[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESEARCH TO IMPROVE WATER-USE
EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION:
TECHNOLOGIES AND PRACTICES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 30, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-68
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-533 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARK UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
October 30, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 10
Witnesses:
Dr. Glen T. Daigger, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology
Officer, CH2M Hill World Headquarters
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Biography.................................................... 15
Mr. Ronald W. Thompson, District Manager, Washington County Water
Conservancy District, St. George, Utah
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 19
Mr. Edward A. Clerico, President, Alliance Environmental
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 30
Biography.................................................... 40
Ms. Val L. Little, Director, Water Conservation Alliance of
Southern Arizona; Principal Research Specialist, College of
Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of Arizona
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Biography.................................................... 45
Mr. John A. Veil, Manager, Water Policy Program, Environmental
Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 46
Biography.................................................... 51
Discussion
The Need for Government-funded R&D............................. 51
User Reactions to Water Reuse Programs......................... 52
Do We Need More R&D or Better Implementation?.................. 53
Water Conservation Technologies and Practices.................. 55
Hydraulic Fracturing and Enhanced Oil Recovery................. 57
Customer Satisfaction With Greywater Systems................... 58
Greywater System Costs......................................... 59
Can We Drink Produced Water?................................... 59
Cost of Other Forms of Water Treatment......................... 59
Water Conservation and the WaterSense Program.................. 62
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 3957, the Water-Use
Efficiency and Conservation Research Act of 2007............... 66
Discussion Draft of H.R. 3957, October 18, 2007.................. 67
RESEARCH TO IMPROVE WATER-USE EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION: TECHNOLOGIES
AND PRACTICES
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick
Lampson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Research to Improve Water-Use
Efficiency and Conservation:
Technologies and Practices
tuesday, october 30, 2007
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Tuesday, October 30, 2007 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment of the Committee on Science and Technology will hold a
hearing to receive testimony on H.R. 3957, the Water-Use Efficiency and
Conservation Research Act of 2007. The purpose of the hearing is to
evaluate the need for research and development of technologies and
processes to enhance water-use efficiency and water conservation. The
Committee will also ascertain perspectives on current federal efforts
to promote water-use efficiency and conservation through programs such
as the WaterSense Program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Need for Legislation
The dwindling supply of water in the United States has created
increasing concern at all levels of government. Since 1950, the United
States population has increased nearly 90 percent. In that same period,
public demand for water has increased 209 percent. Americans now use an
average of 100 gallons of water per person each day. This increased
demand has put additional stress on water supplies and distribution
systems, threatening both human health and the environment.
Approximately 26 billion gallons of water are used every day in the
United States and thirty six states are anticipating local, regional,
or statewide water shortages by 2013. However, some states are already
in the middle of a severe drought. Most of the Southeastern United
States, stretching from Tennessee across the Carolinas and into
Georgia, is suffering from an exceptional drought, the highest
intensity as measured by the U.S. Drought Monitor. The city of Atlanta
is bracing as experts argue whether the city water supply will last as
few as three months or as many as nine months.
In California, catastrophic fires burned across areas of the
southern part of the state this week. Extreme drought conditions over
the past two years have played a large role in creating the conditions
that made such a disaster possible. More than 500,000 people were
evacuated from their homes at the height of the fires, the largest
number in California history. Over 2,000 homes and at least 180
commercial buildings were destroyed or damaged. The drought gripping
the West is considered by some experts to be the worst in 500 years,
with effects in the Colorado River basin that have been considerably
more damaging than during the Dust Bowl years, according to scientists
at the U.S. Geological Survey. Compounding the problem, the Colorado
River had its highest flow of the 20th century from 1905 to 1922, the
years used as the basis for allocating the River's water between the
Upper and Lower Colorado Basin states under the Colorado River Compact.
Climate change related effects are expected to exacerbate already
scarce water resources in many areas of the country. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 assessment
states that water stored in glaciers and snow cover is projected to
decline, reducing water availability to one-sixth of the world's
population that relies upon melt water from major mountain ranges. The
IPCC also predicts droughts will become more severe and longer lasting
in a number of regions.
Although some water efficiency strategies require an initial
capital investment, in the long run, conserving water provides
significant cost savings for water and wastewater systems. Water
efficiency and reuse programs help systems avoid, down-size, and
postpone expensive infrastructure projects, by developing new water
supplies.
Introduced by Representative Jim Matheson, H.R. 3957 would
establish a research and development program within the Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD) to promote
water efficiency and conservation. The program would collect and
disseminate information on water conservation practices. Through this
program, EPA will be able to encourage the adoption of technologies and
processes that will achieve greater water-use efficiency thereby
helping to address the water supply shortages in the United States.
H.R. 3957 would expand EPA's scope and involvement solving the
Nation's water crisis by researching innovations in water storage and
distribution systems, as well as, behavioral, social, and economic
barriers to achieving greater water efficiency. In addition, the
program will research technologies and processes that enable the
collection, treatment, and reuse of rainwater and greywater, waste
water from sinks, baths and kitchen appliances.
Background on EPA's Current Water Research and Outreach Programs
EPA currently has no research and development effort that addresses
water supply issues. In conjunction with its statutory responsibilities
to ensure water quality under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act, EPA has a program of research and development on water
treatment technologies, health effects of water pollutants, security
from deliberate contamination, and watershed protection. Current annual
funding for these activities is approximately $50 million. EPA does not
have a research and development program to address water-use efficiency
or conservation.
In June of 2006, EPA created a voluntary program entitled
WaterSense, which focuses on educating consumers about available
choices to save money and conserve water. Similar to Energy Star
ratings, the WaterSense label indicates the performance of an appliance
or product with respect to its water-use efficiency. Products
displaying a WaterSense label must achieve water use reductions of at
least 20 percent over similar appliances and products. In FY07, EPA
obligated $2.4 million in funding for the WaterSense Program.
Under the program's structure, manufacturers certify that products
with the WaterSense label met EPA criteria for water efficiency and
performance. Currently, the program has reviewed High-Efficiency
Toilets, and plans on expanding its scope to include bathroom faucets,
weather-based irrigation controllers, commercial toilets and faucets,
and autoclave water valves. EPA estimates that if all U.S. households
installed water-efficient appliances, the country would save more than
three trillion gallons of water and more than $17 billion dollars per
year. In addition, the average American household could save 20,000
gallons of water per year if it installed an inexpensive low-flow
showerhead. A low-flush toilet could reduce their water use by an
additional 34 percent.
At present, there is a lack of significant federal research and
development aimed at addressing water-use efficiency and conservation,
especially focused on residential and commercial uses. Because of the
Agency's complementary work on water quality, the EPA is the logical
federal entity to complete this research due to the important
relationship between water supply and water quality.
Current State Initiatives on Water Efficiency
Many states and local governments are taking action to promote
greater water-use efficiency and conservation including: metering and
sub-metering, rebates for purchase of water efficient products, use of
drought tolerant landscaping, processed water use, greywater and
rainwater utilization, and correcting infrastructure leaks.
Because water supplies are controlled by local, regional and State
government, a variety of approaches are being tested and implemented.
While there are many benefits to having a diversity of creative
efforts, the establishment of a central repository for information on
the approaches and their costs and benefits is lacking. H.R. 3957
directs EPA to gather this information and provide a central location
for distributing information about successful projects that have been
implemented by communities across the country to achieve greater
adoption of technologies and policies on water conservation.
Listed below are some examples of such efforts.
The city of Tucson, Arizona has been active in the
promotion of xeriscaping: a practice of landscaping which does
not require supplemental irrigation. Common plants used in this
practice include agave, cactus, lavender, juniper, sedum and
thyme. Each year, a xeriscaping conference is held in Tucson,
as well as a contest awarding the best xeriscaping project.
City policy prevents the use of municipal groundwater supplies
for irrigating areas within public rights-of-way unless the
landscaping uses plants from a low water-use list.
The State of New York passed legislation to establish
a Green Building Tax Credit, which allows building owners and
developers to deduct expenses associated with the design and
construction of ``green'' buildings, which includes a number of
water-use efficient practices.
The city of Austin, Texas has instituted a highly
successful appliance replacement rebate plan to encourage
consumers to purchase water-use efficient toilets, clothes
washers, and irrigation equipment. Austin's Water Conservation
Program has contributed to a substantial reduction in per
capita water use. In 2006, the Austin City Council formed the
Water Conservation Task Force to find ways to implement a June
2006 directive to implement aggressive water conservation
measures. The anticipated recommendations include changes to
the plumbing code, a retrofit on resale for inefficient
plumbing fixtures, mandatory irrigation analyses for large
commercial properties, and stricter summer watering
regulations. Together, the measures should result in peak-day
water savings of nearly 33 million gallons per day at an
average cost of roughly $1.13 per gallon, one-third the cost of
building new treatment capacity.
The Santa Rosa Subregional Reclamation System in
Northern California is one of the largest recyclers of water in
the world. Last year 6,400 acres of farmlands, vineyards, and
public and private urban landscaping was irrigated with
recycled water. Of that, 85 percent was used for agricultural
purposes. The irrigation system is supported by storage
reservoirs that can hold over 1.45 billion gallons of water.
The Subregional System serves the cities of Santa Rosa, Rohnert
Park, Sebastopol, Cotati, the South Park Sanitation District,
and some unincorporated parts of Sonoma County. In addition,
the Subregional System pipes its treated wastewater to a
geothermal energy plant to be used as re-injection fluid,
thereby prolonging the life of the reservoir while recycling
the treated wastewater. The addition of wastewater produces
close to 85 megawatts of electricity a day, enough to supply
the residential energy needs of Santa Rosa.
The Pennsylvania Water Conservation Leak Detection
Program is a joint effort of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection and the Pennsylvania Rural Water
Association (PRWA). PRWA uses set-aside funds to provide two
circuit riders to conduct water audits and perform leak
detection for small systems (serving fewer than 10,000
persons). Despite the time-consuming nature of the project, the
circuit riders have detected 594 leaks and saved over 1.4
billion gallons of water and $1.36 million annually. From June
2001 to July 2002, 24 systems underwent water audits. A total
of 152 leaks were detected, which saved systems over 396
million gallons of water from 36 percent to nine percent.
Witnesses
Glen Daigger, Vice President at CH2MHill
Dr. Daigger is a Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer
for CH2M Hill. He received a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering
from Purdue University. He is the recipient of numerous awards,
including the Kappe and Freese Lectures and the Harrison Prescott Eddy,
Morgan, and the Gascoigne Awards from Water Environment Federation. A
member of a number of professional societies, Dr. Daigger is also a
member of the National Academy of Engineers.
Ed Clerico, CEO of Alliance Environmental and Designer at the Solaire
Project in NYC
Mr. Clerico is a licensed professional engineer and licensed
wastewater operator in NY, NJ, and PA and is an accredited LEED
professional. He holds a B.S. and M.S. in Bio-Ag Engineering from
Rutgers University. He was the founder and president of Applied Water
Management, Inc. before holding executive roles with American Water as
Technical Development Director and VP Strategy. Presently, he operates
his own consulting business, Alliance Environmental, and focuses on
initiatives that involve integrated water management, including the
Solaire project in New York City.
Val Little, Director of the Water Conservation Alliance of Southern
Arizona
Ms. Little is the Director of the Water Conservation Alliance of
Southern Arizona. In addition, she serves as a Principal Research
Specialist at the University of Arizona's College of Architecture and
Landscape Architecture. She received her A.B. in Landscape Architecture
from the University of California, Berkeley, and her M.A. in
Anthropology from the University of Arizona.
Ron Thompson, District Manager of the Washington County Water
Conservancy District
Mr. Thompson is the District Manager of the Washington County Water
Conservancy District. He graduated from Brigham Young University in
1971 with a degree in Accounting and received his law degree from the
University of Utah in 1974. Mr. Thompson is a past president of the
Utah Water Users Association, Vice Chairman of the Resolutions
Committee for the National Water Resources Association, and Vice
Chairman of the Resolutions Committee for the Colorado River Water
Users. He also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Utah Water
Finance Agency, State of Utah Drinking Water Board, and serves as the
Utah representative for the National Water Resources Endangered Species
Task Force.
John Veil, Senior Scientist at Argonne National Laboratory
Mr. Veil is the Manager of the Water Policy Program for Argonne
National Laboratory in Washington, DC, where he holds the rank of
senior scientist. He analyzes a variety of energy industry water and
waste issues for the Department of Energy. Mr. Veil has a B.A. in Earth
and Planetary Science from Johns Hopkins University, and two M.S.
degrees, in Zoology and Civil Engineering, from the University of
Maryland. Before joining Argonne, Mr. Veil managed the Industrial
Discharge Program for the State of Maryland government where he had
statewide responsibility for industrial water pollution control
permitting through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), Underground Injection Control (UIC), and oil control programs.
Section-by-Section description of H.R. 3957
Title: Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act 2007
Purpose: To increase research, development, education, and technology
transfer activities related to water use efficiency and conservation
technologies and practices at the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Section 1: Short Title
The Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act.
Section 2: Findings
Section 2 includes the Congressional findings and defines the need
for expanding the scope of research and development conducted by the
Environmental Protection agency to include water-use efficiency and
conservation to address the problems of increasing water shortages
across the country.
Section 3: Research Program
Section 3 directs the Assistant Administrator to establish a
research, development, and demonstration program within the
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development to
promote water-use efficiency and conservation. The bill provides
examples of several areas the program should address including water
storage and distribution systems; and behavioral, social, and economic
barriers to achieving greater water-use efficiency. In addition, the
bill states the program should research technologies and processes that
enable the collection, treatment, and reuse of rainwater and greywater.
The specific projects selected for funding through the program should
reflect the needs identified by local and State water managers.
Section 4: Technology Transfer
Section 4 directs the Assistant Administrator to collect and
disseminate information on current water-use efficient and conservation
technologies and practices to facilitate their adoption. This
information should include incentives and impediments to development
and commercialization, best practices, and anticipated increases in
water-use efficiency resulting from the implementation of these
processes.
Section 5: Report
Section 5 directs the Assistant Administrator to report to Congress
on the progress being made by the Environmental Protection Agency with
regard to the research projects initiated, and the outreach and
communication activities conducted through the program.
Section 6: Authorization of Appropriations
Section 6 provides a five-year authorization of the program with
such sums as necessary to carry out the program.
Chairman Lampson. This meeting will now come to order. I
wish you all a good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing on
expanding research to improve water-use efficiency and
conservation. The Subcommittee is here to receive testimony on
H.R. 3957, the Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation Research
Act of 2007, introduced by good friend Jim Matheson.
Congressman, I want to thank you for your hard work and
interest on this important subject.
The world is covered by some 70 percent of water and less
than three percent of it is freshwater. According to the United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, a mere .007 of a
percent of the Earth's total freshwater resources is accessible
for human usage. Pollution and salinazation enhanced by drought
conditions only serve to decrease the water available for our
use.
Drought and scarce water supplies have long been a problem
for my home State of Texas. Population growth, increased energy
demand, and climate change impacts are further endangering my
state's limited supply. I think this is the first year in many
that there has not been a significant drought any place in the
State of Texas.
The Texas Water Development Board estimated demand for
water use will exceed water supply in Texas by the year 2050.
This story is repeating itself across the country. This year's
epic drought in the Southeast threatens the water supply for
millions. Water levels in the Great Lakes have been declining.
Upstate New York's reservoirs have dropped to records lows. And
in the West, the mountain snow pack is melting earlier and
faster, affecting freshwater supplies for all of those who rely
on snowmelt-fed rivers.
We cannot solve these problems overnight, but H.R. 3957
will provide us with several important tools to address the
coming crisis with technology and innovative thinking. By
encouraging research and development into water-use efficiency,
we can create a path to increase our nation's water supplies.
Investing in water-use efficiency strategies requires some
expenditure now, but in the long run, conserving water provides
substantial costs savings for governments and the American
public. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if
all U.S. household installed water-efficient appliances, the
country would save more than three trillion gallons of water
and more than $17 billion per year.
I want to than our distinguished panel for traveling to
testify at this afternoon's hearing. I look forward to your
testimony and to your recommendations as to how we can make
better use of our scare water resources. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Lampson
Good Afternoon and welcome to today's hearing on expanding research
to improve water-use efficiency and conservation. The Subcommittee is
here to receive testimony on H.R. 3957, the Water-Use Efficiency and
Conservation Research Act of 2007, introduced by my good friend Jim
Matheson. Congressman, I want to thank you for your hard work and
interest on this important subject.
Although the world is covered by 70 percent water, less than three
percent of it is freshwater. According to the United Nations Commission
on Sustainable Development, a mere .007 percent of the Earth's total
freshwater resources is accessible for human use. Pollution and
salinization enhanced by drought conditions only serve to decrease the
water available for our use.
Drought and scarce water supplies have long been a problem for my
home State of Texas. Population growth, increased energy demand, and
climate change impacts are further endangering my state's limited
supplies. The Texas Water Development Board estimates demand for water
use will exceed water supply in Texas by the year 2050.
This story is repeating itself across the country. This year's epic
drought in the southeast threatens the water supply for millions. Water
levels in the Great Lakes have been declining. Upstate New York's
reservoirs have dropped to record lows. And in the West, the mountain
snowpack is melting earlier and faster, affecting fresh water supplies
for all those who rely on snowmelt-fed rivers.
We cannot solve these problems overnight. But H.R. 3957, will
provide us with several important tools to address the coming crisis
with technology and innovative thinking. By encouraging research and
development into water-use efficiency, we can create a path to increase
our nation's water supplies.
Investing in water-use efficiency strategies requires some
expenditure now, but in the long run, conserving water provides
substantial cost savings for governments and the American public. The
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if all U.S. households
installed water-efficient appliances, the country would save more than
three trillion gallons of water and more than $17 billion dollars per
year.
I want to thank our distinguished panel for traveling to testify at
this afternoon's hearing. I look forward to your testimony and to your
recommendations as to how we can make better use of our scarce water
resources.
