[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WATER SUPPLY CHALLENGES
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 14, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-102
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-250 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
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 TOM FEENEY, Florida
LAURA RICHARDSON, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana VACANCY
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
May 14, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 7
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Prepared Statement by Representative Adrian Smith, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Witnesses:
Dr. Stephen D. Parker, Director, Water Science and Technology
Board, National Research Council
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Biography.................................................... 16
Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, Director, Institute for the Study of
Planet Earth; Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences,
University of Arizona
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Biography.................................................... 23
Dr. Robert C. Wilkinson, Director, Water Policy Program, Donald
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University
of California-Santa Barbara
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Biography.................................................... 90
Mr. Marc Levinson, Economist, U.S. Corporate Research, J.P.
Morgan Chase
Oral Statement............................................... 90
Written Statement............................................ 92
Biography.................................................... 94
Dr. Roger S. Pulwarty, Physical Scientist, Climate Program
Office; Director, The National Integrated Drought Information
System (NIDIS), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 94
Written Statement............................................ 96
Biography.................................................... 101
Discussion
Expanding the Federal Government's Role in Water Research and
Development.................................................. 101
Water Information and Technology Abroad........................ 104
Biofuels....................................................... 105
Climate and Water Quality and Quantity......................... 105
Workforce and Education........................................ 106
More on Climate and Water Quality and Quantity................. 106
Population Growth and Water Supply Concerns.................... 108
Water Quality Concerns......................................... 109
Ocean Desalinization's Environmental Impacts................... 110
Water Storage.................................................. 110
The Environmental Protection Agency's Role..................... 113
Can We Capture and Store Rain Water?........................... 114
More on Ocean Desalinization's Environmental Impacts........... 115
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Stephen D. Parker, Director, Water Science and Technology
Board, National Research Council............................... 118
Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, Director, Institute for the Study of
Planet Earth; Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences,
University of Arizona.......................................... 177
Mr. Marc Levinson, Economist, U.S. Corporate Research, J.P.
Morgan Chase................................................... 181
Dr. Roger S. Pulwarty, Physical Scientist, Climate Program
Office; Director, The National Integrated Drought Information
System (NIDIS), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 184
WATER SUPPLY CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Water Supply Challenges
for the 21st Century
wednesday, may 14, 2008
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. the House Committee on
Science and Technology will hold a hearing entitled ``Water Supply
Challenges for the 21st Century.'' The purpose of the hearing is to
examine the challenges of managing water supplies to meet social,
economic and environmental needs in the United States. Population
growth, changes in water use patterns, competing demands for water
supply, degradation of water quality, and climatic variation are all
factors influencing the availability and use of water. The hearing will
also examine the role of the Federal Government in helping states and
local communities adopt and implement sensible and cost-effective water
resource management policies.
Background
Water is necessary to every aspect of life. Although some regions
of the U.S. have limited water supplies, especially areas west of the
Mississippi River, the U.S. is endowed with substantial supplies of
fresh water. However, population growth, increased per capita water
use, water quality degradation, and increased withdrawals to support
agricultural, industrial, and energy production activities combined
with climate variability have increased water shortages across the
country.
In order to meet the challenge of providing safe, reliable water
supplies for society we need improved information about the status of
our water resources, policies to encourage water conservation, and
technological improvements that will enable us to maintain and improve
water quality and to improve our water-use efficiency to allow us to
accomplish society's goals with less water. Through this hearing, the
Committee hopes to ascertain how and to what extent water science and
technology can ease the Nation's water resource challenges.
Assessment of U.S. Water Supply
In the 19th century, U.S. population stood at a little more than
five million citizens. By 1959, the U.S. population had grown to almost
180 million people. Our population is now over 300 million with a one
percent rate of growth. Available surface water supplies have not
increased in the United States since the 1990s, and groundwater tables
are continuing to decline.\1\ It is clear that the U.S. water supply
cannot support future populations and economic activity at its current
rate of consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Report to Congress on the Inter-dependency of Energy and
Water,'' U.S. Department of Energy. December 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to better manage water supplies, there is a critical need
for good data about our water resources and how supplies vary over
time. Currently, quantitative knowledge of water supply is inadequate
in the United States.\2\ The U.S. Water Resources Council completed the
most recent, comprehensive, national water availability and use
assessment in 1978.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2003 Report: Freshwater
Supply States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the
Challenges of Expected Water Shortages. GAO-03-514; National Research
Council, 2004. Assessing the National Streamflow Information Program.
