies of water for this arid region are fully

allocated among environmental, urban, and agricultural uses. Mechanisms for

reallocating water away from current uses, along with technological means for

augmenting supplies, all have physical, economic, and social limits. Other

rapidly growing areas of the Nation, like the Southeastern U.S., also are exhibiting increasing vulnerability to drought. The traditional means for coping

with ever-increasing water demands was to augment supplies by constructing

more dams. For a number of reasons, that strategy today is far less viable.

Unfortunately, the Nation has limited precedent and seemingly a lack of longterm, strategic vision for alternative means for coping with increasing economic and population growth with existing, limited water supplies. Furthermore, we believe the Nation has under-invested in the research needed to

help municipalities augment water supplies, for example through wastewater

reuse, desalination, or aquifer storage and recovery.

• How effectively can our water management systems and institutions

adapt to climate change? Existing data reveal some significant climate

changes in the U.S. in recent years, with implications for water quality and

quantity. Warmer temperatures in some regions, and potential impacts on

water supplies, are a special concern. Although there are uncertainties regarding future climate projections, there is broad scientific agreement that

rising temperatures are having a number of effects, such as (1) earlier melting of snowpack, which affects agricultural production, increases flood risks,

and is forcing changes in reservoir operations; (2) higher sea levels, which will

increase salinity in coastal aquifers and alter marshes and wetlands; and (3)

changing patterns of precipitation, such that extreme climatic events may increase in magnitude and frequency.

15

• Will drinking water be safe? Over the past 100 years, investment in water

treatment and distribution infrastructure has made the quality of U.S. drinking water among the best in the world. Enormous gains in public health were

realized from the virtual elimination of typhoid and cholera, such that today,

the provision of safe supplies of drinking water is taken for granted. Nonetheless, new chemical and biological agents continue to emerge and intentional

or unintentional contamination of drinking water supplies represents a real

and continuing threat. Further, much of our drinking water infrastructure is

reaching the end of its usable lifetime and will need to be replaced in the next

10–25 years.

• Will the quality of the Nation’s waters be enhanced and maintained?

Passage of the Clean Water Act helped the Nation make great progress during

the 1970s and 1980s in improving surface water quality, through financial

support for municipal wastewater treatment plants and a permitting process

for point sources of water pollution. Today, the more pressing surface water

quality problem is non-point source pollution. Effective management of nonpoint source pollution problems requires good data on surface water quality.

However, there are only limited water quality data for many of the Nation’s

rivers and streams, including some large and very important ones. For example, a 2008 report of ours noted the limited data and limited monitoring efforts in many stretches of the Mississippi River, and recommended a more extensive and integrated approach to the river’s water quality monitoring and

assessment. Better information on water quality, and better management of

non-point source pollution problems, also will require stronger, more aggressive federal leadership.

• Can existing water policies effectively respond to present and future

challenges? Many of the Nation’s water policies and practices were created

and designed for an earlier era of water resources challenges and problems.

For example, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the

Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act all were passed in

the early 1970s. Further, many dam operations and water allocation plans,

designed for a set of users in an earlier era, are being challenged by increasing demands from users such as recreational, urban, and environmental interests. Moreover, many water professionals are concerned about declining engineering and scientific capacity in the Nation’s key water resources organizations—which is occurring at a time when the Nation needs high-level, professional expertise in its primary water institutions more than ever.

Advances in the science and technology through research needed to address these

problems are likely to be inadequate if no federal actions are taken, as the states

and non-governmental organizations have limited resources to invest in required research. The Nation also will need stronger expertise in its leading water institutions

in order to stay abreast of engineering and scientific developments, and to be able

to interact productively with the scientific community at large. The increasing need

to ensure clean and adequate water supplies, and to manage increasingly rapid

human-induced modification of natural and social environments, make a compelling

case for governmental support of water resources research and strong governmental

scientific and technical capacity.

There are numerous examples of federal government-funded research on water resources that have led to significant payoffs for the Nation. The flood forecasting systems that help save lives and protect property, and the drought forecasting systems

that help keep farmers and municipalities abreast of water availability conditions,

both rest on federally supported data gathering and research. Research in the past

has led to the development of innovative water and wastewater treatment technologies, such as membranes. Other examples include improved management of

salts in irrigated agriculture, and better understanding of implications regarding

voluntary transfers of water among different users. Studies of eutrophication in inland waters, mercury deposition, and nitrogen loading in the Chesapeake Bay watershed seem to provide examples of federally funded research that has improved

the effectiveness of regulatory processes. Research has allowed the Nation to increase the productivity of its water resources, such that today the same amount of

water yields, on average, more agricultural output than it did 50 or 100 years ago.

Finally, the Nation today uses many aspects of its water resources base far more

efficiently than in the past, due to advances in water-efficient plumbing fixtures,

landscaping practices, and wastewater reuse techniques. Future scientific and technical advances will be required to meet the water resources needs of an expanding

16

U.S. population and to maintain the quality of the Nation’s surface, groundwater,

and aquatic systems.

That concludes my statement. I commend the Committee for recognizing the importance of water resources—and the role of the Federal Government in water resources—to the Nation. I’d be happy to answer your questions. Thank you!

Some Relevant Recent WSTB Reports of Interest to the Subcommittee

Desalination: A National Perspective 2008

Colorado River Basin Water Management: Evaluating and Adjusting to

Hydroclimatic Variability 2007

Improving the Nation’s Water Security: Opportunities for Research 2007

Integrating Multi-scale Observations of U.S. Waters 2007

Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water Act: Progress, Challenges,

and Opportunities 2007

Prospects for Managed Underground Storage of Recoverable Water 2007

Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States 2007

Drinking Water Distribution Systems: Assessing and Reducing Risks 2006

Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review, 2006

River Science at the U.S. Geological Survey 2006

Toward a New Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) 2006

Public Water Supply Distribution Systems:Assessing and Reducing Risks 2005

Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern Pennsylvania 2005

Water Conservation, Reuse, and Recycling 2005

Assessing the National Streamflow Information Program 2004

Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of Research 2004

Estimating Water Use in the United States: A New Paradigm for the National

Water-Use Information Program 2002

Missouri River Ecosystem: Exploring the Prospects of Recovery, The 2002

Privatization of Water Services in the United States: An Assessment of Issues and

Experience 2002

Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing the New York City

Strategy 2000

BIOGRAPHY FOR STEPHEN D. PARKER

Stephen D. Parker was educated in hydrology and civil engineering at the University of New Hampshire. He is a senior staff member at the National Research Council of the National Academies. Currently he is Director of the Water Science and

Technology Board (since 1982). With the WSTB, Mr. Parker is responsible for study

programs in a broad range of water related and natural resources topics. Subject

areas include water supply; aquatic ecology and restoration; ground water science,

technology, and management; hydrologic science; water quality and water resources

management; pollution control; and other related topics. His duties involve strategic

planning, program development, policy analysis, report writing, interaction with federal agency program managers, supervision of a staff of approximately 10, and others. Parker’s technical expertise lies principally in hydrologic engineering and water

resources systems analysis. Prior to joining the NRC in 1982, he was in charge of

river basin planning studies at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1979–

82). From 1972–79, he was with the New England Division of the Army Corps of

Engineers, where he reached the level of chief of hydrologic engineering; the focus

of his technical work included water quality, flood and drought, and hydropower system studies. From 1970–72, Parker was employed by Anderson-Nichols consulting

engineers in Boston where he worked on water supply oriented projects. In 1969–

70, Mr. Parker served in the U.S. Navy in Vietnam, where he commanded a river

patrol boat He is a certified Professional Hydrologist, a member of the research advisory board of the National Water Research Institute, and active as a member of

the American Institute of Hydrology and American Water Resources Association. In

1997, he was elected a fellow by the Association of Women in Science, and in 1998

he received the NRC Individual Achievement Award from the National Academy of

Sciences/National Academy of Engineering.

17

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Parker, and Dr. Overpeck,

you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF DR. JONATHAN OVERPECK, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF PLANET EARTH; PROFESSOR,

GEOSCIENCES AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY

OF ARIZONA

Dr. OVERPECK. Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, Congresswoman Giffords, and other distinguished Members of the

Committee, I thank you for allowing me to come and discuss these

issues with you today.

One of our chief potential challenges to ensuring reliable water

supply will be climate variability and also climate change. And it

appears likely that both climate variability and climate change are

already starting to challenge water supply in parts of our country.

Significant parts of our nation are currently in drought.

Droughts in the West, central plains, Texas, and the Southeast all

vie for title of the worst current drought. These droughts now occurring in the U.S. are, however, modest compared to the severe

natural droughts that took place before the 20th century.

For example, western North America has seen 25-year and much

longer megadroughts in just the last 1,000 years. It is safe to say

that if the water supply infrastructure in many parts of our country, for example, the West, were to see such a drought, it would be

overwhelmed today.

However, what is most disturbing about these natural

megadroughts of the past is that we are not sure what caused

them, nor are we confident that we can predict them. It is just a

matter of time before we will get another megadrought, and this

means that we should think seriously about making our society

more resilient in the face of megadroughts.

Now, I would like to turn to the issue of climate change. The climate system is changing, very likely due to humans, and this

change could also pose another major challenge to water supply in

parts of our nation. Parts of our country have already warmed

more than two degrees Fahrenheit in the last century and could

warm another 15 or more degrees by the end of the century if we

don’t do something to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

The warming has already led to substantial decreases in spring

snowpack, which, in turn, has led to decreased flow in some major

river systems of the United States, including the Colorado River.

Current river flow estimates for some parts of the country, for example, the Colorado River, that serves seven states and over 30

million people, indicates that water supply could be greatly reduced

by mid century or before.

In addition, the latest climate change science indicates that

much of the conterminous U.S. could see an increase in the annual

maximum number of consecutive dry days between rainfall events,

a decrease in average soil moisture, and an increased likelihood of

drought. Although the projected changes are less certain outside

the West and Southwest, the current state of climate science suggests that they, these all should be considered real possibilities for

the future.

18

What then can we do about this challenge? Fortunately, there

are some no-regrets actions that can be taken regardless of cause,

natural or human-caused climate change. We need an accelerated

effort to understand climate-related water supply variabilities, both

physical, biological, and social.

For example, we must incorporate realistic assessments of future

climate change into water management models that are being used

to assess future supply change. Also, ground water serves as a

major buffer during times of drought. We must try and determine

how much ground water really exists underground at local scales

around our country and how quickly this ground water can be recharged in the future, both by precipitation and human mechanisms.

And lastly, we need to determine, for example, how much water

can be diverted safely from agriculture, another important buffer

in times of drought, to uses that support population growth in potentially water-limited regions.

Number two, we need an accelerated effort to understand climate

change variability, climate variability and climate change processes, as well as how to predict them. Essential progress can be accelerated via greater funding of basic, for example, National

Science Foundation and use-inspired, for example, NOAA, DOE,

and NASA, climate research observation and modeling.

Number three, we need a national climate service that is designed to support local and regional decision-makers in dealing

with climate-related reductions in water supply.

Finally, in addition to no-regrets options that I have just summarized, there is also the option of mitigating or reducing the likely

impacts of climate change on U.S. water supply. If we wish to forestall for sure potential major climate change threats to water supply, large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, namely 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, must be initiated soon.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Overpeck follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN OVERPECK

Summary

One of the chief potential challenges to ensuring a reliable water supply will be

climate variability and climate change. An analysis of recent climate patterns indicates that both are already starting to challenge water supplies in our nation, and

that these on-going challenges provide an important lesson for the future. Climate

variability, in the form of decades-long drought, is a major threat to ensuring sufficient water supplies. Human-caused climate change, including temperature increases, snowpack reductions, streamflow decreases, and increased probability of

drought, will only make the situation more challenging. Options for meeting these

climate challenges include much needed focused research, a new national climate

service focused on local and regional decision-makers, and a policy that reduces

global greenhouse gas emissions. The outlook for climate-related changes in U.S.

water supply is not positive, particularly in the West, Southwest, Texas and into

the Southeast. Even in other parts of the Nation, water supply could become more

limiting. However, the good news is that there is time to prepare for increasing

water supply challenge, and to also avoid water supply reduction threats deemed

dangerous. Urgent attention is warranted.

Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, and other Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on Water Supply

Challenges for the 21st Century.

19

My name is Jonathan Overpeck. I am the Director of the Institute for the Study

of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona, where I am also a Professor of Geosciences and a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences. I have published more than 120

papers in climate and the environmental sciences, and recently served as a Coordinating Lead Author for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Fourth Assessment (2007). I have been awarded the U.S. Department of Commerce

Bronze and Gold Medals, the Walter Orr Roberts award of the American Meteorological Society and a Guggenheim Fellowship for my interdisciplinary research. I

also serve as Principal Investigator of the Climate Assessment for the Southwest

(CLIMAS), an interdisciplinary Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (RISA)

project funded by NOAA. In this capacity, and others, I work not only on climate

system research, but also on supporting use of this research by decision-makers in

society.

One of the chief potential challenges to ensuring a reliable water supply will be

climate variability and climate change. I would like to describe these challenges,

and then discuss what our nation can do to meet them. A basic message is that it

appears likely that both climate variability and climate change are already starting

to challenge water supplies in our nation, and that these on-going challenges are

an important lesson for the future.

Climate Variability, Drought and Water Supply

As Figure 1 shows, drought is currently affecting significant portions of our nation. Droughts in the West, Central Plains, Texas, and in the Southeast vie for the

title of worst current drought. Most notably, the drought in the West, although recently softened by good winter snowfall, has persisted since about 1999, and could

be far from over.

The causes of the current droughts across the U.S. are hotly debated in the climate science community, but it is safe to say that at least some of the current

drought conditions are due to natural climate variability. Most likely, variability in

the oceans is causing atmospheric circulation to drive drier-than-normal conditions

in parts of our nation. For example, this seems to be the prime candidate for explaining the Southeast U.S. drought.

20

Drought of the type now occurring in the U.S. is modest compared to the more

severe natural droughts that took place before the twentieth century. These earlier

droughts can be reconstructed using tree-rings, lake sediments, cave formations, and

other natural archives of past climate. For example, western North America, from

deep into Mexico, through the western U.S. and into Canada, was gripped by a severe 20- to 25-year drought in the late sixteenth century. Droughts lasting many

decades occurred during medieval times in the West, and likely had profound impacts. For example, we now know from hydrological modeling that these past

‘‘megadroughts,’’ were they to occur in the future, would have dramatic negative impacts on the Colorado River and the water this river supplies to seven states.

It is safe to say that the water supply infrastructure in many parts of our country

(e.g., the West) would be overwhelmed were a megadrought like those of the past to

occur again in the future. I will return to this challenge later in my testimony.

What is most disturbing about the natural droughts of the past is that we are

not sure what caused them, nor are we confident that we can predict them. Thus,

it is difficult for climate scientists to say how long the current droughts will last,

or whether they will intensify. What climate scientists can say, however, is that it

would be foolish to assume that droughts much longer—and more severe—than

those of the last 100 years won’t happen again. It is just a matter of time, and this

means that we should think seriously about making our society, particularly in

those areas that are prone to drought (e.g., see Figure 1), more resilient in the face

of future drought.

Climate Change and Water Supply

The climate system is changing, very likely due to humans, and this change could

also pose another major challenge to water supply in parts of our nation. Although

temperatures over most of our country have risen over the last 100 years, climate

change is most notable in the U.S. West and Alaska. Across the West, temperatures

have gone up by about 2°F, and more than the national average. This warming has

led to significant decreases in spring snowpack, which in turn, have led to decreased

flow in some major rivers, including the Colorado River. These temperature, snow,

and river flow changes appear to be due, at least in part, to human-caused climate

change. These changes are also quite similar to those projected by climate models

for the future.

Furthermore, there are some indications—still hotly debated in the climate

science community—that the current western drought itself may be related to

human causes. In the Southwest, we have seen a northward shift in winter/spring

storm systems that seems consistent with our understanding of human-caused climate change, and leaves the region with below-average precipitation. However, it

is too early to know for sure if the current western drought, the worst in at least

100 years, is due to humans or not. What we do know is that human-caused warming is making the impacts of the drought more serious than the cooler droughts of

the twentieth century.

Many of the climate changes we are currently seeing appear to be consistent with

what climate models project for the future. Given the recent (since 2000) jump in

global carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, we are now on track, over the

next 100 years, to warm parts of the coterminous U.S. by more than 15°F in summer. This change, when coupled with dramatic warming in other seasons as well,

should drive a much greater atmospheric demand for moisture, reduced spring

snowpack, and regional river flows in the western U.S.

Figure 2 shows only one recent estimate of how runoff, and hence river flow, could

change in the next 50 years. Other estimates exist, but for the Colorado River

Basin, almost all estimates are negative; some estimate suggest as much as a 40

percent reduction could occur by mid-century. Future warming and precipitation

change, particularly in the spring season, appears to point only to one direction of

water supply change - down.

21

Might Climate Change Spare Water Supply in all but the West and Southwest?

Figure 2, as well as most other projections of future climate-related water supply,

paints a challenging picture for the West and Southwest regions of the country that

have recently been experiencing some of the fastest growing populations in the Nation. Does this mean the rest of the country is safe from climate-related reductions

in water supply? The answer is almost certainly ‘‘No.’’

In addition to the average change depicted in Figure 2, climate theory and projections also point to a human-caused increase in the frequency of drought. The recent

IPCC (2007) assessment of climate model projections indicates much of the

conterminous U.S. should see an increase in the annual maximum number of consecutive dry days between rainfall events, a decrease in average soil moisture, and

an increased likelihood of drought. Although these projected changes are less certain

outside the West and Southwest, the current state of climate science suggests they

should be considered real possibilities for the future.

The Combined Challenge of Climate Variability and Climate Change.

Current scientific understanding of both climate variability (drought) and climate

change indicates that there is a real future likelihood of both natural and humancaused reductions in climate-related water supply. We now know that decades-long

droughts can occur naturally in parts of the U.S., just as climate change could lead

to greater aridity and an enhanced probability of drought in many parts of the country, particularly the West, Southwest, Texas, and across to the Southeast. These are

the same parts of the country that are now experiencing drought. Thus, the present

could be a window on the future.

Meeting the Climate Challenge to U.S. Water Supply.

The future climate challenge confronting our nation’s water supply is real, and

will likely be due to both natural and human-caused threats. Fortunately, there are

some ‘‘no-regrets’’ actions that can be taken regardless of cause:

(1) Call for, and support, an accelerated effort to understand climate-related water supply vulnerabilities, both physical, biological, and social.

Much remains to be learned about our nation’s water supply, and how it might be

managed in the future. It is outside the scope of this testimony to go into great detail, but some key questions warrant greater understanding:

22

• How can we improve the current generation of hydrologic models used to

project future river flow? For example, model-based estimates of future climate-change related reductions in Colorado River flow range from small (e.g.,

10 percent) to large (e.g., 40 percent) by the middle of the century. Effective

management of future water supply will require better hydrologic models.

• How best incorporate realistic assessments of future climate change into river

management models? This process has begun, but needs to be accelerated

given the importance of realistic projections not just of physical water supply,

but also how well these supplies can be managed to meet projected use.

• How much groundwater exists locally around the country, and how quickly

can groundwater be recharged in the future, both by precipitation, and/or

human mechanisms? Many parts of the country, particularly in the West, consider groundwater to be a principal source of water, at least in times of surface-flow shortage. And yet, precise information about the volume of these underground water resources is often not available, nor is the full potential of

underground water banking fully understood. This limits realistic planning.

• How much water can be diverted safely from agricultural use to uses that

support population growth in potentially water limited regions? In many

areas, agriculture accounts for 70 percent or more of total water usage. How

much of this water should be diverted from agricultural use in order to support population growth, or is water left in agriculture best viewed as a resource that can buffer long droughts when other water resources become inadequate. Water left in agriculture can be sold to non-agricultural users in

order to make up for water lost to drought. What is the true value of agricultural water use?

(2) Call for, and support, an accelerated effort to understand climate variability and climate change processes, as well as how to predict them. Climate

change science has made tremendous advances in the last decade, but is still limited

due to incomplete science infrastructure and knowledge. Essential progress can be

accelerated via greater funding of basic (e.g., NSF) and ‘‘use-inspired’’ (e.g., NOAA,

DOE and NASA) climate change research. Well-planned global climate observing

systems—both in situ and space-based—must be completed, and special efforts are

needed to extend these observing networks to include much denser climate-related

observations at the local to regional scales so important for decision-making. Climate modeling capability must also be enhanced to improve the realism of stateof-the-art models, particularly with regard to simulating (and predicting) climate

variability and change at the global to regional-scales needed for enhanced planning

and decision-making.

Some regions with likely greater-than-average exposure to climate-related water

challenges, require an extra effort to understand what is at stake and what we can

do about it. For example, the Southwest U.S. is the fastest growing part of the country, but it is also the region that could be most at risk to water supply shortage.

Despite this, we lack an adequate understanding of the summer monsoon system

that brings substantial rainfall to some parts of the region. We can’t say whether

this summer rainfall will likely go up, or go down. We don’t know the implications

of how changes in this basic water resource could be managed. As with other key

regional issues, urgent attention is needed to make sure that some parts of the

country don’t become big losers in the face of climate variability and change.

(3) Call for, and support, a national climate service that is designed to support local and regional decision-makers in dealing with climate-related reductions in water supply. At present, the climate-related decision-support needs

of regional stakeholders (e.g., water managers) are not met adequately. A number

of federal and State agencies have recognized this problem, and planning has begun

at a number of levels for a more organized, interagency, national climate service.

The key to success for such a service is that it be accountable to, and meet the needs

of, regional decision-makers. This service should benefit from the national climate

research, observations and modeling infrastructure (e.g., within NOAA), and it

should also benefit from the experiences, and stakeholder-partnerships, of the

NOAA-funded interdisciplinary Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (RISA)

program. Any national climate service needs to have a strong accountability mechanism to ensure that the regional decision-making needs are met, first and foremost.

In addition to the above ‘‘no-regrets’’ options, there is the option of mitigating—

or reducing—the likely impacts of climate change on U.S. water supply:

(4) Create policy that reduces global greenhouse gas emissions. Current

state-of-the-art climate science indicates that a tighter water supply could occur in

many parts of our nation due to climate change. Large temperature increases, greatVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

er atmospheric demand for moisture, increasing snow reductions, river flow declines,

and a likely increase in the probability of drought, all appear to be already underway in some parts of the globe, including the U.S. Climate model projections indicate that these trends will likely create an increasing challenge to water supply into

the future, to 2100 and beyond. A national climate service (see #3 above) would

serve to quantify the levels of climate-related water reductions that can be met

through technology, planning and adaptation. Beyond any ‘‘adaptable’’ level of climate change-related water supply reduction, however, exists potentially dangerous

levels of climate change that can be avoided through an aggressive effort to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions.

Summary

The outlook for climate-related changes in U.S. water supply is not positive, particularly in the West, Southwest, Texas and into the Southeast. Even in other parts

of the Nation, water supply could become more limiting. However, the good news

is that there is time to prepare for increasing water supply challenge, and to also

avoid water supply reduction threats deemed dangerous. Urgent attention is warranted.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JONATHAN OVERPECK

Jonathan Overpeck is a climate system scientist at the University of Arizona,

where he is also the Director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, as well

as a Professor of Geosciences and a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences. He received

his BA from Hamilton College, followed by a M.Sc. and Ph.D. from Brown University. Jonathan has published over 120 papers in climate and the environmental

sciences, and recently served as a Coordinating Lead Author for the Nobel prize

winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment (2007). He has also been awarded the U.S. Department of Commerce Bronze

and Gold Medals, as well as the Walter Orr Roberts award of the American Meteorological Society, for his interdisciplinary research. Overpeck has also been a

Guggenheim Fellow, and was the 2005 American Geophysical Union Bjerknes Lecturer. He serves on the Board of Reviewing Editors for Science Magazine.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Overpeck, and Dr.

Wilkinson, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT C. WILKINSON, DIRECTOR,

WATER POLICY PROGRAM, DONALD BREN SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA–SANTA BARBARA

Dr. WILKINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gordon,

Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to share

some thoughts with you today. I have got some Power Points, and

I will try to click through them quickly.