Chairman Lampson. And I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Inglis, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I also appreciate Mr. Matheson's work to
introduce H.R. 3957, the Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation
Research Act. This bill highlights the need to think more
conservatively about invaluable water recourses.
We don't have to look far to realize the devastating effect
of water shortages and what they can do to our lives: fires
that threaten and destroy California, droughts that debilitate
crops in South Carolina and a number of other Southeastern
states, and global citizens who have to travel farther and
farther to reach freshwater.
By supporting research and development into enhanced water-
use efficiency and water conservation, the Federal Government
can help improve our national and global response to water
shortage.
I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today
about the type of research technologies best suited to meet
this goal. Mr. Chairman, I will also ask the Environment
Protection Agency, the agency tasked with carrying out the
provisions of this bill, to look at the legislation and provide
comments on it. Since the agency was not provided--was not
asked to provide a witness today, I think it only appropriate
that we agree to take their comments into consideration as we
move the bill through the legislative process.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
discussing the bill with the panel.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I also appreciate
Mr. Matheson's work to introduce H.R. 3957, the Water-Use Efficiency
and Conservation Research Act. This bill highlights the need to think
more conservatively about invaluable water resources.
We don't have to look far to realize the devastating effects water
shortages can have in our lives--fires threaten and destroy California,
droughts debilitate crops in South Carolina and a number of other
southeastern states, and global citizens have to travel farther and
farther to have access to fresh water. By supporting research and
development into enhance water-use efficiency and water conservation,
the Federal Government can help improve our national and global
response to water shortages. I'm looking forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about the type of research and technologies best suited
to meet this goal.
Mr. Chairman, I have asked the Environmental Protection Agency, the
agency tasked with carrying out the provisions of this bill, to look at
the legislation and provide comments on it. Since this agency was not
asked to provide a witness today, I think it only appropriate that we
agree to take their comments into consideration as we move this bill
through the legislative process.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to discussing
this bill before the Subcommittee.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Inglis, and I certainly
will take note of your request. It makes sense.
I ask unanimous consent that all additional opening
statements submitted by the Subcommittee Members be included in
the record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Subcommittee looking into this issue
today, as the recent droughts in the southeastern part of our country
have highlighted the need for research and development surrounding
water conservation.
It is clear that our nation's rapid growth over the twentieth
century has placed a great deal of stress on our natural resources.
Americans now use an average of 100 gallons of water per person each
day. Although the EPA has conducted research and development on water
treatment technologies and ensures quality drinking water under the
Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, there is currently no
research and development that address water supply issues. Sustaining
and protecting our water supplies will affect every district in
America, which is why it is so important to conduct this hearing today.
Mr. Chairman, now is clearly the time to act to research, collect
information under one body, and begin the process to better protect our
natural resources. I commend you on the timeliness of this hearing, and
I look forward to learning about the possibilities for action. Thank
you.
Chairman Lampson. It is my pleasure to introduce some of
our witnesses today. We will start with Dr. Glen Daigger, who
is a Senior Vice President with CH2M Hill, where he is
currently the chief technology officer for the firm's civil
infrastructure businesses. He is also a technology fellow in
wastewater treatment, serving as senior consultant and process
engineer on municipal and industrial wastewater treatment and
reclamation projects. Mr. Ed Clerico is a water reuse expert
and an accredited LEED professional, licensed professional
engineer, and licensed wastewater operator in New York, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Mr. Clerico is currently President of
Alliance Environmental, a consulting group that focuses on
green-building concepts.
And at this time, we have several Members here today who
will be introducing the remainder of our witnesses. First, I
would like to yield to the author of H.R. 3957, Mr. Matheson.
Mr. Matheson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am
pleased to introduce a constituent of mine, Ron Thompson, who
is the District Manager of the Washington County Water
Conservancy District. Mr. Thompson participates on so many
different boards and associations, I am not sure I can read
through all of them. I want to tell you, this is an individual
who faces some real challenges in a county that is one of the
fastest-growing counties in the United States. It is also one
of the most arid counties in the United States, and he has a
wealth of experience and knowledge about how to meet those
challenges, with a portfolio approach. One piece of that
portfolio has to do with conservation and efficiency, and so, I
am pleased that he could come here today and participate as a
witness on this panel.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Matheson. The gentlelady
from Arizona, Ms. Giffords.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you. I am pleased to introduce a
constituent of mine who is the Director of the Water-
Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona, also known as Water
Casa. She is also a principal research specialist with the
University of Arizona's college of architecture and landscape
architecture. She is the author of numerous water-use
efficiency publications, and has worked internationally on
water-conservation issues, ranging from the Middle East to
Central America.
I have had a chance to work with Ms. Little in my early
days in the Arizona State legislature, where we collaborated on
legislation that created the incentives for homebuilders to
initiate greywater plumbing systems in new-home construction.
As a leader in our community, particularly coming from the
Sonorian Desert where we don't have a lot of water, Ms. Little
has been instrumental in bringing diverse stakeholders together
to address the future of water in our desert home. It is my
pleasure that she has come all of the way from Southern Arizona
to be with us today.
My staff has also informed me that the students of the
University of Arizona are now watching the video teleconference
to your testimony. Here is a shout out to all of the students
at the University of Arizona for participating via the
technology of the Internet. I know that we are all working
collaboratively to make sure that our water supply remains
secure.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Ms. Giffords. And the
gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Biggert, will introduce our final
witness.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure
for me to introduce Mr. John Veil, a respected senior scientist
from Argonne National Laboratory, and manager of its water-
policy program. Before joining Argonne, Mr. Veil managed the
industrial-discharge program for the State of Maryland and was
a faculty member in the department of zoology at the University
of Maryland. His biography has a very distinct Maryland theme,
despite working for Argonne, which is in my district in
Illinois. Mr. Veil is a resident of Maryland, but he is a great
asset to the laboratory and to the people of Illinois. He and
other water experts from Argonne and Purdue University, Calumet
City, are currently working with scientists and engineers at BP
to explore the application of emergency technologies that could
address wastewater treatment challenges faced by the company at
its Whiting, Indiana, oil refinery on Lake Michigan. And
millions get their drinking water from Lake Michigan and the
other Great Lakes, so that is why many of us in Congress care
deeply about this amazing freshwater resource and why Mr.
Veil's contributions to protect it are so important. I would
like to thank him for being here, and I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Ms. Biggert, and I want to
thank you and welcome all of our witnesses. We do appreciate
your coming. And as you all know, you will have five minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed
your testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will
have five minutes to question the panel.
And Dr. Daigger, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF DR. GLEN T. DAIGGER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, CH2M HILL WORLD HEADQUARTERS
Dr. Daigger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will generally
follow the written testimony here, but I appreciate very much
the opportunity to speak to you today to discuss this very
important topic. In my over 30 plus years of professional
experience, I have worked around the U.S. and around the world,
focusing on clean water and sanitation. This is an area that is
near and dear to my heart.
I don't need to discuss the urgent need to provide clean
water and sanitation in the United States. You have all
expressed that need very well. What it leads to, of course, is
conflict between urban and rural areas and people and the
environment. We are seeing that, certainly in Georgia.
What is important is that there are solutions to these
issues, and this bill will help to advance those. And what we
do need, though, is your help to help advance these solutions
into a practice through demonstration and additional research.
So let me provide some perspective in terms of overall
direction and how this fits in.
Water has historically been managed in urban areas and
public health has been protected by transporting water. A
pristine water source is identified. It is conveyed to the
public, and it is used to transport waste out of that urban
area. There are those that say this is an invention of the 18th
and 19th century, but actually you go back to the ancient
cities, and this is the approach that was used. So this is
something which has been used throughout the history of mankind
to manage water in urban areas.
When the population was much lower, and when the burden on
the environment was much less, this was really a brilliant
solution in terms of protecting public health. The statistics
are very clear in terms of its benefit in creating the standard
of living that we have in the U.S., and some of those specific
comments are in the testimony. The issue, though, is that with
population growth, and particularly the urbanization that we
have, this approach is really no longer working for us. But
fortunately, again, we have an alternative to transportation of
water and waste. That is treatment, which is sufficiently
reliable to be deployed at a more local basis so that we can
use and reuse water much more efficiently.
Some of the most important treatment systems are:
membranes, which function much like the kidney in terms of
purifying water; ultraviolet disinfection, which mimics
sunlight in terms of treating water; and a variety of other
technologies. So you might ask, if we have these technologies,
what help do we need? The help that we need is to be able to
deliver these more quickly into routine practice.
And as I talk about that, let me talk a little bit about--I
am a person that is involved in water issues around the world.
I want to talk for a minute about what some others countries
are doing. Countries--and you know, this country, in decades
past, have made significant public investments in water
research and created the systems we have which have really
benefited the world. Counties like France and Canada, Japan,
and the United Kingdom have emulated that, and quite frankly, a
lot of the advancements that are occurring are being developed
in other countries. Right now, for example, the Republic of
Singapore, with only 4.5 million people, is investing $330
million in research. Korea is investing $140 million a year in
their water research. So I give that perspective.
What we need is three things. One is help to demonstrate.
The second is help to further advance this technology through
things like nanotechnology and biotechnology. And then,
finally, quite frankly, we need help in terms of our academic
investments to maintain a healthy academic systems.
At the conclusion of my written testimony, I reiterate that
I think something on the order $100 million in terms of R&D
investment, and the academic community needs about $20 million
a year in order to support the faculty and the professionals
that we need graduating to continue this wonderful profession
that exists in the U.S.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Daigger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Glen T. Daigger
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Glen
Daigger and I am a Senior Vice President and the Chief Technology
Officer for the Civil Infrastructure Client Group of CH2M HILL. I want
to thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today, to discuss
the very important and timely issue of water resources in our country.
My over 30-year professional career has been devoted to securing safe
drinking water supplies and sanitation for locations throughout the
United States and around the world. I do not need to discuss the urgent
need to provide clean water and sanitation for the United States and
the world as water scarcity continues to be in the headlines and is a
source of conflict between urban areas and agriculture and between
people and the environment. Population growth, increasing urbanization,
and climate change will only exacerbate the situation and dramatically
increase these conflicts. Fortunately solutions are available, but we
need your help to further develop, demonstrate, and more quickly deploy
them. Let me provide some background and perspective.
Water has historically been managed in urban areas and public
health has been protected by transporting water. A pristine water
source was identified remote from the urban area and transported there.
Used water (some refer to this using the more derogatory terms sewage
and wastewater) was transported away from the urban area to protect
public health by minimizing its contact with the public. ``Mother
nature'' was depended on to treat the used water, thereby reclaiming it
and recycling it for subsequent use. Although some think of this as an
invention of the 18th and 19th century, this practice actually began
with the cities of the ancient world, with gravity providing the force
to convey water. The advent of mechanical devices (pumps driven first
by steam and later by electrical engines) during the industrial
revolution provided greater freedom in the location of cities as the
dependence on gravity was eliminated. This approach worked brilliantly
when the population of the planet was less than about 1.5 billion (and
the population of the U.S. less than 100 million), and only a small
fraction of the human population lived in urban areas. For example, the
average life span of Americans increased by about 30 years (from 47
years to 76 years), over the 20th century. Twenty of the thirty years
of added life span are attributable to clean water and modern
sanitation! In fact, when the British Medical Journal recently surveyed
public health professionals about the single greatest contribution to
public health over the past 150 years, modern water systems were ranked
first, above such medical revolutions as vaccinations and antibiotics.
Unfortunately, this brilliant solution, which worked so well up to the
early part of the 20th century, is now insufficient with more than a
four fold increase in population through the 20th century and a
dramatic increase in urbanization. Today we are taking too much water
out of the environment, and Mother Nature is not able to reclaim and
recycle the used water fast enough.
Fortunately, new approaches are available to manage water in urban
settings which address these problems. Essentially, treatment can
replace transportation. Increased standards of living have increased
water use dramatically, but currently available water saving devices
allow water to be used more efficiently, thereby reducing the net
demand. While technologies have been available for decades to treat raw
water for drinking and used water for return to the environment, new,
more reliable treatment technologies are becoming available that allow
used water to be reclaimed to potable standards, or better! Thus, we no
longer need to return used water to the environment and depend upon
Mother Nature to reclaim and recycle it. The historic approach of using
transport and discharge to protect public health can be replaced with
reclamation and reuse technologies that mimic Mother Nature. The result
is more efficient use of water. Consider that urban water use in the
United States currently averages about 150 gallons per person per day.
Benchmarking with experiences around the world indicates that water
conservation can lower this substantially, and the use of water
reclamation and reuse can lower this further to 20 to 30 gallons per
person per day. The net result is that the amount of water withdrawn
from the environment is reduced dramatically.
Three of the most promising treatment technologies include
membranes, advanced oxidation, and ultra-violet (UV) light. We all have
a treatment device inside of us called the kidney which removes waste
products. Membranes function much like the kidney, cleaning water in a
highly effective fashion. Membranes can be further coupled with
biological treatment processes which use microorganisms to convert
pollutants in the used water into harmless by-products. Sunlight is an
effective disinfectant and is mimicked by UV systems. Advanced
oxidation produces hydroxyl radicals which can very effectively convert
recalcitrant contaminants into a form that the microorganisms can
consume. These technologies, in concert, can take the most contaminated
water and purify it to a quality much better than drinking water. They
can be further coupled with evolving urban water management practices
such as rainwater harvesting, storm water management using low impact
development, and natural treatment systems like wetlands to allow local
rainfall and reclaimed water to be used for a variety of purposes and
dramatically reduce the reliance of urban areas on transported water.
With all of these developments you might ask why we need your help.
The reason is that the benefits of these technologies and approaches
can only be realized when they are assembled together properly in an
overall integrated urban water management system. Moreover, while the
application principals for these new systems are general in nature, the
optimum system for any given urban area is relatively site-specific.
Thus, a relatively complete system must be assembled before the full
range of benefits can be achieved. In short, demonstrations in a
variety of settings are required to provide the real-world examples
needed by urban water managers to gain support for local
implementation.
Support is needed for a second reason. The rapid advances occurring
in bio- and nanotechnology offer the potential to greatly increase the
effectiveness of these technologies. However, support is needed to
further develop these fundamental research results into practical
research results that will support the development of additional
breakthrough water treatment technologies. Research funding in the
water area is also needed to stem the loss of critical research and
educational capacity. Before expanding upon this, let me share some
observations about the funding of water research around the world.
The U.S. led the world in developing and implementing revolutionary
water management systems throughout the second half of the 20th
century. This occurred because of national need but was enabled by
consistent federal funding for research that built the strongest
network of researchers and educators in the world. Observing the
success of this approach, other countries such as Canada, Japan, the
United Kingdom, and France emulated this approach in the latter portion
of the 20th century, with great success. This approach continues today,
especially in a variety of Asian countries which have the same
compelling national need and who see that federal funding of water R&D
is a great public investment which returns itself many times over by
both meeting critical national needs and by creating profitable
national and export businesses. For example, the country of Singapore,
with a population of 4.5 million people, is investing $330 million in
water R&D over the next five years, and Korea is investing $140M/yr.
The Singapore investment is attracting much larger private sector
investments by industrial giants like GE and Siemens. What really
worries me is China where the need is critical and the investments they
are making will inevitably create export businesses that will threaten
our U.S.-based industry.
The question before is us whether the U.S. is going to give up its
leadership in this critical area and fail to live up to its potential
to dramatically improve the quality of life in the U.S. and around the
world. This is the path that we are on, but it can be reversed with a
fairly modest set of actions by the Federal Government. Critical
support for R&D in this area of water use-efficiency and conservation
is needed to enable the demonstration of these approaches and to
support academic research that will advance the technology and also
support the continued growth of our educational and research
capabilities. Currently the Federal Government provides significant
support to local governments for the construction of water and
wastewater treatment facilities through the State Revolving Funds.
Annual support has varied, but has regularly exceeded $1 billion/yr. A
modest federal R&D investment of $100 to $200 million/yr. would
catalyze a renewal of the U.S. water industry, with at least $20
million/yr. going to support academic research. This is the help that
we need and, when compared to current federal investments in water and
wastewater, we see that it is well within the realm of possibility.
Thus, I wholeheartedly support the Discussion Draft developed by
Representative Matheson.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address this
critical national need, and I'm prepared to answer any questions you
might have.
Biography for Glen T. Daigger
Glen T. Daigger is a Senior Vice President with CH2M HILL where he
currently serves as Chief Technology Officer for the firm's civil
infrastructure businesses (water, operations, and transportation). He
is responsible for the people, processes, and tools that deliver
technology to serve clients in these business areas. He is also a
Technology Fellow in Wastewater Treatment and, consequently, serves as
senior consultant and process engineer on a wide variety of municipal
and industrial wastewater treatment and reclamation projects. He has
provided technical leadership to many landmark projects, including for
example numerous biological nutrient removal (BNR) and water
reclamation and reuse projects in locations ranging from the Chesapeake
Bay and throughout North America to New Zealand, Australia, Singapore,
China, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. In addition to his 28 years
with CH2M HILL, Dr. Daigger also served as Professor and Chair of
Environmental Systems Engineering at Clemson University.
Dr. Daigger is a recognized expert in wastewater management and in
wastewater treatment process and facility design. Areas of special
expertise include water reclamation and reuse, nutrient control, fixed
film systems, membrane bioreactors (MBRs), sludge bulking and foaming
control, and the design of sustainable water management systems. Dr.
Daigger is the author or co-author of well over two hundred technical
publications, several manuals that are widely used in the wastewater
profession, and four books. Biological Wastewater Treatment, Second
Edition is a widely used graduate textbook and Manual on the Causes and
Control of Activated Sludge Bulking, Foaming, and Other Solids
Separation Problems, Third Edition is the standard reference on this
topic in the industry. He has invented several wastewater treatment and
reclamation processes, including the Virginia Initiative Plant (VIP)
BNR process, the Step Bio-P BNR process, various coupled fixed film/
suspended growth processes, and MBR-based BNR processes. He holds
patents on several of these processes.