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C
\3\ The Council, established by the Water Resources Planning Act in
1965 (P.L. 89-80), comprising the heads of several federal departments
and agencies, such as Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency,
has not been funded since 1983. U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2003
Report: Freshwater Supply States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could
Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected Water Shortages. GAO-03-514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to increased concerns about future increased water
shortages, the Bush Administration created the Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality (SWAQ) of the National Science and Technology
Council's Committee on Environment and Natural Resources to coordinate
a multi-year plan to improve research on water availability and
quality. The Subcommittee concluded in a 2007 report that a robust
process for measuring water requires a systems approach to assess
surface water, ground water, rainfall, and snowpack from the
perspectives of quantity, quality, timing, and location.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality. A Strategy
for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and
Quality in the United States. September 2007. 35pp.
Initiatives to Address Water Supply Shortages
States have initiated a number of steps to address water shortages.
These activities include: Development of drought preparedness plans to
reduce their vulnerability to droughts and development of drought
response plans to provide assistance to communities and businesses that
are vulnerable to drought; monitoring water availability and water use
of major water supplies; coordinating management of ground and surface
water supplies; developing and implementing policies to encourage water
conservation and allocate water among competing uses within their
jurisdictions; exploring options for increasing water supply such as
cloud seeding to increase rainfall or investment in desalinization
plants.
At the federal level, there are numerous federal departments,
independent agencies, and several bilateral organizations have some
responsibility for water programs and projects within the United
States. The federal agencies with primary responsibilities for water
resources include: The Bureau of Reclamation which provides municipal
and irrigation water and operates hydroelectric facilities in the
western states; the Army Corps of Engineers which has responsibility
for projects involving flood control and flood plain management, water
supply, navigation, and hydroelectric power generation; the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is responsible for weather
and climate prediction through the National Weather Service, including
the operation of the National Drought Information System and maintains
wildlife habitat and ecosystem protection through its coastal zone and
fisheries management programs; the U.S. Geological Survey which
assesses the quality, quantity, and use of U.S. water resources and
maintains a national stream gauge network used for monitoring stream
and river flows and flood forecasting; the Environmental Protection
Agency which protects public health and the environment by ensuring
safe drinking water, controlling water pollution, and protecting ground
water.
The Federal Government has also established standards for toilets
and the Environmental Protection Agency recently established a
voluntary program, WaterSense, to encourage the marketing and adoption
of water conserving technologies and practices.
Most of the authority for allocating water resides within State
governments. When water disputes arise involving two or more states,
the federal government has a role to play based upon Congress's power
to regulated interstate commerce and through congressional approvals of
binding agreements known as compacts. The seven Colorado Basin states
have a long-established compact governing water allocation of the
Colorado River. The extended drought in the Southeast has brought
attention to an ongoing interstate conflict among Alabama, Florida, and
Georgia over water allocation in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
(ACF) river system. According to the Congressional Research Service, at
least 47 states and the District of Columbia at some time have been
involved in disputes over water that have resulted in litigation or
initiated negotiations to establish an interstate compact.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Congressional Research Service, Memorandum to the House
Committee on Science and Technology, ``States involved in Interstate
Water Disputes,'' May 9, 2008. 3pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a 2003 report of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report, states identified five federal actions they believed could best
support their efforts to improve water management. Better coordinated
federal participation in water management agreements along with
financial assistance to increase storage and distribution capacity,
improved water data, flexibility in the administration of environmental
laws, and increased consultation on federal or tribal use of water
rights.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2003 Report: Freshwater
Supply States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the
Challenges of Expected Water Shortages. GAO-03-514
Economic Impacts Associated with Water Shortages
In the United States, over 50,000 water utilities withdraw
approximately 40 billion gallons per day of water from the Nation's
resources, to supply water for domestic consumption, industry, and
other uses.\7\ When severe water shortages occur, the economic effect
can be substantial. According to a 2000 report from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, eight water shortages from
drought or heat waves each resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary
losses over the past 20 years.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Water Loss Control,'' George Kunkel, Jr. Water Efficiency.