Let me start with the four points I would like to make. Integrated policy and planning I am going to pitch, and I have in my

written testimony that we couple the science and technology assets

that we have with policy processes. Multiple benefit strategies, designs for flexibility, and put it all in a climate change context.

This is a map of total water withdrawals in the U.S., and I will

draw your attention to the little mountains off on the right-hand

side of the picture. Most of those are thermal power plants. I was

asked to address the water energy nexus, and so there is a differentiation here between the east and the west to some extent as

to what we are withdrawing water for in different areas.

Many water systems in the U.S. are already over-allocated and

stressed. Every major supply system in California is already overallocated.

24

Here is a population growth map and water resources, and you

can see even in areas that are marked in blue in terms of water

resources when we look at the drought monitor for the U.S. Jonathan has in his presentation the same map for two months later,

almost exactly, drawn from the current map here in May, it looks

almost identical, so you can see some of that tremendous drought

in the Southeast is occurring in areas that until recently many

thought were wet and somewhat immune to the same kind of

droughts.

Nearly 20 years ago two of the stars in the field of climate

science, Roger Evall and Paul Wagoner, made a very important observation. Governments at all levels should reevaluate legal, technical, and economic procedures for managing water resources in

the light of climate changes that are highly likely.

Indeed, we are seeing those changes unfold, and we need to visit,

again, our institutions and legal frameworks as well as our science

and technical capacity.

Just a quick little bit of history of where we were only 50 years

ago in our thinking about water resource management. This is a

map of North America. You will see in the upper left the water collection region. Coming down through the water transfer region it

was thought that Oregon and Washington didn’t need much, and

we will distribute it down in the Southwest and be very generous

right on across the Mexican border. And you will see in the middle

of the picture the optional water distribution region, maybe even

share some there.

This was a serious plan. Here is the plumbing for that plan, and

that was the way we were thinking about managing water through

inter-basin transfers only 50 years ago. A lot of thinking has

changed from the idea of building facilities in the West in particular with surface storage, with conveyance systems. We have

some remarkable engineering and remarkable systems, but we are

having difficulty with the match between hydrology and those systems providing for our needs.

What we need is integrated whole-system approaches to water

and energy management in the context of science and technology,

of climate change, economics, and environmental concerns. We

need policy strategies that are designed to tap multiple benefits

and are flexible in the face of changing circumstances.

So let me briefly go through then some energy observations here.

About nineteen percent of California’s electricity (I am going to

focus here on California, if I may) and about a third of our natural

gas goes to water. In fact, water is the top use of electricity in California. Now, our systems, as you can see ground water and local

water projects, actually provide the majority of water, but we have

major plumbing facilities as well.

I will run you through the State project very quickly. That is the

red line on this map. Here is all the pumping plants for that system. Here is one of them, the largest pumping plant in the world.

That is only half of it at the foot of the Tehachapi Mountains, and

this is what it looks like as we plot out all of the energy inputs to

those systems.

Putting that on a bar chart, the red bars are the inner-base and

transfer points, including the Colorado River Aqueduct and the

25

State Water Project. You will note that they exceed ocean water desalination in terms of energy intensity already. Energy intensity is

the total amount of energy embodied in water used in a particular

place.

We run through a calculation, California has been doing quite a

bit of this work now, to figure out every step in that water process

and then to understand opportunities to manage it differently.

Here is one of the largest uses as you can see, single families for

the U.S., not just California, and then going to the, half this residential, half of that is outdoors, half is indoors. Here is California’s

official State water plan, and here are the sources of water for the

next quarter century. I will draw your attention to the bar on the

right. Urban water use efficiency, doing something about that

water use on the demand side is where we expect to get most of

our water in the future, along with conjunctive management and

recycled water. Those are the big ones.

I am going to skip through because my time is out, but here are

some of those opportunities for water management that are going

to provide the new water supplies, at least according to our State

planning process in California. Coupled to that is capturing storm

water in different techniques that are often simple but very effective, recycling water, going to hi-tech filtration, reverse osmosis for

different sources.

And then going to the flip of that very quickly, the water intensity of energy, actually energy, thermal energy facilities are the

largest use of water withdrawn in the United States along with agriculture over a third and about a three percent of total consumption.

The federal labs are doing a lot of work on this. Analysis is indicating that we have got lots of opportunities to produce energy with

very little or no water, and we have other opportunities that use

tremendous amounts of water. So we have choices to make.

Quick conclusions then. Water scarcity and quality will remain

key issues. Vast opportunities do exist, though, for efficiency improvements. Science and technology are critically important in addressing water supply quality challenges but policy design and implementation is equally as important. So integrated whole-system

planning and designing policies and infrastructure for flexibility

and multiple benefits.

I pose two questions in my written testimony. How can we decouple water and energy systems where there are high costs, stresses,

damages, or vulnerabilities to systems, and how can we maximize

water and energy efficiency and productivity so as to maximize

benefits to society?

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wilkinson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. WILKINSON

The Committee on Science and Technology of the United States House of Representatives has chosen a critically important topic with this hearing on Water Supply Challenges for the 21st Century. Thank you for the opportunity to share some

information and ideas with you today.

I will focus on the water/energy nexus as it relates to science and technology, and

also as it relates to policy design and implementation. The selection and implementation of policy instruments to address water and energy management challenges

is integrally linked to the foundation provided by science and technology. Policy

26

frameworks are important in achieving positive outcomes based on our investments

in science and technology.

The two main points I would like to convey today involve the need for:

1. Integrated, whole-system approaches to water and energy management in the

context of science and technology, climate change, economics, and environmental concerns, and;

2. Policy strategies that are designed to tap multiple benefits and are flexible

in the face of changing circumstances.

Due to the importance of the climate change context for both water and energy,

I provide brief comments on water/energy/climate links and tie them specifically to

science and technology policy developments, particularly at the State level.

This testimony presents both detailed California examples and U.S.-wide data and

considerations. Because we have developed good data and analyses of some of the

water/energy/climate challenges in California, I will focus in this testimony on specifics from the state. The methodology and many of the lessons may be extrapolated

to other parts of the country.

The Water and Energy Context

Water use for urban and agricultural purposes around the world has been facilitated through diversions of surface water and extraction of groundwater delivered

through conveyance systems. Both water and energy are often transported over long

distances from their sources to the place where they are ultimately used. As technological capacity developed over the past century, surface water diversions, groundwater extraction, and conveyance systems increased in volume and geographic extent. Interbasin transfers supplemented water available within natural hydrological

basins or watersheds. Agricultural and urban uses of arid lands were vastly extended by imported water. Similarly, energy systems have evolved from largely local

sources a century ago to continent-wide electricity grids and pipeline networks, and

to global supply-lines.

Rainfall patterns in the United States vary widely. In Las Vegas, the driest of

America’s major cities, precipitation averages barely four inches (102 mm) per year.

Portland, Oregon has nine times the precipitation of Las Vegas. Miami, Florida is

doused with over 55 inches (1,397 mm) per year, and the Northeast usually receives

above 75 inches (1,778 mm) per year.

Generally, states east of the Mississippi have been assumed to have abundant

water resources for water supply purposes. Recent droughts and shortages in Florida and the Southeast as well as other parts of the ‘‘wet’’ east are changing this

perception. West of the Mississippi, and particularly west of the Rocky Mountains,

federally subsidized engineered systems of large dams and aqueducts or pipelines

provide water supplies to many users. These systems were constructed during the

1900s, motivated primarily by droughts that occurred periodically. Today, the

sources of water for these facilities are over-allocated, and ‘‘new’’ future supplies are

increasingly coming from improved water-use efficiency and recycling rather than

from expensive new water supply development projects.

The focus of technology development and policy for much of the past century has

been on the supply side of both the energy and water equations. That is, the emphasis was on extracting, storing, converting, and conveying water and energy from natural systems to users. Water and energy policy throughout the world has generally

been designed to facilitate the development and use of these supply-side technologies. In the last quarter century, however, scientific developments and technological innovation has increasingly been applied to improvement of the efficiency of

use of energy and water resources. (‘‘Efficiency’’ as used here describes the useful

work or service provided by a given amount of water or energy.) Significant potential economic as well as environmental benefits can be cost-effectively achieved

through efficiency improvements in water and energy systems. Various technologies,

from electric motors and lighting systems to pumps and plumbing fixtures have

vastly improved end-use efficiencies.

Today, the main constraints on water extractions are not technology limitations.

Indeed, there is significant spare capacity for pumping and conveyance in many

areas. The limits are increasingly imposed by competing claims on scarce water resources (e.g., the various claims to the Colorado River), legal constraints, and environmental impacts.

Costs of building and maintaining infrastructure have also risen dramatically.

The maintenance cost for existing water and wastewater systems is staggering. The

American Society of Civil Engineers estimate an annual need for over $30 billion

for safe drinking water ($11 billion) and properly functioning wastewater treatment

27

1 American Society of Civil Engineers, Report Card, http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/

page.cfm?id=23 2 American Society of Civil Engineers, Report Card, http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/

page.cfm?id=23 3 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policy-makers. Contribution

of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p. 4. http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm 4 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policy-makers. Contribution

of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://wvw.ipcc.ch/index.htm 5Dettinger, MichaeLD., and Dan R. Cayan. 1994. Large-scale atmospheric forcing of recent

trends toward early snowmelt runoff in California. Journal of Climate 8: 606–23. 6 California Department of Water Resources, 2006. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change

into Management of California’s Water Resources, http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/documents/2006-07¥DWR¥CLIMATE¥CHANGE¥F1NAL.PDF 7 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, (AB32) Section 38501 (a). 8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents at: http://www.ipcc.ch/

index.htm; Wilkinson, Robert C., 2002. The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and

Change for California, The California Regional Assessment, Report of the California Regional

Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Center for GeoContinued

systems (about $20 billion) in the United States.1 They also indicate a need for

about $1 billion per year to repair unsafe non-federal dams, the number of which

has increased by a third in the past decade.2

The focus of technology development and implementation policy to meet water

needs is therefore increasingly on more efficient use and on water treatment technologies. Innovation and development of technology in the areas of end-use water

applications and water treatment has progressed rapidly. Techniques and technologies ranging from laser leveling of fields and drip irrigation systems to the improved design of plumbing fixtures, industrial processes, and treatment technology

have changed the demand side of the water equation. End-uses of water now require

much less volume to provide equivalent or superior services. Rainwater capture for

groundwater recharge and other innovative water capture strategies are also enhancing water supply reliability. Water supply systems (e.g., treatment and distribution) are also becoming more efficient. For example, geographical information

systems (GIS) and field technologies allow for improved capabilities to locate leaks

in buried pipes.

The Climate Change Context for Water Policy

Climate change poses important water and energy management challenges.

Science is indicating that the rate and magnitude of warming and related impacts

are increasing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fourth

Assessment Report in 2007 projected that the rate of warming over the 21st century—up to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit—would be much greater than the observed

changes during the 20th century. The report also confirmed that ‘‘11 of the last 12

years (1995 to 2006) rank among the twelve warmest years . . . since 1850.’’ 3 (The

year 2007 has now registered as the second hottest year, extending the trend.) The

IPCC projects the following changes as a result of increased temperatures:4

• more frequent hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events

• more intense hurricanes and typhoons

• decreases in snow cover, glaciers, ice caps, and sea ice

• rise in global mean sea level of seven to 23 inches, however this projection

does not include accelerated ice sheet melting and other factors.

Climate models consistently indicate a warmer future for the U.S. West. Evidence

of warming trends is already being seen in winter temperatures in the Sierra Nevada, which rose by almost two degrees Celsius (four degrees Fahrenheit) during

the second half of the 20th century. Trends toward earlier snowmelt and runoff to

the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta over the same period have also been detected.5

Water managers are particularly concerned with the mid-range elevation levels

where snow shifts to rain under warmer conditions, thereby reducing snow-water

storage. California’s Department of Water Resources, along with the California Energy Commission, has been tracking the climate change science since the 1980s.6

California law states clearly that ‘‘Global warming poses a serious threat to the

economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.’’ 7 The potential impacts of climate change and variability to California are

serious.8 Integrated policy, planning, and management of water resources and enVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
28

graphic Information Analysis, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis,

University of California, Santa Barbara. Available at: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/products.html 9See for example: Park, Laurie, Bill Bennett, Stacy Tellinghuisen, Chris Smith, and Robert

Wilkinson, 2008. The Role of Recycled Water In Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, California Sustainability Alliance, available at: www.sustainca.org. Also see: California Energy Commission (2005). Integrated Energy Policy Report, November 2005, CEC–100–2005–007–

CMF: and Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California’s Water—Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report

Proceeding, (04–IEPR–01E) November 2005, CEC–700–2005–011–SF. 10Wilkinson, Robert C. (2000). Methodology For Analysis of The Energy Intensity of California’s Water Systems, and an Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated

Water-Energy Efficiency Measures, Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency; California Energy Commission

(2005). Integrated Energy Policy Report, November 2005, CEC–100–2005–007–CMF: California

Energy Commission (2005). 11 California Energy Commission (2005). Integrated Energy Policy Report, November 2005,

CEC–100–2005–007–CMF. 12 California Energy Commission (2005). Integrated Energy Policy Report, November 2005,

CEC–100–2005–007–CMF. 13 California Department of Water Resources (2005). California Water Plan Update 2005. Bulletin 160–05, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.

ergy systems can provide important opportunities to respond effectively to challenges posed by climate change. Both mitigation (i.e., reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (dealing with impacts) strategies are being developed. While

both energy and water managers have used integrated planning approaches for decades, the broader integration of water and energy management in the context of climate change is a relatively new and exciting policy area.

Integrating Water and Energy Policy

Government agencies at various levels are currently integrating water and energy

policies to respond to climate change as well as to environmental challenges and

economic imperatives. Water and energy systems are interconnected in important

ways. Developed water systems provide energy (e.g., through hydropower), and they

consume energy through pumping, thermal, and other processes. Government agencies are looking at water delivery system and end-use water efficiency improvements, source switching (e.g., using recycled water for industry and irrigation), improved rainwater capture and groundwater recharge, and other measures that save

energy by reducing pumping and other energy inputs. Recent studies are indicating

significant opportunities in each area.9 Several California examples of coupled

science/technology/policy approaches are presented here. While they are specific to

the state, many of the basic features are similar in other states across the U.S.

New approaches to the integration of water, energy, and climate change policy

and planning, including policy processes at the state’s Energy Commission, Public

Utilities Commission, Department of Water Resources, Water Resources Control

Board, and Air Resources Board, are being developed. Methodologies to account for

embedded energy in water systems—from initial extraction through treatment, distribution, end-use, wastewater treatment and discharge—and water use by energy

systems, have been developed and are outlined below.10 Institutional collaboration

between energy, water, and other management authorities is also evolving.

Integrated Energy Policy Report, November 2005, CEC–100–2005–007–CMF: and

Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California’s Water—Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy

Policy Report Proceeding, (04–IEPR–01E) November 2005, CEC–700–2005–011–SF.

Water is now recognized as the largest electricity use in California. Water systems

account for approximately 19 percent of total electricity use and about 33 percent

of the non-power plant natural gas use in the state.11 The California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have both

concluded that energy embedded in water presents large untapped opportunities for

cost-effectively improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions. The CEC commented in its 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report that:

‘‘The Energy Commission, the Department of Water Resources, the CPUC, local

water agencies, and other stakeholders should explore and pursue cost-effective

water efficiency opportunities that would save energy and decrease the energy intensity in the water sector.’’ 12 Fortunately this corresponds with the state’s 2005

Water Plan.13

The California Energy Commission’s staff report, California’s Water—Energy Relationship, notes that: ‘‘In many respects, the 2005 Water Plan Update mirrors the

state’s adopted loading order for electricity resources described in the Energy ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

14Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California’s Water—Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, (04–IEPR–01E) November 2005, CEC–700–2005–011–SF. 15 California Department of Water Resources (2005). California Water Plan Update 2005. Bulletin 160–05, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. 16Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California’s Water—Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, (04–IEPR–01E) November 2005, CEC–700–2005–011–SF.

mission’s Integrated Energy Policy Report 2005 and the multi-agency Energy Action

Plan.’’ 14

One of the top recommendations in the California Energy Commission’s 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) is as follows: ‘‘The Energy Commission strongly

supports the following energy efficiency and demand response recommendations:

The CPUC, Department of Water Resources, the Energy Commission, local water

agencies and other stakeholders should assess efficiency improvements in hot and

cold water use in homes and businesses, and include these improvements in 2006–

2008 programs.’’ It observes that ‘‘Reducing the demand for energy is the most effective way to reduce energy costs and bolster California’s economy.’’ 15

Improvements in urban water use efficiency have been identified by the Department of Water Resources in its official State Water Plan as the largest new water

supply for the next quarter century, followed by groundwater management and

reuse. The following graph indicates the critical role water use efficiency, groundwater recharge and management, and reuse will play in California’s water future.

The CEC staff report notes that, ‘‘As California continues to struggle with its

many critical energy supply and infrastructure challenges, the state must identify

and address the points of highest stress. At the top of this list is California’s waterenergy relationship.’’ 16 It continues with this interesting finding: ‘‘The state can

meet energy and demand-reduction goals comparable to those already planned by

the state’s investor-owned energy utilities for the 2006–2008 program period by simply recognizing the value of the energy saved for each unit of water saved. If allowed to invest in these cold water energy savings, energy utilities could co-invest

in water use efficiency programs, which would in turn supplement water utilities’

efforts to meet as much load growth as possible through water efficiency. RemarkVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
30

17Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California’s Water—Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, (04–IEPR–01E) November 2005, CEC–700–2005–011–SF. 18Wilkinson, Robert C. (2000). Methodology For Analysis of The Energy Intensity of California’s Water Systems, and an Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated

Water-Energy Efficiency Measures, Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency. 19 California Energy Commission (2006). Public Interest Energy Research—Industrial, Agriculture and Water, http://energy.ca.gov/pier/iaw/industry/water.html 20For a methodology to examine water intensity, see: Wilkinson, Robert C., 2000. Methodology

For Analysis of The Energy Intensity of California’s Water Systems, and an Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency Measures, Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy

Efficiency.

ably, staff’s initial assessment indicates that this benefit could be realized at less

than half the cost to electric rate payers of traditional energy efficiency measures.’’ 17

This finding is consistent with an earlier analysis which found that energy use

for conveyance, including interbasin water transfer systems (systems that move

water from one watershed to another) in California, accounted for about 6.9 percent

of the state’s electricity consumption.18 Estimates by CEC’s Public Interest Energy

Research—Industrial, Agriculture and Water (PIER–IAW) experts indicate that

‘‘total energy used to pump and treat this water exceeds 15,000 GWh per year, or

at least 6.5 percent of the total electricity used in the state per year.’’ They also note

that the State Water Project (SWP)—the state-owned storage and conveyance system that transfers water from Northern California to various parts of the state including Southern California—is the largest single user of electricity in the state, accounting for two percent to three percent of all the electricity consumed in California and using an average of 5,000 GWh per year.19

The magnitude of these figures suggests that failing to include embedded energy

in water and wastewater systems, and failing to tap energy saving derived from

water efficiency improvements would be a policy opportunity lost.

Tapping Integrated Water/Energy Opportunities

Elements of typical water infrastructures are energy intensive. Moving large

quantities of water long distances and over significant elevation gains, treating and

distributing it within communities, using it for various purposes, and collecting and

treating the resulting wastewater, accounts for one of the largest uses of electrical

energy in many areas.20

Water systems include extraction of ‘‘raw’’ (untreated) water supplies from natural

sources, conveyance, treatment, storage, distribution, end-uses, and wastewater

treatment. The total energy embodied in a unit of water used in a particular place

varies with location, source, and use.

There are four principle energy elements of water systems:

1. primary water extraction, conveyance, and storage

2. treatment and distribution within service areas

3. on-site water pumping, treatment, and thermal inputs (heating and cooling)

4. wastewater collection, treatment and discharge

Pumping water in each of these stages is energy-intensive. Other important energy inputs include thermal energy (heating and cooling) applications at the point

of end-use, and aeration in wastewater treatment processes.

1. Primary water extraction, conveyance, and storage. Extracting and

lifting water is highly energy intensive. Surface water and groundwater

pumping requires significant amounts of energy depending on the depth of

the source. Where water is stored in intermediate facilities, net energy is required to store and then recover the water.

31

21This schematic and method is based on Wilkinson (2000) with refinements by Gary Klein,

California Energy Commission, Gary Wolff, Pacific Institute, and others.

2. Treatment and distribution within service areas. Within local service

areas, water is treated, pumped, and pressurized for distribution. Local conditions and sources determine both the treatment requirements and the energy required for pumping and pressurization. Some distribution systems are

gravity-driven, while others require pumping.

3. On-site water pumping, treatment, and thermal inputs. Individual

water users require energy to further treat water supplies (e.g., softeners, filters, etc.), circulate and pressurize water supplies (e.g., building circulation

pumps), and heat and cool water for various purposes.

4. Wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge. Finally, wastewater is

collected and treated by a wastewater system (unless a septic system or

other alternative is being used) and discharged. Wastewater is sometimes

pumped to treatment facilities where gravity flow is not possible, and the

standard treatment processes require energy for pumping, aeration, and

other processes.

The simplified flow chart21 below illustrates the steps in the water system process.

The energy intensity of water varies considerably by geographic location of both

end-users and sources. Water use in certain places is highly energy-intensive due

to the combined requirements of conveyance over long distances and elevation lifts,

treatment and distribution, and wastewater collection and treatment processes. Important work already undertaken by various government agencies, professional associations, private sector users, and non-governmental organizations in the area of

combined end-use efficiency strategies has demonstrated considerable potential for

improvement. Significant and profitable energy efficiency gains are possible through

implementation of cost-effective water efficiency improvements.

The Energy Intensity of Water in California: A Case Study

California’s water systems are uniquely energy-intensive due in large part to the

pumping requirements of major conveyance systems which move large volumes of

water long distances and over thousands of feet in elevation. Some interbasin transVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
32

22Wilkinson, Robert C. (2000). Methodology For Analysis of The Energy Intensity of California’s Water Systems, and an Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated

Water-Energy Efficiency Measures, Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency; QEI, Inc. (1992). Electricity Efficiency Through Water Efficiency, Report for the Southern California Edison Company. 23QEI, Inc. (1992). Electricity Efficiency Through Water Efficiency, Report for the Southern

California Edison Company. 24Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (1996). Integrated Resource Plan for

Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct Power Operations. 25 California Department of Water Resources (1996). Management of the California State

Water Project. Bulletin 132–96. 26 Anderson, Carrie (1999). ‘‘Energy Use in the Supply, Use and Disposal of Water in California,’’ Process Energy Group, Energy Efficiency Division, California Energy Commission. 27 Burton, Franklin L. (1996). Water and Wastewater Industries: Characteristics and Energy

Management Opportunities. (Burton Engineering) Los Altos, CA, Report CR–106941, Electric

Power Research Institute Report.

fer systems such as California’s State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River

Aqueduct (CRA) require large amounts of electrical energy to convey water.

Water use (based on embedded energy) is the second or third largest consumer

of electricity in a typical Southern California home after refrigerators and air conditioners.22 The electricity required to support water service in the typical home in

Southern California is estimated to be between 14 percent to 19 percent of total residential energy demand.23 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

(MWD) reached similar findings, estimating that energy requirements to deliver

water to residential customers equals as much as 33 percent of the total average

household electricity use.24 Nearly three quarters of this energy demand is for

pumping imported water.

Water system operations pose a number of challenges for energy systems due to

factors such as large loads for specific facilities, time and season of use, and geographic distribution of loads. Pumping plants are among the largest electrical loads

in the state. For example, the SWP’s Edmonston Pumping Plant, situated at the foot

of the Tehachapi Mountains, pumps water 1,926 feet (the highest single lift of any

pumping plant in the world) and is the largest single user of electricity in the

state.25 In total, the SWP system is the largest user of electricity in the state.26 A

study for the Electric Power Research Institute by Franklin Burton found that at

a national level, water systems account for an estimated 75 billion kWh per year

(about three percent of total electricity demand).27

The schematic below shows the cumulative net energy, and the incremental energy inputs or outputs, at each of the pumping and energy recovery facilities of the

SWP. (Energy recovery is indicated with negative numbers, which reduce net energy

at that point in the system.)