Educated at Purdue University where he received his BSCE, MSCE, and
Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering, Dr. Daigger is a member of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Water Works
Association (AWWA), Association of Environmental Engineering and
Science Professors (AEESP), International Water Association (IWA), and
Water Environment Federation (WEF). He is a Diplomat of the American
Academy of Environmental Engineers (AAEE) and a member of the United
States National Academy of Engineering (the highest honor accorded to
practicing engineers in the United States). He has served on the
governing boards of AAEE, WEF, the Water Environment Research
Foundation (WERF), and IWA where he is currently the Senior Vice
President. He has served on the scientific committee of many IWA
specialty conferences and has been a frequent presenter. For WEF he
served as Chair of the task force which prepared the current edition of
Manual of Practice No. 8, Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants, Chair of the Board of Editorial Review of Water Environment
Research, Chair of the Technical Practice Committee, Chair of the
Research Symposium of the WEFTEC Program Committee and Chair of the
Committee Leadership Council (CLC). He is currently serving as
Conference Chair for Sustainability 2008. He has received the Gascoigne
and Morgan medals from WEF, and is the only back-to-back winner of the
Harrison Prescott Eddy award. He has served as the Kappe lecturer for
the AAEE, and is a recipient of the ASCE Simon W. Freese Lecture and
Award. He recently completed service as Chair of the WERF Research
Council.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Dr. Daigger. It just seems
like it is a recurring theme that we hear that we are spending
less in science and other nations are spending more.
Dr. Daigger. Yes, sir.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Thompson.
STATEMENT OF MR. RONALD W. THOMPSON, DISTRICT MANAGER,
WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, ST. GEORGE, UTAH
Mr. Thompson. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am
from Southwest Utah, and it is often said that it is so dry
there our desert tortoises pack canteens, so water is very
important, and we are in an area that is growing very quickly.
We have gone from 13,000 people in 1970 to approximately
160,000 people today. One out of every four homes is owned by
what we call seasonal residents, or snowbirds as we refer to
them. The water conservation in the arid desert that I come
from is very important. Our average rainfall is about eight
inches, and in the last several years, it has been much less
than that, so our district has been involved in educating the
public towards water conservation.
I would just like to share a couple of observations of
where I think technology has taken us today in the water-
conservation arena, from my perspective. We have a wastewater
treatment plant in an area where probably 70 percent of our
population lives. Since 1990, our population area has more than
doubled. Our inflow to that plant has increased about 15
percent.
I think that is really a combination of two factors. One is
technology, the low-flow appliances, the low-flow fixtures. The
second has been an extensive and hard public education programs
to the people, encouraging them to conserve water and to use it
more wisely.
Certainly, as we look westward and look at this nation,
whatever you want to say, we are going to outgrow our water
supply. It is, in fact, the lubricant that makes our economy
thrive and protects and provides health and safety to our
citizens, so the wise use of that water is a fact that we all
have a pretty big investment in. In regards of where we are at,
and the more mobile we are, we expect everyone's water supply
to be adequate to meet our needs.
In regards to what the cost is, I think that if I was going
to talk about anything, certainly, I think technology is
important, and we actually have just put on a wastewater-reuse
plant, a 10 million-gallon-a-day plant, which we integrated to
a secondary system. But it seems to me, as we look at
conservation, we also need to remember there is some other
impacts to conservation that aren't all that great, and I want
to share those.
One is that we need to remember that conservation isn't
just taking every drop of water and returning none to the
environment. And in our conservation plan, we actually take
about 10 percent of what we conserve and put it back into
environmental needs. The second thing is that we traditionally
in the West have a policy that people, when they were overusing
water, and we got in a crisis like we have been in the last
years with the drought, we can ask people to conserve, cut that
use back, and pick up a 15 or 20 percent savings for one year,
two years, or three years. The more people conserve the better
job they do, the more hardened our water supply has to become,
so we no longer have a surplus capacity in our water-supply
system. We are using that up, and that requires, as water
mangers, that we have to harden that water supply.
And of course, the other issue is what is the cost. As you
start encouraging people to take out turf and replace it with
concrete and what is the cost of that, which in many cases, it
would be significant.
To talk about what I think really works, I think education
works, and we, in our district, put a lot of money into
education, not just for the sake of education, but we don't
believe that people will act without having been adequately
educated in a lot of arenas. We have encouraged and require
cities who buy water from us to have water-conservation plans
that require tiered structures. We have put impact fees, so
people who use more water have to pay a higher impact fee. We
have entered into conservation agreements for those who will
commit to use a water-wise landscape that allows them to pay a
lesser impact fee. We have imposed time-of-day watering, which
has saved, and then we have had improved technology. All of
those, we believe, work, but I would say if you look at the
whole arena, education is probably the most important single
factor, because my observation is the more educated the public
is on this issue, the more they buy into it, and the more they
publicly support our expenditure in this arena. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ronald W. Thompson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Ron Thompson. I have been the
General Manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District in
Washington County, Utah for the past 25 years.
I appreciate this opportunity
To familiarize you with the efforts our District is
putting forth to make water conservation a way of life;
To share with you some ideas on what you can do to
help those of us who deal with the everyday task of water
conservation; and
To give you my thoughts on the draft bill authored by
Rep. Matheson of Utah.
Washington County is located in the extreme southwest corner of
Utah. The area averages only eight inches of precipitation per year and
is part of the northern reach of the Mojave Desert. In addition to a
limited amount of water, we have 300 days of sunshine annually, a long
growing season and a robust tourism industry that brings in
approximately 3.5 million visitors each year. Water conservation is not
optional for us; it is a way of life that each of our citizens must
embrace.
Water Conservation Program
In the past eleven years, the per capita water use in our county
has dropped 24 percent. In 2008, the District will review its Water
Conservation Plan and set new goals to achieve an additional 25 percent
water savings. Washington County has achieved this 24 percent reduction
in water use by utilizing several measures:
All cities have time-of-day watering restrictions.
Each city has a block rate structure for water
pricing so those using more water pay more.
The District has implemented a county-wide impact fee
for all new construction based on the size of the irrigable
portion of the lot.
Each city that purchases water from the District must
have a water conservation plan in place.
A telemetry project has been initiated that monitors
diversions along the Santa Clara and Virgin rivers to minimize
water loss and enhance precision in measuring water right
allowance.
Canal systems have been converted to pressurized
irrigation systems thereby eliminating water loss from seepage
and evaporation.
Water saving programs have been implemented which include:
Ultra low flush (ULF) toilet rebates;
WaterSense dishwashers and clothes washer rebates;
An astro-turf rebate program--athletic fields and
public facilities that have turf receive a rebate for up to
one-half of the cost to convert it to astro-turf;
County-wide free water checks;
Smart Irrigation Controller rebates;
State Water-Wise Plant List and Tagging program;
Distribution of new arrival water survival kits;
Water-efficient landscape workshops; and
Training for and certification of professional
landscapers in the use of water wise plants.
Education of the public is a key component to water conservation:
The District publishes a quarterly newsletter which
highlights water conservation;
Articles and editorials are submitted to local
newspapers;
Annual water fairs are sponsored;
A water conservation demonstration garden has been
completed to educate the public about Xeriscape principles;
Various media venues are utilized;
Education of the media is a priority; and
Presentations are given to local organizations.
In addition to all these conservation efforts, the District is a
member of the Governor's Water Conservation Team, a statewide program
that encourages an ethic of conservation and water use efficiency.
We have made great strides in the conservation of this resource,
but we have a long way to go. We will continue to provide water saving
programs and to further educate the public on the value of this
resource and how they should approach its use. But we need to go beyond
this. Right now our District is looking at such conservation projects
as waste water reuse and agricultural conversion to residential water
systems.
These efforts to encourage water conservation and implement
conservation projects do not come easy and they do not come cheaply.
Hours of staff time are devoted just to this one component of a water
district's mission. We were the first Water Conservancy District in
Utah to submit a water conservation plan to Utah State. We were the
first Water Conservancy District to partnership with EPA in the
WaterSense Program.
The EPA's WaterSense Program has been influential in several ways
and has helped us with our conservation mission in Washington County:
It has encouraged manufacturers and distributors to
produce high-efficiency water products.
It has encouraged consumers to look for products that
will save water.
Most of all--it has given the public some practical
methods for saving water. People want to save water and they
want to do it in a way that will not be totally disruptive of
their lifestyle. They oftentimes, however, do not know how to
go about it. Education is the key. The WaterSense Program is
educational and practical.
Most of all, it puts the issue of conserving water on
a national level, allowing both the public and private sectors
to synergize their expertise in promoting the efficient use of
water.
We need your continued support if we are to make further strides in
water conservation. I encourage you, our elected Representatives, to
continue leading the charge on water conservation. Help us in
Washington County meet our next 25 percent water reduction goal. We are
working to:
Require that secondary water systems be in place
before a new housing development proceeds.
Require government facilities to build and landscape
in a water-wise manner. If government will reduce its water
consumption, the public may be motivated to reduce theirs.
Continue and enhance grant funding for water
conservation measures and incentives.
Continue funding for water conservation projects such
as wastewater reuse and reverse osmosis treatment facilities.
Provide grants to assist business such as restaurants
and car washes to install water efficient technology.
Legislate and implement tax credits for those who
install high efficiency appliances.
Provide grants for educational campaigns encouraging
water conservation and the practical means to reach
conservation goals.
Provide grants to schools to enable them to initiate
a water conservation curriculum. Future generations will be
dealing with limited water resources and a growing demand.
We support and commend Congressman Matheson's water conservation
legislation because it recognizes the challenges facing our nation
today with regard to water resources:
Our population is rapidly growing;
Extreme water shortages are forthcoming; and
Severe droughts will be long lasting.
It is imperative that our leaders map out a strategy that will
focus efforts on water reuse, water storage, water distribution, water
conservation and water education. This can only be accomplished with
well-funded programs dedicated to
Research which will give birth to technologies that
will help us increase our water efficiency, and to
Practical implementation of this research.
All the research and all the technology in the world, however, will
not make a dent in our water issues if we do not educate and inform the
public on the need for conservation and the methods which they can
adopt to meet conservation goals.
The objective of this bill is a major campaign to educate the
individual states, the water districts and the general public on the
manner in which water resources are to be utilized and preserved. The
English born biologist and philosopher, Herbert Spencer said ``The
great aim of education is not knowledge, but action.'' We must take
action and we must encourage our constituents to take action required
to become totally committed to the wise use of our water resources.
Water development, management, and stabilization are the major
responsibilities of a water district. Water conservation, on the other
hand, is the responsibility of each and every citizen. This message
needs to be driven home time and time again. It is imperative that we
all come to understand that water conservation is not ordinance driven,
but morally driven. We here in this room have a moral obligation to
take the lead in conserving this great resource. Education of the
public will give them the tools to follow suit. Thank you.
Biography for Ronald W. Thompson
Ronald W. Thompson is a member of the Utah State Bar and is the
District Manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District in
St. George, Utah. He graduated from Brigham Young University in 1971
with a degree in accounting and received his law degree from the
University of Utah in 1974.
Mr. Thompson is a past President of the Utah Water Users
Association, member of Board of Directors and Chair of the Resolutions
Committee for the National Water Resources Association, and Vice
Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Colorado River Water
Users. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Colorado
River Water Users, is the President-Elect of the Colorado River Water
Users, and is the Utah representative for the National Water Resources
Endangered Species Task Force. Mr. Thompson serves on the Utah Water
Development Coalition and also currently serves on the Board of
Directors of the St. George Canal Company and the Washington Fields
Canal Company.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Clerico.
STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD A. CLERICO, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL
Mr. Clerico. I have taken a risk here in a brief
presentation of showing you some visual images. I think is
segues nice with the discussion we have just had, and I notice
the bottle of water that we all have at our stands, and I ask
you--recently, it was in the news how our tap water is equal in
quality to bottled water, something the industry was really
glad to hear. We knew that all along, but it made me stop and
think, then, why are we flushing our toilets with it? And it is
something I really want you to ponder, because the work I have
done over the years has demonstrated that there is so much more
that we could be doing that could be better. So I have invented
the dual-flush toilet, which I said is the quintessential dual-
flush toilet for America, but it recommends the fact that if
you really were given a choice, would you flush your toilet
with bottled water? Well, the answer is no, and the fact is we
really don't have to be because there is many other choices
available.
For the past 20 years, I have been working hard in this
industry, and the progress has been good, but the progress has
been slow due to the lack of innovation within the industry
itself, and that is part of this conversation today around the
research. I have built 30 water-reuse systems in that time
frame, and the conservation aspect of these systems range from
50 percent reduction in use for residential to 95 percent
reduction in use for commercial and institutional facilities.
Well, as a result of this work, this is a diagram that I
don't know that we have the time to spend here, today, talking
about, but essentially what we are doing is we are mining
sewage and we are mining storm water, treating it, and reusing
it for non-potable purposes within buildings. And there is a
lot of this going on, relating to the green-building industry.
In the green-building industry has really played a leadership
role in innovation, but if we had the research behind that, I
think the country as a whole could step up, and we are seeing
other countries go faster and beyond us, and many of the
products we are buying are coming from overseas because the
American manufacturers aren't supplying them. But in essence,
this diagram represents how you would take wastewater from
within a building or within a neighborhood, treat it, and then
return it directly back for flushing toilets, for laundry and
for cooling towers. And we are getting tremendous results from
the systems that we have of this nature, and the economics are
actually playing out favorably, now, today, that there are no
construction grants programs anymore, and the municipalities
are starting to pay full price for the water and wastewater
facilities. Now we are cost competitive.
There are many advantages. It is eliminating long
collection lines and distribution pipes, which are inefficient
and which leak and which are expensive. It help us mitigate
existing problems and combine sewer overflow. And we are
removing nutrients, so that we are actually doing a better job
of protecting the environment while we are saving water. It is
not just about water, it is about the environment and pollution
in general.
The drawbacks are when you do this on a small scale, you do
lose some economy of scale. You do require dual plumbing,
because now you have non-potable water supplying fixtures as
well as potable water. I tell you the plumbers union doesn't
have a problem with this because it actually makes for a good
economy. And when you start thinking about this whole green-
building movement, there is a whole economy here related to
what could happen if we were to innovate and move forward more.
And the small systems are generally not subsidized, so we don't
have the same level playing field economically because we are
competing with subsidized municipal facilities.
Now, the New England Patriot's Stadium is one I put up
because it was a story that came in 2000. It raised the
awareness around what is possible with water reuse. The stadium
has a complete water reuse system in it. It saved the stadium
for the Town of Boxborough. They were going to leave if they
couldn't solve this problem. It has a tremendous economic
advantage to the root-one corridor if you have ever been up to
that area of New England, so they could have some vibrancy,
even through their water resource was diminished, in
compromise. And that led them to the green-building era in
Manhattan when in Battery Park City, they decided they were
going to do very innovative water reuse programs as part of
urban development, and we now have four operating high-rise
buildings in Manhattan that are residential. We have three
either in design or construction. The Solaire was the first. It
was America's first gold-rated LEED building for a residential
high-rise.
Over three years of data-taking, we see a 48 percent
reduction in water use by comparison to a sister, modern
building, using modern plumbing fixtures, and a 56 percent
reduction in wastewater discharge. The difference between the
two is we are evaporating a lot of the wastewater in the
cooling towers, and once you start looking at the opportunities
to reuse water, cooling is a big aspect. The surface hasn't
been scratched yet, and there is lot of need for research
there.
And as we look at these facilities, we are looking down
from the roof on a park that is irrigated with reuse water, on
a green roof that is capturing rainwater and reusing it within
the building, and on the buildings themselves, you get a sense
of how this can be tucked into very, very high density, as well
as very rural areas. It is not about where you do it. It is
just a matter of the fact that you can do it if you have the
right momentum behind you.
This picture shows you how we build systems right into the
foundations of buildings. The membrane technology that Dr.
Daigger referred to has really helped us advance quickly, but
there is so much more distance to go in terms of our research
around energy consumption and practical applications to
optimize these systems. We can't take another 20 years to
advance this. We need to do something on a much more
accelerated basis to be successful.
We have found that a scale of about 50,000 gallons a day,
we are actually economical. We are more economical today than
in New York City, continuing with city services. The City has
recognized the advantage here, and they have given us an
incentive for water reuse. It is a 25 percent reduction in our
water and wastewater bills, and this graph represents a
building. The yellow line would be if you did water reuse, and
the blue line would be if you were using city services. That
would be for a large, 10 million-square-foot facility, which
some of the neighborhoods in New York City are, so you can see
there is an economic advantage. You go to a smaller scale
system, the economics are okay, but they are not quite as
attractive, and the City is now considering doing a capital-
incentive program to incentivize developers to do more of this
because it hasn't cost the city anything and they are
benefitting from reduced demand on their water supply and on
their wastewater infrastructure, and they realize that in the
future. The City intends to add one million people and 750,000
jobs by 2030. And in the course of doing that they need to
remove 60 million gallons a day of water consumption, which is
a five percent reduction, so they know that they need
innovative solutions like this if that is going to happen. And
it is interesting that this is going to be happening in New
York City. It can happen anywhere where water is a concern and
where environmental discharges are a concern. It just doesn't
have to be a one-city solution.
Research is an important component of this. As I mentioned,
the energy-water nexus needs to be researched further so that
as we develop our new systems, we are affective in terms of how
we manage our energy relative to our water management. There
are many new applications. I had mentioned cooling towers. We
have interesting conversations with cooling tower
manufacturers. We could sure use some university support around
what could be done better to integrate the various functions of
how we use water with how we can treat our water for reuse.
