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

43–528PS 2008

A NATIONAL WATER INITIATIVE:

COORDINATING AND IMPROVING

FEDERAL RESEARCH ON WATER

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND S/F2R.7ECHNOLOGYNOS.24 m33OGYNOS.24 lSBT8 0 0 8 756..2 033.0001 T
(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

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

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

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director

CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member

MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member

SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member

ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member

ELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member

TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member

STACEY STEEP Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

July 23, 2008

Page

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

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

Opening Statements

Prepared Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 9

Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 7

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

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 9

Witnesses:

Dr. Mark A. Shannon, Director, Center of Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water With Systems, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Biography .......................................................................................................... 19

Mr. Tod D. Christenson, Chairperson, Beverage Industry Environmental

Roundtable (BIER)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21

Biography .......................................................................................................... 24

Dr. Timothy T. Loftus, Project Director, Northeastern Illinois Regional Water

Supply Planning, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 26

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28

Mr. Jerry N. Johnson, General Manager, District of Columbia Water and

Sewer Authority

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31

Biography .......................................................................................................... 35

Mr. Bradley H. Spooner, Principal Engineer, Environmental Services of the

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG Power)

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37

Biography .......................................................................................................... 50

Dr. Upton Hatch, President-Elect, National Institutes for Water Resources;

Associate Director, Water Resources Research Institute, University of North

Carolina; Research Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource

Economics, North Carolina State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 51

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 53

Page

IV

Dr. Upton Hatch, President-Elect, National Institutes for Water Resources;

Associate Director, Water Resources Research Institute, University of North

Carolina; Research Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource

Economics, North Carolina State University—Continued

Biography .......................................................................................................... 57

Discussion

The National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Water

Availability and Quality (SWAQ) Outreach ................................................... 57

The Federal Government’s Role in Ensuring Water Availability and Quality ....................................................................................................................... 59

Carbon Sequestration’s Impact on Water Supply ............................................. 60

Avoiding Burdensome Bureaucracy .................................................................... 60

Benefits of Research ............................................................................................ 61

Water Conservation ............................................................................................. 62

Conservation and Agriculture ............................................................................. 66

The Federal Government’s Role .......................................................................... 68

Groundwater Research ........................................................................................ 70

Public Education .................................................................................................. 71

Municipal Water Utilities: DCWASA ................................................................. 72

The Draft Legislation’s Potential ........................................................................ 74

Retention Ponds ................................................................................................... 75

Appendix: Additional Material for the Record

Discussion Draft, To implement a National Water Research and Development

Initiative, and for other purposes ........................................................................ 78

(1)

A NATIONAL WATER INITIATIVE: COORDINATING AND IMPROVING FEDERAL RESEARCH ON WATER

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC.

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

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Lampson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A National Water Initiative:

Coordinating and Improving

Federal Research on Water

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

PURPOSE

On Wednesday, July 23rd the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will

hold a hearing to receive testimony on the opportunities for the Federal Government

to support and better coordinate research and technological innovation to enhance

water supplies and water quality and to support improved water management. The

Committee will also receive testimony on a discussion draft of legislation to be introduced by Chairman Bart Gordon entitled the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act.

WITNESSES

• Dr. Mark A. Shannon: Director of the United States Strategic Water Initiative, a public-private effort to enhance American competitiveness in water purification science and technology by advancing the basic science of water purification and accelerating the implementation of innovative U.S. technologies

to deliver, increase, and protect fresh water supplies around the world.

• Mr. Tod Christenson: Director of the Beverage Industry Environmental

Roundtable (BIER), an organization created by Coca Cola and representing

eleven beverage companies including Anheuser Busch, Beam, Pepsi, etc.

• Dr. Timothy T. Loftus: Water Resource Planner for the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and coordinator of the Illinois 2050 Water

Demand Scenario report commission by the Governor Rod Blagojevich.

• Mr. Jerry Johnson: General Manager at the DC Water and Sewer Authority, a multi-jurisdictional regional utility that provides drinking water, wastewater collection and treatment to more than 500,000 residential, commercial

and governmental customers in the District of Columbia.

• Mr. Bradley H. Spooner: Principal Engineer for Environmental Services at

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, a public corporation providing power

to 49 Georgia communities that in turn bring energy to approximately

600,000 citizens.

• Dr. Upton Hatch: Associate Director at the Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, one of the fifty-four state and territorial Water Research Institutes and Centers which perform research related

to regional and interstate water resources problems.

BACKGROUND

Water resource problems are growing in both number and intensity, in regions

across the country. As demand for water continues to rise and as supplies dwindle,

it has become increasingly apparent that there is an important role for the Federal

Government to establish a comprehensive strategy for research and development of

new technologies to ensure a sustainable water supply.

In 2004, the National Academies of Science published a study entitled, Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of Federal Research, which declared,

‘‘The United States needs to make a new commitment to water resources research

4

1 National Academies of Science. 2004. Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of

Research. Executive Summary. Water Science and Technology Board. Committee on Assessment

of Water Resources Research. National Research Council. Washington, DC. p. 7. 2 Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of Research (Report in Brief). Water

Science and Technology Board. Committee on Assessment of Water Resources Research. National Research Council. Washington, DC. p. 2. 3 Chapter 6: Coordination of Water Resources Research. Pp. 199–214.

4 National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality. 2007. A Strategy for Federal Science

and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in the United States. Washington,

DC. 35 pp.

in order to confront the increasingly severe water problems faced by all parts of the

country.’’

Over twenty federal agencies carry out research and development on some aspect

of water supply, water quality or water management. The National Academies of

Science surveyed these agencies for their 2004 study and based upon the responses,

estimated federal expenditures on water research to be approximately $700 million.1

Five of these agencies account for 87 percent of this funding: the National Science

Foundation (22 percent), the U.S. Geological Survey (18 percent), the Department

of Agriculture (17 percent), the Environmental Protection Agency (15 percent), and

the Department of Defense (15 percent).

Figure 1: Agency contributions as a percentage of the total federal funding for

water resources research in 2000.2

Despite a research budget of approximately $700 million, the increased number

of water shortages and emerging conflicts over water supplies suggest we are inadequately prepared to address the Nation’s water management issues. This same report advocates for a clear national water strategy to coordinate the 20 plus federal

agencies responsible for conducting and funding research in order to avoid duplication and to tackle the looming challenges of maintaining adequate water supplies.

At the May 14 hearing before the Committee on Science and Technology on challenges related to water supply and water quality several of the witnesses also recommended better coordination of federal efforts on water.

The NAS report discussed three options for better coordinating research and development programs on water: Using an existing National Science and Technology

Council Subcommittee; authorization of a neutral, third party or Water Research

Board; or creating an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) led interagency committee of senior agency officials formally tied to the budget process.3

The Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ)

The Bush Administration had created the Subcommittee on Water Availability

and Quality (SWAQ) of the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee

on Environment and Natural Resources in 2003 to: identify science and technology

needs to address the growing issues related to freshwater supplies, develop a coordinated a multi-year plan to improve research on water supply and water quality, and

to enhance the collection and availability of data needed to ensure an adequate

water supply for the Nation.4

5

The Academy report indicated that SWAQ is an effective forum for agencies to

share information about their programs. SWAQ is already in place and the participating agencies’ roles are well-defined. However, the Academy report identified several issues that needed to be addressed if SWAQ is to become an effective coordinating body. The budget function for SWAQ should be strengthened through participation of OMB on the Committee and SWAQ should engage in outreach activities

to develop connections to State and local governments, to wider community of stakeholders, and to the public.

In their 2007 report, SWAQ made recommendations laying out the federal research priorities and recommendations for a federal science strategy to address

water supply. Those recommendations included:

• Implementation of a National Water Census;

• Development of a new generation of water monitoring techniques;

• Development and expansion of technologies for enhancing reliable water supply;

• Development of innovative water-use technologies and tools to enhance public

acceptance of them;

• Development of collaborative tools and processes for U.S. water solutions;

• Improvement in the understanding of water-related ecosystem services and

ecosystem needs for water; and

• Improvement in hydrologic prediction models and their applications.

Unfortunately, these strategic goals are not reflected in the President’s FY 2009

Budget request to Congress. While some of these priorities were given small allocations of funding (i.e., $9 million requested for the United States Geologic Survey to

complete a new National Water Census), agencies were not allocated funding to support work on most of the priorities identified in the report.

DRAFT LEGISLATION

There is a need for a national initiative to coordinate federal research water efforts is necessary to ensure we have the best tools and information to maintain adequate supplies of water for Americans in the coming decades. For this reason,

Chairman Bart Gordon plans to introduce legislation to create a National Water Initiative. This Act seeks to improve the Federal Government’s efforts in water research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities to

address changes in water use, supply, and demand in the United States. The bill

codifies the existing Interagency Committee, SWAQ, and strengthens the Committee

by incorporating the suggestions in the National Academies’ 2004 report. By

strengthening the SWAQ and providing it explicit Congressional authorization, the

recommendations of the 2007 SWAQ report will receive due consideration and form

the start of a national strategy to ensure we have a sustainable water supply.

SECTION BY SECTION

Title: National Water Research and Development Initiative Act

Purpose: To improve the Federal Government’s role in water research, development,

demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities to address changes in

water use, supply, and demand in the United States.

Section 1: Short Title

The National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2008

Section 2: National Water Research and Development Initiative

Section 2 directs the President to implement a National Water Research and Development Initiative to improve federal activities on water, including: research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer. As part of the Initiative, the President shall establish or designate an Interagency Committee with representation from all federal agencies dealing with water and the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Science and Technology Policy will chair the Committee.

The Committee is charged with developing a National Water Availability Research and Assessment Plan, coordinating all federal activities on water, and promoting cooperation among agencies with respect to water research.

The Plan establishes priorities for federal water research and assessment and

shall utilize the recommendation from a 2007 Report issued by SWAQ (SubVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
6

committee on Water Availability and Quality of the National Science and Technology Council). This section also identifies required elements of the Plan. The Plan

is also lists a number of outcomes and directs the Committee to direct agencies to

achieve the outcomes in the Plan.

The Plan will be subject to a 90 day public comment period and must be submitted to Congress within one year of enactment.

The President is also directed to create an Outreach Office to provide technical

and administrative support to the Committee. The Office will disseminate information to the public and serve as a point of contact for the Initiative.

Section 3: Budget Coordination

Section 3 directs the President to provide guidance to each federal agency in the

Initiative with respect to the President’s annual request. The President is requires

to describe and list the items in the request that are elements of the Plan of help

to achieve the outcomes of the plan.

Section 4: Annual Report

Section 4 directs the President submit an annual report to Congress describing

the activities and results of the initiative.

7

Chairman LAMPSON. The hearing will come to order. I want to

welcome the Members of the Subcommittee and our distinguished

panelists to today’s hearing on the creation of a National Water

Initiative to improve and coordinate federal research on water.

Chairman Gordon plans to introduce legislation to establish a

National Water Initiative to improve and coordinate federal research and development efforts on water. I would like to thank him

for his leadership and foresight in this area, and I look forward to

the opportunity to consider his legislation.

In order to meet the water needs or water demands of the future,

it is essential that we have the information that we need to balance

the water needs for municipalities, industry, agriculture, recreation, and power. The population of the United States has increased by over 25 percent since 1973, while federal dollars for

water research have remained stagnant. A new commitment is

needed to ensure that we can meet the water challenges over the

next 20 years and onward.

Without the right data, it is impossible to know if we are going

in the right direction, and the discussion draft before us today will

provide decision-makers at all levels of government with the tools

they need to make the tough decisions of the future.

The 2004 National Academies Report on Federal Water Research

suggests that the United States is not getting its money’s worth on

water resources research, because of a lack of coordination. The

Chairman’s discussion draft seeks to address this particular issue.

The bill codifies an existing interagency committee on water availability and quality led by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and strengthens the committee by incorporating the suggestions of a 2004 National Academies Report entitled: ‘‘Confronting

the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of Research.’’

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us to offer

their recommendations on how federal water research programs

could be better shaped, and their thoughts on the draft legislation.

Our panel represents a wide range of interests, and I look forward

to hearing each perspective.

At this point, I will turn to our friend, the Ranking Member, Mr.

Inglis, for his opening remarks.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK LAMPSON

I want to welcome Members of the Subcommittee and our distinguished panelists

to today’s hearing on the creation of a National Water Initiative to improve and coordinate federal research on water.

Chairman Gordon plans to introduce legislation to establish a National Water Initiative to improve and coordinate federal research and development efforts on water.

I would like to thank him for his leadership and foresight in this area, and I look

forward to the opportunity to consider his legislation.

In order to meet the water demands of the future, it is essential that we have

the information we need to balance the water needs for municipalities, industry, agriculture, recreation, and power. The population in the United States has increased

by over 25 percent since 1973 while federal dollars for water research have remained stagnant.

A new commitment is needed to ensure that we can meet the water challenges

over the next twenty years and onward. Without the right data, it is impossible to

know if we are going in the right direction. The discussion draft before us today will

provide decision-makers at all levels of government with the tools they need to make

the tough decisions of the future.

8

The 2004 National Academies Report on Federal Water Research suggests that

the U.S. is not getting its money worth on water resources research because of a

lack of coordination. The Chairman’s discussion draft seeks to address this issue.

The bill codifies an existing interagency committee on water availability and quality led by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and strengthens the committee by incorporating the suggestions of a 2004 National Academies report entitled, ‘‘Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of Research.’’

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us to offer their recommendations on how federal water research programs could be better shaped and their

thoughts on the draft legislation. Our panel represents a wide range of interests,

and I look forward to hearing each perspective.

At this point I will turn to the distinguished Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Inglis for his opening statement.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this hearing. Water, as we know, is one of the essential ingredients of life,

and an issue this committee takes seriously. This is the second

hearing we have held in the Subcommittee on water resources research. We have also held a Full Committee hearing on the waterenergy nexus.

I don’t think there is a Member of this committee whose district

hasn’t been affected by water, either too much of it or not enough.

Not enough right now, in the 4th District of South Carolina.

I commend the Chairman for his draft legislation, which we will

be discussing today. I believe it is the first of many steps that have

been recommended to us by leading scientists, industry, academia,

and State and local governments. Coordinating research is a necessary part to responding to our nation’s water problems.

However, I would caution we not take, that we take care not to

repeat the mistakes of the executive branch, approaching water

legislation in the same ad hoc manner that agencies have approached water research. Last week, at our Full Committee markup, we passed two water research related bills out of the Committee. I would hope that the Chairman’s legislation doesn’t undermine what we have done in those two bills, but instead, enhances

their effect.

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses, and

I yield back the remainder of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.

Water is one of the ingredients of life and an issue this committee takes seriously.

This is the second hearing we have held in the Subcommittee on water resources

research. We have also held a Full Committee hearing on the energy-water nexus.

I don’t think there is a Member on this committee whose district has not been affected by water, either too much of it, or not enough.

I commend the Chairman for his draft legislation we will be discussing today. I

believe it is the first of many steps that have been recommended to us by leading

scientists, industry, academia and State and local governments. Coordinated research is a necessary part to responding to our nation’s water problems.

However, I would caution that we take care not to repeat the mistakes of the Executive Branch by approaching water legislation in the same ad hoc manner that

agencies have approached water research. Last week at our Full Committee markup, we passed two water research related bills out of Committee. I would hope that

the Chairman’s legislation does not undermine what we have done in those two

bills, but instead enhances their effect.

I look forward hearing from our distinguished witnesses, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

9

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. If there are additional opening statements, they will be placed in the record at this

point.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good morning and welcome to the Energy and Environment Subcommittee’s hearing on my draft legislation intended to improve the Federal Government’s efforts to

address changes in water use, supply, and demand in the United States.

I thank our panel of witnesses for testifying. I believe your perspectives are critical to developing an effective bill. I look forward to receiving your recommendations.

The draft legislation before us today builds on the Administration’s effort to coordinate federal research on water resources by establishing an interagency committee—the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ) of the National Science and Technology Council. The draft bill codifies this subcommittee and

provides it explicit Congressional authorization.

The bill also incorporates recommendations from the 2004 report by the National

Academies of Science entitled Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of

Federal Research to strengthen the Committee’s role in setting priorities and developing an integrated budget to support research on water resources. The Academy’s

report indicated that SWAQ is an effective forum for agencies to share information

about their efforts on water. However, the report identified several issues that needed to be addressed to make SWAQ an effective coordinating body.

The draft bill strengthens the budget function for SWAQ through participation of

OMB on the subcommittee. In addition, SWAQ is directed to engage in outreach activities to develop connections to State and local governments, to wider community

of stakeholders, and to the public. These recommendations, and others, helped to

form the basis of this draft legislation.

Water is essential to everything we do and there is no substitute for it. Many of

our districts are experiencing problems with water supply. If we are to resolve these

problems, we need an effective research and development effort that provides tools

and information to manage our water resources effectively. Coordination of the programs managed across 20 federal agencies is a logical place to start.

Again, I thank the witnesses for participating in the hearing this morning, and

I look forward to working with you as we go forward to ensure the Federal Government is doing all it can to promote effective water management.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today, as this is an important

opportunity to plan for the future and conserve our recourses appropriately. It’s a

matter of common sense that we must better coordinate research and technological

innovation to enhance water supplies and water quality on a national level.

As we all know from last summer’s droughts and rising concern surrounding global warming that water resource problems are growing both in number and in intensity. Over twenty federal agencies carry-out research and development on some aspect of water supply, and as recent reports have indicated, we must do more to better coordinate these efforts and together work towards solutions.

I am pleased to see that the beverage industry is represented on our panel of witnesses today, as they have taken important steps to address water usage policy-an

issue central to the vitality of their business. Fourtune Brands, an Illinois-based

company, has taken a leading role to promote smart technology and conservation

practices, and with companies like Anheuser-Busch have formed a coalition to come

together to share industry-wide best practices to reduce the use of water and conserve a valued natural resource.

I look forward to our testimony today, and I believe the proposed legislation is

an important step in planning for our nation’s future. Thank you Mr. Chairman for

your leadership of this subcommittee; and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Chairman LAMPSON. At this time, I am pleased to introduce our

panel of witnesses.

10

Dr. Mark Shannon is the Director of the United States Strategic

Water Initiative. Mr. Tod Christenson is the Director of the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable. Dr. Timothy T. Loftus

is a Water Resource Planner for Chicago Metropolitan Agency for

Planning. I enjoyed visiting your city for one hour last night while

our plane was diverted around the United States. Mr. Jerry Johnson is the General Manager, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority. Mr.

Bradley Spooner is the Principal Engineer for Environmental Services at Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and Dr. Upton

Hatch is the President-Elect of the National Institutes for Water

Resources.

You will each have five minutes for your spoken testimony. Your

written testimony will be included in the record for the hearing,

and when all of you complete your testimony, we will then begin

with questions, and each Member will have five minutes to question the panel. Dr. Shannon, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK A. SHANNON, DIRECTOR, CENTER

OF ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR THE PURIFICATION OF

WATER WITH SYSTEMS, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, URBANA–

CHAMPAIGN

Dr. SHANNON. Thank you very much. I am really happy to be

here. Thank you, Chairman Lampson and Ranking Member Inglis,

and others distinguished Members of the panel.

I am really excited to be here, because I think this bill is vitally

needed for this country, and it is the right thing at the right time,

and I really think it is actually visionary in its approach. So, I am

going to talk about a number of different things as quickly as I can,

because there are so many points to be made, but I really appreciate the fact that there is a real idea to focus in on trying to increase water supplies, and if I can have the next slide.

This is just a snapshot when I go around the world talking about

water issues, my record tends to focus on the arid Southwest. They

say we have real problems there, but this map shows issues related

to water, and depletions that are occurring over the country. And

the Southeast has serious issues, and the Midwest, near one of the

greatest bodies of freshwater in the world, has also major issues in

Illinois, as well as along the Ogallala Aquifer.

In order to increase supplies, we are seeing a real depletion of

groundwaters, and we need to look at new ways of doing this.

While the water sector invests about approximately $700 million in

research foundations, such as the American Water Works, and the

Water Environment Research Foundation, WateReuse, collectively

invests another $24 million, their efforts are really at applied research. I think a really important thing to do is to improve and advance the basic science and technologies, such that we can get new

technologies to fuse into the sector.

And so, as a representative of the U.S. Strategic Water Initiative,

one of the co-founders, what we are really wanting to do is take

the basic science that the United States is so good at developing.

We are really fantastic at that. But we really have a disconnect

with getting this diffused into practice, and so that we can have solutions. When the water supplies begin to drop, and we see a tremendous drop in the level of aquifers, that we can do something

11

about it. And I have a lot of hope that we can do this, and from

a science point of view there is lots of room to move. We are a

water planet. We have lots of water around it. It is just how we

use it, and how we incorporate it.

We are really looking at developing new technologies that can

then get diffused into practice, so that water managers around the

country can utilize this. One of these issues is sourcewater protection, and there is lots of critical issues there. There is a lot of water

in both saline and fresh aquifers, and that is where it is really

down. What we are seeing is that the water is getting saltier and

saltier and needing more and more treatment. So, we need to be

able to figure out how to do this effectively and affordably.

We need to understand what the withdrawal rates are for both

the freshwater aquifers and the saltwater aquifers that underlie

them. In addition, we need to understand what we can do about

the 800 billion gallons of water that we get from produced water.

That could be a fantastic source of water that currently is not.

There are a lot of sources of water that are available that we just

don’t use today. And with some more science and technology, we

can very effectively use these, and alleviate a lot of the problems

with source protection.

We have got to be able to prevent cross contamination because

as we start to pump down, cross contamination begins to require

more treatment. Can I have the next slide?

This is a projection of possible increases that are going to occur

by 2030, due to population growth. We are using more and more

water because of our economics. If you look at this, we are seeing

significant factors all over this country, and we are going to need

to see major investments by local areas. If you are looking over at

California, it doesn’t look like a large increase but they already use

so much that that is actually a huge value. We need to be able to

figure out, there is a lot of critical issues, I think, for the U.S., and

you know, I would like to go to the next slide.

To do sourcewater protection we need to be able to couple the

contamination in the sources. Finally, population growth is really

driving everything, and this one basically shows that if we are

going to increase our water supplies for this country by 62 percent

we need to start conservation. Then we would only need to increase

it by 30 percent.