33

28Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (1996). Integrated Resource Plan for

Metropolitan’s Colorado River Aqueduct Power Operations.

Approximately 5,418 kWh are required to pump one acre-foot of SWP water from

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Cherry Valley on the East Branch, 2,580

kWh/af at Castaic on the West Branch, and 2,826 kWh/af to Polonio on the Coastal

Branch. Approximately 2,000 kWh/af is required to pump Colorado River water to

Southern California.28 This is raw (untreated) water delivered to those points. From

there conveyance continues by gravity or pumping to treatment and distribution

within service areas.

Note that at certain points in the system the energy intensity is high because the

service areas are located at higher elevations. At Pearblossom (4,444 kWh/af) raw

water supplies are roughly equivalent to estimates for desalinated ocean water systems. (Ocean desalination is estimated at 4,400 kWh/af based on work by the author

for the California Desalination Task Force.) At Crafton Hill and Cherry Valley, the

energy intensity of imported water is well in excess of current estimates of ocean

desalination.

The following graph shows the energy intensity of major water supply options for

actual inland and coastal locations in Southern California.

34

29Wilkinson, Robert C. (2000). Methodology For Analysis of The Energy Intensity of California’s Water Systems, and an Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated

Water-Energy Efficiency Measures, Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency. 30Park, Laurie, Bill Bennett, Stacy Tellinghuisen, Chris Smith, and Robert Wilkinson, 2008.

The Role of Recycled Water In Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, California Sustainability Alliance, available at: www.sustainca.org

Each bar represents the energy intensity of a specific water supply source at selected locations in Southern California. The data is presented in kWh/af. Water conservation—e.g., not using water in the first place—avoids additional energy inputs

along all segments of the water use cycle. Consequently, water use efficiency is the

superior water resource option from an energy perspective (and typically from a cost

perspective as well). For all other water resources, there are ranges of actual energy

inputs that depend on many factors, including the quality of source water, the energy intensity of the technologies used to treat the source water to standards needed

by end-users, the distance water needs to be transported to reach end-users, and

the efficiency of the conveyance, distribution, and treatment facilities and systems.29

Note that improved efficiency (e.g., fixing leaks, replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems, and other cost-effective measures) requires no water

system energy inputs. Next to water conservation, recycled water and groundwater

are lower energy intensity options than most other water resources in many areas

of California.30 Even with advanced treatment to deal with salts and other contaminants (the blue and green bars), recycled water and groundwater usually require far

less energy than the untreated imported water (red bars) and seawater desalination

(yellow bars). The Chino desalter, a reverse osmosis (RO) treatment process providing high-quality potable water from contaminated groundwater (the energy figure

above includes groundwater pumping and RO filtration) is far less energy intensive

than any of the imported raw water. From an energy standpoint, greater reliance

on water conservation, reuse and groundwater provides significant benefits. From

a greenhouse gas emissions standpoint, these energy benefits provide significant potential emissions reduction benefits in direct relation to their energy savings.

Groundwater pumping energy requirements vary depending on the lift required.

The California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research—Industrial,

Agriculture and Water program provides the following assessment of pumping in

important parts of the Central Valley: ‘‘The amount of energy used in pumping

35

31 California Energy Commission (2006). Public Interest Energy Research—Industrial, Agriculture and Water, http://energy.ca.gov/pier/iaw/industry/water.html 32 Burton, Franklin L. (1996). Water and Wastewater Industries: Characteristics and Energy

Management Opportunities. (Burton Engineering) Los Altos, CA, Report CR–106941, Electric

Power Research Institute Report.

groundwater is unknown due to the lack of complete information on well-depth and

groundwater use. DWR has estimated groundwater use and average well depths in

three areas responsible for almost two-thirds of the groundwater used in the state:

the Tulare Lake basin, the San Joaquin River basin, and the Central Coast region.

Based on these estimates, energy used for groundwater pumping in these areas

would average 2,250 GWh per year at a 70 percent pumping efficiency (1.46 kWh/

acre-foot/foot of lift). In the Tulare Lake area, with an average well depth of 120

feet, pumping would require 175 kWh per acre-foot of water. In the San Joaquin

River and Central Coast areas, with average well depths of 200 feet, pumping would

require 292 kWh per acre-foot of water.’’ 31 Analysis of these different sources provides a reasonably consistent result: Local groundwater and recycled water are far

less energy intensive than imported water or ocean desalination.

The energy intensity of most water supply sources may increase in the future due

to increased concerns regarding water quality.32 It is worth noting that advanced

treatment systems such as RO facilities that are being used to treat groundwater,

reclaimed supplies, and ocean water have already absorbed most of the energy impacts of higher levels of treatment. By contrast, some of the raw water supplies may

require larger incremental energy inputs in the future for treatment. This may further advantage the local sources.

Policy Implications: Tapping Multiple Benefits Through Integrated Planning

When the costs and benefits of a proposed policy or action are analyzed, we typically focus on accounting for costs, and then we compare those costs with a specific,

well-defined benefit such as an additional increment of water supply. We often fail

to account for other important benefits that accrue from well-planned investments

that solve for multiple objectives. With a focus on multiple benefits, we account for

various goals achieved through a single investment. For example, improvements in

water use efficiency—meeting the same end-use needs with less water—also typically provides related benefits such as reduced energy requirements for water pumping and treatment (with reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emissions related to

energy production as a result), and reduced water and wastewater infrastructure capacity (capital costs) and processing (operating costs) requirements. Impacts caused

by extraction of source water from surface or groundwater systems are also reduced.

Water managers often do not receive credit for providing these multiple benefits

when they implement water efficiency, recharge, and reuse strategies. From both an

investment perspective, and from the standpoint of public policy, the multiple benefits of efficiency improvements and recharge and reuse should be fully included in

cost/benefit analysis.

Policies that account for the full embedded energy of water use have the potential

to provide significant additional public and private sector benefits. Economic and environmental benefits are potentially available through new policy approaches that

properly account for the energy intensity of water.

Energy savings may be achieved both upstream and downstream of the point of

use when the energy consumption of both water supply and wastewater treatment

systems are taken into account. Methods, metrics, and data are available to provide

a solid foundation for policy approaches to account for energy savings from water

efficiency improvements, though can and should be improved. Policies can be based

on methodologies and metrics that are already established.

Policy Precedents and the Role of Government

Water and energy are currently regulated by government because there is a compelling public interest in oversight and management of these critical resources. Encouraging and requiring the efficient use of both water and energy is a well-established part of the policy mandate under which government agencies operate. Inefficient use of water and energy leads to public and private costs to the economy and

the environment. The public interest in resource-use efficiency relates directly to environmental impacts and public welfare. This is why we have efficiency standards

for energy and water resources. Water-using devices, like energy-using devices, are

often regulated through various policy measures including efficiency standards.

36

33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Water Conservation Plan Guidelines for Implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. 34Miri, Joseph, 1999. ‘‘Snapshot of Conservation Management: A Summary Report of the

American Water Works Association Survey of State Water Conservation Programs.’’ American

Water Works Association. 35One of the best sources on water efficiency in the U.S. is Mary Ann Dickinson, Executive

Director, Alliance for Water Efficiency, P.O. Box 804127, Chicago, IL 60680–4127. The Alliance

web site is: www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org

Policy regarding both energy and water already addresses water use and related

embedded energy use. For example, the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992 set standards for the maximum water use of toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucets. (See

Table below.) Why does the U.S. Energy Act include standards for water use? It is

because the energy required to convey, treat, and deliver potable water supplies,

and the energy required to collect, treat, and discharge the resulting wastewater,

is significant. The energy savings resulting from water efficiency are also significant.

These standards became effective in 1994 for residential and commercial plumbing fixtures, although the commercial water closet standard was not required until

1997 because of uncertainties regarding performance of the fixtures. In this respect,

the United States is well behind certain countries of Europe, where the six-liter

water closet has been in use for many years and where horizontal axis washing machines are more common than in the United States.

In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed a reauthorization of the Federal Safe Drinking

Water Act. For the first time, Congress formally recognized the need for water conservation planning by allowing individual states to mandate conservation planning

and implementation as a condition of receiving federal grants for water supply

treatment facilities.33 This was a significant step for the federal government. At

about the same time, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation set conservation and efficiency

requirements for those agricultural and urban water agencies that receive federally

subsidized water from the Bureau facilities. This also was a significant step. Other

federal statutes create incentives for farmers and landowners to participate in soil

and water conservation programs, and to initiate voluntary water transfers of conserved water.

The significant water efficiency and conservation activity, however, takes place at

the State and regional levels. Interest in water efficiency is primarily highest in

those regions of the country where precipitation is lowest, or where wastewater

treatment costs have skyrocketed. Seventeen states, representing over 60 percent of

the Nation’s population, had already adopted their own plumbing efficiency standards long before passage of the federal law in 1992. Fifteen states have also adopted

specific conservation programs, which vary from mandating conservation planning

by water utilities to requiring actual implementation of specific water efficiency programs. The states most active in conservation activities are: Arizona; California;

Colorado; Connecticut; Florida; Kansas; New Jersey, Oregon; Texas; and Washington State.34 Individual cities have also adopted water efficiency programs where

necessary (New York City, Boston, and Las Vegas are examples).

In general, where water supply withdrawals are regulated by State agencies,

water conservation is usually a prominent planning requirement for water utilities.

A number of states not only require plans of their water utilities, but also require

that progress be demonstrated in water efficiency programs before approvals for

continued water supply withdrawals are given. Many states also condition State

grants for new facility construction upon a satisfactory demonstration of conservation planning and implementation by the water utility.35

California adopted plumbing standards in 1978 for showerheads and faucets, and

water closet standards in 1992. Comprehensive conservation planning was adopted

37

36 California Water Code, Sections 10620 et seq. 37 California Urban Water Conservation Council (1991). ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California,’’ (First adopted September, 1991). 38Osann, Edward and John Young (1998). Saving Water Saving Dollars: Efficient Plumbing

Products and the Protection of American Water.

in 1983 for all water agencies serving more than 3,000 connections or 3,000 people.36 In a unique consensus partnership, a Memorandum of Understanding was

signed in 1991 by major water utilities and environmental groups pledging to undertake water efficiency practices (the ‘‘Best Management Practices’’).37

Environmental Benefits of Integrated Water and Energy Efficiency Strategies

Water conservation is a powerful tool in the integrated resource management toolbox. By reducing the need for new water supply and additional wastewater treatment—particularly in areas of rapid population growth—conserved water allows

more equitable allocation of water resources for other purposes. By way of illustration, one estimate indicates that the installation of 1.6 gallon per flush toilets in

the U.S. will save over two billion gallons per day nationwide by the year 2010.38

These saved water resources can be directed toward future water supply growth or

other uses for the water. It ‘‘stretches’’ the available supply.

Perhaps most significantly, it has become clear in recent decades that the extraction and diversion of water supplies has had major impacts on the quality of the

natural environment and on individual species. Facilities built to dam, divert, transport, pump, and treat water are massive projects that often cause serious and sometimes irreversible environmental impacts.

As a result, water conservation is playing an important role in helping meet the

environmental goals of many communities. Efficiency programs have been required

in numerous areas to help achieve some of the following results:

• Maintaining habitat along rivers and streams and restoring fisheries;

• Protecting groundwater supplies from excessive depletion and contamination;

• Improving the quality of wastewater discharges;

• Reducing excessive runoff of urban contaminants; and

• Restoring the natural values and functions of wetlands and estuaries.

The Role of Price Signals Coupled With Policy

Attention has turned to technologies that improve energy and water-use efficiency. From industrial processes to plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems, water

is being used far more efficiently than in the past. One reason the focus of technological innovation has shifted from supply development to improving efficiency is economics. When water is cheap, there is little incentive to design and build waterefficient technologies. As the cost of water increases, technology options for reducing

waste and providing greater end-use efficiency become more cost-effective and even

profitable. Technologies for measuring, timing, and controlling water use, and new

innovations in the treatment and re-use of water, are growing areas of technology

development and application.

Impetus for scientific inquiry and technology innovation and development has

been provided by both price signals (increasing costs) and public policy (e.g., requirements for internalization of external costs). Public policy is increasingly incorporating these costs, including those of climate change, into resource prices. As

water and energy prices continue to reflect full costs, including environmental costs

previously externalized, they increase.

At the same time, technology has provided a wide range of options for expanding

the utility value through efficiencies (less water and energy required to perform a

useful service). The ability to treat and reuse water, improve energy efficiency, and

substituting ways to provide services previously performed by water and energy.

Broader application of these technologies and techniques can yield significant additional energy, water, economic, and environmental benefits.

Public policy can be designed to encourage ‘‘best management practices’’ by both

water and energy suppliers and users. Appliance efficiency standards (for both energy and water) and minimum waste requirements are examples. Policy measures

have also been used to frame and guide market signals by implementing mechanisms such as increasing tiered pricing structures, meter requirements (some areas

do not even measure use), and other means to utilize simple market principles and

price signals more effectively.

38

39 ‘‘Tuas Seawater Desalination Plant, Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO), Singapore,’’

watertechnology. http://www.water b technology.net/projects/tuas/, viewed April 23, 2008. 40 ‘‘Seawater desalination to relieve water shortage in China,’’ China Economic Net, Feb. 28,

2006, http://en.ce.cn/Insight/200602/28/t20060228¥6217706.shtml 41 ‘‘Perth Seawater Desalination Plant, Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO), Kwinana, Australia,’’ watertechnology. http://www.water b technology.net/projects/perth/ 42 ‘‘Drought-Proof Water Supply Delivering Drinking Water, The Nation’s first large-scale seawater desalination plant eases Tampa Bay region’s drought worries.’’ News release, January 25,

2008, http://www.tampabaywater.org/whatshot/readnews.aspx?article=131, viewed April 23,

2008. 43 ‘‘According to the 2002 State Water Plan, four of the six regional water planning areas with

the greatest volumetric water supply needs in 2050 will be regions that have large urban, suburban, and rural populations located on or near the Texas Gulf Coast. These populations could

conceivably benefit from a new, significant, and sustainable source of high-quality drinking

water.’’ The Future of Desalination in Texas, 2004 Biennial Report on Semvater Desalination,

Texas Water Development Board, p. ix. 44Section 16.060 of the Texas Water Code directs the Texas Water Development Board to

‘‘. . . undertake or participate in research, feasibility and facility planning studies, investigations, and surveys as it considers necessary to further the development of cost effective water

supplies from seawater desalination in the state.’’ The Code also requires a biennial progress

report be submitted to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House of Representatives.

In an economic and resource management sense, efficiency improvements are now

considered as supply options, to the extent that permanent improvements in the demand-side infrastructure provide reliable water and/or energy savings. Most experts

agree that coupling technology options such as efficient plumbing and energy-using

devices to economic incentives (e.g., rebates) and disincentives (e.g., increasing

tiered rate structures) is the best strategy. The coupling provides both the means

to improve productive water and energy use and the incentive to do it.

Seawater Desalination’s Role in Integrated Water Supply Portfolios

Seawater desalination has been viewed as the ultimate drought hedge, enabling

water providers to augment water supplies with desalted ocean water, a virtually

inexhaustible water source. Both the theory and practice of desalination date back

to the ancient Greeks and perhaps earlier, but costs have held desalination to limited use.

The salinity of ocean water varies, with the average generally exceeding 30 grams

per liter (g/l). The Pacific Ocean is 34–38 g/l, the Atlantic Ocean averages about 35

g/l, and the Persian Gulf is 45 g/l. Brackish water drops to 0.5 to 3.0 g/l. Potable

water salt levels should be below 0.5 g/l.

Reducing salt levels from over 30 g/l to 0.5 g/l and lower (drinking water standards) using existing technologies requires considerable amounts of energy, either for

thermal processes or for the pressure to drive water through extremely fine filters

(RO), or for some combination of thermal and pressure processes. Recent improvements in energy efficiency have reduced the amount of thermal and pumping energy

required for the various processes, but high energy intensity is still an issue. The

energy required is in part a function of the degree of salinity and the temperature

of the water.

Seawater desalination is a primary source of water in some countries in the Middle East. It is also becoming an important resource in other countries including

Spain, Singapore, China, and Australia. A few recent examples include:

• In 2006, Singapore completed a 36 MGD seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO)

plant capable of serving 10 percent of its national water demand.39

• As of 2006, more than 20 seawater desalination plants were operating in

China.40

• In November 2006, Western Australia became the first state in the country

to use desalination as a major public water source.41

A number of desalination plants are currently being planned or developed in the

U.S. On January 25, 2008, Tampa Bay Water announced that it had commenced

full operations of its 25 MGD desalination plant, presently the largest seawater desalination plant in North America. At full capacity, the plant will provide 10 percent

of the drinking water supply for the Tampa Bay region.42 In 2004, the Texas Water

Development Board (TWDB) identified desalination as an important strategy for

meeting growth in water demand.43 In its 2006 update to the Governor and the Legislature, the TWDB stated that ‘‘Seawater desalination can no longer be considered

a water supply option available only to communities along the Texas Gulf Coast.44

It must also be considered as an increasingly viable water supply option for major

39

45 ‘‘The Future of Desalination in Texas, 2006 Biennial Report on Seawater Desalination,’’

Texas Water Development Board, Executive Summary, pp. iv–v. 46 Cooley, Heather, Peter H. Gleick, and Gary Wolff, 2006. Desalination, With a Grain of Salt,

Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, 654 13th Street, Preservation Park, Oakland, California 94612, http://www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination/

index.htm

metropolitan areas throughout Texas.’’ 45 The report encourages State investments

for a full-scale seawater desalination demonstration project by the Brownsville Public Utilities Board ‘‘. . . as a reasonable investment in a technology that holds the

promise of providing unlimited supplies of drinking water even during periods of extreme drought.’’

In California, interest in seawater desalination is also escalating. Heather Cooly

and colleagues at the Pacific Institute found that as of 2006, about 266 to 379 MGD

of new seawater desalination facilities were planned in California.46

40

47Posidon Resources, http://www.carlsbaddesal.com/partnerships.asp 48 Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia,

and Molly A. Maupin, 2005. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1268, (released March 2004, revised April 2004, May 2004, February 2005)

USGS, P. 1. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/index.html

In November 2007, Poseidon Resources won conditional regulatory approval from the California Coastal Commission to build a $300 million plant north of San Diego.

The Carlsbad Desalination Plant will be the largest in the western hemisphere if

completed as planned. On its web site, Poseidon reported that most of the plant’s

capacity has already been committed to serve baseload water requirements for local

water agencies.47

Water Inputs to U.S. Energy Systems

The other side of the water/energy nexus is the water intensity of energy. In this

case, water inputs to energy systems are identified and quantified to understand

where water is used, and how much is required for different types of energy sources

and services.

Water inputs to energy systems are significant but highly variable. For example,

primary fuels, such as oil, gas, and coal, often require water for production, and

they sometimes ‘‘produce’’ water of various qualities as a by-product of extraction.

Biofuels may require water not only for irrigation of crops but also for production

processes. Electricity generation in thermoelectric plants typically uses water for

cooling and other processes, although dry cooling technology exists and is improving.

Some forms of electricity production such as wind and certain co-generation processes require no water at all.

The USGS estimates in its most recent analysis that 48 percent of all U.S. freshwater and saline-water withdrawals were used for thermoelectric power, with the

majority of the fresh water extracted from surface sources (e.g., lakes and rivers)

and used for once-through cooling at thermal power plants. USGS notes that ‘‘about

52 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals and about 96 percent of saline-water

withdrawals were for thermoelectric-power use.’’ 48

Water is increasingly viewed as a limiting factor for thermal power plant siting

and operation. Large-scale thermoelectric plants in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere

have experienced serious problems in recent years due to the lack of available cooling water. Power production was reduced or curtailed in Europe during the heat

41

49See for example Sandia’s web site at: http://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/ 50See ‘‘Energy Demands on Water Resources Report to Congress on the Interdependency of

Energy and Water,’’ U.S. Department of Energy, December 2006, http://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/congress¥report.htm 51 National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2007. ‘‘Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation Requirements’’ 2007 Update, DOE/NETL–400/2007/1304,

www.netl.doe.gov 52 Information and graph are from Dennen, Bliss, Dana Larson, Cheryl Lee, James Lee, Stacy

Tellinghuisen, 2007. ‘‘California’s Energy-Water Nexus: Water Use in Electricity Generation,’’

Group Project Report, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University

of California, Santa Barbara, available at: http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/∼energywater/

wave in 2003, and power plants in the U.S. have been impacted by low water and

by elevated temperatures, or both, during the past decade. As recently as this past

winter power plant operators were concerned about the impact of the drought in the

U.S. Southeast and the potential for adverse impacts to thermal power plants. Hydroelectric power production is also impacted by low water levels, including a continuing long-term dry period in the Colorado River basin.

Although cooling systems account for the majority of water used in power generation, water is also used in other parts of the process: water may be used to mine,

process, or transport fuels (e.g., coal slurry lines). These processes may have important local impacts on water resources. Some energy sources such as oil shale, tar

sands, and marginal gas and petroleum reserves may have additional water needs

and/or significant local impacts on water quality and quantity.

The U.S. National Labs have been working for several years on an ‘‘Energy/Water

Nexus’’ effort.49 A report entitled ‘‘Energy Demands on Water Resources Report to

Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water’’ was submitted to Congress

in 2007.50 As with other analyses of the issue, the report found that some energy

systems are highly dependent on large volumes of water resources (and vulnerable

to disruptions), while other energy sources are independent of water. Further analysis of the opportunities for improving resilience and of beneficial decoupling water

and energy are in order.

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has developed several studies and reports, including an updated report entitled ‘‘Estimating Freshwater Needs

to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation Requirements’’ in 2007.51 NETL has

strong expertise on coal and thermal power production at coal-fired power plants.

Its study indicates that water consumption is projected to increase over a range of

scenarios, while extraction is expected to decline. This is due to an expected shift

away from one-through cooling systems, which cycle more extracted water through

the plants, but consume (e.g., evaporate) less than recycle cooling systems. The

study also indicates that carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a strategy to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions will add significant water consumptive demands to coalbased power production.

Other studies from federal labs and research institutions are exploring links between energy systems and water requirements. The National Renewable Energy

Lab (NREL), for example, has been working on the role of renewables to reduce

water demands from the energy sector.

A recent research project by graduate students at the University of California,

Santa Barbara found that water use for renewable forms of energy varies substantially.52 Solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, and landfill gas-to-energy projects require very little water, if any. Likewise, geothermal and concentrating solar power

(CSP) systems that employ dry cooling technology also have minimal water requirements. In contrast, irrigated bio-energy crops could potentially consume exponentially more water per unit of electricity generated than thermoelectric plants. Geothermal plants may also have high water requirements, depending on the geothermal resource and the conversion technology employed. Many geothermal plants,

however, rely on geothermal fluids (often high in salts or other minerals). Finally,

although reservoirs often have multiple purposes (e.g., flood control, water storage,

and recreation), evaporative (consumptive) losses from hydroelectric facilities per

unit of electricity are higher than many other forms of generation. As the following

graph indicates, water requirements vary substantially, depending on the primary

fuel source and the technology employed.

42

The various water inputs to energy systems are, as noted, highly variable. It is

not at all clear that meeting our energy needs requires large amounts of water, as

has been the case in the past. Indeed, the data above indicate that we have choices.

An important step in addressing the water and energy challenge is to analyze the

relationships between them and the technology and policy options.

Recommendations for Further Research and Development

There are of course various approaches to meeting the challenge of water and energy in the 21st century. I am pleased to have been asked by this committee to provide some thoughts on directions for research and development.

It is always useful to begin by examining the questions to be addressed. If one

asks how to provide low-cost water for energy supplies and low-cost energy for water

supplies, then the question leads to certain kinds of analysis. This indeed is how

some are framing the question at present.

It seems clear that both water and energy are scarce in both the economic and

physical sense, and that there are many competing demands for them. It also seems

self-evident that environmental impacts (often externalized in the past), are real

and growing. One of the most significant, but by no means the only one, is climate

change.

These observations lead to a conclusion that we should ask a different set of questions. It is tempting to take this opportunity to deluge a Congressional Committee

with a wish-list of research ideas. Instead, I will start with just two questions:

1. How can we decouple water and energy systems where there are high costs,

stresses, damages, or vulnerabilities to systems?