\8\ U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2003 Report: Freshwater
Supply States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the
Challenges of Expected Water Shortages. GAO-03-514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An adequate supply of treated water is integral to many industries,
including agriculture and food processing, beverages, power generation,
paper production, manufacturing, and mineral extraction. Water
shortages can negatively affect companies and entire industries and
reduce job creation and retention. Current industry trajectories,
population growth, and dwindling water supplies all point to increased
water shortages. Increased water demand will come with increased costs
to all businesses, industries, and municipalities which rely on the
same water resources. The Association of California Water Agencies
(ACWA) reported in April 2008 that California is now losing income and
jobs due to the state's water supply crisis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``California Water Supply Crisis Affecting Economy,'' Water and
Wastewater News. April 21, 2008
Water Energy Nexus
Water is a vital component of our economy's energy sector. Water is
used for resource extraction, refining and processing and
transportation. Water also is essential for electricity generation. The
expansion of biofuel supply is also going to require substantial water
resources. The National Research Council predicts that the surge in
ethanol production is likely to lead to adverse effects on local water
sources and water quality.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Fuel for Thought,'' National Academies in Focus. Volume 8
Number 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of water in the extraction and processing of petroleum-
based transportation fuels is relatively small compared to the
electric-generating industry. According to the Department of Energy's
National Energy Technology Laboratory, the thermoelectric power sector
accounts for 39 percent of total freshwater withdrawal in the United
States, and 3.3 percent of total freshwater consumption. This
consumption for electricity production accounts for over 20 percent of
nonagricultural water consumption. Water is also used directly in
hydroelectric generation, which constituted approximately 14 percent of
energy produced in the United States in 2006 according to the Energy
Information Administration (EIA).
Not only do we need vast quantities of water for energy production,
but we also need energy to transport and treat water. DOE estimates
that nationwide, about four percent of U.S. power generation is used
for water supply and treatment. Across the country, the amount of
energy used to provide water to meet agriculture needs represents the
most significant regional difference. However, the supply and transport
of water can be quite energy-intensive. For example, pumping water to
consumers that live far away from the source can be energy intensive.
California's State Water Project pumps water 444 miles of aqueducts
from three recreational lakes in Plumas County in Northern California
to Riverside County in Southern California and is the state's largest
energy consumer using between two to three percent of California's
energy (5,000 GWh per year).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``Water Energy Use in California,'' California Energy
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Witnesses
Dr. Stephen Parker, Director, Water Science and Technology Board,
National Research Council. Dr. Parker will discuss the recent work
undertaken by the Water Science and Technology Board of the National
Academy of Sciences on water supply and water management. He will also
discuss the major challenges facing states and local governments in
providing adequate water supply to meet societies competing needs.
Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, Director, Institute for the Study of Planet
Earth, and Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University
of Arizona. Dr. Overpeck will discuss the potential impacts of climate
change on water supply, particularly in the Southwest.
Dr. Robert Wilkinson, Director, Water Policy Program, Bren School of
Environmental Science and Management, University of California-Santa
Barbara. Dr. Wilkinson will discuss the linkage between energy and
water supplies both in terms of the water needed to provide energy and
in terms of the energy needed to transport and treat water.
Mr. Marc Levinson, Economist, U.S. Corporate Research, JPMorgan Chase.
Mr. Levinson will discuss the key findings of JP Morgan's recent report
``Watching Water: A Guide to Evaluating Corporate Risks in a Thirsty
World,'' and the potential impacts of water supply shortage on
businesses and the economy.
Dr. Roger Pulwarty, Program Director, National Integrated Drought
Information System (NIDIS) NOAA Climate Program Office. Dr. Pulwarty
will discuss what information is currently available through NIDIS to
regional, State and local water decision-makers. He will also address
what future information is required for better water policy planning.
Chairman Gordon. Good morning and welcome everyone, and to
our witnesses, thank you for letting us conduct a little
business here.
As was stated, this is a busy time. We have several Members
in markups elsewhere. They will be coming back, but their staff
is either here or in the anteroom watching. This will be
televised, so we will have the opportunity for this to go out,
and we appreciate you being here.
Water is an essential input to virtually everything we do,
from growing and processing food to manufacturing the products
we use to date, to producing the energy we need to power our
economy. Water is essential to all life and to maintain public
health and the diversity and beauty of our environment.
The recent droughts experienced in the West and the
Southeast and increased competition for water supplies suggest
that we must take a closer look at how we are managing our
water resources. Thirty-six states expect to experience
significant water shortage by 2013, population growth,
increased per-capita water use, degraded water quality, and
climate change have all impacted our availability, our
available supplies of water.
In my district water sources have dried up, and wells have
run dry. Towns have been forced to implement water restrictions
to deal with a decreased supply. According to the Tennessee
Valley Authority, the first eight months of 2007 were the
driest in the last 118 years of Tennessee history. When severe
water shortage occurs, the economic impact is substantial. In
2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut down a
nuclear reactor due to a lack of acceptable cooling water in
the Tennessee River.
According to a 2000 report from NOAA, each of the eight
water shortages over the past 20 years from drought or heat
wave resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses. A
recent report by J. P. Morgan indicated that a single
production interruption at a semiconductor plant could cost
$200 million in lost revenue.
I believe with investment in research and development,
public education, and better information on the status of our
water supplies, we could avoid the high cost, social
disruption, and environmental damage associated with water
shortage.