And that is what I have to tell you today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clerico follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward A. Clerico
The Future of Water Reuse in America
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you this
afternoon on the proposed ``Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation
Research Act.'' My name is Edward Clerico and I am President of
Alliance Environmental and I have designed, built, operated and owned
water reuse projects for the past 20 years. My recent work in Manhattan
on a number of water reuse projects in high rise residential buildings
has attracted considerable attention from interests across the globe. I
am here today to briefly tell you of the significant success we have
achieved with water reuse and how it offers tremendous opportunity for
the future and how important it is to advance research on this matter.
Overview
Water reuse is not new to America and there are a number of well
known large scale reuse projects that are mostly in the arid regions
and they almost exclusively use treated wastewater effluent for
irrigation purposes. Arguably, if this causes the irrigation of
additional arid land, it does not offer any real environmental benefit
but if it replaces existing irrigation supply, it does reduce the
demand on water supply. Such water reuse projects are accepted by the
public and they are beneficial, but the benefits are mostly seasonal
and only of significant value where irrigation is in high demand.
Direct water reuse is a more beneficial and innovative approach
whereby wastewater is treated and reused for multiple non-potable
purposes inside and outside of buildings. This has been accomplished
mostly on a distributed system basis where small to medium size
facilities are built on-site to provide service to a specific customer
or customer group. Typical uses are for toilet flushing, cooling tower
make up and laundry uses in addition to landscape irrigation. There are
30 such direct water reuse projects in the Northeast and they span a
period of 20 years. Most recently, such projects have been built in
urban areas where an abundant supply of wastewater can be readily
minded for treatment and reuse. The benefits of this approach are
numerous:
48 percent to 95 percent reduction in water
consumption by comparison to typical modern buildings
60 percent to 95 percent reduction in wastewater
discharge
Reduced environmental impact from Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSO)
Reduced nutrient and chemical loads to water bodies
Consistent performance year round that is not
dependent on geographical location or season
Economical operations that use the waste as a
resource, provide treatment at the source and yield a favorable
Life Cycle Cost and Life Cycle Assessment
Economical asset management that avoids the need for
large capital projects associated with conventional centralized
water and wastewater systems
The opportunity for improved energy efficiency
relative to water and wastewater treatment systems and water
movement in general
The opportunity for improved nutrient management for
further environmental benefits.
By way of example, for a mixed use (residential--commercial--
office) development it is very possible that the non-potable water
reuse demands would nearly match the wastewater generation such that
wastewater discharge can be almost entirely eliminated. Such dramatic
results are not widely recognized and embraced within the water and
wastewater industries for many reasons, mostly due to lack of
understanding and difficulty adopting innovative models. There is a
strong need for education via demonstration projects as well as
research to advance knowledge within this field so that the centralized
water and wastewater industry can enter this new paradigm.
Introduction
It has been reported that it takes 1,200 gallons of water per
capita per day to operate the U.S. economy but the human population
only consumes less then one gallon of water per capita per day. It is
clear from this fact that water reuse offers tremendous opportunity to
reduce our impacts on water resources because theoretically all but the
one gallon per capita per day can be readily reused. Water reuse is not
new, but it is not well recognized for the potential benefits that it
offers because the entire delivery mechanism for water and wastewater
services in America; regulatory, financial, legal, business and
physical assets, are not structured to embrace the water reuse
approach. Recent experience with water reuse projects in urban,
suburban and rural settings suggests that these hurdles can be readily
overcome with new technology and business delivery mechanisms that
deserve widespread consideration because they have proven significant
environmental benefit.
Throughout the world, we are faced with a situation wherein our
water resources are being depleted and destroyed as a result of:
1. Growing population and pursuit of better living conditions
that include abundant use of water for many lifestyle demands
2. Increasing discharge of new products that include more
complex chemical constituents that are not readily removed by
traditional wastewater treatment
3. Growing anthropogenic pressures on water resources from
many activities that have indirect impacts.
To date, we have approached the solution of all our water resource
problems by innovating and advancing the supply and discharge
mechanisms originally created by the Romans. This Romanesque approach
relies upon the natural water cycle to provide the dilution and
ultimate purification that protects human health. Unfortunately, what
worked for the Romans is no longer suitable for modern humanity and we
must take the necessary steps to establish a new perspective. The good
news is that there are robust and well proven solutions available
today.
If one takes a high level view our current conventional methods of
water resource management, the problem becomes readily evident.
Consider the following abbreviated technical description which
represents our current approach to water supply and water resource
management:
1. Supply--Surface and ground water provide our source of
supply. These supply sources are compromised by many influences
and are generally in need of treatment to remove contaminants
and to provide disinfection from pathogens. Not all
contaminants and pathogens are easy to identify so we
constantly search for a better understanding of how to best
protect our public health from many unknowns.
2. Storage--Most population centers demand more resource then
can be readily supplied by the naturally available resource
during dry weather periods, so we construct large reservoirs
and dams to hold water to make up for natural deficits that
would occur. This water impoundment approach itself has a
number of detrimental affects on the environment and the water
budget overall, but it is necessary and unavoidable in most
cases.
3. Treatment--The extracted supply is treated, disinfected and
readied for distribution. We strive to have this water as
pristine as possible and recent testing has proven that it
really is as ``pure as bottled water'' in almost all respects
and cases.
4. Distribution--The treated supply is distributed via
thousands of miles of pipes via pumping, pressure controls and
intermediate storage tanks. This infrastructure is extensive,
complex and is generally deteriorating and in need of repair.
Pipe leakage generally accounts for a loss of about 15 percent
of this rather costly resource.
5. Use--This ``bottled water quality'' supply is then brought
to our homes and business where a tiny percentage is consumed,
but most is used for flushing toilets, bathing, washing dirty
laundry and dishes, cooling system supply in larger buildings
and watering lawns and landscaping.
6. Contamination--As a result of our use, this supply is
highly contaminated with feces, urine, chemical cleaners and
disinfectants, dirt, unused products, industrial byproducts,
food waste, grease, oil and a long list of things that go down
the drain such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products,
make-up, insect repellent and more.
7. Collection--In all urban and most suburban cases, this
contaminated wastewater is then collected by another set of
complex and cumbersome pipes and pumps that are also in need of
maintenance and upgrading. Most of these pipes allow
groundwater and storm water to leak into the sewage
(infiltration) and some allow untreated sewage to leak out into
the ground (exfiltration). In most older urban areas and in far
too many newer suburban areas these piping networks are
influenced by storm water flows and groundwater such that raw
sewage routinely overflows during wet weather thereby
contaminating the very source that supplies our drinking water.
8. Treatment--The collection and transmission system then
takes this highly contaminated water to a central treatment
plant where technology has been applied to treat and remove the
contaminants to the greatest degree possible. This task becomes
very difficult because some contaminants are difficult and
expensive to remove and these plants are in need of upgrades
and cannot often comply with their requirements and customers
don't want to pay for the required treatment plant
improvements. There is also additional complication from the
fact that new contaminants appear routinely as a result of new
products that enter our market place and end up down our
drains.
9. Discharge--These complex treatment systems do the best they
can with the money and technology available and once fully
processed, the treated water is discharged back into the water
bodies that serve as the source of supply. Often, downstream
neighbors remove this same water and begin this cycle all over
again, in many cases with only hours of travel time.
If I were to suggest to you that you should flush your toilet with
bottled water you would appropriately respond that this would be a
crazy thing to do. However, this is essentially what we do under our
current water and wastewater infrastructure paradigm. The above
scenario could readily be condensed into the following brief non-
technical description:
We utilized large scale public infrastructure to produce
``bottled water'' that we then use to flush our toilets and
into which we dispose of our wastes, which we then send off for
treatment and discharge into our water bodies, where henceforth
we send it downstream for our neighbors to extract once again,
produce ``bottled water'' and start the cycle all over again.
When population density was low and waste sources were mostly
biodegradable natural contaminants, this scenario worked because Mother
Nature provided the dilution, disinfection and purification needed to
buffer the dangers. Now that population densities are much greater and
the contaminants are much more difficult to treat, this scenario makes
no sense and in the long-term must be replaced or supplemented by a
more modern approach.
Direct non-potable water reuse\1\ offers the alternative of
creating a man-made water cycle that separates the waste flow from the
drinking water supply source and it provides high quality ``non-
potable'' water for uses that only involve waste disposal and do not
threaten human health via consumption. Technological advancements allow
small scale applications of treatment that can be placed immediately at
the customer's location such that the wastewater can be collected,
treated, stored and reused without traveling long distances and without
the associated large capital investment in infrastructure. Due to the
nature of this ``man-made water cycle'' the level of treatment is very
high and the environmental impact is greatly reduced. The end result of
distributed direct water reuse is a dramatically reduced demand on
potable water supply, wastewater treatment systems and the water
environment, plus elimination of most of the intermediary
infrastructure required in conventional systems. It is a win-win
throughout the water supply chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Non-potable water reuse refers to water that is produced to a
quality that is safe for human contact, i.e., swimming water quality,
but not suitable for drinking. Direct non-potable water reuse in this
report never refers to direct reuse for consumption purposes. Direct
reuse for consumption purposes would be objectionable to most Americans
today even though technology now allows this as a safe practice as
evidenced by new systems that are operating in Singapore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief History of Distributed Water Reuse Systems and Performance
This historical review is important as a means of demonstrating how
distributed water reuse systems are already providing robust and safe
service to a diversified range of customers over a significant period
of time. The concept is not new, but as time has progressed, each new
system has achieved improved results and more significant benefits. The
concept is still very young with regards to development potential and
there is a strong need for public education and research to build upon
this successful start. Whereas it seems like we have come so far, in
reality we have only begun to reveal the possibilities of water reuse
that lie ahead.
The approach to distributed water reuse, sometimes referred to as
wastewater mining is relatively simple, but it incorporates
sophisticated advanced methods of treating wastewater such that it is
completely safe and suitable for non-potable reuse. The schematic
presented below represents the current state-of-the-art relative to
distributed water reuse systems. The membrane bio-reactor has become
the standard biological treatment method utilized presently because it
offers several advantages--small footprint, robust performance and
automation capabilities. As depicted in this schematic, storm water can
also be incorporated into the water reuse scheme depending on site
characteristics and appropriateness of this additional source of
supply.
In the mid-1980's there were a rash of sewer-bans throughout the
northeast that resulted from problems associated with aging wastewater
treatment plants. This was also an era of economic boom that frequently
created pressure to build new developments in areas where public sewers
did not exist or where they could not accommodate any additional flow.
This drove developers to seek alternative solutions and as a result of
this economic driver, the first water reuse system in this region was
built in 1987 for a pharmaceutical company in a suburb near Princeton,
New Jersey. This 350,000 SF office research facility employed over 400
workers and by recycling treated non-potable water to flush toilets,
produced a wastewater discharge that was slightly more then a single
family home. The results were so astounding that others soon followed
suite.
By the late 1990's there were 20 similar systems built in the
Philadelphia to Boston region and the applications represented a wide
array of commercial, office, public buildings and one baseball stadium.
Several schools were included in this portfolio which included children
ranging in age from preschool to high school. Table 1 below provides a
summary of these systems by age and type.
In 2000, a water reuse system was built for Gillette Stadium, home
of the New England Patriots, NFL Football Team located in Foxboro
Massachusetts. This system raised the awareness of many interested
parties because it not only provided a means for the Town of Foxboro to
accommodate a new stadium, it also allowed for a non-potable water
reuse system that could provide the needed water and wastewater service
to the Route 1 commercial district that is a vital component of the
town's economic growth plans.
2000 was also the beginning of the Green Building movement in
America and new development projects certified by the United States
Green Building Council were now gaining attention. In New York City,
the Battery Park City Authority had adopted strict environmental
standards for the development of an area of southern Manhattan known as
Battery Park City which runs along the Hudson River waterfront.
Developers in this area embraced these environmental standards while
also adhering to the USGBC LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) program. Under these dual environmental programs water
conservation and reuse became a key aspect of residential developments
that aimed to achieve new levels of environmental excellence and
demonstrate new innovations in sustainable urban development.
The first building, The Solaire, was a 293-unit residential high-
rise that broke the barrier and became the first building to
incorporate direct water reuse in a residential setting. This project
went on to be awarded LEED Gold certification by the USGBC and is
widely recognized for its environmental achievements. After beginning
operation in 2003, three years of water flow data clearly illustrated
that the building consumed 48 percent less water and discharged 60
percent less wastewater then a comparable modern residential building
in New York City. Water reuse at The Solaire incorporated toilet
flushing, cooling tower supply and irrigation of the neighboring Tear
Drop Park.
Subsequently, a number of new residential buildings in Manhattan
have utilized this approach and there are currently four systems
operating and there are expected to be a total of seven similar
residential water reuse systems by 2009. The systems simply mine sewage
and treat it to produce a high quality non-potable supply source. As
the bar continues to rise within this innovative green building market,
new buildings continue to strive for even higher objectives. Projects
now under construction include laundry supply as an additional use for
reuse water and thus the performance results are expected to be even
more impressive in the future.
An unanticipated benefit from this urban application of distributed
water reuse is the fact that the reduced waste discharge to sewer lines
helps to mitigate the affects of combined sewer overflows via lower
flows and lower waste loads. Recognizing the public benefit gained from
this approach the New York City Department of Environmental Protection
implemented the Comprehensive Water Reuse Program in 2004 that offered
building owners a 25 percent reduction in City water and sewer charges
for water reuse systems that reduced demand by 25 percent or more. This
incentive helped level the economic playing field between the privately
funded water reuse systems and the publicly funded City water and sewer
system. Currently, a capital incentive program for water conservation
and reuse is under consideration to enhance this initiative further.
As per the objectives of PlaNYC 2030, the City expects to add one
million residents, 750,000 jobs and accommodate more guests while
reducing water and sewage flow by 5.5 percent or 60 million gallons per
day. This ambitious goal will require a number of special measures to
reduce and reuse water, with distributed water reuse being one
component.
Benefits of Distributed Water Reuse
There are numerous benefits to the concept of distributed water
reuse systems. They are highlighted in the bullets that follow:
Water reuse in general reduces the demand on water
supply resources and facilities on a gallon per gallon basis.
Distributed water reuse systems also reduce the burden on
centralized wastewater facilities similarly.
Distributed water reuse systems utilize wastewater as
a resource. Because the wastewater flow increases in parallel
to the increase in water demand, there is no need for very
large storage reservoirs to account for droughts. The supply
and demand functions are closely linked whereby the resource
flow increases while the supply demand increases and vice
versa.
Distributed water reuse systems offer the ability to
separate wastes from the natural water cycle by creating a man-
made water cycle that captures and treats wastewater and
supplies non-potable water for reuse.
Distributed water reuse systems are located at or
very near the customer, thus there is very little need for
collection and distribution piping. In many cases, both rural
and urban, the actual water reuse system is located within a
customer's buildings and there is no need for any outside
collection and distribution system. As a result, the huge
problem of infiltration and exfiltration are completely
eliminated.
Because the wastewater is treated in one treatment
process that produces non-potable water, there is only one
treatment mechanism to handle both the wastewater and the non-
potable water supply needs as opposed to separate wastewater
treatment and water supply treatment facilities typically found
in conventional centralized systems.
In areas where the sewage is mined from a public
sewer system, distributed water reuse reduces both the flow and
waste load on the collection systems and the environment and
thereby helps to mitigate combined sewer overflows and sanitary
sewer overflows conditions.
Because the reuse water must meet high quality
characteristics to be suitable for reuse, it is treated in a
manner that generally removes large quantities of nutrients
that would mostly pass out into the environment in conventional
facilities. This nutrient control aspect offers significant
environmental benefit to the local water bodies that would
normally have to absorb these nutrients.
For added performance efficiency, distributed water
reuse systems can also incorporate storm water as an additional
water source where climate and site conditions warrant.
Drawbacks of Distributed Water Reuse
The drawbacks of distributed direct water reuse systems are few,
but they present important obstacles to more widespread application.
Water reuse requires a dual plumbing supply system,
one for the potable supply and one for the non-potable supply,
thus increasing the plumbing costs within buildings.
Distributed water reuse systems are generally at a
small to moderate scale and thus lose the economy of scale
benefit realized by large capital projects. This drawback seems
to be mitigated once the distributed water reuse system reaches
a size of approximately 500,000 gallons per day of capacity
which represents a neighborhood scale.
Distributed water reuse systems are not subsidized
with public funding as are centralized systems thus the costs
to the customer are higher. Incentives such as that in New York
City help to mitigate this difference.
There is a general lack of understanding of
distributed water reuse systems in the professional community
and this approach is not routinely considered in water resource
planning efforts except on special Green Building type projects
or where public water and wastewater infrastructure does not
exist. There is a strong need for public education and research
to document the nuances and benefits of distributed water
reuse.
Economics of Distributed Water Reuse
The economics of water and wastewater is not a simple matter and
there are many financial influences that are difficult to fully assess.
It is clearly recognized that via grants, low interest loans and other
forms of public subsidies, U.S. residents generally do not pay the true
cost of water and wastewater services and this creates undesirable
consequences such as wasteful usage and overall lack of respect. Full
cost pricing would change many behaviors and certainly influence future
planning for water resource management such that water reuse would
become more attractive.
The water reuse systems described herein have all been built with
private funds and the capital and operating costs are not directly
subsidized in any way. New York City created an operating incentive in
2004 known as the Comprehensive Water Reuse Incentive Program which
provides a 25 percent reduction in City water and sewer bills for
buildings that realize a 25 percent reduction in water consumption by
comparison to a base building. This creates a dual level customer
charge system whereby there is a conventional rate and a reduced
``Green Rate'' for facilities that include direct water reuse (see
Table 2). To my knowledge, this is the first indirect water reuse rate
incentive in the U.S.
The capital cost of distributed water reuse systems varies with
site conditions and size of the system. From experience, it appears
that once the system reaches a size of approximately 500,000 gallons
per day, it approximates the cost for municipal systems from a capital
perspective at least in suburban and urban areas. In rural areas, the
cost for conventional systems might be lower if the value of land is
cheap. Figure 1 illustrates the variation in water reuse system capital
cost as a function of system size.