2. How can we maximize water and energy efficiency and productivity so as to

reduce demands on each and maximize benefits to society?

Of course these questions involve important data collection and analysis of subelements of each. To take my first example, we need to identify costs (full costs and

an accounting for distortions—e.g., subsidies and externalities—at all levels),

stresses (e.g., limits of systems and things like the causes of, probabilities of, and

consequences of, exceeding those limits), potential economic, environmental, and social damages (including irreversible damages), and vulnerabilities of systems to perturbations caused by either natural events (dry spells) and/or of those with bad intensions (national security). These are critically important questions for the Nation,

and they are not being properly asked and framed, let alone addressed.

43

53Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable, http://acwi.gov/swrr/ 54 California Energy Commission (2005). Integrated Energy Policy Report, November 2005,

CEC–100–2005–007–CMF. 55Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California’s Water—Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, (04–IEPR–01E) November 2005, CEC–700–2005–011–SF.

The second question leads to a set of studies that is long overdue. We have focused so heavily on supplying energy and water in unlimited quantities at ‘‘low

prices’’ that we have failed to ask the basic questions regarding opportunities to do

more with less, let alone limits of the capacity of systems and the implications of

inefficient and unproductive use (waste) of critical resources.

My recommendation to this committee is that you follow these important hearings

with a process to formulate key questions and issues to be addressed by the unsurpassed research, business, and public policy capacity of the United States in addressing these critical challenges. The Committee should give careful consideration

to designing, framing, and setting forth key questions to be addressed by the research and development community (which I would take to include research institutions, business, NGOs, and other interested stakeholders as well as key government

agencies) to meet the challenges of water and energy for the country.

A good example of an effective collaborative along these lines that involves a number of federal agencies as well as the research community, local and State government, NGOs, business, and others is the Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable.53

By focusing on the key questions, the Committee can provide both the leadership

and the guidance that is needed.

Conclusion: Opportunities for Integrated Water/Energy Policy Policy

Policy frameworks are critical to achieving success based on advances in science

and technology. In considering alternative policy strategies, decision-makers should

carefully analyze and consider the potential multiple benefits available from integrated strategies.

The United States, like other nations, faces formidable challenges in providing

water and energy to its citizens in the face of scarcity, rising costs, security threats,

climate change, and much else. We are fortunate to have the scientific and technological capacity, and the institutions of governance, to take on these difficult challenges. Policy formulation, starting with Congress asking penetrating and thoughtful questions, is a critical starting point. From this framework, research and development strategies can be developed to address society’s challenges in effective ways.

For the past century, the focus of technological innovation in water systems was

on the extraction, storage, and conveyance of water. Huge dams, aqueduct systems,

and ‘‘appurtenant’’ facilities were designed, financed, and built to accomplish the

task. Major rivers have been entirely de-watered. The costs—economic, environmental, and social—are evident.

Integrated water and energy management strategies, with a focus on vastly improved end-use and economic efficiency for both, and careful consideration of alternative technology opportunities provided by advances in science and technology, can

provide significant multiple benefits to society. Costeffective improvements in energy

and water productivity, with associated economic and environmental quality benefits, increased reliability and resilience of supply systems (all elements of the ‘‘multiple benefits’’), are attainable.

It may be worth quoting the California Energy Commission from its Integrated

Energy Policy Report: ‘‘Reducing the demand for energy is the most effective way

to reduce energy costs and bolster California’s economy.’’ 54 Consistent with this approach, improvements in efficiency are identified by the California Department of

Water Resources as the largest (and in fact the most certain) new water supply for

the next quarter century, followed by groundwater recharge and water reuse. The

state’s Energy Commission noted: ‘‘The 2005 Water Plan Update mirrors the state’s

adopted loading order for electricity resources.’’ 55

Methodologies and metrics exist to tap the multiple benefits of integrated water/

energy strategies, though they can and need to be improved. The policies required

to incentivize, enable, and mandate integrated water and energy policy exist and are

being refined to tap ample opportunities to improve both the economic and environmental performance of water and energy systems.

With better information regarding energy implications of water use, and water

implications of energy use, public policy combined with investment and management strategies can dramatically improve productivity and efficiency. Potential benefits include improved allocation of capital, avoided capital and operating costs, and

reduced burdens on rate-payers and tax-payers. Other benefits, including restoraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
44

tion and maintenance of environmental quality, can also be realized more cost-effectively through policy coordination. Full benefits derived through water/energy strategies have not been adequately quantified or factored into policy.

Public concern regarding environmental costs of diverting and extracting water is

another reason for the shift in technology focus from extraction to efficiency. Precipitous declines in populations of fish, and damage to ecosystems around the world,

have driven this growing call for more sustainable water systems.

Current technology can provide water supplies through efficiency improvements

at substantially less cost than the development of new supplies in most areas. As

water prices increase to reflect full capital, operating, and environmental costs, it

is likely that technology will play an even greater role in providing water efficiency

improvements.

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

BIOGRAPHY FOR ROBERT C. WILKINSON

Dr. Robert C. Wilkinson is Director of the Water Policy Program at the Bren

School of Environmental Science and Management at the University of California,

Santa Barbara, and he is a Lecturer in the Environmental Studies Program at

UCSB. Dr. Wilkinson’s teaching, research, and consulting focus on water policy, energy, climate change, and environmental policy issues. Dr. Wilkinson is also a Senior Fellow with the Rocky Mountain Institute.

Dr. Wilkinson advises businesses, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations on water policy, climate research, and environmental policy issues. He

serves on the Task Force on Water and Energy Technology for the California Climate Action Team and as an advisor to State agencies including the California Energy Commission, the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, and others on water, energy, and climate issues. He

served on the advisory committee for California’s 2005 State Water Plan, and he

represented the University of California on the Governor’s Task Force on Desalination. Dr. Wilkinson advises various federal agencies including the, U.S. DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the U.S. EPA on water and climate research, and he served as coordinator for the climate impacts assessment of the California Region for the US Global Change Research Program and the White House

Office of Science and Technology Policy.

In 1990, Dr. Wilkinson established and directed the Graduate Program in Environmental Science and Policy at the Central European University based in Budapest, Hungary. He has worked extensively in Western Europe, every country of Central Europe from Albania through the Baltic States, and throughout the former Soviet Union including Siberia and Central Asia. He has also worked in Australia,

New Zealand, Canada, Japan, South Africa, and China.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Wilkinson.

And Mr. Levinson, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF MR. MARC LEVINSON, ECONOMIST, U.S.

CORPORATE RESEARCH, J.P. MORGAN CHASE

Mr. LEVINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is quite an honor

for me to be with such a distinguished panel today. I am going to

speak about water supply risks and their impact on investors.

First, it might help if I explain exactly where I fit in the Wall

Street ecosystem. I specialize in economic issues, including environmental regulation, and my clients are institutional investors who

buy publicly-traded stock and bonds. I say that to make clear that

I have no connection whatsoever to our mergers and acquisitions

business or to the lending business or to the many other things

that an investment bank does.

In my opinion, investors are much less concerned about water

supply risks than they should be. We recently published a report,

to which the Chairman alluded, contending that water-supply risks

are far more important to many companies than investors believe.

We also found that very few companies are fully aware of these

risks.

A lot of companies now produce PR brochures that talk about

how they are reducing water use per unit of output, but almost

none of these companies thoroughly assesses what we call its water

footprint, which is the total usage of water in its supply chain,

clear through to the consumption of its products. Investors really

have no way of evaluating the risk of business disruption due to

water scarcity or of comparing risks among companies.

We think these risks take three forms. One is physical risk. That

is the most obvious. This is the risk to which the Chairman alluded

earlier that occurred with the Brown’s Ferry Reactor last year. It

91

simply had to be shut down because there was not enough water

in the Tennessee River to cool it adequately.

The second is a different situation. It is regulatory risk. Regulatory risks involve government decisions to allocate and price

water in response to scarcity. Perhaps the best U.S. example occurred in 2001, when lack of water in the Columbia and Snake Rivers caused the Bonneville Power Administration to curtail electricity sales to aluminum smelters in Montana, Oregon, and Washington. In the short run, aluminum production plummeted in the

U.S. In the long run, the aluminum industry is leaving the region

because regulators responded to water scarcity by raising the price

of a key input, electricity. In 2001, there were ten aluminum smelters in the Northwest. Today there are three still operating.

The third set of corporate risks is reputational. In a number of

places around the world consumers are taking environmental considerations into account in deciding which goods and services to

buy, and we think companies that are perceived as bad actors face

a serious risk of consumer backlash.

The risks of water scarcity, of course, are not evenly spread

through the economy. In addition to semiconductors and power

generation, water sensitivity is particularly acute in the food processing and in oil and gas production.

I think food processing risks are well known to people, perhaps

less so in oil and gas where there is now a lot of interest in shale

formations. Shale rock contains very small pores. Basically the oil

or gas cannot migrate to the well readily. The way this oil is recovered is by injecting large amounts of water under high pressure,

a technology called fracture stimulation. This runs afoul of a lack

of water in many places, and so the lack of water is actually inhibiting the recovery of oil that would otherwise be available.

The Committee asked me what the Federal Government might

do to facilitate the equitable and efficient allocation of water supplies, and I wanted to give you three thoughts here.

First, if you look at overall U.S. water consumption, it has actually been fairly flat, but there are some disturbing trends. An increasing share of this consumption comes from groundwater, which

suggests that surface water resources have been tapped out.

Irrigation accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. groundwater

withdrawals, and this share is probably growing. I would point out

that the effort to increase production of ethanol actually increases

the draw on groundwater by encouraging the planting of corn and

other crops in fairly arid regions where it has to be irrigated.

There are more than 100,000 irrigation wells in the United

States, and only one-seventh of them, according to the Agriculture

Department, only one in seven irrigation wells has a meter on it.

If something is not metered, it is not being paid for. And there is

very little incentive to conserve something that you are getting for

free.

So I would suggest that here is an area for the Committee to look

at. I understand that State law rather than federal law governs

groundwater, but excessive use of groundwater clearly affects interstate commerce, and so there is a federal interest here. And in my

view it would be useful for Congress to encourage the states to

apply methods of pricing groundwater withdrawals to stimulate

92

conservation. This should apply not just to agriculture but to all

groundwater withdrawals.

A second subject in which Congressional involvement might be

useful is localized water treatment. Almost all of our public supplies are now treated centrally. As a result, we are using drinking

water to water roses and wash down parking lots. This represents

a huge waste of resources. There is now a lot of work going on in

developing decentralized water treatments. This is in the R&D

stage by many private companies. It might be an area in which federal research funds or changes in federal water treatment regulations would be helpful.

There is one other subject I want to touch on, and this is power

generation. I know there is a lot of talk on Capitol Hill now about

federal loans or guarantee programs for new-generation nuclear

plans and for coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration.

Both of these technologies require large amounts of water. I think

it important that the social costs of these large water withdrawals

be reflected in the prices users pay for the electricity from these

plants. It is just bad policy for the government to be subsidizing

water usage, and this applies to power plants as much as to agriculture and other industries.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levinson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARC LEVINSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Marc Levinson, and I’m an economist at

JPMorgan Chase in New York. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today

about water-supply risks and their impact on investors.

First, let me explain just where I fit in the Wall Street ecosystem. I specialize

in economic issues, including environmental regulation, and my clients are institutional investors who buy publicly traded stocks and bonds. I have no connection

whatsoever to our loan officers or to our investment bankers. My perspective is

strictly that of investors in public companies.

In my opinion, investors are much less concerned about water supply risks than

they should be. We recently published a report contending that water-supply risks

are far more important to many companies than investors believe. We also found

that very few companies seem fully aware of these risks. While many companies

now produce public relations brochures that tell how they are reducing water use

per unit of production, almost none of these companies thoroughly assesses what we

call its water ‘‘footprint,’’ the total usage of water in the production and consumption

of its product. Investors have no way of evaluating the risk of business disruption

due to water scarcity, or of comparing risks among companies.

We think these risks take three forms. The most obvious is physical risk, which

means an actual lack of water. This could have heavy costs for an industry such

as semiconductor manufacturing, which needs massive quantities of clean water.

Intel Corporation alone uses as much water each year as a city the size of Rochester, New York. We estimate that a single production interruption at a semiconductor plant could cost $200 million in lost revenue and badly hurt the company’s

share price. The customers waiting for those semiconductors would suffer financial

losses as well.

Physical risk is more common than generally realized. In 2007, for example, the

Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut a nuclear plant because there simply

wasn’t enough acceptable cooling water in the Tennessee River. We don’t think the

TVA is the only utility that will experience this problem.

The second set of risks that companies face is regulatory. Regulatory risks involve

government decisions to allocate and price water in response to scarcity. Perhaps

the best US example occurred in 2001, when lack of water in the Columbia and

Snake Rivers caused the Bonneville Power Administration to curtail electricity sales

to aluminum smelters in Montana, Oregon, and Washington. In the short run, US

aluminum production plummeted. In the long run, the aluminum industry is leaving

the region, because regulators responded to water scarcity by raising price of a key

93

input, electricity. In 2001, there were 10 aluminum smelters in the Northwest.

Today, there are only three.

The third set of corporate risks arising from water shortage is reputational. In

a number of places around the world, consumers are taking environmental considerations into account in deciding which goods and services to buy. We think companies

that are perceived as ‘‘bad actors’’ by wasting water face a serious risk of consumer

backlash.

The risks of water scarcity are not evenly spread through the economy. In addition to semiconductors and power generation, water sensitivity is particularly acute

in food processing and in oil and gas production.

The food processing sector requires large amounts of water in its supply chain,

principally for crop production. Getting one pound of beef to the consumer’s table

in the United States requires, on average, about 2,200 gallons of water. Higher

input costs, due in part to increased competition for and uncertainty about water

supply, already are hurting food manufacturers.

In the oil-and-gas sector, there is a lot of excitement now about shale formations.

Shales contain rock with very small pores, such that the oil and gas within the rock

cannot readily migrate to wells. A technology called fracture stimulation can help

recover these resources—but it does so by injecting large amounts of water under

high pressure. Water scarcity is already limiting the development of energy shales

in several parts of the country.

The Committee has asked me what the Federal Government might do to facilitate

the equitable and efficient allocation of water supplies. Here are a few thoughts.

If you look at the aggregate numbers, U.S. water use has been fairly flat since

the 1980s, at about 400 billion gallons per year. But there are disturbing trends.

An increasing share of those 400 billion gallons per year is groundwater rather than

surface water. Annual groundwater withdrawals rose 14 percent between 1985 and

2000, while surface water withdrawals were flat. This suggests that many rivers

and reservoirs are being fully utilized, so water users are increasingly relying on

groundwater, which is subject to less regulation. This shift will probably continue,

because climate change is expected to reduce the flow of surface water, especially

in the Southwest.

Irrigation accounts for about two thirds of U.S. groundwater withdrawals. Government promotion of biofuels has led to large increases in corn plantings in some fairly arid states, especially on the Great Plains, and it’s likely that a lot of this increased acreage is irrigated. This means even more demands on groundwater.

There more than 100,000 irrigation wells in the U.S., and only one-seventh of

them have meters. An unmetered well is likely to be a well that a farmer can use

without paying for the water. Of course, there is little incentive to conserve something that is free. When the Department of Agriculture asked farmers about barriers to reducing energy use or conserving water, the most common response was

that conservation would not save enough money to cover its own costs. The second

most common response was that conservation measures are not affordable. Both of

these responses are ways of saying that water is so cheap that it’s not worth conserving.

I recognize that State law, rather than federal law, usually governs groundwater.

But excessive use of groundwater clearly affects interstate commerce, so there is a

federal interest here. In my view, it would be useful for Congress to encourage the

states to adopt methods of pricing groundwater withdrawals to stimulate conservation. Pricing should apply not just to agriculture, but to all users withdrawing

groundwater.

A second subject in which Congressional involvement might be useful is localized

water treatment. Almost all of our public water supplies are treated in centralized

treatment plants. As a result, drinking water is being used to water rose bushes

and wash down parking lots. This represents a large waste of resources. It might

be more cost effective to treat water at individual buildings rather than centrally,

so that only water needed for human consumption is treated. Several companies are

looking into technologies for decentralized water treatment, and this may be an area

in which federal research funds or changes in federal water-treatment regulations

would be helpful.

There is one other subject I want to touch on, and that is power generation. I

know there is a great deal of talk on Capitol Hill about federal loans or loan guarantees for new-generation nuclear plants and for coal plants with carbon capture and

sequestration. Both of these technologies require very large amounts of water. I

think it is important that the social cost of those large water withdrawals be reflected in the prices users pay for electricity from those plants. It’s simply bad policy

for the government to be subsidizing water usage, and that applies just as much

to power plants as to agriculture and other industries.

94

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARC LEVINSON

Marc Levinson is an economist at JPMorgan Chase in New York. He specializes

in microeconomic issues, including industry structure and regulation, and works

closely with JPMorgan’s equity and credit analysts and their clients in understanding the impact of economic developments on publicly traded securities. He is

accredited both as a supervisory credit analyst and as an equity analyst, although

he does not make investment recommendations with respect to individual companies.

Mr. Levinson frequently publishes investment research on energy, climate change,

and environmental regulation. In 2007, he participated in drafting the National Petroleum Council’s report to the U.S. Secretary of Energy, entitled ‘‘Facing the Hard

Truths About Energy.’’ He also contributed to the London Accord, a collaborative effort among several major investment banks to examine the investment implications

of climate change.

Prior to joining one of JPMorgan’s predecessor companies in 1999, Marc Levinson

was finance and economics editor of The Economist in London. He was formerly a

writer on business and economics for Newsweek. His articles have appeared in such

publications as the Harvard Business Review, the Financial Times, and Foreign Affairs. He is the author of four books, most recently The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger (Princeton University Press, 2006), which has received numerous awards.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Levinson, and Dr. Pulwarty,

Dr. Pulwarty, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER S. PULWARTY, PHYSICAL SCIENTIST, CLIMATE PROGRAM OFFICE; DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL INTEGRATED DROUGHT INFORMATION SYSTEM

(NIDIS), OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Dr. PULWARTY. Good morning, Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and the Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today on the National Integrated Drought

Information System and its role in addressing some of our water

supply challenges in the 21st century.

My name is Roger Pulwarty. I am a climate scientist in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Director of

the National Integrated Drought Information System or NIDIS

Program. I have also been fortunate to be a lead author on adaptation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment report and on the recently released IPCC technical report

on climate and water resources, the results of which I was fortunate to have presented before this committee last year.

As is widely acknowledged, drought is not a purely physical phenomenon, but is an interplay between water availability and the

needs of humans and the environment. Drought is slow in onset

and its effects, such as impacts on energy including hydropower,

tourism, and commodity markets, can continue to be felt long after

an event is over.

As outlined in Public Law 109–430, NIDIS is envisioned to serve

as an early warning information system for managing drought-related risks in the 21st century. Impetus for information services to

support federal, State, and local responses has risen from ongoing

concerns over water security and scarcity as mentioned before in

the Southwest since 1999, and the Southeast since early 2007,

95

along with declining water levels in the three largest Great Lakes

since the late 1980s.

A great deal of progress has been made since the NIDIS Program

was established in December 2006. A national interagency and

interstate program implementation team has been developed, the

web-based drought portal was launched in November 2007. It now

provides comprehensive national-level information on ongoing

drought conditions and emerging conditions. NOAA and NIDIS are

accelerating their improvements of operational climate forecasts

and information on past droughts tailored to watersheds and local

scales such as the upper basin of the Colorado and the Southeast,

including Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and the Carolinas.

NIDIS works through numerous federal agencies, tribes, states,

and local governments. As such, there is significant leveraging of

existing observing system infrastructure and products such as the

drought monitor to provide improved data streams at the level of

detail needed for decision-making at watersheds, Colorado basin,

and at regional scales such as the Southeast.

Data and predictions are by themselves insufficient to ensure adaptation and flexibility in the water resources sector. A hallmark,

no pun intended, of NIDIS is the provision of decision support tools

and training, coupled with the ability of users to report local conditions back to the portal. Near-term activities include tailoring of

the drought portal to add locally-specific data and information at

the watershed and county levels. Water managers are already explicitly considering how to incorporate the potential effects of a

changing climate into specific designs.

For example, in the California Southern Metropolitan Water District and Seattle and Las Vegas, adaptive measures have been undertaken. But the barriers to implementing adaptive measures include the inability of some natural systems to adapt at the rate of

combined demographic pressures and climate, understanding and

quantifying our water demands and impediments to the flow of

timely and reliable information relevant for decision-making.

Climate services designed to support adaptation, of which NIDIS

is an example, will be important in coping with current and future

extremes and their effects on water resources, regardless of how

that change is derived. As part of their drought management, municipalities and State agencies will have improved climate information and forecasts at key entry points for allocating domestic and

industrial water usage.

Water resource managers will have access to more detailed information on low-flow conditions when balancing irrigation and hydropower with the needs of wildlife and flows to support coastal economies. Emergency declarations can now better reach out to those

communities in need of assistance with improved information on

the aerial extent and severity of developing droughts.

So while per-capita water use is declining in some parts of the

country, trends and demand, observational records, and climate

projections provide abundant evidence that our fresh water resources are vulnerable. Priorities for drought early warning information and decision support tools to prepare our nation for these

challenges requires a mixed portfolio of approaches, including: enhancing the networks of systematic observations of key elements in

96

the human, ecological, and physical systems, including monitoring

groundwater and vegetation stress; promoting drought plans that

maintain State sovereignty but responds to the needs of shared watersheds, including developing trans-boundary monitoring and

early-warning information for our internationally-shared watersheds with our neighbors to the north and the south; developing

drought information impact assessment tools that include the costs

and benefits of various adaptations and changing water demands;

and finally, developing usable drought management triggers for

specific planning thresholds and scenarios in agriculture, water,

energy, and the coast.

The challenges of managing water supplies to meet social, economic, and environmental needs requires matching what we do

with what we actually know. NIDIS offers the Nation a mechanism

to achieve this service requirement by providing a basis for integrating drought monitoring, research, and information for decision

support.

Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing today, and

I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pulwarty follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER S. PULWARTY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS); the information/data currently available to local, State and regional water decision-makers; and how we can improve the information available to

these decision-makers for adapting to current and future drought conditions.

My name is Roger Pulwarty; I am a Physical Scientist in the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Climate Program Office and the Director for the U.S. National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). I had the

honor of serving as a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) Working Group II, in Chapter 17, Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity, and on the IPCC Special Report on Climate

Change and Water Resources released this past April. I am also a lead author of

the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), Synthesis and Assessment Report

on Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate and the Unified Synthesis

Report. My role in these reports focuses on impact assessment and adaptation responses.

In general, NOAA’s climate programs provide the Nation with services and information to improve management of climate sensitive sectors, such as energy, agriculture, water, and living marine resources, through observations, analyses and predictions, decision support tools, and sustained user interaction. Our services include

assessments and predictions of climate change and variability on time scales ranging from weeks to decades for a variety of phenomena, including drought. In this

testimony I will highlight: (1) present drought-related adaptation measures being

undertaken in the water sector across the U.S., and (2) the role of the NIDIS in

improving our capacity for responding to drought.

Drought is not a purely physical phenomenon, but is an interplay between water

availability and the needs of humans and the environment. Drought is a normal,

recurrent feature of climate and while its features vary from region to region,

drought can occur almost anywhere. Because droughts can have profound societal

and environmental impacts, there are several definitions of drought, each correct in

its use. These definitions include meteorological drought, which is defined by the

magnitude of precipitation departures below long-term average values for a season

or longer; agricultural drought, which is defined as the soil moisture deficit that impacts crops, pastures, and range lands; and hydrological drought, which is defined

by significant impacts on water supplies. NOAA provides information on all three

types of droughts in its U.S. drought information products.