That sort of gives you an overview of why I think we need

science and technology here. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Shannon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK A. SHANNON

Good morning Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, and distinguished

Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. I want to thank you

for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. I especially want to

thank Chairman Gordon for his leadership on this issue and for producing the legislation that we are providing testimony on today. I am Mark Shannon, Director of

the Center of Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water with Systems, a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center headquartered at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This Center focuses on finding solutions

to the coming water crisis through revolutionary advances in science and technology. We also have partnerships with major stakeholders in the water sector with

an active Industrial Affiliates program of companies across the U.S. with interests

12

1 Industrial Affiliates and Partners: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Applied Membrane Technologies (AMT), Biolabs/Chemtura, Clorox-Brita, Cargill, Culligan, Damon S. Williams Associates (DSWA), ITT, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Pentair, Porex

Porous Products, PPG, Praxair, Siemens, UOP/Honeywell, Water and Wastewater Equipment

Manufactures Association (WWEMA). 2List of signers: Ken Kirk—National Association of Clean Water Agencies; Mark Shannon,

Jian-Ku Shang, Michael Plewa, Eberhard Morgenroth, Timm Strathmann, Richard Sustich—

WaterCAMPWS/University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Kofi Bota, Eric Mintz—

WaterCAMPWS/Clark Atlanta University; Rishi Shukla—Archer Daniels Midland; Greg Pepping—University of Wisconsin; David Henderson—XPV Capital Corporation; Richard White—

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Shaurya Prakash—Rutgers University; Lutgarde

Raskin—University of Michigan; Slav Hermanowicz—University of California at Berkeley;

Tanna Borrell—University of Michigan; Scott Husson—Clemson University; Eva Steinle-Darling—Stanford University; Wen-Tso Liu—National University of Singapore; Daniel Brunelle—

GE Global Research; Mark Rigali—Sandia National Laboratories; Darren Sun—Nanyang Technical University; Franz Hoffman—Procorp Enterprises, Milwaukee.

in solutions to water problems.1 I am also the Co-Founder of the United States Strategic Water Initiative, which is a consortium of companies, academic researchers,

and water associations acting together to advance the science of water purification

and to accelerate delivery of new U.S. technologies necessary to increase and protect

fresh water supply.2 The premise of these activities and partnerships is that significant and technological advances are a critical component to meeting the future

water needs of our country and world. Our objectives are to develop new water purification technologies that can reduce the amount of energy and chemicals currently

used to treat water, and to create new methods to desalinate, reuse, decontaminate,

and disinfect waters so that we can gain new waters for human use from different

types of sourcewaters, including those that are not now considered usable. By doing

so, we will be able to expand the U.S. water supplies, without needing to transport

fresh waters over long distances at huge costs in capital and energy usage.

The different water using sectors (agriculture/livestock, energy, industry and mining, and domestic use) have different needs and requirements, for withdrawal, consumption, and discharge of waters. Importantly, what will work for one water use

sector may not work for another. However, as supplies become more constrained,

the impact of one sector on another becomes more important, and they are coupled

to each other. Moreover, due to the extent of river systems and aquifers, along with

the interdependencies of use, the effect on water supplies is no longer just a local

issue. For the Federal Government to adequately address all these issues across sectors, it is imperative that coordination and cooperation occur across the different

agencies working to find solutions to the water supply and availability issues.

I appreciate this opportunity to provide input to the Committee on the National

Water Research and Development Initiative. In my view, this visionary initiative is

the right effort at the right time to ensure that we stimulate water-related research

and development (R&D) that simultaneously lead to new opportunities for U.S. companies, not those of foreign countries, while solving current and future problems in

water supply and quality. This can be accomplished by improving and enhancing

federal research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer in

water use, supply, and demand, as well as conservation and management.

As the Committee is aware, water R&D in the United States is well more than

a century old, and is carried out by a wide range of research organizations at all

levels of government (Federal, State, and municipalities), by technology developers

and vendors, water associations, and the academic community. While the water

technology sector invests approximately $7 million and research foundations such

as the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Water Environment Research Foundation, and the WateReuse Foundation collectively invest another $24 million annually, their efforts are directed at applied research focused on

specific issues of interest to their subscribers. A great deal of additional research

is done at U.S. universities, water associations and State and local units of government. Beyond their work, there are a number of key areas in which direct and sponsored research at the federal level is essential. I would like to speak to what I believe those key areas in Science and Technology are that the proposed Bill can address.

Water Availability and Sourcewater Protection

The United States lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the actual amount of

water stored and recharged in currently utilized fresh water aquifers. Current data

indicate that levels in some monitored aquifers are dropping rapidly. For instance,

regions of the High Plains Aquifer south of the Canadian River in New Mexico and

Texas experienced water level declines of more than 60 feet between 1980 and 1999.

13

While there are regional efforts to look at these issues, a nationwide effort to inventory and quantify the existing fixed and recharging supplies of fresh, brackish and

saline water is critical not only for projecting water availability and sustainable

withdrawal capacities, but also for helping scientists, engineers, and planners

choose water supply and community development solutions that will be viable. The

effects of withdrawal and consequent salting on lands and lakes, as well as contamination rates of aquifers also need to be quantified. Critical issues for federal R&D

include assessment of (i) the waters contained in both freshwater and saline/brackish aquifers, (ii) the withdrawal and recharge rates of both, (iii) the amount of communication between surface and both types of groundwaters and adjacent watersheds, and (iv) the degree of cross-contamination occurring between sourcewaters.

Research Needs for Development of New Water Supplies

Local water demands from population and economic growth will vary throughout

the United States, with many areas likely to experience very high growth rates over

the next 30 years. Conventional sources of water may not be available or too expensive to develop, and conservation and efficiency may not be enough to ease demand.

New water supplies will be needed for these areas.

14

Meaningful increases in potable water supplies can only be achieved through

reuse of existing wastewater and development of brackish and saline sources—to

gain new supplies everywhere from the ‘‘sea to sink to the sea again.’’ This effort

will need to focus on augmenting water supplies via desalination of seawater and

brackish aquifers, as well as through direct reuse of municipal, agricultural, and

produced wastewaters from energy and industrial operations. From a purification

standpoint, brackish aquifers and wastewaters present even greater challenges than

seawater desalination. Crucial issues to utilizing inland brackish lakes and aquifers

include developing methods and materials that can separate hard water dissolved

solids with minimal fouling, and minimizing residuals created during desalination

and reclamation of contaminated and brackish sourcewaters. Critical issues for federal R&D include (i) establishment of standards for potable and non-potable waters

derived from these sources, (ii) education of the public of the need and safety of potable waters derived from sources that meet the standards to gain widespread acceptance, and (iii) development of resource recovery methodologies for concentrate

residuals and brine from brackish and saline sources, and energy and chemicals

from wastewater.

Contaminant Detection, Decontamination and Removal

An emerging trend impacting water supplies is that contamination of

sourcewaters, in particular groundwater aquifers that were previously clean, is either reducing supplies or is requiring costly cleanup or extensive treatment of the

waters to be used by humans. To maintain the viability of these and new

sourcewaters, efficient removal of contaminants from all types of water sources is

needed, to get the ‘‘drop of poison out of an ocean of water.’’

Current treatment technologies are typically not contaminant-specific, resulting in

excessive use of energy and chemicals during treatment, as well as necessitating the

removal of benign constituents and excessive generation of residuals requiring further processing and disposal. Efforts to develop more marginal water sources, due

to increasing demand and depletion of existing sources, will likely become prohibitively expensive using conventional approaches. A major cost factor in removing

trace amounts of critical contaminants from sourcewaters is that large quantities of

benign, potable constituents are also removed. Using treated low-cost materials such

as naturally derived Chitosan from crustaceans, or new and reusable swellable glass

sorbents that can selectively and affordably remove contaminants such as heavy

15

metals and petroleum distillates, freeing up waters for human use. Additionally,

real-time, in situ detection, adsorption, and/or catalytic destruction of potential warfare/terrorism agents are major challenges for the water industry. If we can know

in near real time what contaminants are present in sourcewaters, and mitigate potential dangers from contaminants, we can prevent major losses in water supplies

to large number of our people in times of crisis. Critical issues for federal research

include (i) establishment of what classes of contaminants need to be removed together, (ii) determination of necessary contaminant detection levels and reliability

of in-situ monitoring, and (iii) standards for disposal of contaminants recovered from

reused and reclaimed waters.

Pathogen Detection and Removal

Similar to chemical contamination, waterborne pathogens can sicken significant

numbers of people, and if introduced to water systems naturally or deliberately, or

via cross-contamination with waste systems, can render even major water supplies

unusable. Moreover, treatment for pathogens can also inadvertently introduce toxic

compounds to water supplies. Disinfection technologies that effectively deactivate

known and emerging pathogens without producing toxic substances are needed to

‘‘beat chlorination.’’ New and affordable materials, methods, and systems are necessary to provide drinking water free of harmful viral, bacterial and protozoan

pathogens, while avoiding the formation of toxic by-products or impairing the treatment of other contaminants. Low cost materials such as proteins from harvested

Moringa seeds can remove pathogens such as viruses from water, and new sunlight

activated catalysts can potentially disinfect waters from a host of pathogens without

using additional chemicals or energy. A key unsolved problem is the detection and

removal of new and/or evolving infective viruses, and resistant pathogens to standard chemical treatment. Critical issues for federal R&D include (i) development of

standards and accepted modalities for determining infectivity of pathogens in water

for near real time detection, and (ii) establishment of risk assessment and mitigation for disinfection by-products from current and new treatment methods.

Water Conservation and Reuse

Population growth projections show that conservation alone will not be enough to

meet future water demand in many parts of the United States. Projected population

growth of 100 to 130 million people over the next 32 years in the U.S. will put further stress on water demand.

16

With current growth in consumption patterns with respect to domestic, industrial,

agricultural, and energy usage, the U.S. will need to increase total water supplies

by up to 60 percent using current technologies. Moreover, combined with changing

demographics, this population growth will cause increases of over 100 percent for

many cities and large metropolitan areas across the U.S., likely causing critical

water shortages. Even if we are able to maintain per capita consumption at 2000

levels, we will need more than a 40% increase in water supply capacity by 2040.

Reduction in per capita water consumption must therefore be an essential part of

our national strategy to extend the service capabilities of current and future water

supplies and associated infrastructure. A key issue is that leakage of drinking water

from the distribution network, and water main breaks is the same as loss in supply.

Reducing leakage in the infrastructure will not only effectively increase water supplies, but it will reduce the amount of energy and chemicals used to create and

transport potable water, and the overall operation and maintenance costs. Conservation via improved efficiencies and reduction in waste can dramatically reduce overall

costs of providing clean water. Research efforts that focus on minimizing the withdrawal of water and on the conversion of direct draw applications to reuse systems

have the potential to substantially reduce projected water needs, particularly for

specific watersheds and aquifers. Critical issues for federal R&D include (i) assessment of interactions between different water use sectors (agriculture, livestock, mining, energy, domestic, and industry) on water use, conservation, and reuse, and (ii)

understanding the environmental impact of changing withdrawal, consumption, and

discharge patterns on overall water systems.

Scalability, Ramp-Up and Technology Diffusion

We have the scientific and engineering capabilities in our universities and government and national laboratories to make great discoveries and find sustainable solutions to our problems, but unless a means to move these advances from the laboratory to full production is possible, these innovations will, unfortunately, remain in

the laboratory. Further, many novel approaches to problems, while scientifically intriguing, may not take into consideration the costs of mass production or implementation. Scalability focuses on capacity for researchers to incorporate benchmarking

and manufacturing scale-up considerations as well as facilitating the testing and

movement of new materials and procedures to industry. For a technology to be successful the total life cycle costs must be favorable and it must win in the marketplace. Moreover, with respect to potable water systems, a history of performance efVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
17

ficacy and costs of installation and operation must be available for water managers

to select with confidence one technology over another. Because of its oversight role

with respect to drinking water, wastewater and environmental quality, research

into, and development of low-cost, highly-adaptable technology verification methods

is appropriate at the federal level to encourage diffusion and adoption of innovative

water technologies under various State and local programs.

Perhaps just as importantly, developing new innovative and cost effective technologies in water purification can help position U.S. companies to compete in the

rapidly expanding worldwide markets for water technology. Many nations around

the world (China, India, Singapore, Switzerland, and within the EU) are pouring

money and resources into developing new science and technologies for increasing

water supplies and for new purification methods. While the U.S. still leads in basic

science, we are falling behind in technology diffusion into the marketplace. The

WaterCAMPWS Industrial Affiliates and the signers of the U.S. Strategic Water Initiative are anxious to develop new products to solve the critical problems facing the

U.S. and world and to actively compete in this growing market for water products

and systems.

Comments on the draft National Water Research and Development Initiative legislation

Now I would like to shift my comments to the draft National Water Research and

Development Initiative legislation before the Committee.

We certainly concur with the Committee that our nation will benefit substantively

from the establishment of a National Water Research and Development Initiative,

and the creation and execution of a National Water Availability Research and Development Plan. There are many water-related research and management activities

across the federal agencies, from Agriculture, to Energy and the Defense Departments, to EPA, to NASA and to NOAA, just to name a few. Not only will lateral

coordination across agency activities enhance the return on current water investments across the agencies, but it will also facilitate the identification and evaluation

of further research opportunities for future investment.

Recommendation for National Water Research and Development Advisory

Committee

We have initiated a similar effort, known as the United States Strategic Water

Initiative (USSWI), including stakeholders from federal, State and municipal research programs, academia, water technology developers, and major water users

such as the agriculture and energy sectors. The goals of USSWI are to:

• Increase basic science and technology research of water purification in academic and government research laboratories to enhance innovation and

American competitiveness;

• Provide feedback from water associations, suppliers, users, practitioners, government officials, and the public on water purification needs, technologies,

and product performance to S&T researchers;

• Provide a direct path for new ideas and technologies created in research laboratories to be evaluated, demonstrated, verified, and certified;

• Foster public and private investment in water purification research, and accelerate the diffusion of technologies (implementation, commercialization, and

adoption) that emerge from such research;

• Establish a cooperative research agenda including a prioritized list of gaps,

needs, and opportunities in water science and technology.

Because a substantial water research and development effort already exists outside the federal agencies, we believe that input from this external community is essential to the successful development and implementation of the Plan envisioned in

the Act. We therefore recommend that the Act include establishment of a standing

National Water Research and Development Advisory Committee under the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, to provide advice and counsel to the Interagency Committee and information on extra-mural water research and development activities

to the National Water Initiative Outreach Office.

We strongly support the creation of national interdisciplinary research Centers

with participation from U.S. universities, water associations and research foundations, and the private sector including technology companies, innovators, and finance, to accelerate the diffusion of new science and technologies from federal,

State, and local research laboratories, as well as university and foundation funded

research, into the marketplace. The Centers should likely be independently manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
18

aged with governing boards that include the participating stakeholders along with

relevant agencies.

National Water Availability Research and Assessment Plan Outcomes

We are very pleased with the desired outcomes of the Plan, and would like to offer

several minor revisions aimed at enhancing the practical value of the Plan for improving water management:

a) implementation of a National Water Census, which shall include the collection of water data to create a comprehensive water database that includes

information on available quantity, quality, consumption, recharge capacity

and threats to groundwater and surface water resources;

b) development of a new generation of water monitoring techniques in support

of the other outcomes of this subsection;

c) development and expansion of technologies for enhancing reliable water supply, management and reclamation;

d) development of innovative, maximally-efficient water-use technologies and

tools to enhance public acceptance;

e) development of collaborative tools and processes for U.S. water solutions;

f) advancement of understanding of the water-related ecosystem services, ecosystem needs for water, and opportunities for ecosystem management through

beneficial water reclamation;

g) improvement of hydrologic prediction models and their applications;

h) enhancement of technology transfer to, and technology adoption by the water

management community;

i) analyses of the energy needs and identification of energy conservation opportunities in providing water supplies across the country;

j) assessment of, and mitigation strategies to address, the impacts of economic,

demographic, climatic, and technological changes that have contributed to

changes in our nation’s water availability and quality;

k) creation of national research and technology Centers for accelerating the diffusion of science and technology from Federal and other government funded

research to practice.

Minimum Funding for Act-Related Activities—Section 2(b)(4)(B)

We are concerned that the Act does not authorize the appropriation of funds to

carry out the objectives of the Act, but relies on contributions from the agencies represented on the Interagency Committee. To the extent practicable, we recommend

that an aggregated contribution sufficient to carry out the objectives of the Act be

included in this section. To fully accomplish the research objectives under the Plan,

we anticipate that substantial increases in appropriations to participating federal

agencies will be necessary. To create new national research Centers additional funding will be needed. Other nations establishing such Centers, such as two in Singapore, are funding them at $30 million per year per Center for periods of five to ten

years, with similar investments by the private sector. A greater amount is being expended in Switzerland (∼$100 million/year) to develop new technologies to reduce

water usage in the domestic and particularly the energy sectors. It is likely that a

greater level of funding will be needed in the U.S. to solve the larger problems the

U.S. faces over several sectors and over disparate geographic regions. The basic research in water science and technology for increasing water supplies, efficiency, and

conservation that I am aware of is funded at about $12 million/year between the

NSF, EPA, and DOE. To rapidly increase water R&D, we recommend that this Act

authorize a federal funding level of $100 million per annum beginning in FY 2010

with annual increases of five percent through 2019.

In closing, on behalf of the academic research community and the water technology sector commend the Committee for recognizing the need for coordination

across the breadth of federal agencies conducting water-related research. The proposed National Water Research and Development Initiative is vital for the United

States. The Initiative is visionary and will ensure the U.S. will be the leader in creating solutions for the pending crisis in water availability that has is already impacting the quality of life of many U.S. citizens, and this is only the beginning of

the coming problems. For our part, we stand committed to assisting the proposed

Interagency Committee in the development of a National Water Availability Research and Assessment Plan and in coordinating our own work in furtherance of

19

such a Plan. It is our fervent belief that this coordination is essential to the Nation’s

success in addressing water management issues, both now and in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to

provide this testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARK A. SHANNON

Mark A. Shannon is the Director of the National Science Foundation Science and

Technology Center for Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water with Systems, the WaterCAMPWS, which is a multiple university and government laboratory

center for advancing the science and engineering of materials and systems for revolutionary improvements in water purification for human use, with participation

from companies across the water sector spectrum from utilities to vendors to consultants. He is also the Co-Founder of the United States Strategic Water Initiative,

which is a consortium of companies, individuals, and water associations acting together to advance the science of water purification and to accelerate delivery of new

U.S. technologies necessary to increase and protect fresh water supply. He is the

James W. Bayne Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign, and received his B.S. (1989) M.S. (1991) and Ph.D. (1993)

degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley.

He received the NSF Career Award in 1997 to advance microfabrication technologies, the Xerox Award for Excellence in Research (2004), the Kritzer Scholar

(2003–2006), the Willet Faculty Scholar (2004–2007), and received the BP Innovation in Education Award in 2006.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Christenson, you

are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. TOD D. CHRISTENSON, CHAIRPERSON,

BEVERAGE INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL ROUNDTABLE (BIER)

Mr. CHRISTENSON. Thank you, Chairman Lampson and Ranking

Member Inglis, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My

name is Tod Christenson. I am the Director and Chair for the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable, not so coincidentally

named BIER, B-I-E-R.

BIER is a unique, creative, voluntary collaboration of 12 global

beverage companies from across four beverage sectors, beer, wine,

distilled spirits, and nonalcoholic beverages. Our member companies operate nearly 200 production and packaging facilities spread

across 35 states, with many, many auxiliary operations.

BIER is unique in that it is an independent, proactive convenience of private industry working together to drive water conservation, resource protection, energy efficiency, and climate change

mitigation. We do this through benchmarking and data collection,

best practice sharing, as well as working on various venues like

this to inform public policy.

We are here today to applaud the Subcommittee and Chairman

Bart Gordon for their focus and commitment to look at policy

changes that will allow us to succeed in meeting our country’s

water challenges today and into the future. We applaud the opportunity of this act under consideration, to provide for the Federal

Government to demonstrate leadership, employing its role in

inventorying and coordinating collaboration on water initiatives

from across the federal agencies, facilitating commitment to allocation of resources to support the research and development, creating

space for stakeholders to come together and share and input to this

process, and the ensuing agenda that is implied. And as well, in

building awareness, both across industry and government, and

within the public domain itself.

20

The September 2007 Strategy Report, which we have been provided a copy with, produced by the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources,

which we understand is a founding work leading to today’s policy

discussion, we believe is an excellent work product. It is one that

provides both a comprehensive look at water challenges we face

today, and expect in the future, as well as outlines what we believe

are some implied research and development activities and needs

going forward. We support the current policy considerations, and

those that will lead to streamlining, increased efficiency, and collaborative efforts across federal agencies. We believe that is a very

important factor for us. It provides a much stronger working environment for our industries.

A few of the research priorities that we would note include a

comprehensive water resource inventory, but not only of today, but

looking at future needs and possibly doing some scenario planning.

We believe there is a need in research to assess our country’s water

infrastructure, which includes both supply, delivery, as well as

treatment capabilities.

As many of us know, we have an aging infrastructure. There is

a lot of opportunity for conservation within that structure, and we

believe that a thorough assessment needs and opportunities assessment of the system is warranted. We also believe in the priorities

innovative technology and practice development. As Dr. Shannon

has implied here, I believe that is an important piece.

Public awareness and education is the fourth piece that we see

that needs development. We need to improve the practices of our

public, of our industry, and create a greater level of focus to water

stewardship.

We would like to leave you with a couple thoughts for consideration as you move forward in the policy development efforts. To

highlight a few points of my written testimony that has been submitted, we would ask you to consider establishing a long-term vision, and empower the developing interagency committee with clear

goals and milestones aligned with the developed vision. We see an

opportunity, given the current roles, that State and tribal entities

play in water management today, for incorporation of that role into

the work of the interagency committee, and/or future policy development.

We hope you consider the experience, knowledge, and technology

that resides in American industry groups and NGOs, and those

that they will be developing into the future. There is quite a bit

of energy and money being put towards water consumption and efficiency technologies, to drive water use efficiency within our industry. There is a lot of valuable technology out there to be mined, distributed and shared. We see that as a role of the Federal Government to help facilitate.

Lastly, Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, water

issues are a serious and growing concern with all Americans. We

will need new technologies, changes in water use practices, and

new collaborations across all industry, public, and governmental

concerns to meet our future challenges.

21

To these efforts, you have our full support. On behalf of the

BIER member companies and myself, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christenson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOD D. CHRISTENSON

Chairman Lampson and Ranking Member Hall. My name is Tod Christenson; I

am a senior consultant with Delta Consultants and Director of the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER). I have a Masters in Geology and Organic

Chemistry with over 20 years of experience in working with private industry on

strategically important environmental issues. My office is in St. Paul, Minnesota.

On behalf of BIER, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this

written testimony.