Our committee has already begun to bring forward
legislation to help us better utilize water resources. Last
week the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment reported bills
by Representative Hall and Mr. Matheson to authorize research
at the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency
on water treatment and to increase the efficiencies of our
water use.
We will be looking for more opportunities to address this
important issue.
I would like to thank our panelists for appearing before us
today to share with us their views on the problems we currently
face in water supply and their suggestions for addressing these
problems in the future, and I look forward to a lively
discussion from this impressive panel.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing.
Water is the essential input to virtually everything we do--from
growing and processing food to manufacturing the products we use
everyday to producing the energy we need to power our economy. Water is
essential to all life and to maintain public health and the diversity
and beauty of our environment.
The recent droughts experienced in the West and the Southeast and
increased competition for water supplies suggest that we must take a
closer look at how we are managing our water resources.
Thirty-six states expect to experience significant water shortages
by 2013. Population growth, increased per-capita water use, degraded
water quality, and climate change have all impacted our available
supplies of water.
In my district, water sources have dried up and wells have run dry,
and towns have been forced to implement water restrictions to deal with
decreased supply.
According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the first eight months
of 2007 were the driest in the last 118 years of Tennessee history.
When severe water shortages occur, the economic impact is
substantial. In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut
down a nuclear reactor due to a lack of acceptable cooling water in the
Tennessee River.
According to a 2000 report from NOAA, each of the eight water
shortages over the past 20 years from drought or heat waves resulted in
$1 billion or more in monetary losses.
A recent report by JP Morgan indicated that a single production
interruption at a semiconductor plant could cost $200 million in lost
revenue.
I believe with investment in research and development, public
education and better information on the status of our water supplies we
can avoid the high costs, social disruption, and environmental damage
associated with water shortages.
Our committee has already begun to bring forward legislation to
help us to better utilize water resources.
Last week, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment reported
bills by Rep. Hall and Rep. Matheson to authorize research at the
Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency on water
treatment and to increase the efficiency of our water use.
We will be looking for more opportunities to address this important
issue.
I would like to thank our panelists for appearing before us today
to share with us their views on the problems we currently face in water
supply and their suggestions for addressing these problems in the
future. I look forward to a lively discussion from this impressive
panel.
Chairman Gordon. At this time I would like to yield to my
distinguished colleague from Texas, our Ranking Member, Mr.
Hall, for an opening statement.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am, of course,
pleased that we are having this hearing here today.
Water supply is, as you say, a very critical issue facing
our country. Water is the lifeblood of our economy. Every
sector requires it and would be crippled without it. Energy and
agriculture are the two largest consumers of water, I
understand, but it is also a vital part of manufacturing,
fishing, and obviously, everyday living.
Water's importance to U.S. prosperity is one that has been
discussed in various reports over the last decade, government
sponsored and private sector alike. It has hit home for some of
us where our districts have been subjected to periods of long
drought or massive flooding. This Congress is well aware of the
dangers of water shortages and over-abundance.
Two years ago we passed, and the President signed, the
National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006. We
did this in response to a need for a centralized location for
drought information. I am very pleased that Dr. Pulwarty is
here to talk about it. Although this law is not the only
answer, it is part of the larger solution required for good
water policy and good management.
What we need are the proper tools and resources for local,
State, and regional decision-makers to adapt to changing
conditions. I look forward to hearing from the panelists today
on possible solutions to our nation's water challenges.
And I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased we are having this hearing
today. Water supply is a very critical issue facing our country. Water
is the life-blood of our economy. Every sector requires it and would be
crippled without it. Energy and agriculture are the two largest
consumers of water, but it is also a vital part of manufacturing,
fishing, and obviously, everyday living.
Water's importance to U.S. prosperity is one that has been
discussed in various reports over the last decade, government-sponsored
and private-sector alike. It has hit home for some of us, where our
districts have been subjected to periods of long drought or massive
flooding. This Congress is well aware of the dangers of water shortages
and overabundance.
Two years ago, we passed, and the President signed, the National
Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006. We did this in
response to a need for a centralized location for drought information.
I am very pleased the Dr. Pulwarty is here to talk about it. Although
this law is not the only answer, it is part of the larger solution
required for good water policy and management.
What we need are the proper tools and resources for local, State
and regional decision-makers to adapt to changing conditions. I look
forward to hearing from the panelists today on possible solutions to
our nation's water challenges. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and thank you for
your hospitality. We had a hearing down at Texarkana on the
COMPETES Bill this Monday, and it was very interesting. It adds
to our committee's institutional memory and knowledge in this
very important area.