Drought is a unique natural hazard. It is slow in onset, does not typically impact

infrastructure directly, and its secondary effects, such as impacts on tourism, commodity markets, transportation, wildfires, insect epidemics, soil erosion, and hydropower, are frequently larger and longer lasting than the primary effects. Primary

97

effects include water shortages and crop, livestock, and wildlife losses. Drought is

estimated to result in average annual losses to all sectors of the economy of between

$6 to $8 billion (in 2002 dollars; Economic Statistics for NOAA, April 2006, 5th edition). The costliest U.S. drought of the past forty years occurred in 1988 and caused

more than $62 billion (in 2002 dollars) of economic losses (Economic Statistics for

NOAA, April 2006, 5th edition). Although drought has not threatened the overall

viability of U.S. agriculture, it does impose costs on regional and local agricultural

economies. Severe wild fires and prolonged fire seasons are brought on by drought

and strong winds. These fires, similar to the ones in California this past year, can

cause billions of dollars in additional damages and fire suppression costs.

Recent IPCC reports, including the recent Technical Report on Climate Change

and Water Resources, highlight emerging needs for the development and communication of climate and climate impacts information to inform adaptation and mitigation across sectors when changes are beyond average climate conditions and extremes. Drought risk management provides an important prototype for testing adaptation strategies across the full spectrum of climate time scales. Most communities

(and countries) currently manage drought through reactive, crisis-driven approaches. Experience shows that effecting change in managing climate-related risk

is most readily accomplished when: (1) a focusing event (climatic, legal, or social)

occurs and creates widespread public awareness; (2) leadership and the public are

engaged; and (3) a basis for integrating monitoring, research, and management is

established. The NIDIS offers the Nation a mechanism to achieve this latter service

requirement. The IPCC Fourth Assessment (2007) and the CCSP reports offer impetus for integrating knowledge about the nature of societal and environmental vulnerability, attribution of the relative influences of climate variability and change,

and for services to support federal, State and local adaptive responses to the full

spectrum of climate. This impetus is further strengthened by the ongoing debates

as seen occurring in connection with water scarcity in the West since 1999 and in

the Southeast since 2007, along with declining Great Lake water levels since 1986.

Given that a drought occurs when water supply is insufficient to meet water demand, drought impacts are evaluated relative to the demand from environmental,

economic, agricultural, and cultural uses. The impacts of past droughts have been

difficult to estimate. This problem results from the nature of drought, which is a

phenomenon with slow onset and demise that does not create readily-identified and

discrete short-term structural impacts. Drought may be the only natural hazard in

which the secondary impacts can be greater than the more identifiable primary impacts, such as crop damage. Impacts may continue to be felt long past the event

itself as secondary effects cascade through economies, ecosystems, and livelihoods.

The National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006 (NIDIS Act; 15

U.S.C. § 313d and § 313d note) prescribes an approach for drought monitoring, forecasting, and early warning at watershed, State and county levels across the United

States. Led by NOAA, this approach is being developed through the consolidation

of physical/hydrological and socioeconomic impacts data, engaging those affected by

drought, integration of observing networks, development of a suite of drought decision support and simulation tools, and the interactive delivery of standardized products through an Internet portal (www.drought.gov). NIDIS is envisioned to be a dynamic and accessible drought risk information system that provides users with the

capacity to determine the potential impacts of drought, and the decision support

tools needed to better prepare for and mitigate the effects of drought.

As requested in the 2004 Western Governors’ Association Report, Creating a

Drought Early Warning System for the 21st Century: The National Integrated

Drought Information System, NIDIS is being designed to serve as an early warning

system for drought and drought-related risks in the 21st century. With these guidelines in mind, the explicit goal of NIDIS is to enable society to respond to periods

of short-term and sustained drought through improved monitoring, prediction, risk

assessment, and communication.

Over the next five years, NIDIS will build on the successes of the U.S. Drought

Monitor, Seasonal Outlooks, and other tools and products provided by NOAA and

other agencies to effect fuller coordination of relevant monitoring, forecasting, and

impact assessment efforts at national, watershed (e.g., the Colorado Basin), states

(e.g., GA, AL, FL), and local levels. NIDIS is beginning to provide a better understanding of how and why droughts affect society, the economy, and the environment,

and is improving accessibility, dissemination, and use of early warning information

for drought risk management. The goal is to close the gap between the information

that is available and the information that is needed for proactive drought risk reduction. Federal monitoring and prediction programs that feed into NIDIS are also

working with universities, private institutions, and other non-federal entities to provide information needed for effective drought preparedness and mitigation.

98

NIDIS will provide more comprehensive and timely drought information and forecasts for many users to help mitigate drought-related impacts. For example, hydropower authorities will benefit from enhanced water supply forecasts that aim to incorporate improvements in monitoring soil moisture, precipitation, and temperature

for snowpack conditions into forecasting efforts and drought information for water

management decisions. Municipalities and State agencies will have improved

drought information, based on present conditions and past events, and forecasts

when allocating both domestic and industrial water usage. Water resource managers

will have access to more information when balancing irrigation water rights with

the needs of wildlife. Purchasing decisions by ranchers for hay and other feed supplies will be enhanced through the use of drought information to identify areas of

greatest demand and the potential for shortages. Changes in water quantity and

quality due to climate change and other factors are expected to affect food production and prices. Farmers will be better positioned to make decisions on which crops

to plant and when to plant them. Since drought information is used in allocating

federal emergency drought relief, improvements in monitoring networks will also

lead to more accurate assessments of drought and, as a result, emergency declaration decisions that better reach out to those communities in need of assistance. An

example of a specific improvement in monitoring networks is the addition of soil

moisture sensors to the climate reference network by NOAA/NIDIS. The identification of gaps in monitoring needed for early warning system development, primarily

within snow cover, soil moisture, stream gauge, and ground water networks (in

partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey), will be identified in NIDIS early

warning pilot programs in selected locations. Also, in partnership with Department

of Agriculture (USDA), priorities for snow cover/snow telemetry sites will be updated as need arises. Cross-agency partnerships to fill monitoring gaps will be developed with the interagency NIDIS Executive Council.

Data alone is not sufficient to ensure effective adaptation. A hallmark of NIDIS

is the provision of decision support tools coupled with the ability for users to report

localized conditions. To this end, NIDIS will link multi-disciplinary observations

from a number of sources to ‘on-the-ground’ conditions that will yield value-added

information for agricultural, recreational, water management, commercial, and

other sectors. Multi-disciplinary observations include land surface conditions (e.g.,

for fire/fuel risk and soil moisture), streamflow and precipitation observations, climate models, and sectoral and environmental impacts information (to identify potential high impact areas or sectors for different types of drought events). Also, impacts information (i.e., how drought is affecting a location, how similar/past

droughts have affected the location) will be provided by NIDIS, as required in the

NIDIS Act, and as recommended by the Western Governors Report, and decades of

study on the types of information leads to effective early warning triggers for response.

The first step towards accomplishing these goals was to produce an implementation plan. With the results of deliberate and broad-based input from workshops held

with federal, State, and local agencies, academic researchers, and other stakeholders, the NIDIS implementation plan was produced and published in June 2007.

To provide guidance on system implementation, technical working groups were

formed to focus on five key components of NIDIS. These components are public

awareness and education, engaging preparedness communities, integrated monitoring and forecasting, interdisciplinary research and applications, and the development of a national drought information portal.

A great deal of progress has been made since the NIDIS program was established

in December 2006. The U.S. Drought Portal, launched in November 2007 and hosted

on the NIDIS website (www.drought.gov), is operational and providing comprehensive information on emerging and ongoing droughts, and enhancing the Nation’s

drought preparedness. Other Current NIDIS activities include conducting the first

national workshop to assess the status of drought early warning systems across the

United States, 17–19 June, Kansas City, MO. A NIDIS Southeast drought workshop

was recently held in Peachtree City, Georgia, 29–30 April 2008 to begin coordinating

drought early warning information systems for the Southeast region especially for

the Appalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa basins

encompassing the upper watersheds of Georgia to the coastal resources of Alabama

and Florida.

While NOAA is the lead agency for NIDIS, NOAA works with numerous federal

agencies, emergency managers and planners, State climatologists, and State and

local governments, to obtain and use drought information. NOAA routinely disseminates drought forecast information via its National Weather Service (NWS) drought

statements, and collaborates with State drought committees and the media to assure NOAA information is correctly understood and used. NOAA strives to provide

99

an end-to-end seamless suite of drought forecasts, regional and local information,

and interpretation via its Climate Prediction Center, six Regional Climate Centers,

Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) including the Southeastern

Climate Consortium, local NWS field offices and State climatologists. Efforts are underway to improve drought early warning systems including coordinating interagency drought monitoring, forecasting, and developing indicators and management

triggers for societal benefit. The other major federal agencies involved in NIDIS are

the Department of the Interior, USDA, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation. There is significant leveraging

of existing observing system infrastructure, data, and products produced by operating agencies, for example, stations of the NOAA National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service SNOTEL

(SNOpack TELemetry) network, Soil Climate Analysis Network, National Climate

Data Center Climate Reference Network, and the United States Geological Survey

streamflow and ground-water networks, as well as the USDA-Joint Agricultural

Weather Facility and the USDA–Natural Resources Conservation Service/Water and

Climate Center Weekly Report—Snowpack/Drought Monitor Update. NIDIS also

provides a framework for coordinating the research agenda among these agencies.

At present NOAA/NIDIS is supporting the development of new drought monitoring and prediction products and accelerating future improvements of NOAA’s

operational climate forecast and application products through the use of competitive

grants, and through the tailoring of the U.S. Drought Portal to add locally specific

data and information at the level of watersheds and counties. Questions being addressed include early warnings of low flow conditions on the Colorado, on drought

and fire risk, agriculture on the Southern Great Plains and the reliability of water

supplies in the Southeast U.S.

Information services for adaptation on short-term (seasonal) or longer-term

(multi-year) drought, will be important in coping with current climate

vulnerabilities and early impacts in the near-term, and will help build resilient

economies as our climate changes, regardless of how that change is derived. It is

important to note that unmitigated climate change could, in the long-term, exceed

the capacity of some natural, managed and human systems to adapt especially in

drought prone—heavily developing regions such as the Southwest. If climate change

results in increasing water scarcity relative to demands, future adaptations may include technical changes that improve water use efficiency, demand management

(e.g., through metering and pricing), and institutional changes that improve the

tradability of water rights. If climate change affects water quality, adaptive strategies will have to be developed to protect the ensuing human uses, ecosystems and

aquatic life uses. It takes time to fully implement such changes, so they are likely

to become more effective as time passes. The availability of water for each type of

use may be affected or even limited by other competing uses of the resource.

Climate is one factor among many that produce changes in our environment. Demographic, socioeconomic and technological changes may play a more important role

in most time horizons and regions. As the number of people and attendant demands

upon already stressed river basins and groundwater sources increase, even small

changes in our climate, induced naturally or anthropogenically, can trigger large impacts on water resources. Present hydrological conditions are not anticipated to continue into the future (the traditional assumption). It will be difficult to detect a clear

climate change effect within the next couple of decades, even if there is an underlying trend. Consequently, methods for adaptation in the face of these uncertainties

are needed. Early warnings of changes in the physical system and of thresholds or

critical points that affect management priorities become important. Water managers

in some states are already considering explicitly how to incorporate the potential effects of climate change into specific designs and multi-stakeholder settings. Integrated water resources and coastal zone management are based around the concepts

of flexibility and adaptability, using measures which can be easily altered or are robust to changing conditions. For example, in California and Nevada adaptive management measures (including water conservation, reclamation, conjunctive use of

surface and groundwater, and desalination of brackish water) have been advocated

as means of pro-actively responding to climate change threats on water supply. Consequently a complete analysis of the effects of climate change on human water uses

should consider cross-sector interactions, including the impacts of and opportunities

for changes in water use efficiency and intentional transfers of the use of water from

one sector to another. For example, voluntary water transfers (including short-term

water leasing and permanent sales of water rights) from agricultural to urban or

environmental uses are becoming increasingly common in the Western United

100

States. An additional major challenge in the coming decades will be maintaining

water supplies for environmental services, which support tourism, hunting, fishing

and other recreational economies throughout the United States.

Adaptation is unavoidable because climate is always varying even if changes in

variability are amplified or dampened by anthropogenic warming. Moreover, adaptation will be necessary to meet the challenge of demographic pressures and climate

trends which we are already experiencing. There are significant barriers to implementing adaptation in complex settings. These barriers include both the inability of

natural systems to adapt at the rate and magnitude of demographic, economic, climatic and other changes, as well as technological, financial, cognitive, behavioral,

social and cultural constraints. There are also significant knowledge gaps for adaptation, as well as impediments to flows of knowledge and information relevant for

decision-makers. In addition, the scale at which reliable information is produced

(i.e., global) does not always match with what is needed for adaptation decisions

(i.e., watershed and local). New planning processes are attempting to overcome

these barriers at local, regional and national levels in both developing and developed

countries.

Adaptive capacity to manage climate changes can be increased by introducing adaptation measures into development planning and operations (sometimes termed

‘mainstreaming’). This can be achieved by including adaptation measures in landuse planning and infrastructure design, or by including measures to reduce vulnerability in existing disaster preparedness programs (such as introducing drought

warning systems based on actual management needs).

Major barriers to implementing adaptive management measures are adaptation

itself is not yet a high priority, and that the validity of local manifestations of global

climate change remains in question. Coping with the uncertainties associated with

estimates of future climate change and the impacts on economic and environmental

resources means we will have to adopt management measures that are robust

enough to apply to a range of potential scenarios, some as yet undefined. Greenhouse gas mitigation is not enough to reduce climatic risks, nor does identifying the

need for adaptations translate into actions that reduce vulnerability. By implementing mainstreaming initiatives, adaptation to demographic and climate change

will become part of, or will be consistent with, other well-established programs to

increase societal resilience, particularly environmental impacts assessments, adaptive management and sustainable development.

Climate variability and change affect the function and operation of existing water

infrastructure—including hydropower, structural flood defenses, drainage, and irrigation systems—as well as water management practices. Observational records and

climate projections provide abundant evidence that freshwater resources are vulnerable and have the potential to be strongly impacted by climate variability and

change, with wide-ranging consequences on human societies and ecosystems. Observed warming over several decades has been linked to changes in the large-scale

hydrological cycle. Several gaps in knowledge exist in terms of observations and research required to better understand the relationship between climate change and

water issues. Observational data and data access are prerequisites for adaptive

management, yet many gaps exist in observational networks. It is important to improve understanding and modeling of changes in climate related to the hydrological

cycle at scales relevant to decision-making. Information about the water-related impacts of climate change, including their socioeconomic dimensions, is incomplete, especially with respect to water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and groundwater.

Early warning information and decision support tools that are currently being developed to better prepare our nation, locally and regionally, for drought include:

• Enhancing networks of systematic observations of key elements of physical,

biological, managed and human systems affected by climate variability and

change particularly in regions where such networks have been identified as

insufficient;

• Strengthening and expanding water conservation and efficiency programs;

• Adopting integrated strategies at the federal level (including high level advisory councils) and support a framework for collaboration between research

and management;

• Promoting local watershed efforts;

• Improving groundwater monitoring and management strategies;

• Developing usable drought management triggers for planning in agriculture,

water, energy, health, environment, and coastal zones;

• Developing economic impacts assessment tools including the costs and benefits of various adaptations;

101

• Coordinating among drought monitoring and forecasting efforts at federal regional, State, and local levels; and

• Actively engaging communities and states in monitoring, preparedness, and

planning.

The challenges of managing water supplies to meet social, economic, and environmental needs requires matching what we know with what we do. NOAA and NIDIS

provide mechanisms for the Federal Government to help agencies, states and local

communities meet their economic, cultural, and environmental water management

challenges in a timely and efficient manner.

Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing today and I will be happy

to answer any questions the Members of the Committee may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ROGER S. PULWARTY

Roger S. Pulwarty is a climate scientist and the Director of the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) at the Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado. He also leads

the risk management component of the World Bank/NOAA project on

‘‘Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate in the Caribbean.’’ From 1998–2002 Roger

directed the NOAA/Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) Program.

Roger’s research interests are on climate in the Americas, assessing social and environmental vulnerability, and designing climate services to meet information needs

in water resources, ecosystem and agricultural management in the United States.

Dr. Pulwarty has served in advisory capacities to various Federal and State agencies, the National Research Council, the Glen/Grand Canyon Adaptive Management

Program, and to the UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and the Organization of American

States. He is a lead author on the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working

Group 2, the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Water Resources, and on

the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment reports. Roger

is Professor Adjunct at the University of Colorado, Boulder and the University of

the West Indies. He is the co-editor of Hurricanes: Climate and Societal Impacts

(Springer, 1997).

DISCUSSION

EXPANDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN WATER

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Pulwarty. At this point we

will open our first round of questions. The Chair recognizes himself

for five minutes.

When I was growing up, my father used to tell me about how

really his life and life on our farm changed when the rural electrification came out there. At that time we had a good well. That

is how we got our water, and my other grandparents, we had a

good spring, and everybody had their own little tin can down at

the, or cup rather down at the spring. But those times have gone.

Even if you have a spring or a well, they probably are going to be

contaminated now.

And so particularly in rural America, and when I saw rural

America, I am not talking about way out farms like we were. I am

talking about even small little subdivisions right outside of town,

oftentimes they don’t have water. And as we call it toting water is

something that many, many Americans are doing right now.

And constantly folks are telling me, well, you know, the waterline is within a mile of our home, you know, but we can’t get it the

rest of the way. So this is a real problem. It is a problem as you

pointed out with the nexus of water and energy and manufacturing. Wars have been fought and they will continue to be fought

over water and probably more so in the future.

102

So what I would like to do is, using your cumulative wisdom, is

to get some suggestions on a federal role. You have already, if any,

and you have given us some of those ideas, but I want to be more

narrow in the sense that this committee really only has jurisdiction

over federal research and development, I think, in this area.

And so I think we have been, done a pretty good job of trying

to take good ideas and build a consensus and move them forward.

So what I would like for you to do, what I might say in the longerterm, is to submit back to us any suggestions you might have that

this committee can do.

But right now I would like to hear you cumulatively talk about

one, two, or three of the maybe most significant things that this

committee could come forward with in terms of federal R&D. Mr.

Matheson and Mr. Hall already have a bill on that, and we would

like to see how that, you know, that role could be expanded.

So I will open the floor to whoever wants to start off. Anyone

want to start?

Dr. OVERPECK. Without any doubt research and development can

play a huge role in how we manage our water. I think what is really the biggest problem is what we don’t know. We don’t know what

water lies underground. We don’t really know how to predict what

kind of stream flows will occur in the future, or how groundwater

infiltration will change in the future at the scales that are important for decision-makers, that is, at the scale of your farm or watershed.

We don’t know how climate is going to vary in the future with

enough precision to be able to forecast it, and we don’t know how

climate change is going to affect our water reserves.

So all of these things require more research and development to

get the clear answers so that we develop our country and move

populations around and grow in a way that is sensible and makes

sense with regards to our true future water supply.

And I think my colleagues will talk about also as we start to develop new energy economy, that has to take into account water.

Water is far more valuable, I think, than many of our citizens realize. We have to provide the underlying framework for making good

decisions, and I think much of that stems from research and development.

I applaud the bill that your colleagues have put together. I think

it is very important to be looking at efficiency and conservation because certainly we can save a lot of water that way. Thank you.

Dr. PARKER. I would like to compliment you on the creation of

this H.R. 3957 bill that I was handed. I was just scanning it and

realized that it covers everything from water pricing for conservation and water reuse for efficiency of use of the resource. I think

Dr. Wilkinson mentioned water reclamation in California and the

use of perhaps dual systems and the use of water of various qualities for various purposes.

Now, it is an infrastructure challenge, but I think we better be

heading in that direction, particularly in the arid West where I

think the availability of the resource probably may, is becoming a

limiting factor.

Chairman GORDON. Anyone else?

Dr. PARKER. I think it is a terrific bill.

103

Chairman GORDON. Well, Mr. Matheson, being from Utah, has a

firsthand interest and knowledge of that.

Dr. WILKINSON. Just quickly, I think there is some obvious opportunities in technology development for efficiency. We have come

a long way just in the last decade or two with the efficiency of a

lot of plumbing fixtures and a lot of other opportunities for laser

leveling of fields and irrigation technologies and the rest. So I

think there is a long way to go, and there is a lot of opportunities

there.

The other is water efficiency of our energy systems. What can we

do to develop energy systems that require less water or no water,

and how can we develop portfolios of energy systems that take

pressure off of our water systems. I think those two are important

areas.

Finally, filtering technology. A lot of our water now with concerns about pharmaceuticals and the rest is going to be treated to

greater degrees, and looking for efficient ways to use water and to

filter and treat it in ways that meet the health standards that we

all want to see but do that efficiency I think is going to be very

important.

Chairman GORDON. I will try to abide by the rules here. Does

anyone else have a real quick suggestion?

Mr. LEVINSON. Yes, sir. I did want to touch on the point that

water availability is not simply an engineering issue and an issue

of R&D. I think that while the Committee clearly doesn’t have a

tax jurisdiction, the Committee can do a great deal to bring into

public discussion the point that water is, in fact, a scarce resource

and needs to be priced. Because, frankly, without pricing the possibilities are quite limited.

Chairman GORDON. But right now with our limited time, but I

am trying to be more specific to what we can do from this committee right now, getting suggestions.

Mr. LEVINSON. Yes. I think that to, while certainly there is a

need to promote conservation technology and that is all well and

good, you really also have a bully pulpit here to use in order to

make clear that this is a scarce resource. There does need to be action on the pricing front if we are actually going to have conservation.

Chairman GORDON. We are going to have a variety of hearings,

and we hope to do that.

Dr. Pulwarty, did you have anything you want to add?

Dr. PULWARTY. One of the major issues is developing some of the

new technologies, not only for efficiency but for the transfer of technology into practice, and I think the bills make that case.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. There will be a point where we

are going to have, as was pointed out, a megadrought or other

problem that will bring the whole Congress, the Presidency all together for a water program, and what happens oftentimes is that

is, you know, the cow is out of the barn.

So what I hope that we can do is lay a foundation with R&D so

that at that time we can really start to implement it. What I would

request that you do is get back to the Committee any suggestions

in that area that you think, again, that there is either a legislative

role or a role for us to request different agencies to be involved. We

104

will then try to take those ideas and build a consensus and do some

good work here.

Ms. Johnson is recognized for five minutes. Oh, excuse me. I am

sorry. Mr. Hall is recognized for five minutes.

WATER INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY ABROAD

Mr. HALL. I would always yield to Ms. Johnson if she wanted me

to, but let me get mine behind us here, and thanks for that peek

into your background, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed that. No telling

how good you could have done if you would have had more opportunities as a young man.

One of the old references I have always heard and any time you

get a speech as long as 15 or 20 minutes, someone always refers

to water and fire as wonderful friends but fearful enemies. And we

have sure experienced that on more than one time on the plains

of Texas and in the drought that we had and then the over-availability of water. So I guess, Dr. Parker, availability is important,

and it is also important to manage it.

So I would ask Dr. Parker, we have to operate on information

and knowledge, and what, how would you compare the information

and technology available to water managers in the United States

to those in other nations that face similar problems to what we

face?

Dr. PARKER. I would say the short answer is I think we have got

better information. I think that there are nations such as Germany

that we might be lagging behind in terms of pushing innovative alternative green technologies, that kind of thing, but in terms of hydrologic information, et cetera, I think we are a little better off.

Mr. HALL. Well, you very ably pointed out, I think, in your testimony that when you discussed water quality and how it has improved since the passage of several federal water laws or water

acts.

What else can we do to ensure the quality and security of our

water supply? We have you here to testify, and the Chairman and

others here will take your testimony, study it, and everything you

say is available to every Member of Congress because of the court

reporter that is taking it down somewhere here that will report it.

What else can we do to ensure the quality and security of our

water supply? We can pass laws. What is the next step?

Dr. PARKER. I actually edited it out of my spoken testimony some

ideas about non-point source pollution, which is, it is not only a

technical and a management issue, but it is also a legal issue in

the sense that where I referred to some of our laws and practices

as becoming obsolete. There is a prime example of an issue that

isn’t dealt with very well within the legislation.

We have done some work for EPA. Now, this isn’t the, probably

the appropriate thing for me to say, advising them on urban water

supply system security. They have a research program in Cincinnati. It is a very good one. It is under-funded. It ought to be well

supported. It was driven by concerns about deliberate acts of harm

to water supply systems. They are doing good work. It has brought

application beyond the terrorism context, but I think it is kind of

a hand-to-mouth operation that each year has to fight for the limVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
105

ited resources. It seems under-appreciated to me to the extent that

you have any influence over that.