BIER Background

First, I would like to introduce the organization I am representing with this testimony; BIER. BIER is a voluntary convenience of twelve global, leading beverage

companies and two leading beverage industry suppliers. BIER is facilitated by myself and additionally supported by colleagues of mine from Delta Consultants (HQ

in St. Paul, Minnesota).

Founded in August 2006, BIER member companies build on the technical knowledge and skill, brand power and strength in aggregate to make meaningful impact

to water conservation and resource management, energy efficiency and climate

change mitigation through reduction in carbon emissions. The group strives to be

industry leading and serve as a role model in industry sector collaboration within

the space of environmental stewardship.

The current members of BIER are:

• Anheuser-Busch.

• Bacardi

• Beam Global Spirits & Wine

• Brown Forman Corporation

• Coca-Cola Enterprises

• Diageo

• Danone

• Miller Coors (previously Coors Brewing Company)

• Nestle Waters North America

• PepsiCo

• Pepsi Bottling Group

• The Coca-Cola Company

• Ecolab

• JohnsonDiversey

BIER’s current agenda involves the following key initiatives:

• Developing common frameworks to guide our working agendas in water conservation and resource management, energy efficiency and climate change

mitigation.

• Qualitative benchmarking of Water Conservation Practices (2007) and Watershed Management Practices (2008)—the benchmarking results are used in developing the best practice sharing agenda, defining current best practices and

identifying individual company opportunities for improvement.

• Water Use and Efficiency Benchmarking (2007 & 2008)—a quantitative measurement of water use and efficiency across the varied beverage industry sectors.

• Best Practice Guidance Tool Development—recent topics included drought

preparedness and management, rainwater harvesting, clean-in-place (CIP)

and water use, re-use, and recycle practices.

• Beverage Industry Sector Guidance for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reporting—a sector specific guidance to support calculation of GHG emissions

against the World Resource Institute (enterprise basis) and British Standards

Institute (PAS–2050; Life Cycle Assessment or Product) GHG protocols.

22

• Stakeholder Engagement—taking a variety of forms, BIER is actively engaging with external stakeholders to build awareness, collaborate and inform

public policy development as it relates to water conservation and resource

protection, energy efficiency and climate change mitigation.

Water is Common Thread between Diverse Beverage Companies

The beverage companies that constitute BIER membership represent four unique

sectors of the beverage industry: beer, distilled spirits, wine, and non-alcoholic beverages.

In the United States alone, member companies operate nearly 200 production and

packaging locations spread across 35 states, with many other auxiliary locations.

Member operations also extend into agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and

even tourism sectors. BIER membership constitutes a majority of beer, carbonated

soft drink, non-carbonated beverages, and bottled water sales in the United States.

The congregation of these companies is rather unique, given the significant difference in their operations. However, all of the companies are tied together by a common thread: each of their products share water as the primary ingredient.

Members of the beverage industry have identified that access to clean water is

not only an essential concern to business continuity, but a basic human need.

To this end, beverage companies have donated many millions of servings of clean

drinking water in response to domestic emergency situations, such as hurricane relief and recent floods in the Mississippi River Basin. In other communities, beverage

companies contribute to resource management by receiving municipal wastewater to

their treatment systems and sharing technical experts with community planning

agencies.

However, BIER members truly stand out in the realm of resource management

and water conservation technologies. Member companies are continually challenging

themselves to be more efficient with their resources, and to ensure that operations

are conducted in a manner that will sustain business and quality water access for

generations to come. The simple fact that these companies have been convening for

the past two years on a quarterly basis to discuss matters of environmental conservation demonstrates their awareness to these issues and willingness to allocate

resources to pursue environmental solutions.

Among the most notable achievements of BIER membership in water conservation

and resource management are:

• Universal improvements in water efficiency from 2005 to 2006, through which

the industry avoided the use of over nine billion liters of water. This is

enough water to support the annual home water use of 65,000 Americans.

• Development of internal environmental management systems and water management systems which promote and communicate best practices and drive

continuous improvement through data measurement and goal setting.

• Implemented water reuse for non-product uses and beneficial reuse of wastewater for energy recovery and agricultural uses.

• Collaborative effort through benchmarking studies and practice sharing sessions to advance drought management planning efforts and watershed management through third-party communication efforts.

• Community engagement efforts through educational initiatives, community

awareness fairs and organized habitat cleanups.

General Comments

BIER applauds the efforts embodied in the proposed ‘‘National Water Research

and Development Initiative Act of 2008,’’ and we thank this subcommittee and Committee Chairman Bart Gordon for your focus and commitment. Combined, these efforts will provide a framework that will allow all of us to succeed in meeting the

water conservation challenges of the future.

As an industry that relies on water as a core ingredient to the very products we

produce and given the challenges we envision going forward in maintaining adequate supply and water quality to meet all the needs of our country and society,

we believe your efforts will be very useful and help assure availability and access

of this precious natural resource well into the future.

We have separated our input into three basic categories for your consideration

and offer an end-user perspective in the interest of helping shape policies that will

benefit all consumers and users of our water resources.

23

Role of Federal Government in Water Supply, Water Conservation, and

Water Management

We applaud the opportunity this Act provides for the Federal Government to demonstrate leadership on many key aspects of water supply, water conservation and

water management in an active and well coordinated way.

We view the principal role of Federal Government as it relates to water supply,

water conservation and water management, to include the following functions:

1. Inventory, coordinate and communicate the existing work being performed

across all federal agencies. In doing so, ensure improved coordination, interagency collaboration and development of priority projects that have clear

deliverables.

2. Commit and allocate resources to support and drive the needed research and

development on water-related issues.

3. Create the space for stakeholders to come together and share technology and

innovations.

4. Support innovative water projects and promote water conservation practices

across both public and private industry.

5. Create tools to promote and enact water efficiency practices and technologies.

6. Build public, industry and state/local/tribal awareness on water issues and

solutions that our country is facing today and will be facing tomorrow.

7. Drive responsible ‘‘water stewardship’’ behavior and practice across all aspects of our society (public and private) without favor (RE: in an unbiased

and non-partisan fashion).

8. Drive efficient water consumption and use across the Federal Government

enterprise, instilling in our Federal Government a culture of water stewardship; in essence lead by example when it comes to water supply, conservation

and water management practices and performance improvement.

9. Execute its’ strategic water agenda against a long-term vision for achievement and in a manner that makes very clear the role of the Federal Government and States.

Priority Needs for Federal Research and Development

The work completed by the National Science and Technology Council Committee

on Environment and Natural Resources entitled ‘‘A Strategy for Federal Science and

Technology To support Water Availability and Quality In The United States (September, 2007) was a very comprehensive look at the challenges facing this country

and thus the implied research and development work that would benefit sound

stewardship of our country’s water resources. It is a thorough summary of the challenges in meeting our future water demands and facing the challenges. We recognize that much work is currently being done or has been initiated on meeting these

challenges. We also recognize that the current policies under development will lead

to a more streamlined, efficient and collaborative effort as the various federal agencies work to address the variety of these challenges and we applaud the efforts of

all federal and State agencies involved. Rather than add to the list of challenges

and needs, we instead, offer what we see as a few of the priorities of focus for federal research support.

1. Water resources inventory (mapping) and needs forecasting and/or scenario

planning.

2. U.S. water supply, delivery and treatment infrastructure assessment.

3. Innovative technology development in how we use supply, treat, re-use water

and direct water to beneficial re-use.

4. Public awareness and education on re-use technologies and advanced water

treatment technology.

5. Water conservation behavior modification practices and tools; i.e., methods to

shift our attitude and culture to be more sensitive to water stewardship

needs and continue to drive improvement and public and industry water

management performance.

Regardless, of the specific projects taken forth, we feel it is important that priorities for research and development be established in alignment with the desired endstate vision and strategic plan set forth by the Interagency Committee. Further, any

research taken on needs to include clear delineation of expectations or outcomes, be

appropriately resourced and aggressively driven to completion.

24

Considerations Moving Forward

As your Subcommittee moves forward from this hearing, Mr. Chairman, we offer

some thoughts for your consideration.

1. The consideration of goals and/or milestones might help enhance the important work you envision for the Interagency Committee in increasing the efficiency and use of federal funds, streamlining the efforts on the all critical

issues related to water management, and setting the foundation for some

very collaborative and creative solutions.

2. We see an opportunity, given the current roles that State and tribal entities

play in water management, for an incorporation of that role in the work of

the Interagency Committee in managing our country’s water resources.

3. We applaud the purpose to drive greater interagency collaboration, and hope

that you will consider the experience, technology and knowledge of water

management that likewise resides in American industry groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

4. Much work has and is currently being developed to assess existing water resource availability, access and quality across many states and tribal lands.

In addition agencies like the U.S. Geological Survey have numerous on-going

research projects that involve inventorying/mapping/monitoring of our water

supplies and quality. We hope you will consider leveraging the work being

done in assessing water supply, quality, forecasting future needs, etc. and

would encourage you to provide additional clarification on Water Research

Outcome number one (Under Section 2 (d) (1)).

5. Given the general age and current state of our country’s water delivery and

treatment infrastructure(s), we suggest a Water Research Outcome be considered to provide for an assessment of our current water supply, delivery

and treatment infrastructure, with an eye toward allowing us to improve the

reliability, conservation and efficiency along the complete water supply

chain.

6. As it relates to long-term water resources planning and needs assessment,

we would suggest adding a Water Research Outcome that involves future use

forecasting or scenario planning for future water supply, availability and

quality as may be impacted by evolving demographics, public and industry

needs and/or climate change.

Closing

Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Hall and Members of the Subcommittee,

water issues are a serious issue for our country. We are facing increased water

shortages and distribution challenges. We have an aging infrastructure and in general, a society that has not yet fully embraced the need for improved water stewardship. Technologies exist today that will help us meet some of the challenges, but

additional innovation in technology, practices and new collaborations will be needed

to meet future challenges. As one end-user and as an industry that relies on reliable

supply and quality water, the beverage industry takes water conservation and resource protection very seriously. It is an area that will continue to receive our attention and represents an area we will work to provide leading effort.

We are thankful for the opportunity to provide testimony and hope we have the

opportunity to continue to work with this subcommittee and any resulting policy developments.

As you examine the policy considerations before you today, and consider taking

a bold new step in helping the management of our country’s limited water resources,

we hope that our input has been helpful. We look forward to working with all of

you in the future.

On behalf of all BIER Member Companies, thank you!.

BIOGRAPHY FOR TOD D. CHRISTENSON

Experience Summary

Tod D. Christenson has more than 20 years of professional experience as an environmental strategic thinking partner to private industry. He is a management consultant with unique skills and expertise in the following areas.

• strategic thinking and planning,

• business meeting facilitation,

• benchmarking,

25

• environmental organizational diagnosis and coaching,

• goal setting and performance management

• corporate social responsibility

• environmental sustainability

Tod utilizes his technical knowledge and management skills in leading for Delta

Consultants its’ delivery of Corporate Responsibility and Benchmarking practices.

Tod is fluent in all aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), helping customers develop, and implement affirmative CSR disciplines across their enterprises.

Education

M.S. Masters of Geology and Organic Chemistry, Idaho State University, Pocatello,

Idaho

B.A. Bachelor of Arts in Geology, St. Thomas University, St. Paul, Minnesota

Advanced Professional Training Course Work in Contract Management, Facilitation,

Organizational Diagnosis.

Current/Recent Speaking Engagements

Water Stewardship in the Beverage Industry—Wal-Mart Supplier Water Stewardship Forum, Bentonville, AR, March 2008.

Water Sustainability and Stewardship—Keynote Speaker, 20th Annual Canadian Bottled Water Convention, Niagara Falls, Ontario, April 2008.

Sustainability Metrics Development and Measurement—Grocery Manufacturers Association 1st Annual Sustainability Summit, Washington, DC, February

2008.

EHS and Sustainability Metrics Management Systems—Air & Waste Management Association, Atlanta, GA, December 2006.

Water Conservation in the Beverage Industry—International Society of Beverage Technologists, May 2006.

Representative Project Experience

Affirmative Environmental Sustainability Discipline Consultation—2007 to

current

Senior consultant supporting the development and implementation of an affirmative environmental sustainability discipline for a global, diversified consumer products company. The consulting assignments involve participation in setting strategic

direction, designing governance structures and facilitating working groups in the

areas of product stewardship, eco-efficiency and communications and training.

Metrics development and baseline measurement represent additional area of consultative support and comprises the aspect of internal benchmarking to drive continuous improvement and external reporting.

Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BEIR)—2006 to current

Director of BIER whose mission is to drive continuous improvement and inform

public policy as it relates to Water Stewardship, Energy Efficiency and Climate

Change Mitigation.

As Director, Tod is applying his leadership skills to coalesce this voluntary industry collaboration to develop a common framework for environmental stewardship,

share best practices and use the collective knowledge, expertise and shared

learnings to affect public policy.

Under Tod’s leadership, BIER is currently:

• developing a GHG Protocol for the beverage sector following World Resource

Institute (Enterprise) and British Standards Institute (Life cycle) protocols,

• developing industry best practice guidance tools,

• facilitating cross industry collaboration and networking, and

• is helping the global, brand leading beverage companies achieve new standards of performance.

BIER participants include global environmental affairs, marketing communications and public affairs leaders from the following beverage companies: AnheuserBusch, Bacardi, Beam Global Spirits & Wines, Brown Forman, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Danone, Diageo, Miller Coors, Nestle Waters North America, PepsiCo InterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
26

national, The Coca-Cola Company, and Pepsi Bottling Group. Additionally, Ecolab

and JohnsonDiversey participate as key suppliers to the beverage industry.

Water Use and Efficiency Benchmarking to the Food and Beverage Industry—2005

Project Manager and lead consultant on the benchmarking of water use and efficiency across a diverse group of companies in the food and beverage industries. Participants include world-wide organizations as Coca-Cola, Cadbury Schweppes,

Heineken, SAB Miller, Molson Coors, and others. The focus of this environmental

sustainability-related benchmarking study focused on the aspects of Total Water

Use, Water Use Ratios, Efficiency Initiatives, and company Watershed Protection

Programs.

Environmental Liability Management Benchmarking—1999–Present

Lead consultant and project manager for the Annual Petroleum Industry Environmental Liability Management Benchmarking Study. The participants for these annual studies and practice exchange summits have included, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Sunoco, Ashland, Marathon Oil Company, Amerada Hess, Getty Realty,

Shell Oil Products and ExxonMobil. Responsibilities include: participant interview

(data collection), data analysis and presentation of findings on the ELM business

practices and processes component of the benchmarking study. The annual

benchmarking studies covers liability management business processes/practices and

performance metrics for Downstream Petroleum operations that relate to refining,

bulk storage, pipeline and retail distribution.

The work is conducted annually and culminates in a Summit where participants

engage with their peers in best practice sharing and common environmental issue

problem-solving.

Portfolio Analysis and Organizational Design—2002

Project Manager and lead consultant for a major oil company’s liability management organization portfolio analysis and organizational design. Responsibilities included: providing coaching to the responsible manager, developing a process plan for

developing the optimum organizational management scheme, and facilitation of the

organization through the process of designing and implementation of the new organization.

Personal

Tod is married (27 years) and with his wife Kim has three children; Jenni (21),

Jack (20) and Jacy (16). Tod enjoys all forms of outdoor activities, is an avid reader

for entertainment and enjoys the abundant water resources of his native and home

State of Minnesota.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Christenson. I will get that

out in a minute. And Dr. Loftus, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. TIMOTHY T. LOFTUS, PROJECT DIRECTOR, NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS RREGIONAL WATER SUPPLY

PLANNING, CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING

Dr. LOFTUS. Chairman Lampson, Members of the Illinois delegation, and fellow Members of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to comment this morning.

I come before you to speak of implementing a new National

Water Research and Development Initiative. On behalf of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and with funding from the

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, I have had the privilege

for the past two years of leading a new regional water supply planning initiative in an 11 county Greater Chicago region. This regional planning effort was initiated following Illinois Governor Rod

Blagojevich’s Executive Order 20061.

27

The National Water Initiative could provide states, local partners, and the private sector with the guidance and information necessary to meet the challenges similar to what we have encountered

during this initial phase of planning in Illinois. For example, earlier this month, CMAP issued a water demand study for our region

that reveals gaps in data due to inadequate water use reporting.

It has been said that you can’t manage what you don’t measure.

Thus, the current status of water use reporting must be addressed

if we are to fully grasp how future water demand will reconcile

with our water supplies.

The National Water Initiative should enable states and their

local planning partners to address the need for comprehensive reporting across all water use sectors as part of a new National

Water Census that has been recommended by the Subcommittee on

Water Availability and Quality.

The population in the Chicago metropolitan region is projected to

grow by over three million people, or 38 percent by the near 2050.

Water demand scenarios for our region indicate that water use

could increase as much as 64 percent during that time, absent any

policy intervention, and without specific strategies for actively

managing both demand and supply. Factoring in climate change

scenarios reveals that demand for our water in our region could

grow even further.

On the supply side, our region’s water sources are generous, but

finite. Illinois access to Lake Michigan water is constrained by U.S.

Supreme Court consent decree. The deep bedrock aquifer underlying Northeastern Illinois is being de-watered. The system of shallow aquifers shows evidence of increasing contamination from

chlorides. Our two inland river sources are threatened by non-point

source pollution, and required to maintain minimum in-stream

flows. Overall, as elsewhere in the United States, our challenge in

the Chicago region is not so much scarcity, but water waste, and

an institutional structure for water management that leaves plenty

of room for improvement.

As part of our charge from the State, CMAP created a 35-member Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply Planning Group

composed of elected officials, private sector representatives, and

other stakeholders. The Regional Water Group has already adopted

several water use conservation and efficiency measures as the centerpiece of the nascent Regional Water Supply Plan that is expected next year.

Regrettably, our regional studies funding is currently jeopardized

by State of Illinois budget issues. While our planning effort in

Northeastern Illinois is proactive rather than a response to a crisis

situation, I can tell you from experience that it is difficult to get

people to take a long-term view. That can be one important function of the National Water Research and Development Initiative, to

define and help implement a water conservation and efficiency

agenda that encourages long-range planning by giving clear guidance to states and the private sector alike.

The National Water Initiative’s promise of improved horizontal

cooperation among federal agencies should be coupled with improved vertical coordination with those of us at State, regional, and

local levels who are working to increase stewardship of our most

28

1 Regional Water Demand Scenarios for Northeastern Illinois: 2005–2050. Project Completion

Report, June 15, 2008. Prepared by Benedykt Dziegielewski and Farhat Jahan Chowdhury,

Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Department of Geography and Environmental Resources. 2 A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in

the United States. Report of the National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality. September

2007.

vital resource. Among other considerations, a new federal effort

should also recognize the five following points.

Issues of water quality are inseparable from our need for water

availability. Improved water monitoring is prerequisite to informed

decision-making. Achieving water conservation and efficiency goals

will help our nation achieve energy efficiency goals. It is our nation’s best interest to improve our understanding of water-related

ecosystem services, and ecosystem needs for water, as well. Finally,

federal support can provide key incentives for effective planning,

especially when local pressures tend to promote short-term rather

than long-term thinking.

Thank you very much for your time this morning.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Loftus follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY T. LOFTUS

Chairman Lampson, Members of the Illinois delegation, and fellow Members of

the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to comment today. I come before you to speak of implementing a new National Water Research and Development Initiative. Never before has the need for a fresh and more

coordinated federal role in addressing our nation’s water use, demand, and supply

been so urgent.

On behalf of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and with

funding from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), I have had the

privilege for the past two years of leading a new regional water supply planning initiative in the 11-county, greater Chicago region. This regional planning effort was

initiated following Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Executive Order 2006–1,

which called on the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, in coordination with

the State Water Survey, to define a comprehensive program for state and regional

water supply planning and management. CMAP has been charged by IDNR to lead

the planning process in northeastern Illinois.

Water supply planning in the Chicago region, an iterative process that is expected

to evolve over the years ahead, could be greatly strengthened by the promise of the

National Water Research and Development Initiative. The National Initiative could

provide states, local partners, and the private sector with the guidance and information necessary to meet the challenges similar to what we have encountered during

this initial phase of planning in Illinois.

For example, earlier this month CMAP issued a water-demand study1 for our region that reveals gaps in data due to inadequate water-use reporting. It has been

said that you can’t manage what you don’t measure. Thus, the current status of

water-use reporting must be addressed if we are to fully grasp how future water

demand will reconcile with our water supplies. The National Initiative should enable states and their local planning partners to address the need for comprehensive

reporting across all water-use sectors as part of a new National Water Census that

has been recommended by the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality.2

The population in the Chicago metropolitan region is projected to grow by over

three million people or 38 percent by 2050. Water-demand scenarios for northeastern Illinois indicate that water use could increase as much as 64 percent during

that time absent any policy intervention and without specific strategies for actively

managing both demand and supply. Factoring in climate change scenarios reveals

that demand for water in our region could grow even further.

While our regional analysis of demand and supply is not complete, there is ample

reason for concern. On the supply side, our region’s water sources are generous, but

finite. Illinois access to Lake Michigan water is constrained by U.S. Supreme Court

Consent Decree. The deep-bedrock aquifer underlying northeastern Illinois is being

de-watered. The system of shallow aquifers shows evidence of increasing contaminaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

tion from chlorides (i.e., road salts). Our two inland river sources are threatened by

non-point source pollution and required to maintain minimum in-stream flows.

Overall, as elsewhere in the United States, our challenge in the Chicago region is

not so much water scarcity, but water waste.

As part of our charge from the State, CMAP created a 35-member Northeastern

Illinois Regional Water Supply Planning Group (RWSPG) composed of elected officials, private sector representatives, and other stakeholders. The RWSPG has already adopted several water-use conservation and efficiency measures as the centerpiece of the nascent regional water supply plan that is expected next year. In July

2009, this diverse group is scheduled to issue its plan with recommendations for

managing water supply through 2050. While our regional study’s funding is currently jeopardized by State of Illinois budget issues, CMAP is committed to moving

forward with our partners to complete this important effort.

I can tell you from experience that it is difficult to get people to take a long-term

view. That can be one important function of the National Water Research and Development Initiative: To define and help implement a water conservation and efficiency agenda that encourages long-range planning by giving clear guidance to

states and the private sector alike.

The inherent complexity and uncertainty associated with planning for our nation’s

water resources, water availability and quality, make for a formidable challenge

that needs to be met now. Those of us working on this front should benefit from

the National Initiative achieving its purpose of improving the Federal Government’s

efforts with research, development, and outreach as it pertains to water use, supply,

and demand.