From an operating perspective, costs also improve as system size
increases, again with 500,000 GPD being the target operating size.
Figure 2 illustrates the operating cost range based on New York City
cost data.
New York City water and sewer rates are just slightly above the
mean for 25 large cities surveyed.\2\ Atlanta ranks at the top with the
highest rates and Chicago at the bottom with the lowest rates. The cost
effectiveness of water reuse is therefore a local matter that must
reflect local costs structure and conditions. With New York
representing the mean, it provides a good test case for comparison with
other areas around the U.S. Figure 3 illustrates the operating cost
savings for approximately 10 million square feet of mixed office and
residential use comparing the conventional approach vs. the water reuse
approach. As indicated in this graph, water reuse in New York City is
economical presently and becomes increasingly advantageous in the
future. This would represent the optimum case under current New York
City cost structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Reference--New York City Department of Environmental
Protection, New York City Water Board Public Information Regarding
Water and Wastewater Rates, April 2007--commonly known as the Blue
Book.
Figure 4 presents the same comparison for a smaller residential
building that would include approximately 300 units. This cost
information was derived from operating data at The Solaire, the first
building of this nature. Ability to achieve higher levels of
optimization would improve this cost picture somewhat, but even at this
level, the long range picture illustrates that the distributed water
reuse approach is more cost effective.
From an operating cost perspective it has been demonstrated that
water reuse in an urban setting such as New York City is cost effective
in the short- and long-term. From a capital cost perspective, water
reuse reduces the demands on both water supply and wastewater treatment
infrastructure and the costs are reasonable when comparing the
potential offset in future capital spending. The difficulty with the
current structure in New York City is that developers are presently
funding the capital costs themselves when in many cases they are not
the recipients of the future operating savings. There is therefore no
incentive for the developers to implement water reuse other then for
the ability to achieve new green building standards. New York City is
currently reviewing this inequity and is considering a capital
incentive program that would compensate the developers accordingly. If
this is implemented, the playing field between distributed water reuse
and conventional centralized water and wastewater will be nearly
leveled.
There are however, other considerations that reach beyond simple
economics. Distributed water reuse systems offer an overall lower
environmental impact so one would expect the costs to be greater, but
at the moment there is no monetary consideration offered for this
benefit.
Energy consumption is another area of water resource management
that is not incorporated into this analysis. It is also now well
recognized that there is a strong connection between energy consumption
and water consumption, often referred to as the Energy/Water Nexus,
which must be addressed in our future planning for both water and
energy management. It is reported that U.S. citizens may indirectly use
as much water turning on the lights and running electric appliances as
they directly use flushing toilets and feeding water use appliances
(see http://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/nexus-overview.htm).
Direct water reuse offers many advantages from a water supply and
environmental waste load perspective, but the energy aspects are not
yet adequately quantified. The relationship between water and energy
becomes even more complex as water reuse is incorporated into HVAC
systems as a means of saving water, but at the same time improving
energy efficiency.
According to the National Electric Testing Laboratory (NETL) 80
percent of the cost of treating, processing and pumping water is from
energy (ref--Bajura 2002). Anecdotal information from existing
distributed water reuse systems suggest that this electrical component
is much lower (possibly as low as 40 percent) but there needs to be
thorough investigation into the actual KW/gallon for both the
conventional and water reuse approaches so that this relationship is
well understood and incorporated into future water resource planning
efforts.
Conclusion and Summary
Distributed water reuse systems must become a key aspect of our
future water resource management programs because they offer so many
advantages and only few drawbacks. Centralized systems will continue to
serve as the backbone of water infrastructure for many years to come
because so much infrastructure of this nature already exists, but
future planning must include water reuse as a key component and must
consider how these two approaches can be jointly optimized. Distributed
water reuse systems offer a unique and compelling alternative to
supplement and relieve the infrastructure that now exists and we must
learn how to incorporate this approach most effectively. It will take a
dedicated education, outreach and research effort for this to come to
fruition.
Via water reuse, both distributed and centralized, we can
accommodate a great deal of population growth and support an improved
standard of living while providing better environmental protection.
However, there exists a strong need to bring this new alternative to
the public forefront and to fully thresh out the unique characteristics
so as to build confidence and understanding.
From my perspective as an innovator I believe it is very helpful
and valuable for the Federal Government to lead the way with more
research in this area. It is amazing and puzzling to think about how
difficult and slow our progress with water reuse has been over the past
20 years by comparison to other technology driven industries. Water is
so vital for our survival, but we fail to give it the urgent attention
needed to preserve the future health and well being of our society.
Water reuse offers tremendous promise but it requires government
support to advance more aggressively. There are many specific areas of
research that would improve water reuse overall. Below are a few
suggestions:
1. Create visible public demonstration projects of
distributed water reuse that provide opportunities for
education and research
2. Develop rigorous standards for non-potable water reuse
3. Research the energy consumption aspects of water reuse vs.
conventional approaches
4. Research methods for advancing water reuse into other non-
potable uses for improved efficiency
5. Research more advanced forms of reuse whereby nutrients
are separated for nutrient reuse apart from water reuse
6. Develop improved membrane filtration technology to provide
longer life and lower operating costs.
7. Improve aeration methods to reduce power consumption in
the biological digestion process
8. Develop methods of passive treatment to reduce power
consumption and operating costs
9. Advance the understanding of the uses of ozone and
ultraviolet light to destroy macro molecules
10. Optimized disinfection methods to protect public health
and allow more extensive uses for non-potable water.
Thank you.
Biography for Edward A. Clerico
Ed is a licensed professional engineer and licensed wastewater
operator in NY, NJ and PA and is a LEED Accredited Professional. He
holds BS and MS degrees from Rutgers University in Bio-Ag Engineering.
Ed was the founder and President of Applied Water Management, Inc.,
before holding executive roles with American Water as Technical
Development Director and VP Strategy. Presently he operates his own
consulting business known as Alliance Environmental that focuses on
Green Building Concepts.
Ed pioneered the concept of Community On-site Wastewater Systems--
commonly known as COWS--and developed the first water reuse systems in
the northeast region. He advocates for creating balance within our
environment through innovation and environmental stewardship.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Clerico. Ms. Little.
STATMENT OF MS. VAL L. LITTLE, DIRECTOR, WATER CONSERVATION
ALLIANCE OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA; PRINCIPAL RESEARCH SPECIALIST,
COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, UNIVERSITY
OF ARIZONA
Ms. Little. Thank you Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member
Inglis, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on Research to Improve Water-Use
Efficiency and Conservation. This hearing could not be more
timely, and the Water CASA members I represent here today
appreciate your leadership and your interest in the efficient
uses of the water supplies throughout the Nation.
I am going to begin with a very direct statement: the
cheapest source of what is that which don't have to find, buy,
treat, transport, or deliver. That is sort of a credo that
Water CASA works around. Regarding comments on R&D needs to
enhance water-use efficiency and water conservation, first of
all, we believe that this committee should use the over 200
members of the WaterSense Program, their program partners, to
assist the EPA on prioritizing the specific national needs in
the area of applied research.
Secondly, we believe that sound decision-making requires
that national policy-makers know which areas of the country or
which demographic profiles have the highest potential for
increased water-use efficiency, and also which programmatic
efforts or processes used in these target areas will generate
the most bang for the buck. Dollars are scarce, and we have got
to be very rigorous in where those dollars are allocated.
Research can provide those answers. Members of Water CASA
support all of the technological efforts to save water, but we
readily acknowledge the limits to technology. Human behavior
factor can easily trump any technical strategy we devise
through the inadequate monitoring, management, and maintenance
of the technological tools. In general, water-conservation
technologies are far ahead of our ability to educate and train
the users and the consumers in the effective use of these
tools. A national effort to lessen this disparity is essential.
Water CASA strongly supports research efforts in the water-
conservation arena that offer actual and quantifiable results,
rather than projected or modeled assumption. Wise decision-
making requires it.
Regarding EPA's WaterSense Program, this is an effective
effort that Water CASA has supported since inception, counting
ourselves among the founding promotion partners.
Specifications, licensing, labeling, and publication are all
great tools for us in the field, so we say do more, do faster.
Additionally, Water CASA will back any increase in training
and certification efforts for all professionals in the use of
the appropriate technologies touted by WaterSense. Again, the
efficiency to be gained by our technologies is limited by our
ability to have qualified and capable humans monitoring,
managing, and maintaining them.
Regarding Representative Matheson's draft legislation, my
eyes lit up when I saw the word greywater. Greywater is
something we work a great deal with in Southern Arizona. The
potential water savings to be had from residential greywater
reuse is an estimated 35 gallons per person per day, which
translated easily into 50,000 gallons per household per year.
It is far too compelling a water source to ignore. National
standards and regulations regarding the reuse of greywater
generated in residences should be promulgated, much as we have
done in Arizona.
As with greywater, the potential savings to our potable
water supplies through maximum usage of harvested rainfall is
astounding. In urban areas of Pima County, the amount of
rainfall that could be captured from rooftops, paving
landscaped areas and bare ground is equivalent to over 75
percent of the water delivered to that same urban area by the
water supplier.
An Arizona model of providing incentives to increase the
use of household greywater and the harvesting of rainwater can
form the basis for national policy. These incentives can be
tailored to motivate homebuilders, prospective homebuyers and
existing homeowners as well. Water CASA agrees that water
conservation should certainly be a national goal, and we
welcome any opportunity to work with, not only the EPA, but
with all federal agencies that have water-related mandates. We
support workshops to offer input to EPA on what the national
water-use efficiency goals ought to be and establishing an R&D
roadmap to meet these goals.
Finally, a few suggestions that aren't directly R&D
related. We believe there should be a national goal of 100
percent metered water use in this nation. We believe that all
water providers should be required to have some form of
conservation rate structure, whether it is a seasonal rate
differential, a time-of-day pricing, inclining block rate, or
surcharges tied to usage. We think that all water suppliers
should be required to keep their system leakage below 10
percent of the water they deliver. And we would like to see the
speed-up of the change-out of pre-1990 toilets that are high
water using in existing structure thought the use of
incentives, and phase in a national requirement to retrofit to
HET toilets at the time of resale, approved additional plumbing
standards that reflect structured plumbing-system components
that save considerable water and energy as well.
Today, the public is paying attention to water issues as
never before. A national public awareness campaign is needed
and needed now. U.S. federal lawmakers have the opportunity to
create a national conservation ethic that reinforces the work
that we do at the State and regional level.
In closing, the protection of our environmental assets,
particularly our water supplies, must be given the highest
consideration in all of our programmatic decision, for it
actually our own self-protection and the protection of
generations to come that we are doing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Little follows:]
Prepared Statement of Val L. Little
Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on ``Research to
Improve Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation: Technologies and
Practices.'' With much of the country gripped by drought, this is a
very timely issue and the members of the Water Conservation Alliance of
Southern Arizona (Water CASA) that I represent here today appreciate
your leadership and interest in the increasingly efficient use of our
water supplies throughout the Nation.
Water CASA was formed 10 years ago to address many of the same
issues you are grappling with here today. Members include both public
and private utilities, municipalities that are not in the water
business but understand that efficient water use is critical to their
economic viability, our county government and our regional
replenishment district. When formed, we partnered with the University
of Arizona enabling us to not only provide conservation programs to our
members' customers but to advocate for water conserving public policies
and to do the applied research necessary to increase the effectiveness
of the programs we undertake.
The good news is that living in the Sonoran desert, we have long
been focused on water conservation, reducing our per-capita consumption
from over 200 gallons per person per day to 150 gallons per person per
day during the 1970's, long before most regions of the country were
giving efficient water use a thought. The down side is that we have
implemented all the inexpensive and easy programs to save water and now
are very keenly aware of the difficulties and expenses that lie ahead
to save that next increment of water.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS FOR TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESSES TO
ENHANCE WATER-USE EFFICIENCY AND WATER CONSERVATION
Water CASA asks that you consider using the 200 WaterSense Program
partners, working with EPA, to prioritize the specific national needs
in the area of applied research. The entire water conservation
community, including affiliates of the Alliance for Water Efficiency
(AWE) stands ready to help. Many of my colleagues around the Nation
will provide the Subcommittee with additional comments and offer you
their research priorities in the days ahead.
The Nation's policy-makers need a better understanding of which
areas in the country or which demographic profiles have the highest
potential for increased water use efficiency. Some areas of the country
have per-capita residential water use that is two or three times the
per-capita residential water use in Tucson even though these areas
receive two or three times the rainfall that we receive. While
volumetric water use does not necessarily correlate with either
efficiency or wastefulness in and of itself, these differences must be
much better understood as the country goes forward facing increased
drought and stressors to our water supply.
Members of Water CASA support all technological efforts to save
water but we readily acknowledge the limits of technology. The human
behavior factor can easily trump any technical strategy with the
inadequate monitoring, management and maintenance of technological
tools. The human factor is of greater consequence for many water saving
technologies as compared with energy technologies (example: the highest
rated irrigation system available results in extremely inefficient
outdoor water use if the homeowner or landscape manager fails to
properly monitor, manage and maintain that system). We now know that
homes with drip irrigation systems use 16 percent more water than homes
without these systems (AWWA-Residential End-Users of Water Study,
1999). In general, water conservation technologies are far ahead of our
ability to educate and train the users and the consumers in the
effective use of these tools. A national effort to lessen this
disparity is essential.
Because we in Southern Arizona are ahead of many areas of the
country in the use of reclaimed water, we see a looming tendency to use
water without maximizing efficiency in an effort to generate more
effluent, and to be less frugal with reclaimed water than with the
potable water supply. Some view reclaimed water as a revenue stream as
much as a water source. This issue needs to be studied to assure that
efforts to generate revenue do not overwhelm the need to conserve, and
to ensure that the public is not paying a premium for the use and reuse
of their water supply. Water CASA holds firm that the least costly
water source is that which is not necessary to provide and we want
decisions related to these issues to be made by our elected officials
rather than water and wastewater providers who may be more focused on
the potential for revenue losses rather than the potential for water
savings.
National research efforts in water use efficiency needn't be
limited to just the EPA (this committee). Coordination and
collaboration with other federal agencies, such as the Field Services
Offices and the Science and Technology Units of the Bureau of
Reclamation, can assure that research efforts are not duplicated.
Water CASA strongly supports research efforts in the water
conservation arena that are focused on actual, quantifiable water
savings rather than projected or modeled assumptions. Analysis of what
has worked best and the honest assessment of what has been less
effective can serve to inform the research and development direction we
take next. For example, we recently completed an extensive study of
water conservation programs around the country; their cost and
benefits, and their actual water savings (ECoBA: Evaluation and Cost
Benefit Analysis of Municipal Water Conservation Programs, 2006). One
of the most startling outcomes was that actual water savings for toilet
rebate programs was much less than expected (15,000 gpy) at about 7,000
gallons per year as compared with the savings from toilet replacement
programs which was over 26,000 gallons per year. As a result, we no
longer recommend rebate programs to our members but we advocate direct
install programs in areas where aging, high-water-using toilets are
still in use.
WATER CASA'S PERSPECTIVE ON CURRENT FEDERAL EFFORTS TO PROMOTE WATER-
USE EFFICIENCY AND WATER CONSERVATION: WATERSENSE
PROGRAM OF THE EPA
The EPA WaterSense Program is a very effective effort that Water
CASA has supported since its inception and we are pleased to count
ourselves among the founding WaterSense Promotion Partners.
Specifications, licensing, labeling, and publications are all great
tools for us so we say do more, do faster! We are currently in the
midst of a program that will replace 1000 high water using toilets in
Pima County and we are using only High Efficiency Toilets (HET = 1.2
gpf) that are qualified to carry the WaterSense label.
Additionally, Water CASA will back any increased training and
certification efforts for water related professionals in the use of the
appropriate technologies touted by WaterSense. As stated above, the
efficiency to be gained by our technologies is limited by our ability
to have qualified and capable humans monitoring, managing and
maintaining many of these technologies.
WaterSense needs to offer a grants program or research funding
specifically designed to increase our understanding of the costs and
benefits of conservation efforts as compared with cost and benefits of
purchasing, pumping, treating, and delivering additional supplies of
water. As stated above, with few exceptions, the cheapest source of
water is that which you don't have to supply.
This subcommittee can set a goal to require High Efficiency Toilets
(HET, 1.2 gpf or less), waterless urinals, and WaterSense rated
fixtures in all new construction by 2014, as we did nationally for the
ULF 1.6 gpf toilets in the 1990's. Water CASA would also strongly
support a requirement that any high-water-using toilet in properties
sold be retrofitted at the time of resale with HET toilets.
COMMENTS ON THE REP. MATHESON DISCUSSION DRAFT
The potential water savings from residential greywater reuse (water
from showers, laundry and lavatory sinks) is far too compelling to
ignore. Water CASA estimates that 35 gallons of greywater are generated
by each of us every day. This translates into as much as 50,000 gallons
of potable water that can be saved each year in every household that
uses the greywater it generates for toilet flushing and landscape
irrigation.
National standards and regulations regarding the reuse of greywater
generated in residences should be promulgated. The public needs
complete and accurate information regarding the safe and effective use
of this water source. This effort could be modeled on the State of
Arizona regulations promulgated in 2001 by our Department of
Environmental Quality. Arizona requires no permit if homeowners make
use of their greywater within the parameters of a set of common sense
guidelines. (http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/rules/
1.pdf)
As with greywater, the potential savings to our potable water
supplies through the active and passive utilization of harvested
rainfall is astounding. An analysis done at the University of Arizona
with funding support from EPA in 2005 (Demonstration of the
Sustainability of Harvested Rainwater in Arid Lands to Meet Water
Requirements, R9-03-478) concluded that in urban areas of Pima County
the amount of rainfall that could be captured from rooftops, paving,
landscaped areas and bare ground is equivalent to over 75 percent of
the water delivered to the same urban area by the water provider.