Mr. HALL. I thank you.

BIOFUELS

Quickly, Dr. Pulwarty, one of the benefits of NIDIS that you described in your testimony is that farmers would be better positioned to make decisions on which crops to plant and when to plant

them. Now, given the overwhelming incentives we passed last year

for biofuels and the reference to other crops that they ought to

plant and those that planted other crops including corn followed

the market and the increase in reception of the benefits of planting

that. Have you seen caution or hesitation on the part of farmers

to plant fuel crops after seeing the information that NIDIS has provided? Or is the monetary incentive overwhelming the risk of the

natural environment?

Got an answer for that?

Dr. PULWARTY. The latter.

Mr. HALL. That is a good answer, and I think my time is up.

Chairman GORDON. You are a very good witness.

Now the gentlelady from Texas is recognized.

CLIMATE AND WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

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

To the panel, I chair the Subcommittee of Water Resource and

Development on transportation infrastructure, and we are dealing

a great deal with supply. I am wondering what about the temperature change affects water supply, quality or quantity?

Dr. OVERPECK. Well, temperature change certainly has a major

effect on water supply. As temperature goes up, there is an increase, and it is not a linear increase, in the amount of moisture

that the atmosphere can hold. So the atmosphere will demand

more moisture, and where will it get that moisture? It will get it

from soil, it will get it from forests, it will get it from agricultural

plants. It will get them from reservoirs. It will get them from any

open source of water, and it will draw that water out.

So these temperature changes that are coming are huge, just gigantic, and they will demand a lot of water, and they will make

the droughts of the past look pale, because it will be so much hotter.

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes.

Dr. PULWARTY. I wanted to complement Dr. Overpeck’s statement. One of the impacts on temperatures is on snowpack, and

what we have seen not only in terms of early runoff, there has been

an impact on the actual quality, the amount of water that is in the

snow. In 2005, 2006, on the upper Colorado we received 105 percent of precipitation. Because of the dryness before that and because of the warmth of that spring, 105 percent of precipitation

was reduced to about 70 percent of the reliable stream flow.

We have been seeing that in different years based on temperature, evaporation, and sublimation, and vegetation stress.

106

WORKFORCE AND EDUCATION

Ms. JOHNSON. I know that every major body of water in this

country is contaminated, and I also know that we have a shortage

of expertise in addressing this issue. And we have dealt with that

somewhat in this committee, because we know there is such a

shortage of science and math engineering students.

I am wondering how would you determine that we would address

many of the problems now as it relates to the research here with

such a shortage of people? Of qualified people?

Dr. OVERPECK. I think this goes back to Congressman Hall’s

question between the United States and other countries of the

world, our advantage is that we are an advanced country. That

means that we ought to be able to bring to bear much more knowledge. Knowledge is power. But it is not just knowledge, power for

our country, it is power for every individual that has to make decisions in their day-to-day life about water.

And so we really need programs that educate everybody, not just

the water managers, but the people who use water, because so

many of the solutions will require cooperation of the citizens of the

United States and that we work together. There are huge discrepancies between the per-person water use in cities in the West that

really are astounding, and we need to learn how to use our very

valuable water treasure more carefully.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I am doing a series of cable

shows on subjects to try to begin to educate the public, and one of

the major questions I still have is how do we pay for all of this?

We are looking at creating a dedicated fund or maybe the

economist——

Mr. LEVINSON. If I may, being the economist in the room, offer

two thoughts on this. One is that this all doesn’t have to be in the

public sector. There is in certain areas a lot of potential for private

investment in water conservation, if it pays off. And I, you know,

hate to sound like a broken record, but to a certain extent you get

back into pricing here because that is what makes it interesting for

people to buy conservation equipment.

And to the extent that there is a demand for water conservation,

there will be a lot of private initiative in developing ways to conserve water and process technologies in particular industries, for

example, or improving irrigation or that sort of thing. And there

will be private people paying for this R&D. It doesn’t have to be

done by the government.

And second, to the extent that it is priced, part of the amount

that people pay for water can, in fact, be used for public sector research and public sector infrastructure in this area.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Levinson.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Chairman GORDON. And Mr. Rohrabacher, you are recognized.

MORE ON CLIMATE AND WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

coming from California I certainly understand the significance of

what has been presented to us today. We live on a desert that goes

right up to the ocean, and a lot of times we forget about that and

107

Mulholland and other great champions of California, well known

and appreciated, and I wonder if we are, our generation is going

to have, create a better future as the Mulhollands did for us in the

past.

Dr. Wilkinson, let me just ask you, and I did really appreciate

your detailed analysis of the California situation. What, this year

and the last couple of years, have we had trouble with snowfall in

California?

Dr. WILKINSON. Yes, indeed.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We did? We do? Okay. Tell me about it. Do

we, is the snowpack, I understand the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada is actually higher this year than it was.

Dr. WILKINSON. Well, we have considerable variability. We had

good snowpack earlier in the year. For the last two months we

have had very little, and actually it started quite late. I took my

graduate students up to Yosemite in December, and we drove

across the pass. Over the mountains there was virtually no snow

at all in early December. Normally, of course——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In December?

Dr. WILKINSON. In December. Normally we would have a lot of

snow.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Okay.

Dr. WILKINSON. But between early December then when it started snowing and about two months ago we got a pretty good

snowpack.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And on the average is it higher this year

than last year?

Dr. WILKINSON. It is a little bit——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Than years in the past?

Dr. WILKINSON.—below the average level but not a huge amount.

The problem is that with very little for the last two months, we are

now facing very serious water situation. Of course, you probably

know last week they did the snow survey at the Summit by Echo

Lake, and they were walking on soil. There was virtually no snow.

So it is quite troubling.

Now, in terms of a water supply situation this year, we certainly

are seeing a very clear signal that we are getting a shift at midelevations from snow to rain because of warmer conditions. So that

pattern is already evident.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. I just note, Dr. Overpeck, that you did

mention that the droughts were so much worse in the past than

we are experiencing today, and while I certainly, you know, I am

clearly one who disagrees with the idea that we have man-made

climate change going on, but why is it, why are you convinced that

these droughts in the past have, which, of course, obviously had

nothing to do with human activity, why are you so convinced that

today it is all a result of human activity even though the droughts

in the past were worse than they are today?

Dr. OVERPECK. Good question. In my testimony where I was able

to expound a little bit longer, I tried to highlight that we don’t

know the origin of the current droughts. We do know that they are

being made worse by the higher temperatures. That is causing the

rain on snow problem and the early melting of the snow that is giving California a little fit this year. But we really don’t know the

108

origin of these droughts that are going on now, and that is why I

tried to emphasize this idea of a no-regrets approach.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. I would suggest that we also don’t

know the cause of the temperature rise. I have a lot of sympathy

with people who say, ‘‘Look, this is what the climate is, and we got

to prepare for it because there will be droughts, we need to do

water, et cetera.’’ But when people have to lace their testimony

with a reconfirmation of the man-made global warming theory, it

doesn’t add to the validity here. It doesn’t. To me it seems, frankly,

it takes away from the presentation.

One last thing here, and I would like to note this, and Mr.

Levinson mentioned that nuclear energy uses water. Have you

looked at the high-temperature gas cool reactor as a new type of

reactor, and does that use the same water?

Mr. LEVINSON. I am probably not the best one here to talk about

that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me note, Mr. Chairman——

Mr. LEVINSON. Others may be more familiar.

Mr. ROHRABACHER.—traditional nuclear power plants do use

water, obviously, because they are based on steam. There is a, and

I keep pushing this because I want people to take a look at this

alternative, there is a high-temperature gas cool reactor. My

friends who believe in global warming will love it as well, I might

add, because it is, of course, clean and does not produce ‘‘greenhouse gases,’’ but it does not use the water that the traditional nuclear power plants do.

And I would suggest it is something we should look at, because

I do understand there is a direct relationship between the amount

of energy and water, and Dr. Wilkinson, your testimony was very

insightful in that. In fact, the desalinization now actually uses less

water than we use in pumping water throughout the State of California, and I think that is a significant fact that we need to take

into consideration.

Thank you very much to the whole panel.

POPULATION GROWTH AND WATER SUPPLY CONCERNS

Mr. BAIRD. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman. I will fill in for,

as Chair until Mr. Gordon returns.

I will recognize myself for five minutes.

Do we have a sense of carrying capacity of our country in terms

of how big our population can get? You know, population is growing

rather rapidly right now, and we are talking about already seeing

shortfalls of water. Any thoughts of that in terms of what the

tradeoffs would be? Do we have some numbers that say if our population grows by X, then we are going to have to reduce water consumption by Y? Any thoughts about that?

Dr. Wilkinson.

Dr. WILKINSON. I don’t know the specific answer in terms of

what number we might accommodate. I can give you, though, some

breakdown. In California we use about 80 percent of the water for

agriculture and about 20 percent for the urban system for people

directly. In much of the west it is even more for agriculture, on the

order of 90 percent. This varies, of course, tremendously around the

country and the type of agriculture and so forth. In California, a

109

lot of the discussion revolves around transfers of water from agriculture to urban.

So in theory, one could double the state’s population and only

take 20 percent of the water currently going to agriculture. That

would leave another 60 percent still. That is in theory. I am not

sure anybody really wants twice as many people in California or

anywhere else. We have a lot of crowding already.

But the transfer of water back and forth becomes in terms of a

limiting factor and carrying capacity an interesting question. I will

say that Los Angeles has increased by one million people and held

water use level. That means per capita use has gone down considerably, and that is mainly through these efficiency programs, more

efficient plumbing fixtures and the rest.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Levinson.

Mr. LEVINSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to mention there is

our recent report that was referred to earlier a very interesting picture of population growth and water consumption in southern Nevada. The story there is that the local water authorities simply imposed very draconian measures right at the start of this decade, basically telling people, no, they couldn’t plant grass anymore, golf

courses couldn’t draw public water supplies anymore, that sort of

thing. They experienced quite rapid population growth during the

past seven or eight years, and at the same time they experienced

a fairly sharp decline in water consumption.

So I think that the notion that there is a necessary correlation

between population growth and the growth of water consumption

isn’t right.

Mr. BAIRD. Dr. Pulwarty.

Dr. PULWARTY. To complement that, there has been changes in

the efficiency of use. We know that it took 200 tons of water to create a ton of steel years ago. Now it takes three to four. We are seeing lots of reductions in the per capita use of water. But that does

not mean that demand is not increasing because population is increasing, even if we are leveling off in terms of per capita use.

One of the things we do have to keep in mind when we talk

about carrying capacity is also we are ingenious, you know. One

hundred years ago we talked about some of these issues, and we

did have a lot of adaptive strategies in place. Where we are seeing

the most immediate threats are in the environmental services provided by the natural environment in terms of recreation and tourism and the sources of our water supply. That I think is where we

will bear the brunt of immediate pressure.

WATER QUALITY CONCERNS

Mr. BAIRD. We had a rather disturbing report here in the D.C.

Metro area about a month and a half or so ago about contamination of the drinking water. Admittedly in parts of a trillion but reports of anti-seizure medications, a host of other medications, et

cetera.

Two questions. How common is this across the U.S. water supply, and what technologies exist today to get us actually pure

water? If somebody has twin boys at home and any parent here

could get him water out of the drinking fountain, and you say to

110

yourself, so what meds am I giving my kids today with their glass

of water in their sippy cup? You would feel a little bad about that.

What can you tell us about what we can do to purify the water

further and how common this problem is?

Dr. OVERPECK. Well, I don’t think we have any experts here on

that side of water, but I certainly share your concern as a parent.

And I know from my colleagues at the University of Arizona that

there is lots we can do in terms of researching out what is in our

water and how we then treat it to remove unwanted contaminants,

because most of our water treatment doesn’t deal with that. And

one of the solutions down the road, which my colleagues in California are already adopting is essentially toilet-to-tap. We are having to use this water that has been used before, and we will do that

more and more into the future.

So we better get some research going to figure this out. That is

all I can say.

Mr. BAIRD. A more appetizing terminology might help advance

that effort.

OCEAN DESALINIZATION’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

One last question. We read in some of your testimony about desalinization. What are the adverse, or are there adverse environmental impacts to desalinization if you have got a bunch of, you

know, are we changing the mineral makeup of the near-shore environment?

And any thoughts on that? I am particularly thinking about as

we look at ocean acidification as a byproduct of climate change and

the reduction of available carbonate. Does desalinization also take

carbonate out of the, as a mineral, take it out of the system or——

Dr. WILKINSON. There are two primary concerns about environmental impacts from ocean desalinization. One is the entrapment

and entrainment of marine organisms on the intake side of the

equation, and there are ways to remedy that by drawing in the

water through the sand and beach wells and so forth. But there are

concerns about that.

And then on the flip, as you mentioned, is discharge, the brine

discharge back to the ocean, which is more saline than what was

taken out because we are taking some fresh water and then returning a saltier mix back in. Some of the solutions to that proposed

are to mix that with effluent from waste water systems so actually

the salinity is closer to the ocean, may not be a bad solution. But

both of those are challenges for ocean deals.

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you very much.

Mr. Smith.

WATER STORAGE

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel

for your insight on the issues.

It is interesting. I come from rural Nebraska, where irrigation is

very important. It is actually helping feed the world I would argue.

Yet I only heard a little bit about surface storage.

Dr. Wilkinson, would you say that surface storage can perhaps

help us mitigate climate change?

111

Dr. WILKINSON. Surface storage clearly plays an important role

already in our water supply systems around the country. One of

the concerns with surface storage is with increased variability in

the system, as Dr. Overpeck described, we may need, where we

have surface systems that are providing both flood control as well

as water supply, we may need to hold those systems at lower levels

to provide that flood control or take further risks because of pattern changes in precipitation.

So that becomes problematic. We would sacrifice water supply

and hydropower for those systems that provide those services if we

are to operate those systems to deal with increased flood control

risks.

The other issue with surface storage——

Mr. SMITH. Wait. If I could have clarification. I am sorry.

Dr. WILKINSON. Uh-huh.

Mr. SMITH. I am trying to follow you. You are saying that we

need to draw down?

Dr. WILKINSON. We will have to leave more flood control space

during the flood.

Mr. SMITH. Because of——

Dr. WILKINSON. Because of concerns that we may have strong

precipitation events that would fill them up quickly and then spill

into flood, and we have experienced some of that. We have had

some problems around the country, and so one of the concerns

when you have less certainty as to what might happen with precipitation, but an increased chance that you may have high precipitation events, then to maintain that flood control system you begin

to lose, there is a tradeoff there. You begin to lose some of that

water storage.

The other big issue, of course, as Jonathan mentioned, with increased temperatures, we are going to have increased evaporation,

and that is actually quite a serious issue with surface storage, especially in arid areas. We are losing a lot of water. Now, that

doesn’t mean we are not going to continue to use surface storage

systems, but we may need to recalibrate our rural curves and our

expectations of water supply coming out of them based on climate

change.

Mr. SMITH. Can you give any numbers for what you think the

difference is today? It is, I think we might be able to agree that

climate change is a bit of a moving target in terms of defining it.

We are even getting away from the global warming terminology

and going to climate change based on some of the numbers of the

last 24 months or so.

Can you paint a picture with numbers, easily understood, perhaps, of where we are with surface storage today, where we need

to be, compared to the past 100 years or so?

Dr. WILKINSON. I can’t give you a specific number, we need X

amount more. Of course, it depends around the country what our

water supply situation is. Let me suggest two other considerations,

though, in addition to and coupled with surface storage, and that

is groundwater management. We have tremendous opportunities

right now around the country, certainly in California we have huge

opportunities to manage groundwater more effectively and to use

groundwater storage. Picture it as an empty bucket underground,

112

storage potential, that can be managed. That is an opportunity, I

think, we pretty much all agree is a priority for water management. Of course, that means maintaining quality of what gets into

the ground and once it is in the ground, maintaining that quality

so we don’t have the kinds of issues that were just mentioned, the

concerns about water quality and what is safe to drink.

Mr. SMITH. Now, you said we needed X amount more of what?

I think you said something like we need X amount more.

Dr. WILKINSON. I can’t tell you exactly how much more surface

storage the country would need, and part of that would depend on

how well we use groundwater and how efficiently we use water.

That would, in turn, reflect what our surface storage requirements

would be nationwide.

So I would have to think about it in the context of the demand

side, how are we using water, the other options for storage, including groundwater, and then what we need to do with our surface

storage systems. I would suggest we would need to consider that

as a package in the integrated way.

Mr. SMITH. And would you suggest that we need more reservoirs?

Dr. WILKINSON. I think in some places we might and some places

there is serious discussion of removing reservoirs. So I think you

probably have everything on the table. Where do we need more?

Where do we have systems that may not be cost effective and may

need to come out.

Mr. SMITH. Very good. Very good.

Dr. Overpeck.

Dr. OVERPECK. Yeah. Thank you. I mean, I think what we really

are running up against here is we don’t have the knowledge to answer your questions. We don’t know exactly how the water supply

from the atmosphere will change in the future and how the demand by the atmosphere in terms of evaporation will change in the

future. We need to nail that down and factor that into our models

of both above ground and below ground storage.

But I do agree with Dr. Wilkinson that below ground storage

might turn out to be a much more advantageous approach, particularly in states like your own that have abundant aquifers. We are

already doing this in Arizona and many other states, such as

Texas, are putting the water underground. And you don’t always

get out what you put in, but nonetheless, you don’t have the problem of evaporation or some of the other problems that are associated with above-ground storage.

And one of the ironies of climate change is that with the probability of increased frequency of drought comes a probability of increased flood as well. This is because the hydrologic cycle of the atmosphere is getting accelerated, and there is more moisture up

there, more energy, and it gives us both extremes in greater frequency.

And we are already seeing this around the world.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Smith. We are trying to beat

a vote here, and Ms. Richardson has been gracious enough to yield

to Mr. Matheson, who has another commitment, and you are recognized for five minutes.

113

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S ROLE

Mr. MATHESON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief and

maybe not use all five minutes.

You had a discussion with the Chairman earlier about the bill I

introduced, the Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Research

Act of 2007. As you probably know, it would establish a research,

development, and demonstration program within the EPA’s office of

research and development to promote efficiency in conservation.

I was curious what role that the people on the panel would envision the EPA should have in supporting our long-term water efficiency and conservation effort policies in this country?

I don’t know who wants to answer. Anyone can answer.

Dr. WILKINSON. Let me just start out briefly, I think that EPA

deserves a lot of credit for some very good work over the years. The

low-impact development, some of the slides I was showing, storm

water capture and attenuation of pollution, for example. That they

are doing very good work on water use efficiency.

Of course, it is the 1992 Energy Act that includes the requirements for efficiency in plumbing fixtures, and that has made a

huge difference. EPA has done a lot to follow up on that, so I think

they have already done a lot of good work. I think it is a very helpful move in what you have proposed here to take it a step further.

Dr. PARKER. I see EPA as a very visible entity throughout the

water supply community. I see them as advocates as various approaches to water supply and completion. They are out at conferences, they are in regulatory situations, they are in planning activities. There is only so much that they can do, though, to advocate without putting a little money on the table. And their research

budget has been cut back so severely in the last few years they are

losing their credibility.

I think you have nailed it with this, to give them a little bit of

money to push just what is needed.

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate that, and I notice in your testimony

and reports from your organization, Dr. Parker, you make a number of recommendations for additional research.

Could you maybe offer just your opinion about what you think

are the highest priorities or the most critical areas where we ought

to be investing in R&D, looking out over the next 20, 30 years for

where we want to go? What do you think are the best priorities for

R&D on water conservation and water use?

Dr. PARKER. I think we need to invest more in dual water systems. I think we need to invest more in the institutional side of the

house. It is severely neglected. Ms. Johnson from Texas was talking about her concern about human resources, and I interpreted

her concern as being professionals in the field but then the conversation took sort of the direction of public, the level of how informed the public is.

But the truth is is that in terms of having professionals available

to address problems and staff our agencies and our consulting companies, et cetera, is really in sorry shape. The dwindling research

budget for graduate students in universities is not adequate to

produce the people that we need in our field just when the problems are becoming most challenging. And the social science side of

114

it has always been neglected. The water policy experts that I know

are all in their 60s. So we are losing the few that we have.

So the social sciences, innovative supply technologies, conservation, I think our hydrologic networks are probably adequate, but

they have been allowed to be eroded.

Mr. MATHESON. I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague letting me go.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, and now Mr. Hall is recognized

for a quick question, and then we are going to finish up with Ms.

Richardson.

CAN WE CAPTURE AND STORE RAIN WATER?

Mr. HALL. I ask the question of Dr. Pulwarty. Something that

has been bothering me for a long time, and you know, need spawns

breakthroughs and wars bring on weaponry like the Manhattan

Project and things like that. And shouldn’t we be thinking in the

long-term thinking in the future of how to save water?

And it worries me, I have been working on a bill trying to put

together something for a future, a study for the future of working

on a bill, maybe even a sense of Congress or something that or

some study group, when a bottle of water gets to be worth more

than a good bottle of beer or a bottle of oil, you know, we got to

go to thinking more about it.

And I see in Texas and west Texas the rains fall, and in east

Texas rain is falling, and it goes on down to the sea. Shouldn’t we

be capturing that someday, even at 100,000 acres at a time to have

it? And we don’t have that need yet, and it is too expensive now,

but I remember when it was too expensive to have a module for

astronauts to escape a shuttle from. And we shouldn’t ever think

anything is too expensive to save lives, but it was also too heavy.

Engineers couldn’t prove it, but someday is there, I will just leave

this thought with you gentlemen.

Be thinking about a way to, giant sumps or something, to capture that water and not let it run off to the sea and have it for the

time when we have the droughts.

Yes, sir.

Dr. PULWARTY. I think this is an extremely important question

as to what mix and types of storage mechanisms that we are, in

fact, talking about, and at the same time have enough left over in

the system to make sure that the coastal economies that depend on

fresh water and flow for oyster beds, mussels, and other things like

that are themselves supported as a result.

One of the issues we have with withdrawing water for storage is

we then increase saline intrusion from salt water into the nearshore aquifers. So as long as we are balancing all of those kinds

of issues, then I think, yes, storage is one of the options.

And we do have to think in terms of groundwater as well, simply

because if you can’t fill the reservoirs you have, extra storage does

not help us.

Mr. HALL. One day I think we will see a huge metal or otherwise

sumps under there, and at my age I don’t even buy green bananas,

so I can’t look that far. I can’t see that far ahead, but you younger

men, and this young Chairman here, I am going to get him to work

115

with me on something to set up some kind of a study like that so

we have a plan for 30 years from now.

And I will try to stay in Congress that long to see that they carry

it out.

Mr., I yield back my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I have already made

arrangements for Mr. Hall to say my obituary so, Ms. Richardson,

you are recognized.

MORE ON OCEAN DESALINIZATION’S ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Parker, as you can hear from Mr. Hall and our Chairman

here, you are in need of the next generation of water folks. As you

can see, we have got great folks here that I am really concerned

of the day when we won’t have Mr. Hall here to give us good analogies.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite you and or maybe one of

the hearings we could have in the future would be about desalination. The largest home of the country’s largest and most advanced

federally-sponsored seawater desalination research and development project is in my district. Dr. Wilkinson, I was a little surprised with your comment because back on January 30, 2008, the

Long Beach Water and the United States Department of Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation constructed an under-ocean floor intake and

discharge demonstration system, which I happened to view because

it is right there at the Bluff Park where I walk my dogs on the

weekend. And the only other similar facility is in Japan, and I was

particularly, caught your comment because it was founded that essentially the underwater ocean floor intake system, the ecological

impacts of entrainment and impingement typically associated with

open ocean intakes are avoided with this system, which is what

when you were asked the question. And this natural biological filtration process reduces the organic and suspended solids largely

eliminating the need for additional pretreatment, which reduces

the overall energy footprint and cost of operation.

So I am not sure if you are familiar with the success of what we

recently had. The project was, as I said, recently completed. I

think, Mr. Chairman, it would be well worth either one of us taking a trip. We can take a Tennessee guy and have you have a real

good time in California, or we could have a hearing here. I think

there has been some very recent information.