The National Initiative’s promise of improved horizontal cooperation among federal agencies should be coupled with improved vertical coordination with those of

us at State, regional, and local levels who are working to increase stewardship of

our most vital resource. Among other considerations, the effort should also recognize

that:

1) Water quality is a prime attribute of water availability.

2) Improved water monitoring is prerequisite to informed decision-making.

3) Achieving water conservation and efficiency goals will help achieve energy

efficiency goals.

4) It is in our nation’s best interest to improve our understanding of water related ecosystem services and ecosystem needs for water.

At CMAP, we believe our region is at a turning point, and that could apply equally to other urban areas and the U.S. as a whole. Pressures in the economy—particularly housing and fuel costs—are increasing public support for compact growth patterns and other policies that planners have long promoted. Sensible growth will be

an important component of our regional water strategy, to discourage development

in locations that will strain supplies. Water-supply planning can benefit from the

heightened public awareness of how quality of life can be preserved and improved

through effective stewardship of regional resources. Again, federal support can provide key incentives for effective planning, especially when local pressures tend to

promote short-term rather than long-term thinking.

Thank you for considering my testimony, and I look forward to the National

Water Research and Development Initiative becoming law and fulfilling its promise

to ensure adequate water supplies for the Nation.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Loftus. Mr. Johnson, you

are recognized.

STATEMENT OF MR. JERRY N. JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER,

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Lampson, Members of the

Committee. I am Jerry Johnson, General Manager of the District

of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, otherwise known as

DCWASA. I appreciate your interest in the federal role in research,

development, and research coordination in the areas of water supply, water conservation, and water management.

I also appreciate the opportunity to testify before the House

Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy

30

and the Environment, and to comment on the national water research and development effort.

DCWASA has a broad mission of providing reliable, cost-effective

water and wastewater services. We are an independent authority

of the District of Columbia, and serve a multi-jurisdictional area

here in the region. We distribute drinking water and collect wastewater for more than 500,000 residential, commercial, and government customers here in the District of Columbia, including this

U.S. Capitol complex. We treat wastewater for another 1.6 million

residents in Maryland and Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, from my perspective, there are a number of factors that complicate efforts to better coordinate and manage water

resources, including geography, State and local jurisdiction and political boundaries, the site-specific nature of statutory and regulatory framework, the structure of local and regional water and

land use agencies, as well as a strong history that includes the evolution of development around waterways that serve as both sources

of drinking water, support for industrial and other economic activities, and receiving waters for discharges of effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and overland runoff. However, all of these

can be overcome.

A broad framework to establish supporting water resources research and development is a pathway for identifying important national priorities, while also helping to disseminate information on

a range of issues we confront in improving our management of

water resources. However, the opportunity to establish a framework that better coordinates ongoing research will certainly

strengthen our efforts in, with the research and our research agendas. Providing a stronger brand of national leadership that promotes a consensus and identifies priorities will encourage even

greater initiative on the part of academic institutions, professional

organizations and associations, research foundations, local agencies, and industry.

As you know, water rarely is a localized resource. It rises and

crosses jurisdictional boundaries, and cities, counties, and states,

which makes the federal role extremely critical as we address these

issues. A number of federal agencies, ranging from the U.S. EPA,

the U.S. State Department, Agriculture, and others are making a

number of national professional and industry associations work together, and have established over the years a very important research effort that is based on collaboration across these professional lines.

Another example, a couple of examples of those are the American

Water Works Association, which has sponsored over 635 completed

research projects, with another 300 that are underway, with in excess of 500 researchers that have been involved.

Another example is the Water Environment Research Federation, a leading independent scientific research organization, and I

am proud to be a member of the board of that organization, and

we have, in fact, done over 400 research projects, totaling some $89

million in value. Similarly, academic institutions participate in important research that constitutes, that contributes to the understanding of our interactions with the environment. These efforts

31

also enhance our ability to manage water resources and reduce potentially negative effects on human activity.

Scientists who are employed in our wastewater plant and our

Water Quality Division are participating in a fair amount of this

research in areas of bio-solids management, and providing a good

bit of information on corrosion control as it relates to the drinking

water distribution system. We also work with a number of universities, to include Virginia Tech and Howard University, on a number of research initiatives.

But there are a number of initiatives that really need to be examined, and I think a few examples of those are understanding

when water is safe to drink, understanding the phenomena of pharmaceuticals and nanotechnology as it relates to water, bio-solids

management, point source control, just to name a few.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I wish to express my appreciation to

you and the Committee for your interest in these critical issues. We

most often come to Capitol Hill seeking support for massive infrastructure improvements, and to undertake, to ensure protection of

our resources and the environment. There are, however, initiatives

that the Federal Government can undertake that are at least as

important as appropriation bills. A national initiative to build better coordination and stronger foundation for developing priorities,

enhancing overall national research agenda, and providing the information we need to improve our management of our water resources, is just that initiative.

I believe that you can be confident that the successful effort will

result in not only a more cost-effective research initiative, but also

a positive impact on water resource development and management

through better planning, lower costs, and improved efficiency.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, many of the issues that I have discussed in this testimony, and particularly, the written testimony,

are not new to the research community. Climate change, however,

is a substantially different kind of challenge. Although the debate

regarding global warming continues in some quarters, there is no

doubt that water resources can and are dramatically affected by

local and regional climate change.

Strengthening the national research agenda through better coordination could help to develop an important new role, and provide a critical advantage for the successful addressing of many of

these new challenges that we face.

Also, I would just point out to the Committee that a couple of

things in the legislation, one relates to funding, that I think probably could be addressed and strengthened, and the other is consideration of the difficulty in uncoupling water resources from wastewater management and the whole notion of things related to that

particular industry.

Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any questions you have and I apologize for going over my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JERRY N. JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Jerry N. Johnson, and

I am the General Manager of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority,

otherwise known as DCWASA. I appreciate your interest in the federal role in reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
32

search, development and research coordination in the areas of water supply, water

conservation and water management.

I also appreciate this opportunity to testify before the House Committee on

Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, and to comment on a national water research and development effort.

DCWASA’s broad mission includes providing reliable and cost-effective water and

wastewater services. We are an independent authority of the District of Columbia

that serves a multi-jurisdictional service area.

Specifically, we distribute drinking water and collect and treat wastewater for

more than 500,000 residential, commercial and governmental customers in the District of Columbia, including this U.S. Capitol complex. We also treat wastewater for

1.6 million customers in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland and

Fairfax and Loudoun counties in Virginia.

In many ways we are unique:

– Unlike almost every other municipal water utility in the country, we were established in both local and federal law.

– We are directly regulated by the Federal Government, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Region 3.

– The source of our drinking water is the Potomac River—a river that is bounded by several states and the District of Columbia, and although we distribute

drinking water, our supplier is the Baltimore District of the United States

Army Corps of Engineers Washington Aqueduct.

– Although we treat wastewater for both wholesale and retail customers at a

District of Columbia facility that is regulated by the EPA, our wholesale customers operate under separate permits and different pollution limits, and

also have different regulatory regimes established under state governments.

These factors do not necessarily impact all of DCWASA’s operations on a daily

basis, but they do impact how we plan, develop and manage water resources. Even

though we are unique we share many of the challenges that confront other municipal and regional water and wastewater agencies. For example:

– The fact that DCWASA is responsible under its NPDES permit for addressing

the District’s estimated three billion gallons of annual combined sewer overflows that reach the Anacostia and Potomac rivers and Rock Creek, while at

the same time the District of Columbia Department of the Environment is

responsible for managing the District’s stormwater flows into these waterways under a separate MS4 permit issued by EPA;

– The fact that the Federal Government provides drinking water treatment

means that the periodic disagreements between jurisdictions that border the

Potomac River (and which are mirrored in other regions of the country) have

important implications for many area residents, but not for customers whose

water is treated by the federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;

– When local drought conditions require Maryland or Virginia to impose voluntary or even mandatory water restrictions in communities that border the

District, we usually escape these limits because we rely on the Potomac

which has substantial natural and manmade reserve capacity far upstream;

– Although the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant was the

first to meet the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program voluntary limits on nitrogen

discharges, and even though we will expend about $1 billion dollars to meet

more stringent requirements, EPA and states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have yet to establish effective means to limit the most serious source

of pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay—run-off from non-point sources;

– The District of Columbia is required to expend approximately $2 billion to address the combined sewer overflows, while most of the pollution in the Anacostia River is caused by legacy pollutants in river bed sediments and other

pollutants from upstream beyond the District’s borders—another example of

the essential need to develop more effective watershed-based approaches to

water, wastewater and storm water management.

Mr. Chairman, from our perspective there are a number of factors that complicate

efforts to better coordinate the management of water resources, including:

– Geography

– State and local jurisdictional and political boundaries

– The site-specific nature the statutory and regulatory framework within which

we ail work

33

– The structure of local and regional water and land use agencies, and

– History—the evolution of development around major waterways that serve as

both sources of drinking water and as receiving waters for the discharge of

effluent from treatment plants and overland run-off.

A broad framework established for supporting water resources research and development is a pathway to identifying important national priorities while also helping

to disseminate information on the range of issues we confront in improving our

management of water resources.

However, the opportunity to establish a framework that better coordinates ongoing research will certainly strengthen our research agenda. Providing a stronger

brand of national leadership that promotes consensus and identifies priorities will

encourage even greater initiative on the part of academic institutions, professional

associations and research foundations, local agencies and industry.

As you know, water is rarely a localized resource; it raises inter-jurisdictional

challenges across cities, counties and states. The federal role in coordination is crucial. A number of federal agencies ranging from the EPA, to the U.S. Department

of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control, just to name a few, are making

important contributions to research, and many national professional and industry

associations have established over the years very important research efforts that are

based on collaboration across professions, academia, government and water agencies.

For example, the mission of American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF) is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life by

focusing on drinking water research. To date, AwwaRF has sponsored 635 completed

research projects, and more than 300 studies are currently underway. In excess of

500 researchers and 30 partner research organizations have been involved in research efforts, which are guided by stakeholders in the water industry and supported by nearly 1,000 member organizations in nine countries worldwide.

Another example is the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERE),

formed in 1989, is a leading independent scientific research organization dedicated

to wastewater and stormwater issues. As a member of the WERF Board of Directors, I am proud of the fact that we have managed nearly 400 research projects, valued at more than $85 million.

This nonprofit organization operates with funding from subscribers (wastewater

treatment plants, stormwater utilities, and regulatory agencies and the Federal

Government, industry and equipment companies, engineers and environmental consultants. And the approach to research stresses collaboration among teams of subscribers.

Similarly, academic institutions participate in important research that contributes

to our understanding of our interactions with the environment. These efforts also

enhance our ability to manage water resources and reduce potentially negative effects of human activity. Less well known are the research efforts of local agencies

like DCWASA.

Scientists who are employed in our wastewater treatment and our drinking water

quality units are participating, and some instances leading, important research efforts in, for example, the use of biosolids, a byproduct of wastewater treatment. We

are also conducting research and providing important data to EPA and other agencies in the area of corrosion control in the treatment and distribution of drinking

water.

This work is being undertaken in many instances in collaboration with academic

institutions like Virginia Tech, Howard University, the University of Washington

and Cincinnati University, as well as with organizations like AWWARF.

Yes, this work is important. Yes, we are establishing important and valuable affiliations. Yes, this applied research will improve our ability to operate more efficiently and at lower cost, or alternatively to improve our ability to comply with increasingly stringent regulatory standards.

However, given the nature of our mission, our research agenda can sometimes be

driven by relatively shorter-term objectives. I genuinely believe that the Nation will

benefit from a stronger, better coordinated approach to research that supports better

management of this increasingly scarce resource.

We are strongly supportive of an initiative that creates a more centralized opportunity to review, discuss and build a consensus on how we should approach some

of these many challenges. DCWASA has been an advocate for strengthening the national research effort on a range of issues that relate to both wastewater treatment

and drinking water treatment and distribution. For example:

34

Simultaneous Compliance

More research and coordination should be encouraged in the area of simultaneous

compliance with all federal regulations under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

Changes in one regulation may require a drinking water treatment change that has

a negative impact on compliance with another regulation.

As current research is showing, for example, the pipe scales that form on the interior of pipes and which protect the pipes from the corrosive effects of water are very

sensitive to chemical changes. These chemical changes may cause extensive metal

release (including lead) into the water. Drinking water distribution systems are dynamic and sensitive systems and treatment changes required by regulations can

have unforeseen and far reaching consequences. Research in the area of simultaneous compliance requires a much more aggressive and coordinated response.

When is Water Safe to Drink?

Almost every day, a water utility is faced with demonstrating that the water it

delivers is, in fact, clean and safe to drink. A recent example is the water main

break in Montgomery County Maryland where there was a potential microbial contamination after a major water main break. When a system loses complete water

pressure in a large area, the distribution system becomes vulnerable to contamination. Current practice is to issue a boil advisory for at least 48 hours because it

takes 24 hours to analyze bacteria samples that are collected immediately after the

outage occurs.

Another set of samples is analyzed 24 hours later, placing a burden on local businesses, hospitals, and the entire community, Improving the speed of bacteriological

analysis from days to hours or minutes in a manner that meets nationally accepted

standards to ensure can help ensure the integrity of our water systems as well as

consumer confidence.

I believe that this ought to be a higher priority. That is of course only an opinion,

but this initiative may provide a better opportunity for all interested parties to create a consensus on this and many other issues.

Pharmaceuticals and Nanotechnology

Better coordination between federal agencies like the National Institute of Health,

USDA and EPA, on pollutants that are discharged to our waterways, especially in

the emerging areas of pharmaceuticals and nanotechnology is critical.

Water and wastewater utilities end up holding the bag because we are a regulated

point source, but we must do a vastly better job assessing the environmental impact

in the product development phase of many of these current and future potential contaminants. There have been concerns about pollutants such as estrogens in the Potomac, but there has been too little effort to evaluate source reduction strategies to

regulate these chemicals, leaving the onus on end-of-pipe technologies that are very

difficult and/or expensive to implement.

The variety of pollutants are also expanding to include nanotechnology constituents that may potentially harm the environment or human health, but there is,

again, too little work evaluating the fate of these constituents once they reach the

environment.

Biosolids

Better federal stewardship of biosolids management is another example of the

need for greater attention in the area of wastewater and wastewater treatment byproduct re-use. DCWASA staff members are involved in WERF and self-funded

projects that are intended to ensure that the application of biosolids to land as a

fertilizer is practiced in a safe and sustainable manner and in accordance with EPA

guidelines.

– We are involved in WERE work to produce a protocol for rapid response to

biosolids safety related issues.

– We are also evaluating sustainability measures for biosolids reuse. Our determination is that biosolids recycling can significantly reduce our greenhouse

gas footprint through carbon sequestration and by off-setting the energy

needs and greenhouse gases produced from manufacturing commercial fertilizer.

– DCWASA is also involved in a WERF project verifying reliable destruction of

pathogens in digested biosolids.

Even better efforts to coordinate biosolids research could help address local concerns around the Nation regarding perceived risks associated with biosolids, while

35

also assessing the current and potential future value of biosolids as a safe and sustainable resource.

Non-Point Source Controls

Better coordination on non-point source control may be one of the most critical

challenges in improving water quality in the nations receiving waters. Point sources

are subject to regulation, but often non-point sources are major sources of pollution

and the clean-up of water bodies will not be realized until non-point sources are addressed.

An example is the mitigation of nutrient related pollution in the Chesapeake Bay,

where the Bay clean-up will not be realized without participation of non-point

sources. Non-point source pollution is the main cause of nutrient pollution in the

Bay. Point sources make up less than a quarter of nutrient related pollution. Yet

DCWASA rate payers are being asked to spend $1 billion to build facilities under

stringent standards and deadlines with absolutely no guarantee to these rate payers

that the Chesapeake Bay will be remediated, because much of the non-point source

related nutrient pollution remains unabated. It is critically important that we work

more diligently to develop watershed-wide and non-point source strategies for managing and improving water quality in receiving waters.

Mr. Chairman, I once again wish to express my appreciation to you and the Committee for your interest in these critical issues. We most often come to Capitol Hill

seeking support for massive infrastructure improvements that water agencies must

undertake to both ensure reliable service and to protect the environment.

There are, however, initiatives that the Federal Government can undertake that

are at least as important as appropriations bills. A national initiative to build a better coordinated and stronger foundation for developing priorities, enhancing the

overall national research agenda and providing the information we need to improve

our management of our water resources is just such an initiative.

I believe that you can be confident that a successful effort will result in not only

more cost-effective research initiatives, but also a positive impact on water resource

development and management through better planning, lower costs, and improved

efficiency.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, many of the issues I’ve noted in my testimony are not

new to the research community, or the industry. Climate change, however, is a substantially different kind of challenge. Although the debate regarding global warming

continues in some quarters, there is no doubt that water resources can and are dramatically affected by local and regional changes in climate.

Strengthening the national research agenda through better coordination could

help develop important new tools that provide a crucial advantage in successfully

addressing this new challenge.

I would be pleased to respond to any questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JERRY N. JOHNSON

Jerry Johnson currently serves as General Manager of the District of Columbia

Water and Sewer Authority. The Authority provides retail and wholesale water and

wastewater treatment services to the District of Columbia and parts of Virginia and

Maryland with a customer base of approximately two million. The Water and Sewer

Authority operates Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is the largest

advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant in the world.

Johnson is nationally known as a turnaround specialist. As the first General Manager of the newly created Authority, he guided it from an unrated agency with a

projected $8 million deficit to one with an A+ credit rating and $170 million reserve

in two years, (currently double A rating). He has developed long-term capital and

financial plans, a comprehensive rate strategy in addition to resolving major operating and regulatory agency issues. Public/private partnerships, infrastructure planning, and organizational development are also among Johnson’s areas of expertise.

Prior to joining the Water and Sewer Authority, Johnson served as Deputy City

Manager for Operations in the City of Richmond, Virginia. During his tenure in

Richmond, he also served as Director of Public Utilities, responsible for four separate utility operations including gas, electric, water and wastewater providing service to the metropolitan Richmond area. He has also been the General Manager for

the Metropolitan Richmond Convention and Visitors Bureau, responsible for marketing the metropolitan area for tourism and conventions. Jerry began his service

in Richmond as the Director of Community Facilities for the City.

36

Before moving to Richmond, he was Assistant to the City Manager for the City

of Alexandria, Virginia and was a Senior Planner for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.

He graduated with a Business Degree from Ferrum College; a Degree in Urban

Affairs and Economics from Virginia Tech and completed the Program for Senior

Executives in State and Local Government at the JFK School of Government, Harvard University.

He serves on a number of boards and commissions, holds leadership positions in

several national organizations and has numerous honors and awards resulting from

his professional accomplishments and community involvement. He also has a number of publications to his credit.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Spooner, you

are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. BRADLEY H. SPOONER, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF THE MUNICIPAL

ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA (MEAG POWER)

Mr. SPOONER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the

Committee. I am here today on behalf of the American Public

Power Association (APPA), which represents the interests of more

than 2,000 publicly owned electric utility systems serving approximately 45 million Americans. APPA members serve some of the

Nation’s largest cities, along with many small and medium-sized

communities in 49 states.

Water availability is crucial to many types of electricity generation. For hydroelectric power, it is the energy source. For fossil and

nuclear steam generation, water is needed for many in plant process uses. Water is, therefore, crucial for APPA’s members to deliver

electricity to support a healthy environment and a vibrant economy.

Today, APPA would like to highlight three of its recommendations for the Committee to consider. The first recommendation is

that the legislation should include measures to ensure high quality

data. Developing a research and assessment plan, and conducting

the research called for the plan, will involve the production, analysis, and use of a significant amount of technical data. APPA recommends that the bill consider available resources and guidelines

intended to ensure data of high quality. An example would be the

resources and guidelines developed under the Federal Data Quality

Act of 2001, also known as the Information Quality Act.

Of particular importance is that data used for implementing the

bill be objective, transparent, peer-reviewed, unbiased, and reproducible. Because many departments and agencies will participate

in developing the plan and conducting the research, coordination of

high quality data among the parties by the interagency committee

will be especially important.

The second recommendation is that the legislation should include

research related to projected significant water consumption increases with carbon capture and sequestration technology. Various

global climate bills introduced in Congress have contemplated the

future use of a technology called carbon capture and sequestration,

or CCS. The intent of CCS is to capture carbon dioxide resulting

from the combustion of fossil fuels at power plants before the carbon dioxide is emitted. Several studies done by the Department of

Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory indicate that capturing the carbon dioxide at a power plant would require a douVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
37

bling of the plant’s consumptive water use. This significant increase in water consumption appears to run contrary to the goals

of the bill, and therefore, appears to be an issue ripe for research

under the bill.

The third recommendation is that the legislation should ensure

participation by states, local communities, and stakeholders. Early

in 2008, the State of Georgia adopted a Georgia Comprehensive

Statewide Water Management Plan. The Plan came about following

an extensive stakeholder process involving agriculture and business interests, local governments, nonprofit agencies, trade associations, and others. Under the guidance of Governor Perdue and the

Georgia Environmental Protection Division Director Dr. Carol

Couch, the Georgia Plan was approved by the State Water Council

and the State General Assembly.

Of particular note is that the Georgia Plan was successfully developed in a state experiencing both drought conditions and strong

economic growth. The success of the Georgia Plan process suggests

some similar processes that may be beneficial to the proposed plan

called for in the draft bill. For example, the bill should consider extending the duties of the outreach office to specifically bring states

and local communities into the federal plan development process

earlier and more extensively. Likewise, consideration should be

given to extending the duties of the outreach office to establishing

a stakeholder group to provide input during development of the

plan. These entities and groups should be able to provide valuable

information to make the final federal plan more effective.

In wrapping up, I would like to mention that in April of 2007,

APPA sent a letter to Full Committee Chairman Gordon in support

of legislation designed to develop a methodology for, and a complete

national assessment of geologic storage capacity for carbon dioxide.

This legislation was ultimately included in the Energy Bill enacted

into law in December of 2007, and APPA thanks the full Committee Chairman and the Committee as a whole for their hard

work on this important matter, and we look forward to the results

being made available.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input today. We hope

that you will consider the American Public Power Association and

MEAG Power as resources for questions that may arise as the process moves forward.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spooner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRADLEY H. SPOONER

APPA represents the interests of more than 2,000 publicly owned electric utility

systems across the country, serving approximately 45 million Americans. APPA

member utilities include State public power agencies and municipal electric utilities

that serve some of the Nation’s largest cities. However, the vast majority of these

publicly-owned electric utilities serve small and medium-sized communities in 49

states, all but Hawaii. In fact, 70 percent of our members are located in cities with

populations of 10,000 people or less. Public power systems own approximately 10.1

percent of the total installed electric utility generating capacity in the United

States. Hydroelectric projects comprise nearly 19 percent of public power’s total generating capacity. There are 132 municipally-owned utilities with hydroelectric capacity, of which 94 are APPA members. The remaining mix of public power’s generating

capacity is comprised of approximately 27 percent coal, 36 percent gas, eight percent

nuclear and eight percent oil.