The Arizona model of providing incentives (rebates, tax credits,
development fee reductions, etc.) for increasing the use of household
greywater and the harvesting of rainwater can also form the basis for a
national policy. These incentives can be tailored to motivate home
builders, prospective home buyers and existing homeowners as well. In
Arizona, we currently offer a $200 tax incentive (costs, up to) to home
builders who plumb new construction for greywater capture.
Additionally, we offer a $1,000 tax incentive (25 percent of costs, up
to) to home owners who install a greywater and/or water harvesting
system.
How we achieve maximum feasible usage of alternative sources of
water, both greywater and rainwater, is a topic that deserves our
considerable attention and Water CASA is pleased that both of these
alternative sources of supply have been put forward in this draft
legislation.
Working demonstration sites can be effective teaching tools for the
public if the visitation traffic is high enough. We support efforts to
provide more of these types of green residential, commercial and
industrial buildings (examples: Casa del Agua in Tucson, where we have
compiled 20 years of water use data for a family of three, the newly
opened UA College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Addition),
public landscapes (examples: The Garden in Washington County, Utah, The
Water Conservation Garden in Cuyamaca, California), and planned
communities.
Water CASA shares the opinion expressed in this draft bill that,
water conservation should certainly be a national goal and we welcome
any opportunity to work with, not only the EPA, but all federal
agencies that have water related mandates. Water CASA would support a
workshop or series of meetings to offer input to EPA on what the
national water use efficiency goals ought to be and to assist in
establishing a roadmap of research and development projects to achieve
that goal.
ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR WATER-USE EFFICIENCY EFFORTS AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL
Water CASA wishes to take this opportunity to put forth ideas that
may not have been considered at the federal level. We acknowledge this
is a most unique opportunity to provide input and we want to make the
best use of it.
A national goal of 100 percent metered water use by all municipal
water providers and a requirement for all water providers to have some
form of conservation rate structure (examples: seasonal rate
differential, time of day pricing, inclining block rates, surcharges
tied to usage) in place by a targeted date is the highest priority
recommendation from Water CASA.
Require all water suppliers (large, small, public and private) to
keep system leakage below 10 percent of their deliveries. Provide a
financial penalty or financial incentive to achieve this goal.
Water CASA is increasingly focused on the huge savings to be
realized from increasing the effectiveness of water and energy use in
plumbing systems. We suggest additional plumbing standards that embrace
manifold systems, recirculating and on demand systems, the unbundling
of hot and cold water lines, the insulation of all hot and cold pipes
to at least R-4, elimination of plumbing pipes in slabs, smooth curves
and fewer joints in all new construction. Though highly variable, the
savings in water and energy by full utilization of these simply
adjustments in how we plumb could achieve savings as high as 50 percent
of what is currently being used.
A national public awareness campaign can have tremendous impact on
the overall trend toward more efficient use of all sources of water.
The need to conserve is nationwide and the entire country is paying
attention to water issues as never before. Though the scarcity issues
vary from region to region (salt water intrusion, aquifer depletion,
rising treatment and distribution costs, groundwater contamination,
drought, declining snow packs, etc.). Water CASA believes there is a
key role to be played by federal lawmakers to create a national
conservation ethic that reinforces the culture of conservation work we
do at the State and regional level. It is critical that the general
public understands the worth, the value of water.
In closing, Water CASA wants to see national policies regarding our
increasingly stressed water supplies that are equitable to all water
sectors including the environment. The protection of our environmental
assets must be given the highest consideration in all our programmatic
decisions. We all must speak for the environment.
Biography for Val L. Little
Val Little is the Director of the Water Conservation Alliance of
Southern Arizona (Water CASA). She is also Principal Research
Specialist with the University of Arizona's College of Architecture and
Landscape Architecture.
Val has an M.A. in Anthropology, from the University of Arizona,
and has an A.B. in Landscape Architecture, from the University of
California, Berkeley.
She has written numerous water-use efficiency publications
including ``Greywater Guidelines,'' published by Water CASA in May
2002, and ``New Mexico Grey Water Guide,'' published in 2005.
Prior to her 10 years as Director of Water CASA, she was Manager of
The Nature Conservancy's Hassayampa River Preserve.
Her work in water conservation and demand management has taken her
to Jordan, where she worked with the USAID Water Efficiency and Public
Information for Action program and the, Amman based, Center for the
Study of the Built Environment.
She currently works in Central America as well, as a board member
of the Nicaragua based NGO, El Porvenir.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Ms. Little. Mr. Veil.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN A. VEIL, MANAGER, WATER POLICY PROGRAM,
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Mr. Veil. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon on
produced water, an important source of water for our nation
that is not currently mentioned in H.R. 3957. Over the next few
minutes, I will describe some ways in which produced water is
currently being beneficially reused and the need for additional
research to allow further reuse of produced water.
Produced water is water that is already in the underground
formation with oil and gas. When the oil and gas is brought to
the surface, the produced water comes along with it. A major
constituent of produced water, from the standpoint of
beneficial reuse, is the salt content. Produced water is the
largest volume byproduct stream associated with oil and gas
production. In the United States, up to 2.3 billion gallons per
day of produced water are generated. By comparison, in the D.C.
Metropolitan area, the D.C. government and the WSSC provide
about 300 million gallons a day of drinking water to local
residents. This represents only about 13 percent of the daily
produced water volume for the Nation.
There are many options for managing produced water, but
today I will focus my remarks on ways in which produced water
is being and can be reused. First off is underground injection
for increasing oil recovery. This is the most widely used
approach for managing onshore produced water. The water is re-
injected back into a producing formation. It serves to maintain
reservoir pressure and hydraulically drive oil towards a
collection well. The practice is referred to as enhanced oil
recovery or water flooding. If the oil and gas operators did
not have produced water to use for this enhanced recovery, they
would need to rely on other surface or groundwater supplies to
make up that water.
A second important use is agricultural. Many oil and gas
wells are located in areas of the country that are
characterized by arid climates and scarce freshwater resources.
Produced water meeting the water-quality requirements of
agricultural users offers the potential to supplement and
replace existing water supplies. Perhaps the most significant
barrier to using produced water for agriculture involves the
salt content of the water. Most crops and livestock do not
tolerate much such salt, and continued irrigation with salty
water can damage the soil structure.
The third area I want to mention is use for drinking water.
Texas A&M University developed a portable produced-water
treatment trailer that can be moved into the oil field to
convert produced water to potable water. During the past few
years, this trailer has been taken out into the field in
several locations in Texas for pilot studies. The water treated
by the trailer met the applicable drinking water standards in
every case.
There are other methods of reusing produced water,
described in my written testimony. In spite of the many actual
uses for produced water, a large proportion of produced water
is being disposed of in ways that offer little beneficial
reuse. Although some sources of produced water have low enough
dissolved solids that they can be used for irrigation or for
drinking with minimal treatment, most U.S. produced water has
high enough dissolved solids that significant treatment must be
provided before the water can be reused. Government-funded and
corporate-funded research have helped develop improved
technologies for removing dissolved solids from produced water.
While the cost of these technologies has dropped in recent
years, they are still expensive compared to the alternative of
injecting produced water underground for disposal.
The bill under consideration in today's hearing is H.R.
3957. The bill promotes research, development, education, and
technology-transfer activities related to water-use efficiency
and conservation technologies. I fully support those goals.
However, H.R. 3957 does not include any mention or
consideration of produced water. Produced water is available in
large volumes, often in some of the most arid parts of the
country. It represents a valuable water resource. With suitable
treatment, produced water can be beneficially reused to support
various end uses.
I encourage the Subcommittee to carefully consider produced
water as an additional source of water that can be part of the
research programs envisioned by H.R. 3957. In particular, the
program should support development of technologies that can
remove dissolved solids so that produced water can be reused
for agriculture, irrigation, human consumption or other
purposes.
Thank you for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Veil follows:]
Prepared Statement of John A. Veil
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am John Veil,
Manager of the Water Policy Program in the Environmental Science
Division of Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne). I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you on produced water associated with oil and
gas production, an important source of water for our nation. I am
appearing today as a subject matter expert on produced water. Through
support from the Department of Energy (DOE), Argonne developed the
Produced Water Management Information System (PWMIS) website
(web.evs.anl.gov/pwmis) that opened for public use in June 2007. I
coordinated that project and wrote most of the technical content. I
have collaborated with several universities on produced water research
and have spoken at numerous technical conferences on different produced
water topics.
My statements reflect my own experience and opinions and are not
necessarily those of DOE or Argonne. I want to share with you some
information about produced water, some ways in which it is currently
being beneficially reused, and the need for additional research to
allow further reuse of produced water. I hope that you will consider
the value and importance of produced water as you deliberate over H.R.
3957.
What Is Produced Water?
Produced water is water trapped in underground formations that is
brought to the surface along with oil or gas. Because the water has
been in contact with the hydrocarbon-bearing formation for centuries,
it contains some of the chemical characteristics of the formation and
the hydrocarbon itself. It may include water from the reservoir, water
injected into the formation, and any chemicals added during the
production and treatment processes. Produced water is also called
``brine'' and ``formation water.'' The major constituents of concern in
produced water are:
Salt content (salinity, total dissolved solids,
electrical conductivity),
Oil and grease (this is a measure of the organic
chemical compounds),
Various natural inorganic and organic compounds or
chemical additives used in drilling and operating the well, and
Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM).
Produced water is not a single, constant commodity. The physical
and chemical properties of produced water vary considerably depending
on the geographic location of the field, the geological formation from
which it comes, and the type of hydrocarbon product being produced.
Produced water properties and volume can even vary throughout the
lifetime of a reservoir.
How Much Produced Water Is Generated?
Produced water is by far the largest volume byproduct stream
associated with oil and gas exploration and production. Approximately
15 to 20 billion bbl (barrels; 1 bbl = 42 U.S. gallons) of produced
water are generated each year in the United States from about 900,000
wells. This is equivalent to a volume of 1.7 to 2.3 billion gallons per
day. Other countries around the world generate more than 50 billion bbl
of produced water each year (nearly six billion gallons per day).
The international oil and gas industry generates about two or three
bbl of water for each bbl of oil. In the United States, the producing
fields are older; they produce water at a higher rate (about seven bbl
of water per bbl of oil).
Why Is Produced Water Important to the Oil and Gas Industry?
The cost of managing produced water is a significant factor in the
profitability of wells. The total cost (ranging from less that one
cent/bbl to more than $5/bbl) includes:
The cost of constructing treatment and disposal
facilities, including equipment acquisitions,
The cost of operating those facilities, including
chemical additives and utilities,
The cost of managing any residuals or byproducts
resulting from the treatment of produced water,
Permitting, monitoring, and reporting costs, and
Transportation costs.
How Is Produced Water Managed?
As indicated in the PWMIS website, responsible management of
produced water follows a three-tiered pollution prevention hierarchy.
Where possible, technologies that minimize the volume of water
generated should be employed first. Next, options that reuse or recycle
produced water should be considered. When neither of those tiers is
practical, disposal remains the only viable option. I will focus my
remarks on ways in which produced water can be reused.
Underground Injection for Increasing Oil Recovery
The most widely used approach for managing onshore produced water
is re-injection into an underground formation. Although some produced
water is injected solely for disposal, most produced water is injected
to maintain reservoir pressure and to hydraulically drive oil toward a
producing well. This practice is referred to as enhanced oil recovery
(EOR), water flooding, or if the water is heated to make steam, as
steam flooding. When used to improve oil recovery, produced water
ceases being a waste and becomes a resource. Without that produced
water to use, operators would need to use other surface or groundwater
supplies as sources of water for the water or steam flood.
Several years ago, while preparing a widely-cited white paper on
produced water, I interviewed representatives from the oil and gas
regulatory agencies in three states with large petroleum production to
gather statistics on underground injection of produced water. In early
2003:
California had nearly 25,000 produced water injection
wells. The annual injected volume was approximately 1.8 billion
bbl, distributed as follows: disposal wells--360 million bbl;
water flood--900 million bbl; and steam flood--560 million bbl.
New Mexico had 903 permitted disposal wells, with 264
of them active. It had an additional 5,036 wells permitted for
EOR, with 4,330 of those active. The approximate annual volume
of produced water injected for disposal was 190 million bbl,
and the annual volume injected for EOR was about 350 million
bbl.
Texas had 11,988 permitted disposal wells, with 7,405
of them active. It had an additional 38,540 wells permitted for
EOR, with 25,204 of those active. The approximate volume of
produced water injected in 2000 (there were similar well counts
in 2000 and 2003) was 1.2 billion bbl disposed into non-
producing formations, one billion bbl disposed into producing
formations, and 5.3 billion bbl injected for enhanced recovery.
Injection for Future Use
When produced water contains very low salinity, it may serve as a
source of drinking water. A project near Wellington, Colorado, is
treating produced water from oil wells as a raw water resource that
will be used to augment shallow groundwater aquifers to ensure adequate
water supplies for holders of senior water rights. The oil company is
undertaking this project to increase oil production. A separate company
will then purchase and utilize this water as an augmentation water
source. This water will eventually be used to allow the Wellington and
northern Colorado water users to increase their drinking water supplies
by 300 percent.
Use for Hydrological Purposes
In addition to having value as water, produced water can also
occupy space or resist Earth or fluid movement. In addition to its
hydrological value for EOR, other potential hydrological uses of
injected produced water include:
Controlling surface subsidence in the wake of large
withdrawals of ground water or oil and gas;
Blocking salt water intrusions in aquifers in coastal
environments; and
Augmenting the regional ground water or local stream
flows.
One of the most compelling examples of subsidence resulting from
oil and gas extraction involves the Wilmington oil field in Long Beach,
California. Since the 1930s, more than 1,000 wells withdrew about 2.5
billion bbl of oil. Between the1940s and the 1960s, this field
experienced a total of 29 feet of subsidence, caused primarily by the
withdrawal of hydrocarbons. Subsidence in the Wilmington oil field
caused extensive damage to Long Beach port industrial and naval
facilities. A massive repressurization program, based on the injection
of water into the oil reservoirs, reduced the subsidence area from
approximately 50 km2 to 8 km2. Approximately 2.3
billion bbl of water were re-injected through 1969.
Produced water is being considered for control of salt water
intrusion in the Salinas River valley in California. This area has
overdrawn ground water for domestic and agricultural uses, resulting in
the salt water/fresh water interface moving six miles upstream. In this
project, produced water would be discharged to the Salinas River or
used locally for irrigation, thereby avoiding ground water withdrawal
and reducing the driving force of the salt water intrusion.
Produced water can potentially be used to augment stream flows.
Where discharges are permitted, treated produced water meeting
applicable discharge standards could be directly discharged to surface
water bodies. Produced water could also be injected into formations
exhibiting hydrologic interconnection with surface water bodies, or
allowed to infiltrate to the water table through holding ponds.
Agricultural Use
Many oil and gas wells are located in areas of the country that are
characterized by arid climates and scarce fresh water resources.
Produced water meeting the water quality requirements of agricultural
users offers the potential to supplement and replace existing water
supplies.
Perhaps the most significant barrier to using produced water for
agricultural purposes involves the salt content of the water. Most
crops do not tolerate much salt, and sustained irrigation with salty
water can damage soil properties. In addition, if livestock drink water
containing too much salt, they can develop digestive disorders.
However, not all produced water is equally salty. For example, some
of the coal bed methane fields in Wyoming's Powder River Basin generate
relatively fresh water. However, in addition to the salt content, the
relative proportion of sodium to other ions is important because
excessive sodium is harmful to soils. Soil scientists use the term
``sodium adsorption ratio'' (SAR) to characterize the ionic
proportions.
Since produced water in the Powder River Basin frequently exhibits
relatively high sodium concentrations compared to those of calcium and
magnesium, the SAR of that water tends to be high. These waters can be
used for some purposes without treatment, but often require either
treatment of the produced water or application of soil supplements to
control the SAR.
Although most of the irrigation projects using produced water are
located in the Rocky Mountain CBM fields, at least one large irrigation
project involving the use of treated produced water can be found in the
Kern River field in central California. There, a treatment system
provides about 480,000 bbl/day of water for irrigating fruit trees and
other crops and for recharging shallow aquifers.
Industrial Applications
In areas where traditional surface and groundwater resources are
scarce, produced water can become a significant replacement resource in
some industrial processes as long as the quality of the produced water
meets the requirements of the user. Produced water is already being
used in some industrial applications; it may also be suitable for
others.
Produced water is already being reused in some oil field
applications. One company in New Mexico has treated produced water then
uses it to make up drilling fluids. This beneficial reuse of produced
water saves more than four million bbl per year of local groundwater.
Another important oil field application is as fluid used to
hydraulically fracture tight shale formations to enhance natural gas
production. Each ``frac job'' requires huge volumes of water, in many
cases more than one million gallons per frac job. In areas where
natural gas fields are expanding rapidly (e.g., the Barnett Shale in
Texas and the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas), local water supplies may
not be adequate to meet the demand for frac water. Produced water or
``flow-back water''--the water returning from the formation following a
frac job--can be treated and reused for new frac jobs.
The electric power industry uses a tremendous volume of water for
cooling and other purposes. Many new or expanded power plants are
facing challenges in finding adequate water supplies for use in cooling
towers. Several years ago, DOE funded a project to evaluate the
feasibility of CBM produced water to meet some of the cooling water
needs at the San Juan Generating Station in northwestern New Mexico.
The economics of using produced water at that specific plant did not
appear favorable. Therefore, the utility decided not to move forward
with implementation. Other applications may prove more productive,
however.
Produced water has been used for dust control on dirt roads in some
states. In another innovative application, firefighters near Durango,
Colorado used CBM produced water impoundments as sources of water to
fill air tankers (i.e., helicopters spraying water onto fires) while
fighting forest fires during the summer of 2002.