And Dr. Wilkinson, I am not sure if you are familiar with those

results, but they have been substantial to the impacts of being

nearly 30 percent more energy efficient than the reverse osmosis

technology system.

Dr. WILKINSON. I think you are exactly right. The Long Beach

project is quite good, and the Bureau of Reclamation has been helping.

My point was that using that kind of an intake avoids the entrainment and impingement, so that is one of the opportunities

where the geology supports it to use that kind of system. I think

that is a success, and I think they are doing some very good work

in Long Beach.

116

Ms. RICHARDSON. So, in terms of funding and research and

things that we can do, I think it is a valid area for us to consider.

Chairman GORDON. I certainly agree. I just talked to our staff

and she said that we need to be sure to get somebody in on a future hearing. Her response was that we have been talking with

them extensively, and the term she used about what they are doing

was ‘‘fascinating.’’ So I am glad that is coming out of Long Beach,

and we want to continue to learn more about it.

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. We are maybe eight minutes

away from a vote, so let me thank our witnesses for appearing here

today. Under the rules of the Committee the record will be held

open for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements

and additional questions that they might have of the witnesses. I

ask witnesses if you will respond to us if you see particular areas

of federal R&D and also if you know a particular agency you think

where that should be carried out. Such information would be most

welcome, and it will be a part of our thought process.

And this hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(117)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

118

1 National Academies of Science, 2004. Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of

Research. Water Science and Technology Board, Committee on Assessment of Water Resources

Research, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Stephen D. Parker, Director, Water Science and Technology Board, National Research Council

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. Please provide the Committee with recommendations of additional Federal research and development to increase water supply and water use efficiency.

A1. See Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems (2004)1 by a committee of the

Water Science and Technology Board. This report was called for by a Congressional

mandate and would seem to provide a very complete response to this question. See

in particular the executive summary and Table 3–1 for particulars.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. In your testimony, you point out a number of issues that exist do to aging infrastructure and outdated water management systems. If you were to prioritize

these issues, which we are often called on to do as lawmakers with limited

funds, which of these issues would you address first? What viable solutions exist

that need to be adopted on a broad scale? Which area has been lacking research

that we now need to devote resources to?

A1. Personally, I believe federal leadership through EPA programs or research

funding should give priority to (not necessarily in order):

• water reuse for potable and non-potable purposes, including use of dual water

supply systems;

• alternative, innovative, green urban stormwater and combined sewer overflow

system design and management; and

• water demand management approaches.

Q2. In recent years we have been exploring a number of new energy sources to try

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels; however, as you know, a

number of these alternative energy sources require large amounts of water. How

do those changes in societal preferences affect your calculations on available

water resources?

A2. The ‘‘water-energy’’ nexus presents many challenges to those concerned with

water requirements for energy development and energy requirements for water supply. The WSTB has been unsuccessfully trying to develop a comprehensive study in

this area. We have few positions as an entity and my personal experience is limited.

My only recommendations would be that consideration of energy alternatives take

into account very carefully the water implications. This does not appear to have

been the case in the crafting of biofuels policy as indicated in a 2007 WSTB report

Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States (summary attached).

Q3. In order to face the coming challenges in water availability and quality, we need

qualified scientists and engineers. Could you discuss the number of graduate

and post-graduate students going into water issues versus other scientific pursuits? Is this enough to provide critical information to decision-makers over the

next few decades? What can be done to encourage greater interest in this subject?

A3. The issue you identify is worrisome. I have no real numbers, as perhaps the

National Science Foundation might, but it appears that new folks are not entering

the water field and that our workforce is aging. It seems that restoration of respectable funding levels for water resources research might reverse the problem, as we

certainly are going to have well qualified people in many disciplines, including the

social sciences, to help address the increasingly complex problems that are emerging. The attached Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems (2004) should help shed

some light.

119

Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith

Q1. Federal drinking-water quality regulations for naturally occurring toxins, such

as arsenate, can be burdensome to small communities, as costs of remediation

are very high and far beyond the budget of a small town. Are these challenges

best addressed at the local, State, or national level, and what types of solutions

should be proposed?

A1. This question identifies a very large and challenging issue that affects a fifth

of the U.S. population. It is also a problem being addressed by EPA. In 1997 the

WSTB published Safe Water from Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small

Communities, a report that provides guides on relevant technological, financial, institutional, and operational issues. The report is attached in pdf; I personally have

not tracked EPA follow through. You might peruse this report or its summary and

then ask EPA for information and opinions.

Q2. What are your views on balancing the demand for various uses of water, including, drinking water; agricultural uses; energy generation; habitat, especially for

endangered species; and recreation?

A2. Conflicting demands are presenting themselves in many regions of the Nation,

and conflicts are not limited to arid areas. The ACF–ACT basins in GA–FL–AL provide a vivid example and there will be more of this in the future. Each case is

unique and it is hard to generalize, but in my opinion decisions must be informed

by advanced simulation/optimization models, with visualization capabilities, to

produce results for discussions by experts in all relevant disciplines and decisionmakers along with all stakeholders. Not everyone is going to get everything they

desire but consensus on outcomes can be achieved. It is unfortunate that the venues

for such decision-making were effectively eliminated with the demise of the many

river basins in the early 1980s. In my opinion, such river basin commissions may

have been ahead of their time and should be resurrected.

Question submitted by Representative Russ Carnahan

Q1. Could better data and monitoring improve water quality and quantity for St.

Louis and surrounding areas?

A1. Yes. Such data would be necessary but insufficient. The attached 2008 WSTB

report Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water Act: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities discusses this and describes several implementation actions that should be pursued at the federal, State, and local levels.

Question submitted by Representative David Wu

Q1. It is important that states and local communities are part of the discussion regarding water challenges. However, I am worried that some stakeholders may

have been overlooked. The United States has unique political relationships with

more than 560 tribes. Many of these tribes have treaties with the United States

that recognize tribes continue to have certain rights; in some cases this includes

water. This is a very important topic we are discussing here today and all stakeholders should have a voice at the table. Has your board included tribes in its

work? If not, why has this not been done? Will you include tribes in the future?

A1. Yes. The WSTB has engaged tribes and other relevant stakeholders in its

work—both as committee members and as ‘‘resource people’’ to help inform our process.

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Jonathan Overpeck, Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth;

Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. Please provide the Committee with recommendations of additional federal research and development to increase water supply and water use efficiency.

A1. Several federal research and development efforts would contribute to increasing

water supply, and/or using our water supply more efficiently. These include:

1) A well-funded multi-year (I suspect at least 10 years would be needed) National

Water Supply Science and Assessment Program. This effort would undoubtedly

have to be multi-agency (e.g., NOAA, NSF, USGS, NASA, USDA), and ensure at

least 50 percent of the funds were targeted at the extramural research community

(e.g., universities and private firms)—to ensure maximum peer-review, regional

focus, and interdisciplinarity. This Program could be part of, and would benefit

greatly from, a National Climate Service (see more below) that was explicitly directed to include water supply in its mandate. Major foci should include:

1a) documenting the size and quality of current below-ground water resources

at the scale of one kilometer or less. This is currently not known for most parts

of the country, and would require drilling, geophysics, modeling and data synthesis.

1b) obtaining much improved estimates of likely future climate-related changes

in water availability, in terms of rainfall, snow, evaporation run-off, streamflow, aquifer recharge and other metrics. This will require substantial climate

research (e.g., to understand the dynamics of the North American monsoon and

tropical storms), climate modeling and hydrological modeling. The goal should

be to make substantial improvements on the climate and water projections included in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (2007). Close partnership between the scientific research community

and regional water-related decision-makers is critical, and the program should

focus significant funding on the regional science and assessment often neglected

in federal R&D programs.

1c) a thorough investigation of how well the Nation’s current water storage system is working, and how it can be augmented, e.g., by increased above-ground

and below-ground storage. This investigation should factor in climate change

(1b, above), as well as possible social and environmental issues that are, or

could emerge as, problems. Although the promise of further above-ground storage is limited, below-ground storage potential has not been thoroughly evaluated.

1d) a complete interdisciplinary (e.g., natural science, social science, economics

and law) examination of how water is currently used, and how greater efficiency

could be achieved. Studies of this type have occurred, but they have tended to

be small, short-term, and not interdisciplinary enough to guide effective policy

at both national and regional scales. All aspects of water use need to be examined, understood, and optimized for maximum efficiency.

2) An improved Integrated National Climate and Water Monitoring System

is needed to track water supply, water quality and water use projections, and to

help update them as will inevitably be needed. The system should be designed to

support water-use policy and to give stakeholders a comprehensive inventory of local

to national water supplies (below and above ground) at any given point in time,

from the present into the future. Over the past couple decades, streamflow monitoring (gauging) has declined due to funding cuts just as water supply concerns have

become more acute. The same holds true for climate monitoring at the local to regional scales needed for water supply prediction. The proposed Integrated National

Climate and Water Monitoring system should include monitoring of all underground

resources, and should be designed to support the proposed (#1 above) National

Water Supply Science and Assessment Program and other water storage programs.

3) A funded National Water Oversight Program or Commission is needed to

ensure that all policy decisions made at local to national levels include scientifically

robust assessments of their possible impact on water supply. For example, as the

Nation explores alternative energy solutions, water requirements (savings or usage)

178

should be factored in. The same holds true for public lands and agricultural policy.

Water supply is too important to be just an afterthought.

4) A national Water Education initiative is needed in order to make sure that our

citizens understand water supply issues broadly (e.g., including climate and energy

issues) and are prepared to work together to ensure the Nation’s water supply into

the future. Essential parts of this initiative should include K–12 education, informal

programs, and university training, and—especially critical—the next generation of

water supply scientists and engineers. As water supplies become more limited due

to population increases, aquifer depletion, and/or climate change, the need for this

expanded workforce will only increase.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. One of the things that has been stressed in recent National Academies of Science

reports is the need for more regional modeling and greater information resources

at the regional level. You state in your testimony that the current warming has

led to a decrease in spring snow-pack. Given that this year was a record year

for snowfall in the Rockies, what is your confidence level regarding the fall off

of spring snowpack attributable to climate change versus natural climate variability?

A1. I strongly concur with the NAS-stated need for great focus on regional climate

and water research, observation, modeling and assessment. All of the research and

development initiatives that I advocate in this document need to have greater regional focus than is the norm for federal programs. The reason for more regional

focus is simply because most decisions, particularly with respect to water, are made

at the regional-scale. Also, our scientific understanding of physical processes (e.g.,

climatic and hydrologic) at the regional scale lags understanding at broader scales.

This limits effective regional decision-making.

Both natural climate variability and human-caused climate change are, and will

increasingly be, water supply concerns, particularly in the U.S. West and Southwest. Because there is substantial climate variability from year to year, and particularly with respect to precipitation, it is dangerous to read much into what happens

in any given year. The details of the most recent ‘‘water year’’ (starting in October,

2007) have not all been analyzed yet, but the trend over the last couple decades has

been toward an increasingly small spring snowpack at the scale of the U.S. West.

This has recently been attributed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to warmer temperatures, and also—in the same study—connected to a trend toward smaller

Colorado River flows. Thus, there may always be exceptions in any given year, but

the longer-term trend is what we should be focused on and worried about.

Q2. In your written statement, you include a figure from the IPCC that illustrates

the changes in runoff projected by the mid-21st century relative to the average

run off from 1900–1970. Isn’t it true that the early part of the 20th century is

recognized as being an unusually wet period and that rainfall and water supply

were at the high range of natural variability? Does this IPCC figure take into

account such that this level of run off may not have been average, but in fact

above average if looking over a longer period of time?

A2. Parts of the 20th century do appear to have been wetter than the long-term

(e.g., 1000 year) average in some regions (e.g., much of the U.S. West, particularly

the Southwest and region of the Colorado River). The figure in my testimony was

not from the IPCC 4th Assessment, but rather was from the more recent work of

Milly et al., 2008 (reference included in my written testimony). They probably used

the 1900-1970 average because run-off records exist for this period across the U.S.

(and much of the globe), and because they considered the period to be representative

of what many people think of as ‘‘average.’’ This period did include the extremely

wet period of the 1920’s (when the Colorado water allocations were made), but also

the drier periods of the 1930’s and 50’s. In their work, Milly et al., do not compare

projected future runoff with the longer-term average, perhaps because it is not possible to calculate the longer-term (multi-century) average for all of the U.S.

Q3. Dr. Overpeck, in your testimony you call for a national climate service designed

to support local and regional decision-makers in dealing with climate-related reductions in water supply. How would such a service differ from NIDIS and its

current mission? Would you envision expanding the role of NIDIS or creating

another entity?

A3. Although it is still young, NIDIS should—in addition to being a valuable program in the face of drought—be considered an excellent ‘‘pilot’’ for some of what a

179

National Climate Service should be. NIDIS was designed to deal with drought, particularly at the regional scale so important to decision-making, and it should grow

and flourish in that capacity. The design of a National Climate Service should learn

from NIDIS, as well as other existing programs, but it should be a new program

with a broader mission.

Without any doubt, a National Climate Service should be designed to be—first

and foremost—responsive to the needs of regional decision-makers: those that have

a true ‘‘stake’’ in climate variability and climate change. In this respect, a National

Climate Service should be designed not just after the innovative aspects of NIDIS,

but should also be heavily informed by the design and successes of the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment (RISA) Program funded out of the NOAA Climate

Program Office (http://www.climate.noaa.gov/cpo¥pa/risa/); indeed, much of

NIDIS was informed by this NOAA RISA program. One of the key innovations of

the RISA program is sustained partnership between regional science experts and regional decision-makers. Another innovation is that the RISA’s enable interagency

and interdisciplinary collaboration, and—first and foremost—serve to be constant

champions of regional climate and water science. The needs of regional stakeholders

should then drive a much larger integrated, multi-agency, National Climate Service

that meets those needs via interdisciplinary climate system (including water!) research, observations, modeling and assessments.

Because NOAA is by far the strongest climate agency in the Federal Government,

they should lead the National Climate Service. However, the trickiest part, perhaps

other than funding, will be to devise a new mechanism to ensure that (1) multiagency partners truly work together, (2) use their funding within, and among agencies as intended, and (3) work—as a priority—to meet the needs of the regional

stakeholders. Some entity, such as a Commission of regional scientists and stakeholders, is needed that reports both to Congress and the White House, and that has

a responsibility to verify that funds are being used to—first and foremost—meet the

needs of the regional stakeholders. Otherwise, interagency cooperation and coordination will not be optimal, as many current ‘‘interagency’’ programs unfortunately

demonstrate.

One of the primary benefits of a new National Climate Service would be to provide advantage to the Nation, and its regional stakeholders, in adapting to climate

change as well as natural climate variability—including drought. I am currently

working with a national group of regional climate (i.e., RISA) scientists to develop

a more comprehensive plan for a regionally driven National Climate Service, and

I will forward our proposed plan to you and your committee as soon as we have a

complete document.

Q4. Dr. Overpeck, in your testimony you discuss the vulnerability of the Southwest

to climate change related drought and you also point out the many times in the

past the Southwest has dealt with drought. Given the susceptibility of this region to drought, would you say it is more important to invest in research to predict it or research to mitigate the effects and explore other ways to increase potential supply?

A4. The Southwest U.S., extending from California into Texas, and northward into

the central Rockies, is going be increasingly challenged by water supply problems

no matter what. The region is prone to more, and longer droughts, than the rest

of the Nation, and climate change is already making the situation worse with higher

temperatures, less spring snowpack, and declining river flow. It is safe to say, that

the situation could easily get worse, but it is also safe to say that there are things

we can do about it.

We need to take both climate change (and drought) adaptation and mitigation seriously. This means the region, hopefully with help from the Nation as a whole

(which also has a stake in climate change and drought), must learn to use water

more wisely, but also do whatever it can to reduce future threats—namely climate

change—to water supply. In my response to Chairman Gordon’s question above, I

have outlined some important research and development initiatives that could help,

and because of the inevitable climate and water challenges facing the Southwest,

I am a strong advocate for a National Climate Service (also see above). For these

same reasons, I think it is also imperative that the nations of the globe—with the

United States in the lead—start working aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. To say that Southwesterners—

Arizonans and Texans alike—have a real stake in all these efforts is an understatement.

180

Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith

Q1. Nebraska’s panhandle has experienced nearly a decade of severe drought. What

steps or technologies are needed to prepare for and mitigate long-term drought?

A1. Clearly Nebraska has a major stake in seeing something done about drought,

just as we in the Southwest do. Fortunately, what I have outlined above summarizes the national research and development efforts needed by Nebraska and neighboring states. In the past, I have researched what the Dust Bowl drought did to

the Nebraska region, and I learned first-hand that the record-hot—and wilting—

temperatures of the 1930’s will seem cool in comparison with what will likely come

if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced dramatically and quickly. Nonetheless,

the climate change already in the pipeline (due to inertia in the climate system)

AND natural drought variability, means that the people of Nebraska and surrounding states must also prepare for, and adapt to, likely future drought. My foregoing responses should help understand what is needed.

Q2. What are your views on balancing the demand for various uses of water, including, drinking water; agricultural uses; energy generation; habitat, especially for

endangered species; and recreation?

A2. This is as much a values question as it is scientific. I value each of the entities

that you mention, and I also have faith that our country can figure out a way—

using knowledge and technological innovation—to keep all of these entities healthy

and in the balance. However, we cannot do this assuming business as usual, and

that is why I have suggested a number of research and development programs in

my foregoing responses. It is also why I am a strong supporter of cutting global

greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. We do

not want to sacrifice any of these fundamental—and valued—entities.

Your question raises one additional critical point: the role of water in energy production. I note this in my above responses, but also would be a supporter of a massive (ca. $50–$100B/year) government effort to develop new and improved energy alternatives that will speed the much needed greenhouse gas emission reductions that

are needed to curb climate change, as well as to make our country truly energy

independent and a global leader in energy technology sales. I bring this up here because it is critical that we factor in water demand as we develop new sources of

energy: the climate-water-energy nexus is critical not just for Nebraska, but for our

entire nation.

Question from Representative David Wu

Q1. Western communities, specifically, have unique circumstances and relationships

with tribal governments as it relates to water. Tribes often have priority water

rights that states and local governments, and other users, must account for

when creating water plans. As far as partnerships go, what types of opportunities exist for collaborative efforts that recognize tribal water rights and support

both non-tribal and tribal efforts?

A1. I am not a Native Nations water rights specialist, but I live in state, and in

a region, blessed with many Native American neighbors. In this context, I have

worked with some of our regional Tribes on climate-related issues. In my foregoing

responses, I have emphasized the need to drive research and development—including a National Climate Service—with the needs of regional decision-makers. In the

Southwest, and across the U.S., the Tribes are at the table as important regional

stakeholders. As it stands, we don’t have the institutions that treat climate and

water supply issues (including energy—another key issue in Indian Country) holistically, and that is what I am advocating in my foregoing responses. Any legislation

that comes to pass needs to be crafted to ensure the Tribes, and their members, are

fully invested partners in the activities that result.

On a slightly more personal side, I recently supervised a Navajo graduate student

who just received her Master’s degree after completing a Four-Corners climate and

society (agriculture and ranching) thesis. Her focus included helping leaders and

kids on the Navajo Nation learn about climate issues. There is a clear need for more

such graduate students, and the Federal Government could help with funding at

both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The desire is often there, but funding

and appropriate opportunities can be harder to find—especially for the interdisciplinary knowledge creation and learning that is needed. Climate and water partnerships would undoubtedly benefit from such increased funding for education.

181

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Marc Levinson, Economist, U.S. Corporate Research, J.P. Morgan

Chase

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. Please provide the Committee with recommendations of additional Federal research and development to increase water supply and water use efficiency.

A1. The greatest urgency involves exploration of pricing schemes to encourage conservation. Federal R&D money would be well spent in the agricultural area, developing crop varieties that require less irrigation, but there is little incentive for developing and planting such crops so long as most farmers are able to draw on water

for free. It might also be worth considering a requirement for Congress to evaluate

water impacts when considering legislation; such a requirement might have been

useful during consideration of last year’s law increasing the renewable fuels standard and this year’s farm bill. I think there will be ample private funding available

for R&D into water-conservation and decentralized water-treatment technologies if

these are economically viable, and no federal R&D effort is required.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. You mention in your testimony the concept of a water ‘‘footprint.’’ Could you provide us with a couple of examples of companies that are aware of their water

footprint and steps they may be taking to address their water footprint?

A1. We have examined a limited number of companies around the world and do not

claim to have complete information on this subject. Among the companies we have

examined, only Unilever has ever reported its water footprint. Subsequent to the

publication of our recent report on this subject, other food and beverage companies

have advised us that they intend to do further analysis of their water footprints.

In general, large food manufacturers appear to recognize that they can achieve the

largest reductions in their water footprints by encouraging greater water efficiency

among agricultural suppliers, and some are starting to examine this issue.

Q2. You discuss in your testimony that companies face regulatory risks in the form

of allocation and price controls when water becomes scarce. In your work, has

JPMorgan Chase found any regulatory reform options that might address such

problems such that water utilized responsibly while business can remain on

track?

A2. Yes, we have seen two types of regulatory reforms that are important in this

way. First, there are a number of jurisdictions that have imposed significant cost

increases for water. Unfortunately, these increases often affect only customers drawing water from municipal systems, not agricultural and industrial users that draw

water directly from rivers or groundwater sources. Better pricing schemes are urgently needed. Second, some jurisdictions have imposed strong non-price regulations

that limit water usage, such as requiring the use of recycled water to irrigate golf

courses or barring the use of grass in landscaping in desert areas. We are not aware

of jurisdictions that have adopted regulations concerning allocation of water in the

event of physical scarcity.

Q3. You mention nuclear power as an energy source that utilizes large amounts of

water and therefore includes a ‘‘societal’’ cost that should be factored into the

price users pay for electricity for these plants. Should the same hold true from

other sources of power, including renewables, such as biofuels and solar?

A3. Certainly. Water is a scarce resource, and its cost should be borne by those who

consume it. Biofuels impose very heavy water demand, particularly by encouraging

the cultivation of corn in water-scarce areas. In the case of solar, the water-related

cost is likely to occur mainly in the manufacturing process rather than at the generating site.

Q4. In your testimony you touch upon the impact increased biofuels production has

on water usage. In examining the development of the biofuels industry, has

JPMorgan Chase performed an analysis of the water usage associated with feedstocks other than corn for biofuels production? Are there drought resistant plants

that could provide biofuels feedstock at lower ‘‘water’’ cost?

A4. We have not performed an analysis of the water usage associated with biofuels

feedstocks. This would require complex modeling, as much of the impact is likely

182

attributable to changed patterns of land use arising from higher crop prices. For example, ethanol has led to a large increase in cultivated corn acreage in the Great

Plains states; whereas corn grown for ethanol in Ohio might not require extensive

irrigation, corn grown for ethanol in Nebraska is likely to require heavy irrigation.

The intrusion of cultivation into former conservation reserve areas, another consequence of U.S. biofuels policy, also increases water demand while potentially reducing the recharge of aquifers. Switchgrass and sorghum are frequently mentioned

as plants with lower water requirements that are suitable for ethanol, but suitable

varieties are not presently commercially available. In any event, their impact on

water consumption would depend upon whether they supplant corn production in

arid locations, or whether they are planted in even more arid locations and serve

to increase the total amount of land under cultivation.

Q5. Please expand on your comments alluding to the fact that several companies are

looking into technologies for decentralized water treatment and that federal

R&D funds may be helpful? If we were to decentralize water treatment for

human consumption, how would we ensure that all water for human consumption met baseline standards? What regulatory mechanisms would be needed?

What would the costs associated with such a change from centralized to decentralized water treatment be for a city like Washington, DC?

A5. I’m not sure the need here is for federal funding, as I hear anecdotally that considerable venture capital is active in the field of decentralized water treatment. A

more important issue may be whether federal water-treatment regulations inadvertently favor large-scale municipal plants over smaller-scale treatment. For the cost

reasons you indicate, it is probably not cost-effective to decentralize water treatment

in an area where centralized treatment is already in use. However, it may well be

sensible to consider decentralized treatment for new housing subdivisions, large office complexes, and rural areas being connected to piped water for the first time.

Decentralized treatment effectively requires two sets of supply pipes, one for purified water and the other for non-potable water, which would be connected to outdoor

spigots, cooling towers, and similar uses, but not to indoor plumbing.

Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith

Q1. Many energy generation methods require water to produce power. Hydropower,

nuclear energy, petroleum refining, clean coal technologies, and biofuels production all require large amounts of water. What steps should be taken in both the

public and private sectors to address water-use challenges as energy demand increases?

A1. I think the big issue here is that subsidies encourage energy consumption without regard to the social costs involved in producing the energy. It would be desirable

for Congress to pay more attention to the water impacts when crafting energy legislation, and for energy produces to be forced to pay a reasonable price for the water

they draw. It is worth considering whether closed-loop recycling systems should be

mandated at new energy facilities. This undoubtedly would raise energy costs, but

is highly desirable from the viewpoint of water conservation.

Q2. If new hydropower facilities were to be built to meet the growing energy needs

of the United States, what would be the main water-use challenges that would

need to be addressed?

A2. I do not expect extensive construction of hydropower facilities in the U.S., due

both to environmental concerns and to the fact that many of the most suitable locations are already in use. My comment on this is that in the past we have mistakenly

relied almost entirely on supply-side measures to meet water demand. It is highly

desirable to provide incentives to limit demand, and pricing is the best mechanism

for this purpose.

Q3. Mr. Levinson, my home State of Nebraska has a large agricultural industry, and

irrigation is a common practice in much of my district. You mentioned in your

testimony that groundwater use should be governed by federal, rather than

State, law. What federal legislation would you propose for the best allocation of

ground- and surface-water, and what would be the major benefits of regulation

on a federal level, instead of a State level?

A3. My testimony was not that the Federal Government should take control of

groundwater use, but rather that the Federal Government should explore methods

of requiring states to adopt groundwater pricing schemes. I note that the Federal

Government uses its budgetary powers to impose many such obligations on states,

183

by threatening to withhold grants for particular programs unless State governments

take specific actions. This same approach could be used to force states to adopt

schemes to price both groundwater and surface water. As a practical matter, I think

it would be extremely difficult for the Federal Government to make detailed allocation and pricing decisions at a great remove from the affected communities, so I

think it is wiser to leave this task to lower levels of government within broad parameters.

Q4. What are your views on balancing the demand for various uses of water, including, drinking water; agricultural uses; energy generation; habitat, especially for

endangered species; and recreation?

A4. I have no particular views on this subject. Insofar as the subject of my testimony is concerned, I think it would be helpful if those responsible for planning for

water scarcity were to outline in advance a series of emergency conservation measures in priority order, so that individuals and companies would be able to have a

better sense of the likelihood that their supplies would be curtailed in the event of

severe supply shortfalls.

Questions submitted by Representative David Wu

Q1. How do we ensure that rural minority communities are addressed when we

build out water infrastructure? Many of these areas have little to no existing infrastructure in place, and I’m afraid if they are not a part of our plans, we will

be significantly short-changing a large population. What roles can corporations

play in this?

A1. Please see my response to Representative Hall’s question concerning decentralized treatment, which may provide a more cost-effective alternative for rural communities than laying supply pipes for great distances. There has been considerable

private investment in water-distribution systems, but whether such companies

would find it attractive to invest in a relatively small-scale distribution system

would depend on the specifics.

184

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Roger S. Pulwarty, Physical Scientist, Climate Program Office; Director, The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

Q1. Please provide the Committee with recommendations of additional Federal research and development to increase water supply and water use efficiency.

A1. Some of the relevant priorities identified by the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality are: (1) Quantifying the future availability of freshwater in light of both withdrawal uses, and ecosystem uses; (2) Assessing and predicting the effectiveness of land use practices and

watershed restoration on water quality and ecosystem health; (3) Developing information and efficiency tools to aid in water management including wastewater reuse

and low-water-use crops; and (4) Improve linkages between climate and hydrologic

prediction models and their applications.

To address these priorities, we will need to focus on improvements in the ability

of climate models to recreate the recent past as well as make projections under a

variety of forcing scenarios. Research should focus on the development of a better

understanding of the physical processes that produce extremes and how these processes change with climate as well as the reconciliation of model projections of increasing drought severity, frequency, or duration for different regions of the U.S.

The creation of annually-resolved, regional-scale reconstructions of the climate for

the past 2,000 years would help improve our understanding of present rates of

change in the context of very long-term regional climate variability.

Development of improved recharge monitoring techniques and social science research on the severity of drought impacts and institutional responses (to understand

the effects of human activity on groundwater recharge) would provide information

needed to increase our water supply.

In addition, it is important to understand the response of the biological community to changes in streamflow and stream temperature, clarity, and chemistry,

which are key issues in addressing instream flows and aquatic needs. It is also important to understand the degree to which aquifer storage is changing and will

change in the future (given various climate, land and water use patterns), in addition to how changes in groundwater will affect streamflow and surface-water flow

as a result of water management activities, land-use change, climate change, diversions, and storage.

Adaptive measures include both demand and supply side approaches. Demandside measures include water recycling, reducing irrigation demand, water markets,

and economic incentives such as metering and pricing. Supply-side measures include

conjunctive surface-groundwater use, increases in storage capacity, and desalination

of sea water. Critical issues over the near term include: (1) ensuring adequate water

to maintain environmental services that support economic and cultural benefits; (2)

ensuring development, marketing, and adoption of efficient technologies, and (3)

managing information needed to coordinate data collection and quality control,

which will allow us to transform data and forecasts into accessible, credible, and usable information for early warning, risk reduction and adaptation practices in the

water resources sector.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. In his testimony, Mr. Levinson mentioned that the Tennessee Valley Authority

had to shut a nuclear plant since there was not enough cooling water in the Tennessee River. What monitoring, prediction, risk assessment, and communication

tools could NIDIS provide for existing plants to avoid such a circumstance?

Similarly, what monitoring, prediction, risk assessment, and communication

tools could NIDIS provide so that states and companies could make informed

decisions as to where to site a nuclear power plant, or any other type of electrical

power plant, in relation to water access?

A1. To clarify, and for the record, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) advises

that its Brown’s Ferry Nuclear Plant was not shut down because of a lack of cooling

water. The plant was derated because of a permitting agreement with the Alabama

Department of Environmental Management that states TVA will not exceed a 24-

hour downstream average temperature of more than 90 degrees.

185

Demand for energy increases demand for freshwater supplies, and increased demand on water requires additional energy to store and transport water. Freshwater

withdrawals for energy account for 39 percent of total withdrawals in the United

States. Transportation of water to produce energy introduces additional costs in

plant design. Increases in water temperature in streams and reservoirs can reduce

the water’s effectiveness as cooling water for nuclear plants (as occurred at the

Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama in 2007).

As part of its forecast of precipitation, NIDIS communicates forecasts of ambient

air temperature. This is useful because there is a close correlation between air and

stream temperatures. The Department of the Interior (the U.S. Geological Survey

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and others can use NIDIS information to

provide improved information regarding potential risks of high temperature

instream events.

NIDIS could provide valuable information used to make more informed decisions

for the siting of nuclear power plants. Plant sitings require assessments of municipal and industrial demands and associated water supply reliability. NIDIS can provide information on past drought records for a particular location, water supply reliability for projected uses, and air temperature-stream temperature relationships.

NIDIS works with states, communities, and agencies to enable development of risk

assessment tools based on past events and forecasted droughts.

Q2. In your testimony, you discuss the need to develop adaptive measures to increase

the available water supply or use water more efficiently to address threats to the

water supply. I have introduced legislation that would encourage research into

treating water derived from underground when extracting oil and gas to utilize

it for other purposes. Is this the type of adaptive measure you would encourage

us to explore?

A2. NOAA does not have an established position on H.R. 2339, but as a researcher

on adaptation strategies, my answer would be: Yes. Sixty-five percent of the produced water generated in the U.S. (over one trillion gallons in 1993) is injected back

into the producing formation, 30 percent is injected into deep saline formations, and

five percent is discharged to surface waters. The produced water typically contains

a mix of contaminants, including high saline levels. Standards of treatment for

reuse are set by industry technical organizations such as the American Petroleum

Institute (API) and the Oil Producers Association. The API has listed carbon absorption, air stripping, filtration, biological treatment, ultraviolet light, and chemical oxidation as potential treatments.

Standards for produced water disposal are determined by State, national, and

international regulatory bodies. Key questions to be addressed include:

(1) What technologies exist to treat produced water to disposal or re-injection

standards and what water quality standards must be met?

(2) How much would this cost?

Q3. Several reports, and some of the witnesses who testified at the hearing, have

called for the creation of a National Climate Service. Would NIDIS be a good

platform to emulate for the collection, organization and dissemination of all climate information and products? Or does the shear volume of climate information require a larger or more complex set up? Would NIDIS be integrated into

such a service, or would it stay a separate entity?

A3. The NIDIS structure could provide guidance for the development of a National

Climate Service. NOAA and our partner agencies are still in the process of developing an operational definition of ‘‘climate’’ services (i.e., examining how these services are different from ‘‘weather’’ services) and completing its analysis of what is

lacking in the way such services are currently delivered throughout the Federal

Government. Any National Climate Service would likely focus on a broader class of

issues and information users, and could provide an umbrella for programs such as

NIDIS by developing a cross-agency partnership to sustain comprehensive observations and monitoring systems, and provide for state-of-the-art research, modeling,

predictions, and projections.

NIDIS could function within this broader system, and would continue to inform

collaborative coordination and planning and act to identify innovations in drought

preparedness for transferability to other parts of the country. NIDIS is in essence

a decision support system; its main function is to develop, deliver, and communicate

drought information, forecasts impacts, information for preparedness and risk reduction (or more generally valued climate services).

Q4. The National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, or SWAQ, released a report last year about science and techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:46 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 042250 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL08\051408\42250 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
186

nology requirements for water availability and quality. This report was a followup to their 2004 report. In both papers, the Subcommittee strongly recommends

that the U.S. develop a standardized and integrated measuring measures and

create an account of its water. Although they suggest that some agencies have

been involved in bringing this project together, would NIDIS be an appropriate

place for the dissemination of this type of data? Or should it be housed in a sister program, that would feed information into and receive information from

NIDIS, but be separate for separate management and decision-making purposes?

A4. NIDIS should not be tasked with the full collection and archiving of such data

but as a recipient or client to help shape the collection by advising on priorities (e.g.,

key areas for monitoring improvements) through its focus on drought response and

risk reduction; a separate program working with NIDIS would be most appropriate.

NIDIS would be a good coordinator for integrated information, acting as a clearinghouse for information that feeds into specific early warning and decision support

systems, and would provide a catalyst for drought mitigation practice. Data on

water availability and quality would feed into NIDIS’ early warning design.

Q5. Would you give an example of what Federal, State and non-governmental monitoring programs feed into NIDIS? How much do these monitoring efforts cost?

Are there gaps in the monitoring system? If so, where do they occur?

A5. Given its preliminary status, main inputs into NIDIS so far are from federal

agencies, such as NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey (e.g., Stream Gauge Network),

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (e.g., Soil Climate Analysis Network). In

addition, recent efforts have begun to include water and reservoir levels in partnership with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and states. In

June 2008, NIDIS convened a national workshop on the status of drought early

warning system across the U.S. States, private sector (energy water, agriculture)

and Tribal representatives at the conference agreed to engage with NIDIS on data

provision and integration. These are actively being pursued for inclusion (with appropriate data standards) into the U.S. Drought Portal, and are important for

supplementing and improving the U.S. Drought Monitor in locations with pilot early

warning systems in development.

The original recommendations for NIDIS (in the 2004 Western Governors’ Association report) included supporting county-level monitoring, because droughts are

declared at the county level. At that recommended density, there are still gaps in

our monitoring network. NOAA is addressing these through the Historical Climate

Network Modernization and the Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) network.

The needs for improved monitoring are in groundwater quantity and quality, soil

moisture, high elevation snowpack runoff timing, and ecosystems. These characteristics are important in modulating streamflow. Data on these variables are not yet

collected using standardized approaches at similar spatial or temporal scales, and

the long-term viability of the data collection efforts is uncertain. Recent initiatives

such as the National Environmental Status and Trends Indicators action plan and

pilot activity would provide guidance on assimilating and archiving existing data.

A comprehensive groundwater-level network may be needed to assess groundwaterlevel changes, the data from which should be easily accessible in real time.

Soil moisture in the first one or two meters below the ground surface regulates

land-surface energy and moisture exchanges with the atmosphere, and plays a key

role in flood and drought genesis and maintenance. Soil moisture deficit partially

regulates plant transpiration and, consequently, constitutes an effective diagnostic.

Active and passive microwave data from polar orbiting satellites or reconnaissance

airplanes provide some estimates of surface soil moisture with continuous spatial

coverage. However, these approaches are limited in that they only measure soil

moisture within the first few centimeters of the soil surface, and they are reliable

only when vegetation cover is sparse or absent. NIDIS recently (February 2008) convened a small workshop to assess the reliability of such sensors for soil moisture

measurements.

The lack of long-term soil moisture data over vast areas of the United States affects how well soil moisture is incorporated into hydrologic models for watersheds

or large regions. NIDIS, in collaboration with the National Climatic Data Center

(and with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)’s Soil Climate

Analysis Network to complement their network), is in the process of deploying over

100 soil moisture sites around the country. Even a few long-term monitoring networks of soil moisture would substantially decrease the uncertainty in predicting

processes that are critically dependent on soil moisture levels (like flow, water

chemistry, and plant response). Similarly, the uncertainty of predictive models for

managing water supply in western streams reflects the density of stream flow and

187

rainfall monitoring networks, because the amount and the quality of data in areas

characterized by high spatial variability in precipitation determine the reliability

and precision of such models. Inclusion of nonagricultural areas, along with a longterm commitment for high quality data will assist water resources analysis on climatic and regional scales.

The U.S. Geological Survey has the beginnings of a ground-water network in the

Ground Water Climate Response Network. This network provides ground-water

level data from 167 of the 366 Climate Divisions in the United States and Puerto

Rico. About half of the data in this network are accessible in real time.

Q6. Recognizing that this is a fairly new effort, how successful has NIDIS been in

predicting expected drought areas thus far? What resources or assistance would

you need to improve your ability to make such predictions?

A6. Historically, skill in predicting drought has not been very high. However, there

are climate regimes in which predictability of seasonal drought has improved, particularly during El Nin ̃ o or La Nin ̃ a conditions. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center

has shown demonstrable skill in predicting drought at seasonal time scales, during

El Nin ̃ o or La Nin ̃ a events (and in particular during the winter). However, El Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a conditions are only active about half the time. Prediction of multi-season and multi-year drought has not been successful. NIDIS has been successful in

developing a nascent system for monitoring the climate and identifying potential

drought conditions as they evolve, but additional time will be required before we see

great improvement in drought prediction.

Predictions could be improved through increased focus on multi-season and multiyear drought prediction capabilities, through focused research on drought prediction.

In the interim, some significant improvements in prediction are possible through improved monitoring of all the components of the climate system related to drought.

These components include estimates of rain and snow, snowpack depth and liquid

water equivalent, as well as estimates of the soil characteristics, ground water, and

vegetation. Improved monitoring requires better integration of data from observation systems that already exist (computers to store, merge, analyze and provide the

data) as well as installation of additional observation equipments (e.g., in situ instruments and satellite sensors) where needed. Monitoring of the physical climate

system must also be augmented by estimates of the demand for water resources imposed by agriculture, industry, and population shifts and growth. A ‘‘drought’’ is not

felt until available water is insufficient to meet specific needs.

Q7. Have you received all the necessary information from State and local partners?

What about federal agencies? What barriers have you encountered?

A7. Agencies and states have been very responsive by providing information and

data sets to be linked to NIDIS activities.

As conceived in NIDIS, coordination includes:

• Establishment of a national research agenda,

• Efforts targeted at emerging problems, (e.g., as in the Southeast in 2007),

• Sustained attention on identifying monitoring and forecasting gaps, and

• A competitive grants and contracts program to addresses national research

needs not addressed by specific agency missions.

Coordination can facilitate technology transfer from research organizations to user

communities. However, agencies must maintain a high level of leadership, accountability and autonomy.

In the next few years NIDIS will begin to tailor the Drought Portal for multi-state

watersheds. This will provide a mechanism for more fully understanding the barriers to integrating State and local partner data and information for early warning

information needs.

Q8. In an ideal world, how far into the future would your predictions need to be able

to reach to fully prepare or mitigate the effects of an impending drought?

A8. The time it takes to fully prepare or mitigate the effects of an impending

drought varies depending on the specific problem(s) being addressed. For agriculture, predictions are required for three to six months ahead of an impending

drought event. However, the sustainability of economic activities and environmental

goals requires warnings of droughts onset, areal extent, and potential duration (a

season, a year or a decade or longer), and potential impacts on each of these time

scales. This is especially the case in regards to urban water needs in the west, forest

health, low flow thresholds for meeting interbasin transfer requirements, energy

plant siting, and environmental flows.

188

Q9. How well known is the drought portal? Does the website collect statistics on hits

per month or types of users it is getting? What can be done to ensure that this

portal becomes a well-known information source with farmers and local water

managers as it is with universities and State governments?

A9. NIDIS is actively engaging all of its partnering agencies to help educate the

public on the U.S. Drought Portal (USDP). Examples include the U.S. Department

of Agriculture, which has agricultural extension agents in nearly every county in the

Nation, and NOAA’s National Weather Service, which has local weather experts in

135 offices around the country.

The USDP will provide education and outreach materials, publicly available,

which will be geared toward local agency representatives engaging constituents at

the local level and touting the benefits of USDP use. In addition, representatives

of NIDIS are participating in numerous workshops, forums, and meetings around

the country in order to communicate what is available on the USDP, to encourage

its use and develop its role in proactive drought risk management, and to receive

feedback on its content.

The USDP keeps track of web hits for users entering the Portal. Currently USDP

receives 40,000 hits per month. Software is currently being developed to allow tracking of hits to web pages hosted as ‘‘portlets’’ within the USDP. The USDP cannot

track its users by type at this time.

Q10. Have the droughts we have been experiencing strained our ability to meet international obligations regarding water resources?

A10. Please see the response to question 11 (below) for a combined response.

Q11. The U.S. shares not only its borders with Canada and Mexico, but it also

shares watersheds. With respect to this geographical reality, how has U.S.

water policy, particularly in the western half of the country, affected relations

with our neighbors?

A11. These are critical concerns and have been broached in numerous constituent

meetings and other public fora. Canada and Mexico are actively seeking to complement and link to NIDIS with their own information, since droughts cross these

political boundaries.

The U.S. has treaties with Mexico over both the Rio Grande River and the Colorado River. The Rio Grande agreement, resulting from a 1994 treaty, stipulates that

Mexico must allow a certain amount of water from the Rio Grande to reach the U.S.

In return, the U.S. must provide Mexico with 1.5 million acre feet a year from the

Colorado River. These commitments have not entirely been met on either side.

Drought and growing economic development have affected the ability of both countries to meet their international commitments. Unfortunately, the treaty provisions

for allocating shortages during a drought, and in fact what legally constitutes ‘‘exceptional drought,’’ are ambiguous and no provisions in the treaty cover the possibility of a climatic change that could alter the long-term availability of water in the

river. Research of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (Synthesis and Assessment Report (SAP) 3.3, pp. 22–23; SAP 4.3, pp. 121–150) suggests that even modest

climatic changes might have serious and dramatic impacts on the Colorado River

flow. Critical concerns include changes in: (1) water availability from altered precipitation patterns or higher evaporative losses due to higher temperatures; (2) the

seasonality of precipitation and runoff; (3) flooding or drought frequencies; and (4)

the demand for and the supply of irrigation water for agriculture.

Changing water demands in the United States, combined with climate change,

could seriously compromise hydroelectric power generation and other uses in Canada, especially in drier regions in southern areas of the Canadian part of the basin

(e.g., Okanagan and Osoyoos lakes). There are several (at least 12) large bilateral

drainage basins, or groups of small basins, for which the International Joint Commission has responsibility under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Many of

these basins, and their sub-basins, have water-sharing agreements where rivers

flow north or south across the border. In some basins, pollution control agreements

are also in place to protect ecosystems and water quality (e.g., Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River). Climate affects both the quantity and quality of these waters, and the

ability of one country to meet its present obligations to the other.

Thirty to thirty-five percent of the water in the Columbia River basin originates

in Canada yet only 15 percent of the basin lies in Canada. On the Columbia River,

the predicted trend towards greater flow in winter and less flow in spring is expected to continue affecting salmon migration as well as hydropower.

Increased evaporation (especially during winter) is expected due to warmer temperatures, which would lower Great Lakes water levels and reduce the flow of rivers

189

in the system, including the St. Lawrence. In the scenario described above, adverse

impacts on shipping, hydroelectric power generation, and water quality are projected. A recent amendment to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act by

Canada prohibits bulk-water removals and diversions from border and trans-border

waters but does not deal with attempts to divert internal Canadian waters, an issue

that a number of provinces have similarly addressed. There is also a risk that these

disagreements will spill over into economic policy, trade agreements, and security

arrangements.

International obligations have been met, but not without contention during

drought situations. However, given trends in the Great Lakes, the Colorado, the Rio

Grande and the Columbia Rivers, further strains are foreseeable in the near future

and will be exacerbated during conditions of exceptional drought.

Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith

Q1. Nebraska’s panhandle has experienced nearly a decade of severe drought. What

steps or technologies are needed to prepare for and mitigate long-term drought?

A1. Mitigation options will be different for agricultural producers, municipal water

suppliers, city and county land use planners, environmental interests, and State

agencies, but ideally, all should be working in coordination. NIDIS works very closely with the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. The NDMC director co-chairs the interagency and interstate NIDIS

Implementation Team with the NIDIS director. The following are collaborative activities led by the NDMC using, in part, funds provided by NOAA Grants:

Mitigation measures already underway:

(1) Nebraska Rural Response Hotline: Interchurch Ministries of Nebraska, an

interdenominational non-profit organization based in Lincoln, spearheaded

the establishment of the Nebraska Rural Response Hotline during the farm

crisis of the 1980s. The Hotline has grown steadily in both the number of

calls it receives and in the resources and partnerships available to help callers, as responders listened to needs and found ways to meet them. In 2007

it took nearly 5,000 calls. Among the ways they assist are listening to individual farmers and ranchers to help identify options in a crisis, providing

vouchers for counseling and referrals to other professional services, and organizing regular workshops around the state focusing on needs such as financial and legal planning. Drought is one of many stressors facing the agricultural community.

(2) Nebraska Health & Human Services is working with municipalities to reduce the vulnerability of their water supplies.

(3) Increased soil moisture monitoring.

Planned mitigation measures:

Nebraska has a drought mitigation plan that has identified more strategies, some

of which will require additional funding, either for agency staff time or for assistance or incentives for farmers and ranchers. The planned mitigation activities are

included in the appendices of the state’s drought plan (http://carc.agr.ne.gov/docs/

NebraskaDrought.pdf).

Some agricultural policies may lead to hazard-resistance or to practices that increase vulnerability. This is of increasing importance because of the disruptions in

food security that may come about as a result of climate change (irrespective of

what drives that change).

Q2. What are your views on balancing the demand for various uses of water, including, drinking water; agricultural uses; energy generation; habitat, especially for

endangered species; and recreation?

A2. In addition to water supply planning, both urban and rural land-use practices

can either contribute to drought vulnerability or to drought resistance. In most

cases, practices that build resilience to drought can also build resilience to other

possible threats, including wildfires, energy production reliability, and economic

down-turns. In general, practices that lead to increased soil fertility, redundancy in

natural systems, and increased biodiversity build resilience. Practices that encourage more risk-taking and deplete natural resources faster than they are replenished

increase vulnerability.

Recreation forms the backbone of the economy for many western states. The impacts of impending changes are anticipated to be felt by the environment sector, and

these will impact the environmental services that provide tourism, recreational and

190

other economic generators for rural communities. Environmental requirements for

water are actually minuscule compared with municipal, industry, and agricultural

needs. In some regions environmental needs are less than 10 percent of supply with

agriculture, household, and industrial needs accounting for the rest. The economic

benefits of environmental services outweigh the costs of their water needs and as

such, efficiency in the other three sectors will provide a large economic and social

benefit. Multi-objective planning is a logical approach for developing strategies to

pursue complex goals.

Æ