38

Public power systems’ primary purpose is to provide reliable, efficient service to

their local customers at the lowest possible cost. Like hospitals, public schools, police and fire departments, and publicly owned water and waste water utilities, public power systems are locally created governmental institutions that address a basic

community need: they operate to provide an essential public service, reliably and

efficiently, at a reasonable, not-for-profit price.

The Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG Power) is a public corporation whose primary purpose is to generate and transmit reliable and economical

electric power to 49 Georgia communities that are Participants of MEAG Power.

MEAG Power is Georgia’s third-largest electric power supplier. Power is provided

through co-ownership of two nuclear and two coal-fired generating plants, sole ownership of a natural gas-fired combined cycle facility, and ownership of over 1,300

miles of high voltage transmission lines and nearly 200 substations.

APPA and MEAG appreciate the opportunity to testify at this important hearing

on ‘‘A National Water Initiative: Coordinating and Improving Federal Research on

Water.’’ In addition, APPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft ‘‘National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2008’’ and to provide additional comments about the water/electric generation nexus. Water availability is

crucial to many types of electricity generation. For hydroelectric power, water is the

energy source. For fossil and nuclear steam generation, water is needed for many

in-plant process uses including for condensing steam. Water is therefore crucial for

APPA’s members to be able to deliver a reliable and reasonably priced electricity

supply to residences and businesses in our communities in order to support a

healthy environment and a vibrant economy.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a report entitled: Energy Demands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and

Water. DOE found that: ‘‘Water is an integral element of energy resource development and utilization. It is used in energy-resource extraction, refining and processing, and transportation. Water is also an integral part of electric-power generation. It is used directly in hydroelectric generation and is also used extensively for

cooling and emissions scrubbing in thermoelectric generation. For example, in calendar year 2000, thermoelectric power generation accounted for 39 percent of all

freshwater withdrawals in the U.S., roughly equivalent to water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture (withdrawals are water diverted or withdrawn from a surfacewater or groundwater source) (Hutson et al., 2004). Water withdrawal statistics for

thermoelectric power are dominated by power plants that return virtually all the

withdrawn water to the source. While this water is returned at a higher temperature and with other changes in quality, it becomes available for further use.

Comments on Draft National Water Research and Development Initiative

Act of 2008

Today, APPA would like to offer several recommendations for the Committee to

consider as it further develops the bill. The comments include: encouraging high

quality data in developing the National Water Availability Research and Assessment Plan established in the draft legislation; discussing concerns with projected

water usage increases with carbon capture and sequestration technology; and relating some positive experiences associated with a statewide water management plan

adopted by Georgia earlier this year.

For some APPA members, there is an intrinsic relationship between serving water

utility customers and electric utility customers. Many APPA members anticipate

significant load growth in water and electricity as populations increase. End-use energy efficiency, water use efficiency, and renewable energy, although important, will

not be sufficient to meet these increased electricity and water demands.

One of the common misconceptions is that surface and groundwater challenges

are only in the arid Southwest. The challenges are not limited to that area of the

country alone. For example, according to the Michigan Land Use Institute, nearly

the entire western shoreline of Lake Michigan has water demand above available

precipitation, and aquifers in that region have declined as much as 900 feet, and

are declining as much as 17 feet per year in some cases. For these reasons, we need

additional research on how to reduce water consumption from many industrial users

(including power plants) which do not take away energy capacity. APPA, therefore,

appreciates the draft legislation’s national scope and acknowledgement of the challenges facing water use in the future.

The Legislation Should Include Measures to Insure High Quality Data.

Developing a National Water Availability Research and Assessment Plan, and

conducting the research called for by the Plan to achieve the Water Research OutVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
39

1See http://www.ombwatch.org/article/archive/231?TopicID=13 for a list of Department and

Agency guidelines and links to the guidelines. 2See Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, DOE/NETL–2007/1281, May

2007, Revised Aug 2007; and Pulverized Coal Oxycombustion Plants, DOE/NETL–2007/1291,

Aug. 2007, Revised Oct. 2007 and associated Nov. 2007 presentation slides.

comes, as proposed in the draft bill, will involve the production, analysis, and use

of a significant amount of technical data. The data would include information on

water quantity, water quality, technologies, consumption, and other criteria. A wellconstructed Plan and the associated research will necessarily rely on accurate and

reliable data.

APPA recommends that the bill consider available resources and guidelines intended to ensure that federal activities such as contemplated by the bill use data

of high quality. An example of resources and guidelines can be found in the principles for the federal Data Quality Act of 2001 (also known as the Information Quality Act), which called for the Office of Management and Budget to ‘‘provide policy

and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information.’’ In the February 22, 2002 Federal Register, OMB published Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,

Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies.

Since that time, many federal departments and agencies have developed data quality guidelines.1

Of particular importance is that, as appropriate, data used for implementing the

bill be objective, transparent, peer-reviewed, unbiased, and reproducible. These criteria will especially help to insure that the data are credible and therefore useful

for the intended purpose. Because many Departments and Agencies will participate

in developing the Plan and conducting the research, coordination of high quality

data among the parties by the Interagency Committee will be especially important.

The Legislation Should Include Research Related to Projected Water Consumption Impacts with Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technology.

Various global climate and greenhouse gas emission reduction bills in Congress

have contemplated the future use of a technological process called Carbon Capture

and Sequestration (CCS) or what EPA calls ‘‘geosequestration,’’ sometimes also referred to as carbon capture and storage. The intent of CCS is to ‘‘capture’’ carbon

dioxide (CO2) resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels at power plants before

the CO2 is emitted, direct the captured CO2 into an underground pipeline system,

and store the piped CO2 safely underground such as in a saline geologic formation.

According to studies done by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy

Technology Laboratory (NETL) and others, ‘‘capturing’’ the CO2 at a power plant

would require significant amounts of additional consumptive water use at the plant.

For example, data from two NETL reports2 on CCS indicate that there would be

approximately a doubling of water consumption, when comparing new pulverized

coal plants of similar net capacity, with and without post-combustion CCS technology. The table below summarizes the DOE/NETL water data; the range for

supercritical units shown represents the data in the two DOE/NETL reports. The

same doubling of water consumption would likely occur with retrofitted coal generation. This significant increase of water consumption appears to run contrary to the

goals of the draft ‘‘National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of

2008’’—and therefore appears to be an issue ripe for research pursuant to the bill.

Attached to this testimony are APPA Comments to NERC on Reliability Impacts of

Climate Change Initiatives. Comment No. 7, Competition for Scarce Water Supplies,

provides additional insight, information, and referenced materials that are relevant

to this issue.

40

Data Are Needed on Geologic Formations Before Large Commercial Power

Plants With CCS Can Be Realistic.

While APPA has not yet performed an exhaustive study of the impact of carbon

sequestration on current or future water supplies, we are concerned that neither the

state of the science nor the existing regulations are sufficiently developed to where

carbon sequestration can seriously be considered as a greenhouse gas mitigation

technique. It would be very difficult to do site characterization assessment properly

in many locations because not enough is known about the subsurface geology and

hydrology.

In April of 2007, APPA sent a letter to Full Committee Chairman Gordon in support of legislation designed to develop a methodology for, and complete a national

assessment of, geological storage capacity for carbon dioxide. This legislation was ultimately included in the energy bill enacted into law in December of 2007 and we

thank the Full Committee Chairman and the Committee as a whole for their hard

work on this important matter and we look forward to the results being made available.

Water Use, Energy and Discharge Temperatures

APPA encourages DOE or other agency funding of ways to reduce thermal impacts from power plants (and industrial facilities) through less expensive cooling

tower technologies. Today cooling towers have parasitic energy impacts which are

very high. Parasitic power is the amount of the power used to run pollution controls,

cooling towers, chemical processes to reduce pollutants, and to run booster compressors. This parasitic power takes away from the net energy output from the power

plant. Additionally, it is very difficult to retrofit the current fleet with cooling towers

due to both parasitic power capacity losses and due to physical space. Localized

drought conditions and multiple dischargers of water can threaten to exceed the

temperature limit of a receiving stream. In 2007 a major utility in the U.S. had to

shut down its utility operation because the receiving waterbody’s temperature could

not tolerate the incoming water from the power plant. The confluence of population

changes, density of population and location of manufacturing facilities will make

this concern even more difficult in future years. New technologies or operational

practices to reduce the effluent temperature from thermal power plants without

causing parasitic power losses would be very helpful.

For municipal power plants associated with APPA communities that have both

electric and water utilities, it would also be helpful to find additional ways to reduce

the costs of desalinization plants (whether simple distillation or reverse osmosis)

41

3See http://www.georgiawatercouncil.org/index.html for the Georgia Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan and associated documents.

using waste heat from the power plant. This research could include the use of grey

water, re-usable water, and even water that could be sufficiently cleaned for drinking water. Research in this area could provide communities with additional surface

water which would be enormously beneficial.

The Legislation Should Insure Participation by States, Local Communities,

and Stakeholders.

Early in 2008, the State of Georgia adopted a Georgia Comprehensive Statewide

Water Management Plan. The Georgia plan came about following an extensive

stakeholder process involving agricultural and business interests, local governments,

non-profit agencies, trade associations, and others. Under the guidance of Governor

Purdue and Georgia Environmental Protection Division Director Dr. Carol Couch,

the Georgia plan was approved by the State Water Council and the State General

Assembly.3 Of particular note is that the Georgia plan was successfully developed

in a state experiencing both drought conditions and strong economic growth.

The success of the Georgia plan process suggests some similar processes that may

be beneficial to the proposed National Water Availability Research and Assessment

Plan called for in the draft bill. For example, the bill should consider extending the

duties of the National Water Initiative Outreach Office to specifically bring states

and local communities into the federal Plan development process, earlier and more

extensively. Likewise, consideration should be given to extending the duties of the

Outreach Office to establishing a stakeholder group (those who may be affected by

the research or its results) to provide input during the development of the federal

Plan. These entities and groups should be able to provide valuable information (e.g.,

State and local plans already in place, ongoing research) to make the final federal

Plan more efficient and effective.

New Energy-Related Water Use Issues: Biofuels

Due to the recent influx of investments in ethanol to provide alternatives to fossil

fuel based gasoline (and other fuels), it is expected that there will be enormous

water use impacts of this increase in the use of biofuels. While APPA does not have

an official position on the use of ethanol, the impact that adding corn harvesting

and ethanol processing will have on water use and the energy nexus is important.

As referred to earlier in my testimony, the DOE Energy-Water Roadmap stated:

‘‘The potentially massive water demand posed by ethanol production is

a significant concern for those in the Central region. New directions in national

biofuels supply and demand suggest that new research into techniques that do

not require crops grown with fresh water are needed.’’

Hydropower Challenges

According to Energy Information Administration (EIA) data from 2006, hydropower accounts for almost 80 percent of renewable capacity in the United States.

Hydropower has long been a vital piece of the United States electric utility industry

and a driving force in the development of the economies in certain regions. Not only

is hydropower a clean, efficient and renewable source of electric power, the dams

themselves are multi-purpose in nature—providing flood control, irrigation, industrial and municipal water, and fish and wildlife habitat improvements. Finally, the

dams also provide transportation and recreational benefits.

Over 500 of the 2010 public power systems nationwide receive all or a portion of

their power supply from the four federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs).

The PMAs market federally generated hydropower from federal dams, and sell this

hydropower to APPA members at cost-based rates plus interest (to be used to repay

the cost of building the dams). The purchase price for this hydropower also factors

in O&M for the hydropower facilities on these multi-purpose dams. However, because the rates paid by APPA members to the PMAs must go back to the Treasury

and be appropriated back out by Congress annually, the funds for O&M at these

facilities have often been used for other purposes thereby leaving a need for significant rehabilitation at these facilities.

The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manage the

dams and are responsible for the O&M for hydropower facilities at the dams. While

we recognize that this committee does not manage the appropriations process, it is

important to understand that by rehabilitating these hydropower facilities, a significant amount of zero-emissions, low-cost hydropower could be added to our generaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
42

tion mix without building another dam. Therefore, we hope that the Committee

would support increases in the federal appropriations for O&M at the Bureau of

Reclamation and Corps of Engineers to undertake these rehabilitations.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the bill development process.

We hope that you will consider us as a resource for questions that may arise as the

process moves forward.

43

Attachment

APPA Comments to NERC on Reliability Impacts of Climate

Change Initiatives

JULY 16, 2008

APPA is the national association for the 2,000 State, municipal and other publicly

owned electric utilities in the United States. APPA’s membership also includes numerous multi-service utilities including irrigation districts. Approximately one-third

of all public power utilities own and operate electric generation, including coal, oil

and gas-fired, nuclear, hydro-electric and a variety of renewable energy facilities

such as wind, geothermal and municipal solid-waste.

APPA is concerned about the convergence of the numerous public power issues

raised by climate change that create pressures to pick certain technology options

and discard others prematurely before their operational and cost consequences are

fully characterized. APPA anticipates increased physical, economic and political supply pressures in the competition for (relatively) cleaner energy sources and for access to related infrastructures such as local water supplies, gas pipeline capacity

and rail transportation that are needed for electric generation. These tensions could

create increased risks to electric system supply adequacy and operational reliability

in the following seven areas:

1. The Dash for Gas and International Energy Demand Pressures. The most

immediate risk to reliability has been called the ‘‘dash for gas.’’ Public policy decisions and market forces will likely cause many companies to choose the ‘‘quick fix’’

of fuel switching. These market forces include pressure on company stock prices and

bond prices if they do not mitigate carbon risk in anticipation of public policy decisions by ‘‘going green’’ now. The United States has adopted such coal/gas/coal/gas

fuel switching policies several times before—and each such switch has had unintended consequences. The dash for gas in electric generation could create conflict

with basic manufacturing industries that need reliable natural gas supplies as feed

stocks and with widespread use of gas for space heating. Further, increased domestic reliance on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) implies that U.S. natural gas

demand will increasingly be driven by international oil and gas markets. See discussion below.

2. Replacement of Generation Retired Due to Climate Change. The second

risk to reliability arises from the need to rapidly replace the base load power supplied from generating capacity that is likely to be retired in the near future due to

the combined effects of equipment age and regulatory requirements to reduce CO2

emissions. Continued reliance on coal for power generation implies that the utility

industry will need to install over 100 GW of new capacity to replace existing conventional steam-electric capacity (with no additional capacity to meet forecast demand

growth).

3. Parasitic Losses from CO2 Capture and Compression. The third reliability

risk identified by APPA results from the enormous parasitic energy demands associated with CO2 capture and compression. Research sponsored by APPA indicates

that the Nation will need to install as much as 320 GW of additional generating

capacity to meet the parasitic losses associated with CO2 capture and compression

systems at existing coal-fired power plants. While the loss factors for some new

technologies may be as low as 30 percent, the parasitic losses associated with retrofitting existing conventional coal-fired plants are as much as 50 percent of total

gross output. By way of comparison, roughly 100 GW of capacity might be needed

to meet the parasitic losses associated with SO2 scrubbers and NOΧ selective catalytic reduction systems under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court. See discussion of CCS issues below.

4. Generation Outages from Rapid Deployment of New CO2 Control Technologies. The fourth risk to reliability associated with climate change is the move

to CO2 control technologies that have not been fully developed beyond small scale

demonstration projects. Commercial scale projects will undoubtedly raise numerous

logistical, technical and cost factors that are as yet not well understood. Until shown

otherwise, it is unreasonable to assume that planned and forced outage frequencies

and durations for new generation and carbon control technologies are in any way

similar to the much lower outage rates for mature conventional generation technologies. Particularly for coal-fired generation in conjunction with CO2 capture, compression and permanent storage, the critical skill sets and technology requirements

44

to permit, build, own, operate and maintain such a facility are more similar to those

required for a major chemical plant than a conventional steam-electric power station. See discussion of CCS issues below.

5. Non-Electric Infrastructure Required for Large-Scale Carbon Capture

and Sequestration. All new technologies for controlling CO2 for climate change

purposes rely heavily upon new non-electric infrastructure that must be built in

order to complete the process of safely injecting and storing CO2 in geologic formations. An extensive network of new pipelines and rail for transportation of chemicals

required for carbon capture, pressurization and storage will be required. Nearly all

existing coal-fired plants and most new plants that intend to capture, pressurize

and inject CO2 into geologic formations will be forced to transport such pressurized

CO2 by pipeline to remote locations. See discussion of CCS issues below.

6. Heavy Reliance on Remote and Intermittent Renewable Energy Sources.

Heavy increased reliance in many regions of the United States on renewable energy

sources that are remote from load centers and/or intermittent or variable in their

output characteristics may pose reliability risks. A major build-out of EHV transmission is required to ensure the deliverability of wind and other generation to

major regional load centers. The alternative, which entails very, very heavy reliance

on renewable generation in the subregions where it is produced, is likely to introduce new operational problems for the interconnected grid. System operators and renewable energy operators may be forced to curtail significant amounts of otherwise

economic and environmentally beneficial generation in source regions. Particularly

where wind output is counter to the daily and seasonal patterns in customer load,

NERC’s analyses should take into account the potential operational risks of high

penetration levels of wind generation in particular subregions. APPA anticipates

that the report of the NERC Operating Committee’s task force on variable resource

integration will fully describe many of these issues; however, the combined effects

of all five of the risks to reliability associated with climate change mitigation will

be very difficult to foresee.

7. Competition for Scarce Water Supplies. Population and economic growth in

more arid regions of the United States, depletion of ground water supplies, and increased risk of drought due to climate change all increase the general scarcity of

water. Further, new generation technologies may compound these factors, by significantly increasing the per MWh water requirements for power generation. These factors increase the difficulties encountered in siting of new plants and meeting operating restrictions for existing plants. See discussion below.

APPA has developed a series of white papers to address some of the technology,

legal and public policy issues associated with carbon capture and storage. These

APPA white papers, which are offered for NERC’s use in its assessment of the Reliability Impacts of Climate Change Initiatives, are publicly posted at: http://

www.appanet.org/files/HTM/ccs.html

L.D. Carter, ‘‘Carbon Capture and Storage From Coal-based Power Plants: A

White Paper on Technology for the American Public Power Association (APPA),’’

May 2007 [pdf]

L.D. Carter, White Paper, ‘‘Retrofitting Carbon Capture Systems on Existing

Coal-fired Power Plants,’’ November 2007. [pdf]

Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group; James Rollins, Policy Navigation

Group; Theresa Pugh, APPA, White Paper, ‘‘Will Water Issues/Regulatory Capacity Allow or Prevent Geologic Sequestration for New Power Plants? A Review

of the Underground Injection Control Program and Carbon Capture and Storage,’’ November 2007. [pdf]

• Marianne Horinko, White Paper, ‘‘Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Legal

and Environmental Challenges Ahead,’’ August 2007 [pdf]

Issue 1—The Dash for Gas and International Energy Demand Pressures

In an April 2008 white paper entitled, ‘‘Natural Gas and Electricity Costs and Impacts on Industry,’’ the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology

Laboratory (NETL) reported that opposition to new coal-based power plants is leading to generation capacity shortages in many areas of the country and endangering

U.S. energy security. The opposition is also inducing a ‘‘dash to gas’’ and quickly

causing a rise in natural gas prices at a time when federal climate change legislation could immediately lead to a doubling of natural gas consumption for power generation. This legislation would increase the country’s dependence on foreign energy

45

sources in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) causing both natural gas and

electricity prices to increase dramatically.

NETL also describes how coal has protected consumers from even higher natural

gas prices. Unfortunately, the current opposition to continued reliance on coal will

help ensure that U.S. natural gas prices continue to rise toward parity with the

price of oil. Such increases in natural gas prices could cause trade-exposed sectors

of U.S. industry to shut in production, particularly when faced with coal-powered

competitors in China or regions like the Middle East, where cheap natural gas reserves supply power needs. NETL estimates that by 2016, the absence of 18 GW

of currently forecasted new coal-based power plants would mean additional natural

gas demand of 1.4 Tcf/year, equivalent to almost all of the Nation’s presently forecasted LNG supply growth.

If actual electricity growth is higher, as forecasted in U.S. Energy Information Administration’s latest Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), up to an additional 2.3 Tcf of

natural gas for generation will be needed.

Foreign Uses of Natural Gas

The recent trend of increasing reliance of imports of LNG from overseas is expected to continue. Recently, there has been major expansion of LNG terminals in

the United States, and the capacity to import LNG is expected to double in the near

future. As can be seen by the figure (below) from EIA, the amount of natural gas

imported from Canada and Mexico is decreasing, and the amount imported from

overseas as LNG has been increasing and is predicted to continue that rise. The

United States will be competing with other countries for this LNG on the open market. As the energy needs of developing countries continue to increase, the demand

for this LNG will increase as well, potentially leading to less LNG imports into the

U.S. and higher prices.

Issues 3, 4 and 5—The Complex Configurations of New Power Plants with

Carbon Capture and Storage Will Pose New Risks for Infrastructure Reliability

All of the new technologies discussed at major technical conferences for injecting

CO2 into geologic formations for climate change mitigation purposes rely heavily

upon new industrial and transportation infrastructure that must be built in order

to complete the process of safely injecting and storing CO2 in geologic formations.

46

These include product pipelines to get enormous volumes of ammonia, H2S, and

other chemical solvents to the new power plants for carbon separation. These are

chemicals that have either never been used at power plants or never at this scale.

These additional infrastructure demands on rail lines, given current ‘‘captive rail’’

concerns, may well create electric reliability risks if the entire infrastructure does

not work seamlessly. Like the creation of a national highway system for surface

transportation of commodities and people, the new CCS technology at power plants

will require a very sophisticated infrastructure of chemical products delivered by

surface shipping, barges and trains to CCS-equipped power plants. Some CCS

plants may even require construction of chemical delivery pipelines that have traditionally only been constructed to serve refineries, natural gas production plants or

other industrial facilities. Assuming that CCS is the technology chosen at new

power plants, water treatment of produced waters (the byproduct of produced water

from geologic formations) as well as salt and ammonia disposal must be undertaken

on a scale never seen before in the U.S.