Use for Drinking Water
In the past, the treatment costs to remove salinity and other
parameters from produced water for purposes of meeting drinking water
standards were prohibitively high. However, in recent years, costs to
develop and deploy treatment technology have dropped. At the same time,
communities running out of water are willing to pay higher prices for
clean water. Treatment costs are approaching water prices in some
cases. These developments provide the crucial incentive for many water
treatment technology developers deciding to enter the marketplace. A
related but important issue involves managing the concentrated
byproduct stream that results from treating the produced water.
Texas A&M University developed a portable produced water treatment
system that can be moved into oil fields to convert produced water to
potable water. This can be used to augment scarce water supplies in
arid regions, while also providing economic paybacks to operators in
the form of prolonged productive lives of their wells. During the past
few years, the desalination trailer developed by the university
conducted pilot tests using produced water from several locations in
Texas. The water treated by the trailer met the applicable drinking
water standards. While visiting Texas A&M University last year, I
personally drank a glass of produced water treated through the
desalination trailer. The water tasted fine, and I suffered no health
effects.
What Can Be Done to Further Promote Reuse of Produced Water?
In the preceding paragraphs, I have summarized the resource value
of produced water. In spite of the many actual uses for produced water
today, a large proportion of produced water is being disposed of in
ways that offer little beneficial reuse. I would like to give some
thoughts on efforts that the Federal Government could consider to
encourage and promote broader reuse of produced water.
Although some sources of produced water have low enough dissolved
solids that they can be used for irrigation or drinking with minimal
treatment, most U.S. produced water has high enough dissolved solids
that significant treatment must be provided before the water can be
reused. Government and corporate research has helped to develop and
improve technologies for removing dissolved solids and other
undesirable constituents from produced water. While the cost of the
technologies has dropped in recent years, it is still expensive
compared to the alternative of injecting produced water underground for
disposal. Oil and gas operators have little incentive to spend more
money to treat and reuse produced water when they can manage the
produced water through other means. When produced water is injected for
enhanced recovery, it is being put to a beneficial reuse. However, when
water is injected to a non-producing formation solely for disposal, the
produced water is permanently lost as a water resource.
I suggest that the Federal Government support a significant
research program to develop and improve technologies for treating
produced water so that it can be reused. In particular, the program
should support development of technologies that can remove dissolved
solids so that produced water can be reused for agriculture,
irrigation, or human consumption. This will help to provide valuable
fresh water resources for areas that have insufficient fresh water.
Most technologies that treat produced water to remove dissolved
solids start with salty water as the input and end with a clean water
stream and a concentrated brine stream as outputs. Management or
disposal of the concentrated brine stream is another important
consideration that can have a substantial impact on both cost and
feasibility of the technology. Any produced water technology research
program should include evaluation of brine management.
Expanded reuse of produced water can be expedited not only by
technology improvement, but also by careful evaluation of several
policy aspects. One barrier to reuse is potential liability to the oil
or gas company. If an oil or gas company treats it's produced water,
then gives or sells the water to an end user (e.g., a municipality or a
rancher), the company may later be sued by the end user if a person or
a farm animal suffers ill effects. I hosted an oil and gas industry
water meeting in 2005. The final session was an open discussion of how
to turn produced water into a resource. Representatives of several oil
companies indicated that the largest barrier was the corporate concern
of liability. Corporate legal staff have been reluctant to approve some
beneficial reuse projects because of the concern for litigation. As
part of Congress' evaluation of legislation to enhance reuse of
produced water, consideration of liability issues may help to expand
reuse applications.
A second potential barrier is the interplay of water rights with
ownership or control of the produced water before and after treatment.
As long as produced water is perceived as a waste or a byproduct, there
is little demand for it. However, after the water has been treated so
that it has a value, there may be competing demands for the water,
potentially creating disincentives for treating the water.
How Does Produced Water Relate to H.R. 3957?
The bill under consideration in today's hearing is H.R. 3957, the
Water-Use Efficiency and Conservation Research Act. The bill promotes
``research, development, education, and technology transfer activities
related to water use efficiency and conservation technologies.'' I
fully support those goals. However, H.R. 3957 does not include any
mention or consideration of produced water. As I attempted to explain
in the preceding paragraphs, produced water is available in large
volume, often in some of the most arid parts of the United States. It
represents a valuable water resource. With suitable treatment, produced
water can be beneficially reused to support various end uses. I
encourage the Subcommittee to carefully consider produced water as an
additional source of water that can be part of the research programs
envisioned by H.R. 3957.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee.
Biography for John A. Veil
John Veil is the Manager of the Water Policy Program for Argonne
National Laboratory in Washington, DC, where he holds the rank of
senior scientist. He analyzes a variety of energy industry water and
waste issues for the Department of Energy.
Mr. Veil has a B.A. in Earth and Planetary Science from Johns
Hopkins University, and two M.S. degrees--in Zoology and Civil
Engineering--from the University of Maryland.
Before joining Argonne, Mr. Veil managed the Industrial Discharge
Program for the State of Maryland government where he had statewide
responsibility for industrial water pollution control permitting
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
Underground Injection Control (UIC), and oil control programs. Mr. Veil
also served as a faculty member of the University of Maryland,
Department of Zoology for several years.
Mr. Veil has published many articles and reports and has made
numerous presentations on environmental and energy issues.
Discussion
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much. Even though it is
not mentioned in this legislation that we are talking about
here, there is legislation Representative Hall has introduced
and this certainly should be given serious consideration in
this bill.
At this point, we are open for our first round of
questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
The Need for Government-funded R&D
I would like to ask of Dr. Daigger first, and then,
perhaps, all of you may want to comment on this. It is just a
general question. But in your testimony, you write ``The United
States led the world in developing and implementing
revolutionary water-management systems throughout the second
half of the 20th century. The question before us is whether the
U.S. is going to give up its leadership in this critical area.
And this is the path that we are on, but I can be reversed with
a fairly modest set of actions by the Federal Government.''
Can you talk for a bit about what those actions are that
would reverse this trend? And the rest of you, feel free to
chime in.
Dr. Daigger. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the question,
because from my perspective, it really goes to the heart of the
matter here. The question is how much investment in R&D will
help translate some of the wonderful advancements that are
occurring in some of the fundamental sciences into advances
that then can be picked up by the private sector and delivered
to consumers.
I mentioned membrane technology as an example and Mr.
Clerico showed you an example of how membrane technology in its
current form is being applied in some very innovated ways. That
technology, though, is really just the start. We look at the
advances that are occurring in things like nanotechnology and
biotechnology, what is needed is some investment to help take
those advances and for our water sciences to translate that
into the fundamental research that will apply to the water
industry, so that those can be further converted into higher-
performing systems that will fit into the types of applications
that Mr. Clerico described.
You might ask why private industry wouldn't fund that slice
of research. The answer is that the benefits of that research
will be broadly available, and it is not possible for private
industry to capture the return on that particular investment.
Once that research is completed, though, it will allow private
industry to build the businesses and so forth, and through tax
revenue, to repay the public investment. We have seen this time
and time again in this country, and this is the model that
countries like Singapore and Korea are adopting and that
countries, like Canada and France, have used in the past.
The other aspect of this is because we haven't had for the
last several years funding of this type of research. To a
certain extent, we are starting to lose the academics because a
successful academic needs research to publish, and they need
research to fund their students. And the $20 million that I
mentioned is actually--we have a working group within the Water
Environment Federation that is looking at the need for
professionals in the future. That is based on some fairly
rigorous math in terms of the funding for faculty and therefore
students to provide the professionals that we need to continue
forward.
Finally, this is something which the U.S. Federal
Government has done in the past, and it was that research that
allowed us to develop the systems that have benefited the
country. It has created the opportunity for us to serve the
rest of the world. I have every confidence that with support
from the Federal Government that the innovation engine can be
restarted, both to our benefit, in terms of water resources,
but again, it will pay itself back in terms of the economic
activity that it develops.
Chairman Lampson. Anyone else want to comment?
Mr. Clerico. Very briefly, and just to supplement, not to
repeat anything. There is also the research component to deal
with developing standards in the public health aspect. In my
regards, with regards to water reuse, it has been a long, hard
fight to convince people that this really works, and if there
was the research to develop national standards, which the rest
of the world has always looked to us towards in being leaders
in adopting these types of standards. We are starting to look
to other countries that are developing the standards before us,
and I don't think that is healthy.
User Reactions to Water Reuse Programs
Chairman Lampson. How about the social barriers to
implementing various reuse programs and policies. Would you
talk about that for a minute? How does the acceptability of
technologies impact their use, and how can the Federal
Government help to encourage Americans to use existing
technologies?
Mr. Clerico. I have seen, specifically through my
experience particularly with the green-building movement,
people's willingness to innovate, in terms of their willingness
to use new things. The water reuse systems we have in place are
in some of the highest-value properties you are going to find,
and they are acceptable in those applications. I think we have
broken the barrier around acceptability because it has been
going on for enough years in places where I don't think anyone
can question it is not going to be good enough for me because
it has been good enough already for people long enough.
So I think the research would just help us educate more
people quicker. As I said, we just can't take another 20 years.
It has been a long, hard fight.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much. My time has expired,
and I now recognize Mr. Inglis for five minutes.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Do We Need More R&D or Better Implementation?
Ten years ago, when we were building a house, I asked our
builder about putting in a greywater system, and I think I
asked when the septic people were present, too, and they looked
at me like I had grown an extra head or maybe some other
appendage, thinking of what? And I said to them maybe we could
reuse some of the water. Basically, it was a nonstarter, shall
we say? This wouldn't work right. There would be no real need
to.
So to some extent, necessity is the mother of invention,
especially if you are in some arid climate, like where you are
from, rather than South Carolina. We are at the top of the
water streams. We drink it, and we flush, and then it goes down
the river. We were ready to start there at the top of the
streams, and maybe everyone figures, well, we have got plenty,
so we will just keep doing it the way we have been doing it.
So it occurs to me that really what is going to drive this
is necessity, right? I mean if you are in Arizona, you really
need to do something, if you are in South Carolina, at the
headwaters, maybe it is not so imperative, or you don't feel
that it is.
And then, Ms. Little testified that the greatest impact is
going to come from human behavioral change rather than
technology. So I wonder if that being the case--I think that is
probably true, that really what is going to happen is that when
people decide that this is something that they want to do.
Maybe I should have insisted ten years ago on a greywater
system. Of course, I couldn't afford the irrigation system that
would go with it, so it would have been just sitting there all
of these ten years, but we would have been putting it in the
drain field, I guess.
But anyhow, I am wondering about the efficacy of this
research. I trust that research will give some breakthroughs,
but it is being done in a lot of places. For example, Furman
University has a very exciting project in their science
building. It is a way they are going to flush, and then it is
going to come back into the building as drinking water, after
going through all of these greenhouses and really amazing
things. So apparently, this technology is here now. It is
available, right? So can you tell me a little bit more about
why we need to research it, when it looks like what we really
need to do is just apply it, and the applying it is human
behavior, and the human behavior is driven by a felt need,
right?
So does anybody want to respond to that?
Mr. Clerico. Well, I think it is a confidence issue, and it
is being done, but it is not being done in a widespread nature,
and it is just like the green-building movement in general. A
lot of things are starting to happen, but they are going to
take time, and there is just so much we could do to advance
this in a more creative way and in a more open way so that
people would have confidence in what we are doing and so that
we could continue to learn. We have just scratched the surface,
so I wouldn't say let us stop here because it is already being
done. We have demonstrated that really creative things can be
done, but there is so much more, if we want to be leaders in
this, that I suggest we need to move forward aggressively, as
opposed to just watching everyone else do it.
Mr. Inglis. Dr. Daigger.
Dr. Daigger. Actually, I have some familiarity with South
Carolina as well. In the mid-90s, I was on the faculty at
Clemson, so upstate South Carolina is an area that I know, and
actually they could have some relatively significant water
problems during dry periods and so forth.
You ask a very, very good question, and I think there is an
aspect here that we haven't quite articulated. There are a
number of ideas and a number of elements of paradigm change in
terms of how water can be managed. And you have spoken to some
of them in terms of greywater and so forth. Each of us have
spoken to an element of it. It is a little bit like the seven
blind men trying to describe the elephant, in the sense that it
is the combination of several of these ideas that can really
transform and provide a dramatic change and a dramatic
improvement in terms of how water is managed. And until a
number of these elements come together, the profession, and I
use that term broadly, it is those folks on a broad basis that
make decisions about water management. Until some of these
systems come together on a larger basis, folks won't get it in
terms of how all of these different things can come together
into a new paradigm.
I was very pleased to see in the bill the proposal to do
demonstrations, because demonstrations are the aspect that can
help pull several elements together to see how a more
integrated system can perform at a much, much higher level. You
know, in the U.S., we use about 150 gallons per person per day.
That could easily be cut to a third or a fifth.
And if you think about, then, how much more security we
would have in terms of drought-proofing, and also, quite
frankly, how much better off the environment would be if we
just left that water in the environment. Many places, including
some instances in upstate South Carolina, one of the biggest
environmental impacts we have in the water environment is just
the amount of water we take out. It is not just the quality; it
is the quantity. So where this bill would really help is from
the demonstration side, that will help to provide--you know, we
are all tactile learners. We have to see and feel and work with
systems. That is really where that will help how these various
systems can come together in terms of a system that can perform
at a much higher level.
Chairman Lampson. Ms. Giffords, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Water Conservation Technologies and Practices
It seems to me that we are all pretty much on the same
page. The big challenge is how do we get these ideas out to the
public? How do we get the public-private cooperation and the
partnership at the local, State, and federal levels?
And these are big challenges, particularly for those of us
who are in the West. And actually, from the University of
Arizona, Dr. Swetham was on 60 Minutes just last week talking
about forest fires and what is happening with the impact of
global warming on the West. So it is really widespread, and our
challenge, of course, as policy-makers, is how do we derive the
best and the brightest ideas.
So I would actually like to turn it over to the panel,
starting with Val Little. All of you have had a chance to talk
about some of these creative avenues you have taken, but I was
just hoping that each of you would tap into some of the best
ideas that perhaps, we, as a committee, can glean and pull
those ideas forward. I know this all related to Representative
Matheson's bill, and this would be an idea, but if you could,
please, touch on those, starting with Val and what you are
doing with Water CASA.
Ms. Little. We are very big in the area of greywater reuse,
and to respond to Congressman Inglis's dilemma about building
his house, greywater may not be the answer for every house. In
his particular part of the country, it may be harvesting
rainwater. Certainly, there is a lot more rain there than we
get in the arid Southwest, so maybe that would be the
appropriate innovative technology for you to have tapped into.
There is no one-size-fits-all, and there is no easy answer.
One of the things that we try to look at in a balanced way
within Water CASA are all of the tools. There is no easy
answer. Rates won't solve all of the problems. Research won't
solve all of the problems. Technology won't. Public information
won't. But all of the tools that we work with together, it has
to be comprehensive, and it has to be consistent. That is what
I think the opportunity is for all of you, maybe not just with
this bill, but certainly this is a beginning, and this is
something which to build on.
Particularly regarding greywater. It is driven by the
public in that particular region that wants to reuse their
water. They instinctively understand in a desert environment
like that, where many of the laundry facilities are very
readily accessible, and they have one mesquite tree or one very
tough tree, it makes very good common sense to say, why
wouldn't I use those 35 gallons of water today and provide
increased shade for my house by using my laundry water. So it a
very simple driver. It is not complicated, reclaimed water
systems. It is driven by the public who had a thirst to know.
They wanted to know how to do it, and that is what we have
worked toward.
Mr. Thompson. I would like to add to that. It seems to me
you really have a two-pronged problem in terms of how you deal
with it. In our State of Utah, we don't allow greywater
systems, which I certainly think we should. So you have the
education of regulators and those who determine who can do what
within their community, and then you have the general education
of the public.
I watch several agencies struggle with the reuse concept,
because there is no question, technologically. We can take our
wastewater systems, treat that water, and bring it back in a
quality that is drinkable. The public acceptance of that has
not been well received. They have accepted reusing that water
in their parks and on their lawns and in their gardens and golf
courses and many other places, which takes the pressure off our
water supply. So there are other things you can do.
I still think that in the long-term, to really be
successful, you have to have a very aggressive public education
system. In our district, we educate fourth or fifth graders,
between 2,000 and 3,000, every year, in what we call a water
fair. We spend time with the teachers in the public education
system. We think it ought to be part of the required
curriculum, but the school district has been very good in
working with the district in those programs to bring all of the
kids to the university campus. They spend a whole day on water,
whether it is what it takes to treat it or the various aspects
of water reuse, and where it comes from and how it gets to
their tap.
Secondly, we have been aggressive, not only in our area,
but in Utah, for some time in what we call the Governor's Water
Conservation Program, which is funded by the bigger water
districts in the state. We encourage people to use water more
wisely, and we have a series of ads that start, usually as
people start using water, talking about time-of-day watering,
and the simple things we can do in our house to save water.
And third, I think you have to follow that up with local
landscape ordinances, education of the people, the builders,
and the other parts of your community who really control what
is going to happen in this arena, so that they realize that
those options are there and how they can use them and implement
them within their own business.
Several years ago, as we developed our water-conservation
plan, we had the builders. The biggest builder in the community
sat on a citizen's taskforce. I have watched him for the last
decade, as I have watched his communities build out, and they
have become much more water-conservation oriented, more desert
landscaping and so forth. He would not have done that--his
earlier developments were all water features and lush lawns and
lakes. He has changed dramatically, and I think it has been to
both the benefit of the community and to him economically.
So there are a lot of things that are really, still, in my
mind, hands-on public education because people won't act until
they are educated. And once they understand it, often, you
know, they usually make the correct decision, and my experience
is when people understand the facts, they almost, inevitably,
make the correct decision.