Most power plants with CCS will operate as though they are refineries with extractive businesses on-site alongside product movement through pipelines and rail

cars. The electric power industry will be required to address and develop new ‘‘just

in time’’ manufacturing techniques and relationships with suppliers and pipelines.

Any failure of ammonia transport or CO2 movement through pipelines to geological

storage facilities could easily cause power plant shutdowns—a new class of reliability risks not yet seen in the power sector.

Power plants with carbon separation and geologic storage of CO2 raise a host of

new technology issues with as yet unknown reliability impacts. Future power plants

with CCS will be dependent upon the chemical and chemical transportation industries. CCS reliability and economics depend on the ability to continually inject CO2

into geologic formations throughout the lifetime of the power plant. This critical assumption has not yet been tested in the gas volumes likely to be produced by major

power plants. The presumption that CO2 can be injected in situ at a new power

plant with two 500 MW units for the next 60 years is a huge leap of faith. Since

none of these new power plants has yet been permitted, it is not clear if there will

be provisions for ‘‘start up, shut down and maintenance’’ or for times when the CO2

must be vented to allow for the power plant to run fully if there is a problem with

the carbon separation technology or carbon injection technologies. New carbon dioxide control technologies will create highly complex power plants that function with

chemical processes at very high temperatures and under intense pressures. Similar

batch chemical plants often prove to have complex maintenance issues. The figure

below illustrates some of the complexity associated with an IGCC plant, with carbon

capture and storage technologies.

Although the illustration shows one ammonia delivery system, some power plants

might require ammonia product pipelines or other ammonia delivery methods. The

size and proximity to a chemical plant may dictate delivery method and cost. If all

47

of the necessary product deliveries do not take place as scheduled, the plant might

not be able to operate reliably without recurring unplanned outages.

The map shown below illustrates how few pipelines exist today to transport the

CO2 to locations for currently permitted injection (oil and gas recovery locations).

In contrast to the substantial networks for rail delivery for coal and transmission

of natural gas and electricity, most of the U.S. has no existing transportation system

to deliver CO2 to locations suitable for geological injection. This infrastructure must

be built and provide a highly reliable and predictable delivery system.

Scheduled and Unscheduled Outages:

Reliability across the U.S. grid is inextricably linked to the frequency and duration of generating unit outages—whether planned or unplanned. Current IGCC

technology has evidenced considerably longer planned outages than conventional

power plants, which in retrospect seems unsurprising since IGCC coal gasification

plants look and function much more like refineries than power stations. Anecdotal

conversations about maintenance issues for IGCC technology for manufacturing and

power production currently indicates an annual planned outage rate of up to 60

days per year. While future coal gasification plants (IGCC) may well improve on this

scheduled down time, these scheduled outages remain a concern for APPA if gasification technology becomes the dominant form of coal based generation.

Since no commercially demonstrated carbon separation and geosequestration company exists anywhere in the world, it is impossible to predict outage rates for these

new technologies or whether the planned and unplanned maintenance of CCS systems within the power plant would lead to a significantly greater number of scheduled and unscheduled outages and a reduction in total plant availability and capacity factors. But since few new technologies are as reliable during their early years

of operation as proven existing technologies for which we have extensive operation

and maintenance experience, caution and conservatism is advised.

Issue 7—Energy and Water Interdependencies

In December, 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy released a report titled: Energy Demands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water. DOE found that: ‘‘Water is an integral element of energy resource

development and utilization. It is used in energy-resource extraction, refining and

processing, and transportation. Water is also an integral part of electric-power genVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
48

eration. It is used directly in hydroelectric generation and is also used extensively

for cooling and emissions scrubbing in thermoelectric generation. For example, in

calendar year 2000, thermoelectric power generation accounted for 39 percent of all

freshwater withdrawals in the U.S., roughly equivalent to water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture (withdrawals are water diverted or withdrawn from a surfacewater or groundwater source) (Hutson et al., 2004). Water withdrawal statistics for

thermoelectric power are dominated by power plants that return virtually all the

withdrawn water to the source. While this water is returned at a higher temperature and with other changes in quality, it becomes available for further use. Many

power plants, including most of those built since 1980, withdraw much less water

but consume most of what they withdraw by evaporative cooling. In 1995, agriculture accounted for 84 percent of total freshwater consumption. Thermoelectric

power accounted for 3.3 percent of total freshwater consumption (3.3 billion gallons

per day) and represented over 20 percent of non-agricultural water consumption’’

(Solley et al., 1998).

As the figure below suggests, there are many counties in the U.S. (shown in red

in the figure below) where the annual groundwater withdrawals exceed the amount

of precipitation, implying that local and regional aquifers will not be able to be recharged. Population growth, agriculture and electric power generation will likely be

viewed by the public as competing users of scarce water supplies, particularly during the permitting process for new generation.

49

As shown in the map shown above, the U.S. Census Bureau predicts dramatic increases in population over the next 20 years, particularly in parts of the mountain

west, the west coast, Texas, and the southeast. These increases in population will

likely mean considerable increases in electricity usage and summer peak demands.

Many of these areas also face severe pressures on water supplies.

Further complicating the limited availability of water is the fact that that new

fossil electric generation technologies require a minimum of twice the water that existing plants use, as shown in the figure shown below.

50

How is Water Availability Connected to Reliability?

If we have a lack of water, that will create a reliability concern as it will be difficult to build new plants, and existing plants may be required to reduce their operations/shed load if there is insufficient water in the river for thermal cooling. For

example, a large baseload plant in the Southeast U.S. had to cease operations for

five days due to the high temperature of the receiving water body. Power plant

water releases would have violated their discharge permit requirements. Similarly,

several years ago, a severe drought in the upper great plains (coupled with directives to maintain water flows to support barge traffic) forced numerous fossil-fired

plants located on the Missouri River to shut down or operate at reduced output levels.

BIOGRAPHY FOR BRADLEY H. SPOONER

Brad serves as Principal Engineer, Environmental Services for MEAG Power in

Georgia. He manages environmental permitting and compliance for MEAG’s fossil

fuel units, develops strategies for MEAG to meet future environmental requirements, and works with regulatory and legislative bodies to insure that future requirements reflect sound science and public policy.

Brad chairs the American Public Power Association’s Energy and Air Quality

Task Force and Air Regulatory Committee and represents MEAG on the Large Public Power Council’s Environmental Task Force.

Brad is a registered professional engineer and a member of the bar. He has a B.S.

in Electrical Engineering with high honors from the University of Rhode Island, an

M.S. in Engineering Management from Northeastern University, and J.D. cum

laude from Suffolk University Law School.

Chairman LAMPSON. I think we will. Thank you very much. And

recognizing, via teleconference, we have Dr. Hatch. You are recognized for five minutes.

51

STATEMENT OF DR. UPTON HATCH, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL INSTITUTES FOR WATER RESOURCES; ASSOCIATE

DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; RESEARCH PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. HATCH. Chairman Lampson, Representative Inglis, I hope

the AV is working sufficiently. I am Upton Hatch, the Interim Director of the North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute,

located in North Carolina State. I am also President-Elect of the

National Institute of Water Resources, or NIWR. I appreciate this

opportunity, and I apologize. We are hosting an annual conference

of the University Council Water Resources here in Durham.

As an academic, my degrees are from Dartmouth, Georgia, and

Minnesota, all in economics, particularly water resource economics,

and my research currently is focusing on the effectiveness of water

conservation measures and efficiency.

I am testifying on the part of NIWR, which is an organization of

54 institutes, 50 states, and four territories. It was created by the

Water Resources Act of 1964. It has been continuously funded since

then, but inflation adjusted dollars have actually declined quite

dramatically. In authorizing these institutes, Congress’ intent was

to increase the amount of research conducted in the water area,

aiding the entry of new scientists, also to train new scientists, and

distribute the results of the sponsored research to the water managers and the general public. It was recently, in 2006, reauthorized.

The Water Resources Institute received core funding from the

U.S. Geological Survey, and this core funding is a dependable

source of funding that is leveraged on the order of five or ten to

one, with other federal agencies, State, and also some local groups.

And we strongly support this idea of better coordination.

As has been suggested by others, there have been three well

known reports that we support strongly, the so-called SWAQ Report, and the 2001 and 2004 NRC studies. Just without going

through all the results there, of course, several major points jump

out. The condition of the water resources in many parts of the

United States and the world are deteriorating. Our institutions

that can balance the ecological, environmental types of needs for

water, and also, human needs are not sufficient. Obviously, population growth and competing uses for the water are a major problem.

In the Southeast, where I grew up, most of the infrastructure

was built in the ’60s, and obviously, the population has increased

dramatically in that area. And also, there is the climate issue. So,

I guess you might say the major issues in my mind would be the

competing uses, the population growth, the age of the infrastructure, and the lack of coordination, and stagnant financial support

at the federal level.

It is interesting that the NRC report did say that we need to

make a new commitment to research on water resources, and we

need a new mechanism is needed to coordinate water research, currently fragmented among approximately 20 federal agencies. In the

NRC report, there were several research areas that were focused,

52

although there were 43 in total. Just a couple of those would be

water supply enhancing technologies, understanding land use

change, doing a better job of measurement and monitoring, understanding the frequency and cause of severe weather and climate,

global climate change, economic returns to these competing uses,

our legal regimes, adaptive management, the role of the private

sector, and also, doing a better job of getting stakeholder input.

Federal involvement in water resources is particularly important,

because watersheds, or water drainage areas, if you will, don’t conform to State boundaries, and so, we inevitably end up with contentious situations among the various states that share a watershed.

Also, research from one state is obviously applicable to research or

to solutions in another state. So, we have a classic public goods situation.

In North Carolina, our recent droughts have made it clear that

it is rainfall, to some extent, that causes our problems, but it is not

just rainfall. Our technologies and our management of these competing uses is crucial, and the coordination among federal and

State groups that represent these competing uses is a very important area that I believe this legislation targets.

It is also, I think, interesting to pull forth from the NRC report,

and actually, read a quote here: ‘‘The World Resource Research Institute system,’’ which is NIWR, ‘‘provides an existing, well organized mechanism for articulating State-based research needs, and

for bringing together water managers, stakeholders across a wide

cross section of the public, and academic researchers and academic

institutions throughout each state. . .the institute system can provide an effective means for communication between, for example, a

national level research coordination body,’’ which is similar to what

we are proposing, or is being proposed today, ‘‘and State and regional water resource agencies.’’

I would like to conclude by saying that WRRI or NIWR is

uniquely positioned to address this initiative, or to assist because,

as mentioned by several of our earlier speakers, high quality, unbiased research results are crucial. And also, long-term and multidisciplinary work is also useful. And the flexibility and adaptability

to local conditions is another aspect that WRRI can help provide.

It can also go from institutional to technical solutions, and the

full spectrum there. It has an established network that has been

working over 40 years now, and is good at addressing regional

issues. The education, the students who have graduated and developed their expertise through this program. I don’t have an exact

number, but we have about 50 right now in North Carolina that

are currently being supported in some fashion by the Institute, and

we can then multiply by the 50 states, and get some kind of notion

as to the level of support that this is providing to students.

Also, I think the Institutes have experience in assessing priorities, assisting in increasing the efficiency of water resource investments. And as mentioned earlier, high quality data is very much

the hallmark of the Water Resources Institutes.

So, I would like to, first, I would like to express my appreciation

for being involved in this, and I apologize for this AV situation we

have here, but we strongly support this initiative, and we agree

53

that something over than an ad hoc process that has been mostly

done in the past is needed.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hatch follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF UPTON HATCH

Mr. Chairman and Representative Inglis,

My name is Upton Hatch. I am the Interim Director of the North Carolina Water

Resources Research Institute (NC WRRI), located at North Carolina State University. In addition, I am President-Elect of the National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR).

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this hearing on proposed legislation,

‘‘National Water Research and Development Act,’’ today by video conference. I am

unable to provide this testimony in person because we are co-sponsors of the annual

meeting of the Universities Council on Water Resources (UCOWR) today here in

Durham, NC.

My academic degrees are from Dartmouth College (B.A.), University of Georgia

(M.S.), and University of Minnesota (Ph.D.), all in economics, particularly resource

economics with a specialty in water resource economics. I am currently involved in

research on the effectiveness of water conservation measures, particularly drinking

water, and have established water conservation as a major focus of NC WRRI’s program.

I am testifying today on behalf of the National Institutes for Water Resources

(NIWR), an organization composed of the fifty-four State water resources research

institutes established under legislation enacted by Congress. The Water Resources

Research Act of 1964 (42 USC Sec. 10301 et seq.) authorized the establishment of

water resources research and technology institutes at land-grant universities

throughout the Nation. There are institutes or centers in each of the 50 states, plus

four territories.

In authorizing the water institutes, Congress intended that they:

• arrange for competent research that addresses water problems or expands understanding of water and water-related phenomena;

• aid the entry of new research scientists into water resource fields;

• train future water scientists and engineers; and

• distribute the results of sponsored research to water managers and the public.

Congress reauthorized the Act in 2006 in Public Law 109–471.

While the State WRRIs receive core funding through and partner with the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), they also collaborate and undertake research with a diverse set of federal agencies, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture Department, Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, NASA, and the Energy Department.

Copies of the 2008 Executive Summary of the activities institutes established

under provisions of the Water Resources Research Act has been provided to the Subcommittee with my prepared statement.

I understand this hearing is to develop legislation to better coordinate the Federal

Government’s role in ‘‘designing and implementing federal water research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities to address

changes in water use, supply, and demand in the United States.’’

As you know, the National Science and Technology Council issued a report in September 2007 entitled ‘‘A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support

Water Availability and Quality in the United States.’’ The interagency report was

prepared by the Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ). We

strongly support the findings of this report.

In 2001 and 2004, two seminal National Research Council (NRC) reports (‘‘Envisioning the Agenda for Water Resources Research in the Twenty-First Century’’ and

‘‘Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of Research’’) thoroughly examined the urgency and complexity of water resources issues facing the U.S. Among

others, the following water resources challenges were cited as motivation for these

studies:

• There is abundant evidence that the condition of water resources in many

parts of the U.S. and the world is deteriorating;

54

• Our institutions appear to have limited capacity to manage water-based habitats to maintain and improve species diversity and provide ecosystem services

while concurrently supplying human needs;

• In some regions of the country, the availability of sufficient water to service

growing domestic uses is in doubt, as is the future sufficiency of water to support agriculture in an increasingly competitive and globalizing agricultural

economy;

• Demands for water resources to support population and economic growth continue to increase, although water supplies to support this growth are fixed

and already fully allocated in most areas;

• Renewal and repair of the aging water supply infrastructure will require time

and hundreds of billions of dollars;

• Frequency and magnitude of damages attributable to droughts and floods are

increasing, providing evidence of increasing vulnerability to extreme climate

and weather events;

• Threat of water-borne disease is constantly present, as exemplified by recent

outbreaks of cryptosporidium.

This NRC report highlighted the Nation’s need ‘‘to make a new commitment to

research on water resources in order to confront the increasingly severe water problems faced by all parts of the country’’ and that ‘‘a new mechanism is needed to coordinate water research currently fragmented among nearly 20 federal agencies.’’

There are many critical areas where knowledge and information need improvement for better water resources management. The cited NRC reports developed a

comprehensive list of 43 areas needing further scientific inquiry. Selected

(unranked) examples are:

• Improve existing supply enhancing technologies such as wastewater treatment, desalinization, and groundwater banking;

• Understand the impact of land use changes and best management practices

on pollutant loading to waters, ecosystem services, and biodiversity;

• Understand regional and national hydrologic measurement needs and develop

a program that will provide these measurements;

• Understand and predict the frequency and cause of severe weather (floods

and droughts);

• Understand global change and the associated hydrologic impacts;

• In all sectors develop more efficient water use strategies and optimize the economic return for the water used;

• Develop legal regimes that promote groundwater management and conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater;

• Develop adaptive management as a better approach to water resources management;

• Understand the role of the private sector in achieving efficient water and

wastewater services; and

• Develop different processes for obtaining stakeholder input in forming water

policies and plans.

These areas are examples of the need to improve our current understanding on

the interdependence of water quantity and quality; the balance between human and

ecological water uses; and the legal, institutional, and social factors that contribute

to sustainable water resources management.

Why should the Federal Government lay the funding cornerstone for water research? In the first place, water resources are defined by physical geography and

not by State boundaries. The vast majority of water problems are of regional or national character. Even those of limited scope are usually very similar between

states. Hence, research funding at the federal level, with results transferred nationwide, is the only truly comprehensive and efficient approach. In the second place,

water research epitomizes the economic concept of a public good. As such, State and

local governments and private entities will not produce as much of it as is justified

by the overall value of the results.
55

cultural water demands rise steadily. North Carolina, as well as most U.S. regions,

is not well prepared to effectively manage these unprecedented water stresses. The

main reasons for the lack of preparedness are symptomatic across the U.S. and include:

• Lack of comprehensive knowledge and information on the interdependencies

of natural processes and water uses;

• Narrow perspective on the part of water user groups acting to protect their

short-term interests with total disregard of long-term risks; Lack of a shared

and system-wide management vision and strategy;

• Lack of federal and State agency coordination and cooperation; Inflexible legal

and institutional bureaucracies;

• Insufficient federal and State research investments for the development and

implementation of innovative, adaptive, and integrated management technologies, systems, and processes; and

• Weakening of water resources research and education programs which are

naturally suited to integrate knowledge across disciplines and create human

resources qualified to develop sustainable solutions for our complex water resources challenges.

I would like to briefly comment on each of these areas.

Knowledge and information: There are many critical areas where knowledge and

information need improvement for better water resources management. The above

cited NRC reports developed a comprehensive list of 43 areas (listed above) needing

further scientific inquiry. These areas exemplify the need to improve our current understanding on the interdependence of water quantity and quality; the balance between human and ecological water uses; and the legal, institutional, and social factors that contribute to sustainable water resources management.

While there is a lot to learn, a lot is already known and can significantly benefit

water resources planning and management. However, making this knowledge and

information meaningful for and accessible to those involved in decision-making processes has proved to be another very serious challenge. Paradoxically, in spite of our

information age, water resources policy-makers, managers, and stakeholder groups

are becoming ever more removed from current scientific and technological advances.

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

technology transfer mechanisms.

Local vs. system-wide perspectives: Water stresses are often compounded by the

efforts of individual stakeholders acting to safeguard their own local interests without regard for the long-term risks of such actions. A local and short-term perspective

by each water user group sharing the resource cannot be sustainable and only

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

for all. The same ‘‘tragedy of the commons’’ scenario is likely to occur when water

uses and impacts are planned and managed individually, without regard for their

multiple temporal and spatial linkages. It is thus imperative that the proposed Initiative take a holistic perspective in the development of a comprehensive national

water strategy.

Federal and State agency coordination and cooperation: Water resources management falls within the mandates of several federal agencies including EPA, NASA,

and NSF and various Departments such as Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Interior. Further complicating water management, monitoring and oversight responsibilities are found within different groups of these departments, for example, ARS, NOAA, CORPS, USGS,

ATSDR, NIEHS, and USBR. In reviewing the existing federal coordination mechanisms, the 2004 NRC report concluded that ‘‘coordination among agencies has occurred only sporadically over the last several decades, despite repeated calls for

more coordination.’’ As a result, the national water resources agenda among the federal agencies is fragmented and has a disciplinary rather than a broad and holistic

scope. Furthermore, although the states adjudicate, administer, and regulate water

rights and uses, federal and State agencies must work together to ensure harmonization of and compliance with federal and State laws in the management of

transboundary water resources. However, the existing coordination and cooperation

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

Lack of investments in integrated and adaptive management: A striking finding

of the 2004 NRC report was that over the last 30 years total funding in the areas

of (1) water supply augmentation and conservation, (2) water quality management

and protection, (3) water resources planning and institutional issues, and (4) water

resources data collection have severely declined. As a result, long-term basic reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
56

search and technology transfer in integrated and adaptive water resources planning

and management have been neglected, and the majority of our water resources are

managed by reactive, disciplinary, and inefficient methods and procedures. The

main impediments in the use of modern management methods are: (1) inflexible bureaucracies that have evolved around the use of old management procedures and (2)

inadequate training of agency personnel. Thus, a promising and largely unexplored

strategy to address water scarcity is the modernization of the current management

procedures through recent but proven scientific advances, transferred to professional

practice through education and training.

Water resources research and educational programs: The other casualty of declining funding has been the weakening of our water resources research and educational programs. At a time when universities increasingly depend on ‘‘soft’’ funding, faculty positions and student support have migrated to other higher priority

areas. In sharp contrast to the 60’s, 70’s, and early 80’s, very few academic programs can now claim significant expertise in water resources. This is not to imply

that academic programs are shrinking. On the contrary, they are expanding, as they

should, to cover much finer and very exciting frontiers of geophysical, environmental, and life sciences. In doing so, however, universities have lost their commitment to interdisciplinary education and are becoming over-specialized. An important

role that water resources programs can play is to provide a scientific and policy

framework for interdisciplinary research, education, and technology transfer. Such

a framework is necessary to create broadly educated scientists, engineers and policymakers able to invent technological and institutional solutions for the Nation’s

water resources and environmental challenges.

In this regard, the WRRI provides a unique network to address the challenges of

interdisciplinary research, education, and technology transfer. However, the institutes cannot fully realize their potential at the current low rate of federal and State

investment. I hope that the Initiative proposed here will also address the need for

sustainable and sufficient funding needed to reverse the continued weakening of our

water resources programs.

The NRC report also notes the need for a systems approach to water resources

research, to avoid the ‘‘myopia’’ of limited jurisdictions or agency missions. Universities have a unique ability and range of disciplinary expertise necessary to take the

broad view of water issues and to probe their resolutions. Universities, and WRRI

in particular, are uniquely situated to facilitate information exchange between State

and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, and whatever federal body might be designated to coordinate federally-sponsored research.

As the NRC report notes, ‘‘The Water Resources Research Institute system . . .

provides an existing, well-organized mechanism for articulating State-based research needs and for bringing together water managers, stakeholders across a wide

cross section of the public, and academic researchers and academic institutions

throughout each state.’’ As such, ‘‘. . . the institute system can provide an effective

means of communication between, for example, a national-level research coordinating body and the State and regional water resources agencies.’’ In addition to

State and local agencies and non-governmental organizations, the institutes already

have close ties to State-based offices of Federal Government agencies.

WRRI welcomes the opportunity to work with this committee and with this subcommittee to address water resource issues. WRRI is uniquely positioned to assist

in the proposed Initiative because:

• WRRI program is not limited by a policy-driven or regulatory mission

and thus can address the entire spectrum of water resources issues, including

gaps between government agencies. By focusing on science, the program

serves as an objective broker of information among a wide range of constituencies.

• University-based institutes are conducive to examining long-term consequences of policies and recognizing long-term problems, with access to expertise in all water-related disciplines.

• The WRRI program can be more flexible in addressing emerging problems

and more adaptable to local cultures, institutions of governance, and regional socioeconomic and physical conditions.

• Institutes and academic researchers are more likely than mission-driven

agencies to consider institutional, in addition to technical, solutions.

57

• NIWR is an established network of immense and geographically diverse capabilities on the cutting edge of virtually every facet of water resources. The

network facilitates regional as well as State and local cooperation.

• The Institutes provide hands-on educational opportunities to develop the

highly trained workforce necessary to build our national capacity for sustainable water resource management.

• Technology transfer programs at each Institute provide scientifically credible communication of research needs and results upward from the states

and localities to federal agencies and downward from these agencies to users

of research results.

• Institutes are experienced in assessing priorities for research, having established Technical Advisory Committees with representatives from virtually

all interested agencies and non-governmental organizations.

• WRRI Program provides information to increase the efficiency of federal

water resources research investment by identifying research gaps and avoiding redundancies.

• WRRI Program provides funding to fill research gaps to improve the effectiveness of water resources management.

• WRRI Program includes a quality-review process (similar to GPRA requirements) with mandated reviews every three years. Institutes are held accountable for expenditures as well as for the quality and relevance of scientific results and the vigor of outreach programs.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to participate in today’s hearing.

I applaud and encourage efforts by our federal and State-elected leadership to develop new policies and programs to meet the water challenges we face in the Twenty-first Century. I know I speak for my fellow directors of the State water resources

research institutes when I say we are anxious to work with you and other stakeholders to address the water challenges we face in the future through research, education and training, and information transfer and exchange.

BIOGRAPHY FOR UPTON HATCH

Upton Hatch is Interim Director of the North Carolina Water Resources Research

Institute, located at North Carolina State University. He is President-Elect of the

National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR). His academic appointment at

North Carolina State University is in the Department of Agricultural and Resource

Economics. His degrees are from Dartmouth College (B.A.), University of Georgia

(M.S.), and University of Minnesota (Ph.D.), all in economics, particularly resource

economics with a specialty in water resource economics. He is Professor Emeritus

of Auburn University and former Director of the Auburn University Environmental

Institute and the Alabama Water Resources Research Institute. His research and

teaching have focused on resource economics.

DISCUSSION

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL’S SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY

(SWAQ) OUTREACH

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Hatch. We will now begin

with our first round of questions, and the Chairman will recognize

himself for five minutes.

Let me ask you all a couple of questions. The Academies’ Report

indicated the outreach mandate needed to be strengthened and improved. What is the current experience with SWAQ, with respect

to communication with yours or similar organizations, and are additional funds needed to support broader outreach effort, or is explicit direction to undertake these actions sufficient?

And Dr. Shannon, if you would start, and the rest of you comment.

58

Dr. SHANNON. Thank you, Chairman. Just to recap. The issue,

you are asking specifically about the communication from the

group, SWAQ, to the——

Chairman LAMPSON. And experience, yes.

Dr. SHANNON. The experiences from the industrial side of things,

which is really what I have been representing, is that there has not

been a lot of diffusion from the Federal Government to an organization that are building water technologies, and that would be a

fantastic thing, if this could be improved and increased, to increase

the diffusion of knowledge, and coordination.

Where there has been some with my, through the National

Science Foundation, that I represent as well, and that is, of course,

much more closely allied, so—with, you know, the work that has

been done at the National Academy of Sciences, et cetera.

So, perhaps these folks here would be better in addressing your

question.

Mr. CHRISTENSON. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I am speaking for

the beverage companies, I think there is, the right word from our

participants is that there is a general need for greater coordination,

but also, that communication is a key piece to that coordination,

and interactive communication. So, it is a two way flow.

I think the general feeling of my constituents is probably to have

access and provide input, so there is not a clear pathway or vehicle

to communicate into these organizations necessarily, and communication outwards, and synthesis of that communication could be

improved.

Dr. LOFTUS. It is my sense that there is little to no dialogue taking place between SWAQ or many federal agencies, and perhaps,

the State of Illinois, which might be the most logical first step in

communication, so I think there is room for improvement there.

Mr. JOHNSON. It seems to me that most of the communication

has probably been through interest groups and associations, as opposed to bringing the effort down to the local level, where individuals who may not have the resources, or may not be a part of some

of the national organizations, would have an opportunity to have

more direct input into the effort. So, I think that that would be a

very critical element. And I think it ought to be mandated, and I
59

managers, or the water managers, for the 11 largest cities in the

State of North Carolina. So, I think it is very much a mixed picture

for our NIWR group.

Some states have quite an extensive program that could be supported further, or could be used as an example for some other

states. But I would have to admit that it is not completely that

NIWR deserves all the accolades there. It is often the local communities, and our particular community, universities and research, we

are the Research Triangle. We have Duke, we have NC State, we

have University of North Carolina. We have Wake Forest. So, it is

a very unique situation that probably isn’t replicated in many

areas of the country.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN ENSURING WATER

AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY

Chairman LAMPSON. I am going to squeeze this in, and let you

comment on it. If you will, make it as succinct as possible. What

is the most significant deficiency with respect to the Federal Government’s current role in ensuring water availability and quality?

The most significant deficiency with respect to the Federal Government’s current role in ensuring water availability and quality.

Dr. HATCH. Are you saying deficiency or inefficiency?

Chairman LAMPSON. Deficiency.

Dr. HATCH. Deficiency.

Chairman LAMPSON. The most significant deficiency.

Dr. HATCH. I believe it is coordination. I think the general public

looks in the newspaper, and they see something about the Corps

has this requirement, and they look in there, and they see that the

hydropower, FERC, has another requirement. Then, they look at

the city municipal drinking water, and they see yet another, and

the governor has yet another opinion. So, it seems to me that this

coordination is crucial that you are suggesting. We strongly support

it.

Chairman LAMPSON. Anyone else want to comment? Dr. Loftus.

Dr. LOFTUS. We have the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone

Management Act for water quality guidance. We don’t really have

anything similar for issues of water supply. And so, in my view, we

might benefit from a National Water Policy Act of some sort, that

does the water quantity what the other two acts have done for

water quality. That is the biggest deficiency, in my view, and then,

the other matter would be to ensure that we have got that vertical

coordination. We definitely can use better coordination at the horizontal federal level, but we need it to also move up and down

through states, providing states with goals and guidance and incentives, so that at the regional, on the ground level, where I am at,

we have a strong sense for, you know, what the big picture is, and

overarching goals are.

Chairman LAMPSON. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to

make a comment?

Mr. CHRISTENSON. Quick comment if I may, Chairman. I believe

the representative group that, the biggest deficiency is in the consolidation of information and data and communication. This Act is

intended to address—serve as a clearinghouse, consolidate available information on water quantity and quality, and distribute that

60

information. So, some of the research that is here, to define our

water resources, and provide the basis for planning and decisionmaking, and consolidation of the research at the federal level, is

needed. That leadership piece is missing right now, in my opinion.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you.

Dr. SHANNON. I actually agree with all of these gentlemen. But

just the issue is, is that there really is no coordination right now

between the research that is done by the Federal Government, and

funded by the Federal Government, and its diffusion into practice.

That is also a key issue. It is just, it is missing.

Chairman LAMPSON. Yes. Mr. Spooner.

CARBON SEQUESTRATION’S IMPACT ON WATER SUPPLY

Mr. SPOONER. I would just like to repeat my concern about carbon capture and sequestration, that would effectively be mandated

or strongly encouraged with some of the global climate legislation,

where perhaps, the water quantity impacts have not been adequately considered.

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you very much. My time has expired,

and I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for five minutes.

Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Spooner, following up on that part of it, does it—

I am not sure I know how water is used in carbon sequestration.

What is the process there? Do you happen to know, or are you just

aware it uses a lot of water?

Mr. SPOONER. DOE has produced a series of reports, where they

have looked at a number of the impacts of carbon capture and sequestration, on both retrofitting existing utility units and constructing new units. And that goes into quite a bit of detail, hundreds of pages, and I can’t really paraphrase or summarize that

very well, but it is a very water intensive process to capture the

carbon dioxide.

Mr. INGLIS. Interesting. Anybody else know anything about that?

I have to find out what the process is for the various technologies

that we might use for carbon sequestration.

AVOIDING BURDENSOME BUREAUCRACY

This concept of coordination has got to be balanced against the

experience, say, of homeland security, which some people think

hasn’t been so coordinated, and has, in fact, created additional layers of bureaucracy to respond to threats. Any ideas about how we

make sure that we don’t repeat those mistakes? To have coordination, but not a layer of additional bureaucracy that just is overlaid

over the existing bureaucracy?

Mr. CHRISTENSON. If I may make a comment, from a strategic

thinking perspective, or a strategic planning perspective, I think

success is always founded in having a clearer vision of what you

define as success, and putting those controls in. The catch to that

is milestones, and clearly defining expectations for outcomes. So, I

think they set it in a clear direction, and the boundaries and scope

are probably the most critical piece to avoiding scope creep, which

is often a problem. And I think that is one of the things that we

see is, we are having a hard time envisioning, in the current discussion, and we see an opportunity to add more clarity on what the

61

vision is, and the purpose. This policy does not create another

agency. This is not, that is how we are interpreting this policy, but

it is actually a functional group that spans a certain scope of activity to the Federal Government, and helps create, set some focus,

tighten the budgeting, and things of that nature. But from our perspective, I think that is one of the missing pieces, or truly a place

to enhance the current policy discussion.

BENEFITS OF RESEARCH

Mr. INGLIS. I suppose that each of you must have some hypothesis about what this research is going to show about water usage

and availability. Anybody want to dare to state a hypothesis about,

I think it is going to have something to do with conservation, that

would be my guess, as a hypothesis here? Anybody want to venture

one, as to what the main thrust of this research might prove? Leaving aside some of the key issues that Mr. Johnson had mentioned

about the pharmaceuticals and things like that, and that is very

interesting research that is very important. And the other, the

availability issue; there are probably some hypotheses out there

about what you are going to find.

Dr. SHANNON. At the risk of trying to project out with a crystal

ball, which I don’t really have—but the issue, I think, if we get

much better information as to where the water is, and the state

that the water is at. Particularly the issues with downwater. Surface water is fairly well understood. USGS has done a great job.

There has been a real fracture of who is responsible for collecting

groundwater information, and we have really gone county by county. I mean, it is very, there is not really a whole database which

is, you keep hearing referred to.

I think what people will find is that the replenishment rate is

less than the withdrawal rate, and that issue will become really

crucial. The main issue with what one can do about this. Can we

reuse? Can we restore? Can we reclaim water, and recharge

aquifers? That would be a critical issue, which nobody right now,

there is no federal agency that says that is their charter. You can

say, well, EPA has its charter for water quality, but what is the

charter for that.

The Bureau of Reclamation has some charter, but there is no one

particular agency, so the issue really, through your earlier question, what could happen is, is really to be, as Mr. Christenson said,

you really make sure the scope is well-defined at each agency. I

think right now, we have many agencies that are doing the same

thing, and yet, nobody has a single charge, and to try to, if you can

craft a way that this committee could actually define who does

what, and who has what charter, I think, would be the best way

of approaching it.

Dr. LOFTUS. Mr. Inglis, I would hypothesize that a nationwide

commitment to conservation and efficiency will be the least expensive new supply we can develop.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is very profound. I agree with all of the, both

of my colleagues here, but I think that one of the things that we

have learned, in particular, with the looking at nanotechnology and

pharmaceuticals, is that we have developed technology to identify

and define many of these elements that are out in the environVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
62

ment, and that that technology has been, has far outstripped the

research and the technology that is necessary to avoid having those

constituents and elements that have the potential to be harmful to

health, in getting into the environment.

So, I think that those, that kind of research is going to need to

catch up with the research for the identification of these things.

The other thing, I think, is just methods that we might employ, in

particular, in urban environments, to try to reduce pollution, and

to capture that water supply as a better water supply, as it comes

out of our urban environment, in particular.

Dr. HATCH. I have a comment. I think the most important element right now is the competing uses of this, of the supply. I think

that we, through the last so many decades, have always used increasing storage, building reservoirs, as our way to deal with water

resource problems, and I think now, it is more competing demands,

and management, better efficiency, conservation, looking at things

on a more long-term basis. Looking at things on a watershed basis

is also crucial. Because we are getting into so many issues of jurisdiction. So—and I guess water quality is the other one. You can’t

separate quality from quantity. It is quality of a certain, I mean,

quantity of a certain quality, so—I think those are the kinds of

issues that are coming up.

Mr. SPOONER. I would just like to mention that, with the Georgia

Water Management Plan, one of the first implementation steps was

water conservation, more emphasis on that could be started and

implemented, to some degree, almost immediately. And I would be

glad to furnish a copy of the plan for the record, along with some

information on CCS water use, in response to the prior question.

Thanks.

Mr. INGLIS. Thanks.

Chairman LAMPSON. You are welcome. I now recognize, for five

minutes, the gentlelady from Maryland.

WATER CONSERVATION

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am curious. Each of

you did talk about conservation as an important component, maybe

even a principal component of looking at our nation’s water supply.

I am really curious as to whether you think that there is a place

in the legislation that we are considering, where we might ask specific data points, and what those might be, regarding conservation.

Mr. Christenson, particularly, you and your industry, looking at aspects, for example, of bottling water and that industry, competing

uses of agriculture, and then what questions we also might ask regarding conservation that we can do as individuals and homeowners, that might impact our water supply. I think begin with

you, Mr. Christenson.

Mr. CHRISTENSON. I need to ask for a clarification again, if you

would restate or summarize your question.

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I am curious about what your industry, you

know, how your industry would look at conservation, because you

mentioned conservation——

Mr. CHRISTENSON. Sure. Sure.

63

Ms. EDWARDS.—is an important aspect of the water supply, and

how your industry looks at conservation and the data points that

we might ask about what we can do around conservation to get——

Mr. CHRISTENSON. Certainly. We have measured, in the beverage

industry, total water consumption amount very closely. They look

at water use at various departments within the production process,

and within the supply chain. So, we look beyond the four walls of

the operating facilities, but also look down the supply chain, so beginning to take a life cycle assessment look at water consumption

to develop a product.

In addition, you use the quantitative measurement, the use of

water, and you begin to attack your heavy user water departments

conceptually. And so, you are looking at water use efficiency,

against some production quantity.

The other piece that I think people have had great effectiveness

at is to create a culture within these businesses to water stewardship and conservation. So, if the employee that is walking around

the plant sees a faucet on, turns it off, it is like turning the lights

off when you leave the room.

So, the two aspects that we are looking at are the quantitative

aspect of water use and efficiency, usually measured against, normalized against—production level, whether it is kilograms or per

liter of product developed, whatever. And the other is really trying

to look at and benchmark practices and culture within the business, as a data point and an indicator of how we are doing.

So, I hope that answers your question.

Ms. EDWARDS. Dr. Loftus, do you have a comment about what we

might look at around conservation that could have an impact on

water supply?

Dr. LOFTUS. Yes, thank you. In the Chicago region, we have

adopted 14 specific measures, and they will aim at households, residential use. They will aim at commercial, industrial, institutional

accounts, and so, there is something in there for everyone.

Some of those measures will require changes of behavior, and

some will not. Some of those measures, you can very easily quantify water savings that could be expected upon implementation.

Others are a little less easy to quantify. But the beauty of the

whole conservation movement is that we only have to look to other

states that have been in crisis mode, that have been forced to really lead this edge, California, Arizona, for example, Texas, and more

or less emulate what they have already tried and learned about

through trial and error, so that is one of the messages I brought

back to Chicago, is we don’t have to really recreate new wheels, so

much as we have to emulate a lot of the good work that has already taken place in various parts across the country.

So, I called out California. The California Urban Water Conservation Council is a real pioneer, for example, in establishing a

whole structure for promoting and achieving real conservation savings. The New Alliance for Water Efficiency, in some respects, is

an outgrowth of the success of the California Council, but now, the

Alliance has a North American scope headquartered in Chicago.

They are very committed to promoting the whole conservation and

efficiency agenda, because there are so many benefits, both on the

water intake side, as well as on the wastewater treatment side.

64

Ms. EDWARDS. And is there a national snapshot of what a conservation strategy might look like for the country, as opposed to

the individual snapshots that we might get in a region or a locality?

Dr. LOFTUS. Well, that is a good question. I want to say we could

create one without too much work, if one didn’t exist already.

Maybe my colleagues can respond to whether or not such a snapshot exists.

Ms. EDWARDS. I think my time is up.

Dr. SHANNON. Oh, I actually, that was one of the—sorry—I actually showed one where I actually tried to capture the Nation as a

snapshot in just one graph. Conservation is essential, because if we

don’t, if we stay on our current rate of increasing consumption per

capita, we will have to increase our total water supplies by 60 percent over the next 30 years, which is not possible. So—but if we

just focus on domestic use, that—we would have to cut our domestic use by 60 percent. Everybody would have to use 60 percent less.

Our industries would have to use 30 percent, energy would have

to use 30 percent less, and ag would have to use 20 percent less.

Really, agriculture consumes 70 to 80 percent of the water used in

the United States. So, in this talking about the different sectors,

we really have to—and that is one of the essential things that the

Federal Government can help do, is to bring all these different sectors together. Dealing with one sector without thinking of the other

is—we can’t——

Chairman LAMPSON. Okay. Thank you. Next, we have, I will recognize for five minutes Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. It is going to be a race between water availability and availability of liquid fuels, which

brings our communities to their knees first.

You have been talking about water conservation, and we are not

very aggressive in water conservation. I remember that I was proposing building houses that got all of the water from the water that

falls on their roof. If you are in this area, with 40 inches of rainfall,

you have an average house, enough water falls on the roof of your

house to meet all of your water needs for the year, if you are at

all conserving.

And I say, people said, oh, gee, you can’t drink rainwater, cistern

water, and I said well, let me understand this. The rain falls on

the hog lot, and the water from the hog lot goes into the creek, and

the creek goes into the river, and you pull the water out of the

river and treat it, and that is my drinking water. I said can I

please have the water before it goes through the hog lot. That

seems to me to be a reasonable request.

I also suggested that in conserving water in the home, that you

might use gray water. We are one of the few major countries that

uses drinking water to flush its toilets and wash its streets. And

one of the counties, they said oh, gee, you can’t do that. Somebody

might drink the water of the hose when they were washing their

car. And my response was you don’t drink water out of your toilet,

do you? You learn where you get drinking water, and where you

don’t get drinking water.

You mentioned the relationship between energy and water. Indeed, they are very closely related. We are getting, now, a bit more


66

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. Your thoughts are

always impressive and causes us to think. We will see where we

go with it all. We have, next, Mr. McNerney. You are recognized

for five minutes.

CONSERVATION AND AGRICULTURE

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The areas I am most

interested in is the impact of efficiency, water efficiency and conservation on farming, in terms of productivity and profitability.

Could any of you take that question on? How is efficiency is going

to make farming more profitability or more productive? Can it, or

are farmers going to be taking a hit when we go toward conservation? It is inevitable.

Dr. SHANNON. Anybody else? I will be willing to tackle this.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure.

Dr. SHANNON. I actually went to India and—a couple of weeks

ago, just to give, issue about agriculture, and they doubled their

food production by basically doubling their water withdrawals out

of their aquifers to reach the Green Revolution, and now, their

aquifers are drying. So, they are very, very worried about to do to

maintain their efficiency. Well, Israel has really done a tremendous

job in cutting the amount of water and increasing their agricultural

output.

So, this is an area that, with some new technologies and some

new investment, we can actually increase, I think, agricultural output in many regards, while reducing the amount of water use.

Doing groundwater drip irrigation, where you go right below the

soil, has benefits, by reducing the amount of fertilizers needed, as

well as water, and you can increase productivity.

So, there are a lot of places in the world that are looking at this.

The United States is somewhat doing this in California, from what

I understand. Of course, through the Midwest, we don’t yet.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I have got a lot of almond farmers in my

district, and I mean, they tell me, when they reduce water usage,

their almond production goes down. It is that simple. Is that, in

your mind, is that necessarily the case?

Dr. SHANNON. Well, it is connected with the biology, which is the

trans-evaporation rate. To get more output, you have to have that

go up, and so, that is where the consumption comes in. But it is

the pan-evaporation that is not, doesn’t lead to that, that we have

to minimize. And if you can minimize the pan-evaporation, that

doesn’t leave the crop, but you do have to have the, what is called

trans-evaporation to produce crop, and there is just no way of getting around that.

Mr. MCNERNEY. You seem to be——

Dr. HATCH. I have a comment.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Oh, go ahead.

Dr. HATCH. There is the basic issue of getting the water to where

it is needed, which is the root zone or the leaf. You could argue

that spraying water out into the air isn’t very efficient. You could

argue that where it is possible, drip irrigation doesn’t work with all

crops, but drip irrigation not only delivers water, but more and

more farmers find they can deliver various chemicals or other

67

things, it becomes like an IV, if you will, for a human. It is a great

delivery system.

So, in crops and agricultural situations where you can use something like that, or you can figure out a way to get more of the

water that you are taking out of a storage pond, or out of a river,

wherever it is coming from, get more of that water into the affected

location, then that is a great efficiency, and if that is done, then

the productivity could actually increase. And I think that is what

he is referring to in Israel.

Mr. MCNERNEY. And sort of a related question, you discussed the

depletion of groundwater aquifers. It is a big issue. Are there geologic consequences to that, and how can we better use rainfall to

recharge these? I mean, in California, we are close to the ocean.

The rain comes, and we flush it out to avoid flooding. But is it an

effective way to use that, to recharge our aquifers?

Dr. HATCH. I guess I can—if somebody else wants to jump in.

Groundwater recharge is an issue. If you don’t recharge, the land

subsides, and there is subsistence occurring everywhere around the

world, and in the United States. Singapore, by the way, has subsided almost 30 centimeters in 30 years from pumping out groundwater aquifers. Same thing with Mexico City, and of course, New

Orleans, we know about that, and other places.

But you can recharge with rainwater, but typically, the water

needs to be really clean to get fast recharge rates. If it is not clean

enough, it is slow. If it is muddy water, it doesn’t recharge, and

then, you have to get rid of it from floods. So, there are, there is

work going on to be able to clean it up effectively, so that you can

recharge aquifers more effectively.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Dr. Loftus.