Ms. Giffords. I know we are out of time, and perhaps the
other panelists can weave the answer into your questions later,
but let me just say, in Tucson, where I am from, we have an
initiative on the ballot right now that potentially could be
really devastating for economic development, and it is a scare
tactic of toilet-to-tap. And what we see, particularly in the
area where you can have initiatives is that the public is
moving forward. They are going to shut down development and
growth, unless we, as policy-makers, are really smart about
this. We will know in a couple of weeks what happens with our
initiative in Tucson. Those states that have the ability for
the voters to get out and put their own legislation on the
ballot, we have got some real concerns unless we step up and
address the real problems.
Chairman Lampson. And I was in a meeting yesterday, and my
district in Texas, where we were talking about stopping
development because we have too much water. And from another
part of Texas, in Rockwell, I recognize the gentleman, Mr.
Hall.
Hydraulic Fracturing and Enhanced Oil Recovery
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have kind of a couple
questions. First, Mr. Veil, you said that most produced water
is injected into underground formations to maintain reservoir
pressure and for enhanced oil recovery. And I will get back to
that in a minute. How do I associate the word fracking with
that? In our area, we hear that a lot when the wells are low
and they go back with a special way to get some of the oil that
is left there. Have you included all of that into your
description that, according to your testimony, it is injected
there for enhanced oil recovery, or is it there for some other
reason, disposal or use? Or are there other uses for the water?
And are those three connected in some way?
Mr. Veil. They are connected somewhat. The fracture water
that you mentioned, there is a process known as hydraulic
fracturing, where you pump large volumes underground.
Mr. Hall. And electrofraction and water fracking.
Mr. Veil. Right, and the purpose is to make cracks in the
rock so that either the oil or the gas can more readily flow
toward the well where you collect it. In certain very tight
shale formations, such as the Barnett shale in Texas, the
Fayetteville shale in Arkansas.
Mr. Hall. That is the one I am thinking about.
Mr. Veil. In order to make them productive, you have to
take incredibly large volumes of water for the fracture job. I
have visited some in Arkansas where they are using more than
one million gallons per frack job, and it is hard to find that
kind of water. When you are fracking five, ten wells, it is
okay, but if you are fracking hundreds of well, you need to
find that water from somewhere. So produced water may serve as
a source of water to be partially cleaned and put back in the
ground for energy production.
Mr. Hall. In Barnett, they are not drilling directly
through there for some reason. Maybe it is the massiveness of
it or something. They are slanting from around it, as I
understand it.
Mr. Veil. I think that is a strategy to try to produce more
gas from one well, but I can't be sure on that.
Mr. Hall. I am for that if it is on my 500 acres, which, I
doubt, it will be.
But how would enhanced oil recovery be effected if produced
water was used in some other capacity, for instance as a non-
potable reused water?
Mr. Veil. I believe that there is plenty of produced water
to go around. If we ended up in a situation where you couldn't
use produced water for enhanced recovery, and you had to find
something else, that wouldn't create an issue.
Mr. Hall. And I might ask this: in my bill that the
Honorable Chairman mentioned a moment ago, H.R. 2483, I
included a section for research and development for produced
water technology, and I have in my bill to give the R&D program
to the Department of Energy. Do you have any thoughts about
that, as to whether that is appropriate for this type of R&D to
be maybe in the EPA or the Department of Energy? I have always
preferred the Department of Energy over the EPA, but I probably
may not have thought that one through. What is your idea on
that?
Mr. Veil. Well, sir, I am going to respectfully decline to
answer that in that it is a matter of policy rather than
technical matters, and I defer to the judgment of the panel in
this case.
Mr. Hall. Well, that is what we have the panel for. But I
accept that. But if you ever run against me, I am going to use
it.
I yield back my time. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Hall. He would be a good
politician, though.
Mr. Hall. Yeah, he would be all right.
Chairman Lampson. I recognize Mr. McNerney for five
minutes.
Customer Satisfaction With Greywater Systems
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Little, how satisfied are customer households that have
greywater systems installed? Is that something they like or is
it a problem for them?
Ms. Little. Because it is their option, no one is required
to have it, they are very satisfied. They self-sort into
households that want to be more water conserving. They have a
high conservation ethic, and they really want to do the right
thing, and they have great pride in their individual systems.
Most of them have been developed specifically by them, for
them.
And I would say the least satisfying part of all of our
efforts with greywater is the lack of qualified installers and
analysts. We get more calls from people saying we need a
plumber, we need someone to come and tell us how to, than we do
anything else. And there is a dearth of proper plumbers. And we
need green plumbers.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think that would be the case if it was
required for a city or for a city to have greywater? Do you
think the satisfaction level would be equally high?
Ms. Little. I think that, overall, the majority of the
population is not ready yet. And one of the reasons that we
worked on a bill to get houses plumbed to accommodate greywater
at some later date is because of the huge growth spurt we were
in. And in order to get those houses plumbed at the time of
construction, which is very inexpensive to do, knowing full
well that households who might not even know what greywater is
now, five years from now, they will be very disappointed if
they can't access their sources of greywater and reuse them as
costs go up and the climate for water changes.
Greywater System Costs
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Clerico, what do you think the
incremental cost is in terms of a new house for implementing
the greywater system, maybe in a percentage, if you could think
of it?
Mr. Clerico. The parties that have been involved with this,
it is probably about a one percent incremental cost on capital
for the residential buildings we have been involved with. They
are multi-family. They are not single-family homes. It is going
to be very site specific to the exact use. One of the natures
of this business is it is very specific to the use and to the
technology that is adapted. We have seen about a one percent,
but in the long-term view, as I showed in the slide, we are
seeing a very bright economic picture going forwards. It is
just that initial capital cost.
Can We Drink Produced Water?
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Veil, I have a question about produced
water. Is there technology that would clean this for
residential use, or is it too contaminated to be sent into a
residence?
Mr. Veil. Produced water, much like other sources of
industrial water, can be cleaned. It depends on how much you
want to spend to clean it, in order to get it clean enough for
drinking purposes. That has been the problem so far is the cost
of getting out sufficient pollutant has exceeded the cost of
being able to inject it somewhere for disposal, so there has
been no incentive on the oil-company side to do it that way.
Cost of Other Forms of Water Treatment
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Daigger, you mentioned
membranes, UV and oxidation. How cost-effective are those, and
how do they compare, say to desalinization?
Dr. Daigger. Well, the membranes are one form of
desalinization. For example, the type of membrane that Mr.
Clerico was showing in his system is called an ultra-filtration
membrane, which is one which separates the pores are large
enough to separate out particles but not to filter out
dissolved solids. A reverse-osmosis membrane, which would be
used for desalinization, has pores which are at the molecular
scale, and therefore, can separate out dissolved constituents.
So the desalinization and membranes are somewhat synonymous in
the sense that membrane technology, today, is what is used, but
a specific type of membrane system.
Mr. McNerney. So the desal is roughly competitive, cost-
wise, then? I mean, you are saying they are basically two kinds
of the same----
Dr. Daigger. The difference is that the pressure required
for a particle-separation membrane might be on the order of,
let us say, three or four pounds per square inch. For a reverse
osmosis membrane, it might be 150 pounds per square inch. So
the amount of energy that is required is significantly
different to desalinate compared to the other types of
membranes, and they are somewhat more expensive to handle that
higher pressure and so forth.
I might say that, for membrane technology, you know, over
the last ten years, the costs of membranes have come down about
tenfold over the last ten years. That is starting to plateau
out in terms of cost because the new generations of--for
example nanotechnology and so forth. The critical need to take
the advances that are occurring in, for example,
nanotechnology, do that slice of research that will bring it
into the water industry, I think you can see one tenfold
reduction, and how that can change the game. Another tenfold
reduction could, again, really change the game, and that is the
type of opportunity that there is for us to really transform
how we manage water.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Chairman Lampson. Dr. Bartlett, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. I feel something of a
kinship with the panel. I noted that Mr. Thompson is from
Washington County. I represent the first Washington County in
the Nation, in Maryland, and Mr. Veil got one of his Master's
degrees from the Zoology Department at the University of
Maryland. And I suspect that before you were born, I got my
Master's there in '48, and my doctorate in 1952. So I feel
something of a kinship with the panel.
I would like to note that the solution to pollution is
dilution is probably no longer a very supportable process with
our diminishing water supplies. You know, we are one of the few
counties in the world that flushes its toilets and washes its
streets and waters its lawns and washes its cars with drinking
water.
I had mentioned that to our local water people because I
wanted to do something else. In a former life, I was a
homebuilder, and they said, oh, gee, they might drink out the
hose. And my response was, you don't drink out of the toilet do
you? You don't drink from the toilet, so you don't drink from
the hose if you are using greywater, right? It is a matter of
education, I think.
I have had a concern that in all of the development that
doesn't have public water and sewer access. We are consuming
farmland and because the water has to percolate, and in our
area, they won't even give it a percolation test if it slopes
more than 25 percent. So if the water percolates and the land
doesn't slope more than 25 percent, that by definition is
farmland, so I wanted to demonstrate that you could live very
comfortably without doing that. I wanted to build a house that
had composting toilets or constructed wetlands so you don't
need any connection to the Earth for that. And I wanted to
build a home where I used rainwater, because in our area, we
have about 40 inches per year, and that is quite enough water
to meet all of your needs. And they told me, well, we can't do
that because that is cistern water, and we don't drink that. We
don't drink rainwater. I said, well, of course, we drink
rainwater. The rain falls on the hog lot, and then it runs into
the stream, and the stream runs into the reservoir, and then
you pull it out and treat it and tell me its drinking water. I
said can I please have the water before it goes through the hog
lot? And you know, they responded with some sanctimonious
drivel about they had a responsibility to protect the public
health. So my question is what can we do with these mindless
bureaucrats so we can use these really current technologies to
conserve water?
Ms. Little. Could I comment? I would like to comment. I
share your pain. We started with a regulatory agency who said,
oh, no, no, no, we can't possibly do that. And I will tell you
that the research that we did that we put into the hands of our
regulatory agencies that caused them to change their minds, the
hardest thing to do was to get them to fund a study of
lawbreakers. Essentially what we wanted to do was look at
people who were doing this because they knew it was the right
thing to do, but they were doing so illegally. That being said,
you have to keep at it, and you have to convince them, just as
you did. I think anybody who just heard your statement would
say, in a commonsense way, it does make sense. I know what goes
into my own water. I know what goes into my own laundry. I know
what goes out on my yard. It makes a great deal of sense to do
it. It doesn't have to be complicated. It doesn't have to be
high tech.
Mr. Bartlett. Actually, the systems are very simple, and I
built a home that had a greywater system in it. We separated
the black water from the greywater, and even with the increased
price of oil, those plumbing things are still very cheap. It
adds very little to the cost of a house, if you do it when you
build the house.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to think about some federal
legislation. I know, big government guy, but sometimes you have
to do something that encourages our local jurisdictions to
adopt some of these technologies. You know, you could build a
home and live very comfortably on the Tarmac with composting
toilets and constructed wetlands. And by the way, the water
that comes out of the constructed wetland, if you have at least
two tiers of that, it is good, potable drinking water. They
really work very well. The water that falls on the roof of the
house, if you have any meaningful sized house, meets all of
your water needs, even without much conservation. If you don't
take it and put it in your cistern, then it becomes a problem,
doesn't it? It is not called storm-water runoff, so we built
reservoirs to impound it and so forth.
What we are doing isn't just dumb; it is really dumb. And
we need some education so we change, and any advice that you
can give us on the kind of bill that we ought to draft here to
encourage our local jurisdictions to adopt these new
technologies would be much appreciated.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. A city who couldn't afford a water-
treatment facility created a system of wetlands that they, in
turn, turned into a tourist attraction for bird watching, and
so I would be happy to work with you on your legislation to
encourage or incentive communities to explore this.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. Up in Pennsylvania, there is a
small community of I think a dozen homes or something, and it
has a constructed wetland. It is a small fraction of this room,
and it treats all of the water from all of those homes. And to
do it in an individual home takes a very small space to do a
constructed wetland. It really works very well, and it can be a
very attractive garden. It doesn't have to be a swamp. You can
actually walk over it if you put the proper kind of material
over it and build it properly.
Nature does a great job, you know. The water runs off of
that hog lot, and by the time gets down, percolates through the
ground and gets into a spring, it is now pure drinking water.
By the way, John Stossel did a study in which people blind
taste-tested, Mr. Chairman, and more people prefer tap water
than they did bottled water. When they actually analyzed it,
the tap water turned out to be higher quality than most bottled
water. This is a huge rip-off. Everybody believes it is the
right thing to do.
Chairman Lampson. How much is it a gallon?
Mr. Bartlett. About 3.50. It is more than oil. At $92 a
barrel, water in the grocery store is more expensive than oil.
Thank you.
Chairman Lampson. Congressman Matheson, you are recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Matheson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a
couple of comments, and I want to ask questions.
First of all, Mr. Veil, I appreciate your suggestion for
other items that ought to be considered in the legislation, and
I say to the whole panel, that is really the purpose of this
legislative hearing. We are putting a bill out there in draft
form. As the author of the bill, I am certainly open to
suggestions. I think this whole committee is, and that is the
spirit of the science committee always is to try to put
together the best bill that promotes public policy, and so
beyond your opportunity for direct communication today, if you
have any written comments, following, on what you think we
ought to be doing with this bill, I would certainly solicit
that from you because we want to make this bill as good as it
can be.
And secondly, I think it is important to note that this
water issue really is relevant as a national issue. We saw data
showing that 36 states in this country are projecting some type
of water shortage in the next five years, and so while we have
got witnesses from Arizona and from my State of Utah, which are
known as being dry and arid states, the fact of the matter is
that this is an issue that encompasses the whole country.
And one of the two features of this bill that I would just
like to highlight is the technology-transfer section of the
bill because the idea here is that there are a lot of ideas
that have implemented around the country. We want to create a
clearinghouse to make sure that everyone can benefit from those
ideas. Dr. Bartlett just talked about a small town in
Pennsylvania that did something with the wetland opportunity.
There are lots of anecdotal stories out there, and the notion
of trying to combine that local, on-the-ground knowledge and
letting people benefit from them is one of the primary
motivations behind the technology-transfer section of the bill.
Water Conservation and the WaterSense Program
A couple of question I would like to ask really quickly:
Mr. Thompson, you mentioned in your testimony that in your
county, the per capita water use has dropped by 24 percent in
the last 11 years. Could you give us a quick rundown of which
policies or practices really made this water reduction happen?
Mr. Thompson. Yes, I think it was a combination of maybe
three or four things. Well, first of all, all of the cities put
in tiered pricing. We ended up with time-of-day watering which
made dramatic improvements. We are in the hot desert, so
daytime temperatures, sometimes, are 110, 115 degrees, so we
restricted any outside landscape watering, and then general
public education to make the public aware of the need to
conserve and that they had a public trust to do that.
Mr. Matheson. And I understand that the Washington Water
Conservancy District was the first district to partner with the
EPA in its WaterSense Program, is that right?
Mr. Thompson. We certainly are the first one in Utah.
Mr. Matheson. And has that--how has that WaterSense Program
helped you in terms of pursuing the water-conservation goals?
Mr. Thompson. We are fairly new. You know, it is not an old
program, so I think the thing that they bring to the table is
that they have done a lot of research, in, particularly,
upgrading the fixtures and appliances and building codes and
influencing those codes which have resulted in reduced per
capita consumption, particularly the new construction. You take
a county like mine--you know we are going for $160,000. Most of
those homes are new homes, so we are getting the benefit of
those research in implementing the low-flow toilets and
structures that have benefited by new construction.
Mr. Matheson. I wanted to ask one question, also, about--I
mentioned the technology transfer when I was just--in a couple
of brief comments before I went to these questions. Do you, as
a local water manager, see benefits to setting up this database
from the EPA to allow this to happen?
Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. I think it is--one of our great
mistakes anywhere is we too often try to reinvent the wheel. It
would be nice knowing somebody else has invented it, and take
advantage of that, and so I think anytime we can get shared
ideas so we don't have to reinvent those, it is a benefit to
all of us.
Mr. Matheson. Okay. Well, I appreciate the panel coming
here today, and Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Matheson.
I thought this was very informative. Thank you for all
coming. I appreciate the questions from the Members. We got
some ideas. Maybe something will come to fruition from some of
those. We will work on it. Again, we thank you for your time
and your knowledge and your information.
Under the rules of this 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, and with that, this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Section-by-Section Analysis of
H.R. 3957: THE WATER-USE EFFICIENCY
AND CONSERVATION RESEARCH ACT 2007
Purpose: To increase research, development, education, and technology
transfer activities related to water use efficiency and conservation
technologies and practices at the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Section 1: Short Title
This bill works to create a water-use efficiency and conservation
research and development program within EPA's Office of Research and
Development.
Section 2: Findings
Section 2 outlines the findings of the bill and draws the
connection between what EPA is currently doing in its WaterSense
Program and how EPA's scope should expand in reaction to increasing
water shortages across the country.
Section 3: Research Program
Section 3 directs the Assistant Administrator to establish a
research and development program within the Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research and Development to promote water efficiency
and conservation. The program should address water storage and
distribution systems; and behavioral, social, and economic barriers to
achieving greater water use efficiency. In addition, the program should
research technologies and processes that enable the collection,
treatment, and reuse of rainwater and greywater. The project areas of
the program should reflect the needs identified by local and State
water managers.
Section 4: Technology Transfer
Section 4 directs the Assistant Administrator to collect and
disseminate information on current water-use efficient and conservation
practices at the non-federal level. This information should include
incentives and impediments to development and commercialization, best
practices, and anticipated increases in water use efficiency resulting
from the implementation of these processes.
Section 6: Report
Section 6 directs the Assistant Administrator to transmit reports
to Congress which detail the progress being made by the Environmental
Protection Agency with regard to the research projects initiated and
the outreach and communication activities conducted.
Section 7: Authorization of Appropriations
Section 7 outlines a five-year authorization.