Dr. LOFTUS. And to go back to your previous question, I think

there is an opportunity here to think a little more holistically,

thinking about agriculture and their needs for water. You know, we

have spent billions and billions of dollars improving our wastewater treatment plants, and we really produce some pretty high

quality wastewater that can present no health problems. But yet,

it is nutrient-rich, and so, you could apply treated wastewater to

corn, for example, and eliminate the farmer’s need to buy urea or

other forms of nitrogen that they use at great expense, given the

price of oil these days, and actually, boost their productivity and

profitability, and at the same time, provide, you know, an outlet for

effluent that might otherwise cause a problem, if it is being put

into a sensitive stream and degrading water quality, for example.

Mr. MCNERNEY. My time is about expired, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman LAMPSON. Sounds to me that that would involve actually planning the use of the land, as well, so that you could have

best use of the land nearest where, there is a lot that has to go

on.

Mr. CHRISTENSON. And we are seeing that happening now, beginning to happen. In the beverage industry, certainly, we are seeing

beneficial reuse of their waste streams directly for land application,

things of that nature. So, those practices are evolving. If I may

make a quick comment.

Chairman LAMPSON. Please.

68

Mr. CHRISTENSON. Just to the, again, the agricultural discussion.

You know, I think the whole discussion really speaks to the need

for the various sectors to come together and be looking for solutions

in total. You know, we have got Pepsi and Coca-Cola, and we all

know the rivalry between those two businesses, working together

on a common problem, and a common issue for their industry. And

I think the same opportunity exists here. I think the agriculture

industry, the heavy and the technical manufacturing industry, food

and beverage industry, need to come together and be looking at,

and collaborating, looking at their water uses and practices. There

is a lot of new technology that is being developed. Agricultural industry should not be afraid of this. We all need their products, as

we need other products.

So, for us to take, have the sectors coming together, and realizing

that this current federal policy we are discussing today works to

coalesce and get collaboration across federal agencies. Somewhere

out there, we need to begin to create this cross-industry sector collaboration and solution-solving forum. So, I am just kind of hearing—what we are talking about here today. These are the kind of

things I think that we see need to happen, and certainly trying to

do within the beverage industry.

Chairman LAMPSON. Ms. Biggert, you are recognized for five

minutes.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. It has been very interesting. I was just sitting

here looking at this bottle of water, and thinking that it wasn’t too

long ago that this bottle of water cost more than a gallon of gasoline.

Now, it is no longer true, and unfortunately, it is not that the

price of water has gone, but the price of gasoline has skyrocketed.

So, we have a lot of challenges, I think, facing us, and hopefully,

that we are, we can come up with some solutions quickly.

And I would like to welcome Dr. Loftus here from the CMAP. I

live in the metropolitan Chicago area, and so, certainly appreciate

all that you do to provide us with drinking water. When I first

moved to Hinsdale, we had well water, and it smelled like rotten

eggs, and finally we did go off the well water and use Lake Michigan. That has been a wonderful resource, but it, you know, there

are challenges there, too, in how much water we can use.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S ROLE

But I just wanted to ask everybody, and then come back to another question, just so that we can be clear, do you envision a bureau to control water usage, or merely to monitor and predict it,

and such as the bill that we are, the draft legislation that we are

looking at now? Should it be to control water use, or to monitor and

predict it? And start with you, Dr. Shannon.

Dr. SHANNON. I was envisioning this as a way to monitor and

provide new ways of providing new waters, not as a control, but as

a, providing opportunities to improve water management.

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Christenson.

Mr. CHRISTENSON. Same answer. I view this as a means of collecting some of the information and data, and technology development that will allow us to make the decisions we need to make, or

69

have the impact, and put the controls in place. So, without some

of the foundational research and technology development that this

policy would create, we are not really in a position yet to make the

appropriate decisions of control.

Ms. BIGGERT. Dr. Loftus.

Dr. LOFTUS. I don’t see a present need for control. I think we

have an opportunity to better orchestrate a lot of good pieces that

are already in place.

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I think I would agree that the need for control is certainly not there, and I think it would be a very, very difficult undertaking, and if we put that same level of energy into coordinating the research that is currently available, and the prospective research, and I think pulling together some of the NGOs

along with the Federal Government, to make those things happen,

then we see ourselves in a very different environment, and causing

people to think differently about resources that we are utilizing.

Ms. BIGGERT. And Mr. Johnson, I would like to thank you for

tearing up the street in front of my house here in Washington, and

getting rid of the lead pipes.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have never seen a new street that I didn’t want

to cut.

Ms. BIGGERT. Well, it is a very nice street now. And Mr. Spooner.

Mr. SPOONER. I agree with the other panel members. The research and information needs to precede any control mechanisms.

Ms. BIGGERT. Okay, and Dr. Hatch.

Dr. HATCH. I think we are all unanimous. It is a more a coordination, management, research, information, those areas. It is not

control.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. Then, Dr. Loftus, you said in your testimony that overall, as elsewhere in the United States, our challenge in the Chicago region is not so much water scarcity, but

water waste. Do you mean the treatment of water, or wasting, you

know, or not conserving it?

Dr. LOFTUS. The latter. More, you know, I hesitate to say this,

but I kind of say that we are sort of spoiled in the Chicago region,

and we have had abundant, you know, very generous supplies. We

haven’t really needed to conserve water. It has been priced quite

low. So, naturally, it is hard to conserve something that is nearly

free, or priced I inexpensively. So, I think there is just an opportunity to value water much more highly, and as a result, just simply become more efficient with its use without causing pain.

Ms. BIGGERT. Do you think that, then, going to a national level,

as far as, you know, the coordination with, on a national level with

all of the states and the local governments, that this, that we can

get a message out to people to conserve more? Is this——

Dr. LOFTUS. Yes, ma’am. Absolutely. I think it is critical that the

Federal Government become an active voice, and show leadership,

and provide guidance to states who have programs that, like our

own State of Illinois program, is interested in evolving, and becoming better at managing State supplies. But you know, again, guidance, incentives, direction from the Federal Government would be,

and maybe I am an idealist, but I think it would be really useful.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back.

70

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you. And I recognize Ms. Giffords for

five minutes.

GROUNDWATER RESEARCH

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking

Member Inglis. This is a terrific hearing, and I am very pleased

that so many of you could be here today to talk about an issue that

is really going to drive our economy, and certainly, national security into the future.

I think that wars of the future will be fought over water, not necessarily oil, and I don’t think the American people really understand what we have got headed down the road towards us. I come

from Southern Arizona. We have an interesting situation, where we

have had delivery of the Central Arizona Project for many years.

I come from a part of Arizona, though, that has been heavily reliant on groundwater for most of those years, where our larger city,

Phoenix, has been reliant on surface water for most of its growth.

So, there is an interesting relationship that we have. Southern

Arizona conserves much, much more than Phoenix. When you go

to Southern Arizona, you rarely see a lawn, rare to see larger

swimming pools. I mean, you will see a lot more of that up in the

Phoenix area.

So, my first question is for Dr. Shannon, because you talk a lot

about groundwater. I just had a town hall hearing a couple weeks

ago in Sahuarita. It is a booming part of Southern Arizona, a lot

of retirees, near Green Valley, just north of Nogales. And there is

a shortage of about 35,000 to 40,000 acre feet per year that we are

seeing in this area of drawdown, and I am concerned, because this

area is going to continue to boom, and we are the second fastest

growing state in the Nation, and this area is also sandwiched between large agricultural interests and mining interests as well. We

all know that we have record drought in the West, and certainly,

we see that with that record drought, that we are going to have

more and more users on the Colorado, but less and less water supply.

I was also surprised to read your testimony about how little actually is known about groundwater, how, we don’t have a lot of information out there. So, could you specifically talk about some of the

necessary research that we are going to need in the future towards

groundwater?

Dr. SHANNON. Thank you very much for this question, because

it is actually a crucial question, where I think the Federal Government can make a huge impact.

Understanding groundwater is, we understand it fairly well, if

you can actually drill wells, and you can actually look at how it

flows. But water flows, if you draw down one, it actually will pull

from another area, and will impact another area. Also, the depths

at which you go to the water. Typically, as you go down deeper and

deeper, it gets saltier, because heavier water drops, and when you

are down in the oil regions, it is all very, very salty, typically, and

the salts are different. There are some mostly hard salts, and so,

as you are looking at how the water moves from the surface to the

ground, and from the ground to the ground, it is a very difficult

thing to be able to do, and there is certainly, USGS and others

71

have, and oil companies have certainly looked a lot at this issue,

but more research really needs to be done to understand this movement.

And as you draw down, it actually changes the amount of water

that is at the surface, and I was at a meeting at the Joint Services,

because the Department of Defense is very interested in this issue,

and they were talking about a base in Arizona, and I am trying to

remember the name of the base.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Huachuca.

Dr. SHANNON. Yes. And they were—thank you. And they were

looking at the water, and they have done most of the research

there on the way it is flowing, and as they have drawn down the

aquifer more, literally the river that flows on top of it gets pulled

down, and so, there becomes less surface water, because it is starting to recharge that aquifer.

So, understanding the whole water balance is absolutely crucial,

and it is not, it needs a lot more research to be able to know what

to do. Right now, we kind of guess, and a lot of it is just guessing,

and if you sit there watching it drop, and you say well, maybe we

should draw less, but it is not fully understood yet.

And I know that sounds strange after all these hundreds of years

of looking at it, but it still needs more research, and this is something where the Federal Government can really have an impact.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Well, I appreciate you mentioning Fort Huachuca.

There is an interesting relationship between the San Pedro

River——

Dr. SHANNON. Right.

Ms. GIFFORDS.—which is the second most diverse ecological area

outside of Costa Rica in all of North America. It is a small river.

It is known as the last free flowing river of the West. It is not very

wide. Obviously, it is through the desert, but the amount of species

that are there are fabulous. I mean, very incredible migratory area,

of course, for birds, but because of the Endangered Species law, the

Fort was required to reduce its water consumption.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

So, I guess my next question is really aimed at Dr. Hatch but

following up on Representative Biggert. What the Fort did in less

than a couple of years, is the garrison commander came into Fort

Huachuca knowing that it had to reduce the water consumption.

Essentially, they put in low flow toilets, and they put in low flow

water, you know, shower heads on the taps, and went through all

those lawns. He said you know what, we can’t have lawns here

anymore. We are in the desert. We have got a drought. And, I

mean, that is pretty heavily monitored. So, they cut their water

consumption by about 50 percent, which is extraordinary.

Now, he can do that because he is a garrison commander, and

he can go around to all of these different houses, and tell people

what they have to do. But you know Dr. Hatch, this whole concept

of public education is phenomenal, but I want to know where it actually works. Because I think that we, as humans, we really like

our creature comforts. We like having our nice hot showers. We

like being able to turn on the tap and know that we are going to

72

have direct delivery of water, and that is very much the quality

and the standard of life we are accustomed to.

But starting with Dr. Hatch, and the others can join in. Can we

talk about how we are going to educate the public and get them

to change some of their behaviors so that we don’t just continue to

think that just water comes out of bottles, that it is very inexpensive and ready to use, because we really do have some challenges

ahead.

Dr. HATCH. I guess there are several problems, that is a big

question. One of the things I am working on is the effectiveness of

conservation measures, and immediately, you hit up against the

problem that the pricing, I mean, as I said earlier, it is so inexpensive, I joke that if I could get my son to stop text messaging, I

would probably save more money than I would not drinking, not

using water at all in my house.

Obviously, there is, you can go to certain states, and I think this

was mentioned earlier by the person from Chicago, that you can

learn a lot from other states. I think Florida, for the Eastern

states, Florida has done quite a bit with low flow showers, various

types of appliances and this kind of thing. There is other places

that are giving rebates for using water-conserving appliances. But

once again, I think it is as much the issue of attitude. Just because

it is inexpensive, it is just not on a lot of people’s radar screens.

And I think the, it seems like it takes a drought to get people’s

attention, and it has definitely gotten people’s attention in Atlanta,

North Carolina, Georgia area, with the recent drought, but you are

always concerned that after a few years of adequate rainfall, maybe

people are just going to become less interested. So, I think some

research into the effectiveness of these management measures or

methods would be very useful.

MUNICIPAL WATER UTILITIES: DCWASA

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you. This has been fascinating. I do

want to ask Mr. Johnson a quick question about your testimony.

You discussed how DCWASA is different from most other U.S. municipal water utilities. What can you teach us, what can you tell

us about better coordination, based on your experiences at

DCWASA?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think that based on our experiences here,

one, we are, I think, the District of Columbia and the State of Wyoming, I believe, are the only two entities that are not regulated by

State organization, where primacy resides with the states. So, our

interactions are primarily with the U.S. EPA, out of Region 3. That

is one of the unique characteristics, and the fact that we are established as, both by local and federal law.

I think that that kind of regulatory regime puts us a little closer

to where a number of things are happening with, across the country, in terms of some of the research and other things that are occurring, certainly much closer to a stricter regulatory regime. And

what we are finding here in the District that is kind of unique is

that when we start talking about sharing these water bodies, and

my view is that we have probably outlived the usefulness of the

Clean Water Act in its present form, and need to start looking at

things like watershed-based utilization of resources and water, beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
73

cause we can have, something to occur in the District of Columbia,

and across Southern Avenue, and Prince George’s County, with regard to water supply will be totally different, in terms of what we

have to do for restrictions and other kinds of things.

So, we ought to be managing these pieces on the worst-problemfirst basis, as opposed to those things that are first legislated for

us to do. And I think that would give us a very different outcome,

an experience both in the clean water side as well as the wastewater side.

Chairman LAMPSON. Clean water versus wastewater.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think that they are, the two are tied very

closely together. As an example, if we talk about pharmaceuticals,

do you control the source and keep them from ever getting into the

water body? Do you control it through treating the water on the,

at the water purification plant? Or do you treat it at the wastewater plant, where it is coming out and being discharged into the

waterway, which is probably the most expensive approach?

So, that is why I say that we have to couple these things together, and look at them, look at this research kind of as one, both

on wastewater and water, in order to get an effective approach for

looking at how we manage water resources in totality. The use of

graywater is an example. The reuse of water is something that people have been experimenting with on a very limited basis here in

this country, but it has been very widely used in other countries.

So, I think that those two things have to come together in order

for us to have an effective and well coordinated plan. We have a

situation now wherein some agencies of the Federal Government,

the permit writers don’t talk to the people who are the regulators,

who don’t talk to the people across the hall, who are the permit

writers. And that is all dealing in one area, so I think if we started

to cross pollinate all of those, and begin to pull them together, we

see ourselves making some sense of a resource that is rapidly becoming a limited resource in this country. Things will change, with

climate change and other factors, and will not always remain the

same. We will not always be a water-rich community, as we currently are today, and we need to plan for that.

Chairman LAMPSON. And I hope we, I certainly hope we do. And

we were talking about a few minutes ago about this small quantity

of water in this bottle, and the bottle itself took about three times

the amount of water to make the bottle than what is contained

with it.

Is that pretty accurate, Mr. Christenson, and how much of that

is recycled?

Mr. CHRISTENSON. I am not in a position to comment or give you

exact figures, and go on any kind of record with those numbers, but

yeah, certainly, you have to, any product, there is the packaging

component does consume water, as does the product itself. Food is

the same way. So, you know, this is 100 percent water inside the

bottle. There is, obviously, a water consumption. To say it is three

times, I am certainly not in any position to say that that is a fact.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can certainly speak to the

cost of delivering water. In this city, I can deliver water to you, to

your tap, for 0.7 cents a gallon. That is less than a penny a gallon

74

for water that has been tested, that meets all the federal regulations and standards that are established for water supplies.

THE DRAFT LEGISLATION’S POTENTIAL

Chairman LAMPSON. We had that conversation up here a few

minutes ago as well. And we may be talking about some more of

that. All of these things have been fascinating, and many of our

colleagues have mentioned some things, the Ranking Member and

I, Mr. Inglis, were talking, a couple of the things that have come

up. One, the—refer to it as injection, but the—restoring water, putting water back into aquifers. We talked about how, in so many of

our areas along the coast—we have storms, and storm, we have

significant quantities of rain that come, at times. We are spending

huge amounts of money to channelize water routes, to get rid of

that water. We are buying up houses, in places, so that we can stop

having to pay so much money to rebuild those houses every time

they flood.

The list of the things that we have been doing seems to go on

and on and on, and are we going to, this question, are we going

to find ourselves at a point where we are wanting to go back and

undo all those things that we have done? And I am not so sure that

that is not something that we shouldn’t be considering, and the

sooner, the better.

And I guess my question, if there is a question, is will, what our

proposal is, create a committee to address these issues, assist in

getting us to a point where we can address some of these kinds of

things? Anybody have a thought on it? Are we going in the right

direction?

Mr. CHRISTENSON. We believe you are, because it is not just

about conservation. It is not just about changing our habits. It is

about looking at reuse applications. It is about recycling water. It

is about directing water to beneficial reuse. It is about all of these

things, and many of the outcomes that you laid out in this policy

take us down that path, and again, starting with inventory of what

we have, and beginning to look at needs, and beginning to, starting

the process of cross-agency collaboration.

And hopefully, we can build similar models, as we have in the

beverage group, get cross sector collaborations going and exchange.

And we are seeing that beginning to happen, but certainly not at

the rate it may be necessary. But yes, you are going in the right

direction.

Chairman LAMPSON. Mr. Inglis.

Dr. LOFTUS. Oh. If I may, I just wanted to say yes. I think the

draft legislation holds a lot of promise. You can’t expect one piece

of legislation to be all things for all people, but this is a definite

step in the right direction. I would just urge you to think hard

about extending that coordination, so that it just isn’t horizontal at

the federal level, but somehow, makes tangible connections with

states and the private sector, so that we can really make progress

together.

The other thing I would urge you to consider is to have that National Water Census address the issue of water use reporting.

Again, we can’t manage what we don’t measure, so there is potential, in that census, to take a meaningful step in that direction.

75

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you.

Dr. SHANNON. If I could just say real quickly. The points that

were being made here, I can sort of say it is stovepiping. Right

now, everything is stovepiped, and we call it the stovepipe, but you

know, we have drinking water, we have wastewater, we have storm

sewer water. Everything gets divided up. Each agency divides everything up, and we really have to break down these stovepipes,

and I think this type of legislation can go a huge way towards that.

That is why I am very excited about it.

RETENTION PONDS

Chairman LAMPSON. Now, Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you. The Chairman and I were just talking

about these retention ponds, and can somebody tell me whether

those, do those replenish groundwater, or do they ultimately make

their way into replenishing aquifers, or—does anybody know?

Mr. CHRISTENSON. Excuse me, are you talking about the retention ponds next to new construction building? It is likely they are

not having a great impact on our source aquifers. Shallow aquifers,

yes, but it is probably feeding some of the surface water bodies,

and much more shallow aquifers, which in the more immediate

area, probably manifests itself into some surface discharge.

Dr. SHANNON. To actually do direct recharge of a deep water aquifer, you actually have to drill a pipe, and pump it up, and actually pressurize it, which costs money and energy. Or you can get

the water very clean, and then, it can actually flow more readily.

And it depends on the ground, but the typical retention pond is not

a percolation pond. It may do something, it will affect it somewhat,

but you know, you need a lot of pressure to really get it to go down.

So, I mean, you may need a lot of area, and that costs land, or a

smaller area and higher pressure, typically.

Mr. INGLIS. So, a retention pond is not a percolation pond, you

are saying?

Dr. SHANNON. Not typically, no. Actually, many of them are lined

with clay and the like, so that you don’t cause contamination of

shallow aquifers from a retention pond that is capturing runoff, because runoff has all sorts of things in it, distillates and oils, and

all sorts of things from storm water. So, storm water retention

ponds typically are not, they are to prevent flooding, but not for recharge. If one wants to use it, you can do it, and there are places

that do do that, and—not as many in this country, but there are

a lot of places that absolutely depend and rely on this runoff for

their sources of water. But you have to do some cleaning to do it,

typically.

Mr. INGLIS. A percolation pond, it does clean as it goes through,

or——

Dr. SHANNON. Yeah, it is, usually, it is graded gravel, so you will

start with, you know, some sands and gravel, and as you go down,

the engineers will grade it so that it does some filtering as the

water seeps down, and makes a more direct route to the aquifer.

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe what the gentleman is saying is correct.

One good example of where that has been utilized for recharging

and for drinking water is Austin, Texas, which has done a tremenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:57 Dec 21, 2008 Jkt 043528 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\E&E08\072308\43528 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
76

dous job, but they have had to do several different things in order

to make it work.

One is change people’s habits with regard to fertilizers and use

of other pollutants that go into those retention ponds, and—but

they attempt to recapture all of the water that comes across the

land, and reuse it there. Very effective project.

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you.

Chairman LAMPSON. I am curious to know where a project is

where there is actual recharging or injecting water that has been

held back, and trying to replenish. Any place in the United States

where that is being done? Does anyone know?

Dr. LOFTUS. Well, I think kind of what we are talking about here

is conjunctive use, conjunctive management of water, and I think

California, Colorado, and Arizona might be leaders in the

complementarity that is available in managing surface and groundwater supplies, which in some cases, includes artificial recharge of

aquifers during flood events, for example, where we are capturing

that extra flow that would otherwise just make its way to the

ocean, capture it to recharge an aquifer. Using the aquifers during

dry times, rather than really wet times, when there is access to a

surface water source.

It is not available everywhere. It really does depend on, you

know, the, yeah, the geology, the lithology of that particular spot

on Earth, whether or not it is amenable to accommodating infiltration or not.

Chairman LAMPSON. This has been fascinating. I could stay here

for a long time, and could think of questions, just to try to learn

this stuff. I think that we have got an awful lot of teaching to do

across the country. How we build our communities, what we are

going to be doing with land and water. We are starting to see

planned communities come up, and particularly in our area, which

is so low, along the coastline, and there has been so much flooding,

now we are doing much better use of those retention ponds. Always

too easy, it seemed like, to dredge a channel to get rid of the water

that we know is going to ultimately flood, so we could go build

some more houses over here in this pasture.

And now, we are, you know, starting to realize the benefit of retention, and now, if we can figure out how to use the water that

we capture, all that much better.

Well, thank you all very much. We appreciate you appearing before the Committee this afternoon. Dr. Hatch, I apologize. I didn’t

look up as often as I looked at this level, and so, I hope we didn’t

exclude you from that.

Dr. HATCH. No problem.

Chairman LAMPSON. We appreciate you joining us in the manner

in which you did.

Under the rules of the Committee, the record will be held open

for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements, and

any additional questions that they might have for the witnesses.

This hearing is now adjourned.

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

(77)

Appendix:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

Æ