And I ask unanimous consent that all additional opening
statements submitted by the Committee Members be included in
the record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Chair of the Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment, this issue is very important to me.
Dallas, as does other cities, has a propensity to flood. Adequate
infrastructure is important to properly manage water and avoid flooding
problems.
On the other hand, the State of Texas has encountered years of
tremendous drought. Our cattle ranchers and farmers have depended on
disaster relief from the devastating lack of water.
The Science Committee has a role to play in water issues.
We can invest in research to examine infrastructure needs.
We can support efforts to improve water clarity and purity, to
protect the health of our populace.
We can direct studies on climate change and its impact on our water
resources.
We are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring a safe, reliable
water supply for society.
We need improved information about the status of our water
resources and policies to encourage water conservation,
We must discover technological improvements that will enable us to
maintain and improve water quality and to improve our water-use
efficiency to allow us to accomplish society's goals with less water.
Today's witness panel includes individuals representing federal
advisory groups such as the National Research Council and National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).
It also includes academic witnesses, such as Dr. Overpeck from the
University of Arizona and the University of California-Santa Barbara.
The Committee will be interested to hear the panel's suggestions as
to water research and development priorities at the federal level.
Again, welcome to today's witnesses. I thank the Chairman and
Ranking Member for their leadership on this issue and yield back my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this important hearing on
managing the U.S. water supply. Population growth, variation in our
climate and degradation of water quality all complicate current water
supply management in our nation.
It is incumbent upon those of us in Congress to examine ways that
we can improve water conservation efforts, and research both new
technologies such as desalinization to increase water supply as well as
avenues to improve water quality. I am particularly concerned about
water quality in my own congressional district. One county within my
district is changing from a rural to more suburban county, which has
created pressure to supply more water to more people. Septic tanks are
leaking into tributaries and streams with the potential for
contaminating water supply. In another area, sewer overflows occur due
to an aging infrastructure.
I am also interested in the link between energy and water, which I
anticipate Dr. Wilkinson will address in his testimony today. I would
appreciate hearing more about his views on hydroelectric power in this
country, whether this untapped resource is worthy of additional federal
investments and if he sees room for further research into more
efficient power generation from hydroelectric dams.
I would like to thank today's witnesses, Dr. Parker, Dr. Overpeck,
Dr. Wilkinson, Mr. Levinson and Dr. Pulwarty, for taking the time to
appear before us. I look forward to hearing all of our witness's
testimonies.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The diminishing supply of water is an issue that truly hits home.
In Arizona, our habitability is closely tied to the availability of
reliable safe water sources.
According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Arizona has
experienced drought for over a decade. The Colorado River system as a
whole is now in its eighth year of drought.
I believe that it is absolutely critical that we address the
growing shortage of our nation's water supply and work to establish
progressive and cost-effective water resource management policies.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the challenges
of managing water supplies.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Adrian Smith
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Water supply issues are a challenge in my home State of Nebraska.
Water availability is a critical concern in much of my district where
center pivot irrigation is the lifeblood of farmers. A nearly decade-
long drought in Nebraska's Panhandle has put extreme stress on water
resources and those who rely on them.
Water quality problems are potentially burdensome for small towns
in my district, which face high costs for remediation of their drinking
water supplies in order to comply with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency regulations pertaining to naturally-occurring contaminants, such
as arsenic, in their wells.
Energy is a topic on everyone's mind and many energy generation
methods require water to produce power. Hydropower, nuclear energy,
petroleum refining, clean coal technologies, and biofuels production
all require large amounts of water. I have long been an advocate of
keeping all energy options on the table. I want to ensure the water
needed is available for the energy choices of the marketplace.
Balancing the various uses of water is a constant challenge as
various groups demand its use for drinking water; agriculture; energy
generation; habitat, especially for endangered species; and recreation.
As a Nebraskan and a Congressman, I want to ensure these demands are
properly prioritized, and, as possible, they each are recognized for
their contribution to Nebraska's economy and quality of life.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses and hope
they will be able to shed light on each of these problems and offer
practical steps for their resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you in
the future.
Chairman Gordon. It is my pleasure now to introduce the
witnesses this morning.
Dr. Stephen Parker is the Director of the Water Science and
Technology Board at the National Research Council, and Ms.
Giffords, I would like to yield to you. Somehow we always work
Arizona into most hearings, so you are up.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a privilege for me to introduce a tremendous
colleague from Arizona, Dr. John Overpeck, who is one of the
brightest stars of the University of Arizona. Dr. Overpeck is a
Climate Systems Scientist at the UofA, where he is also the
Director for the Institute for the Planet, for the Study of
Planet Earth, Professor of Geosciences and a Professor of
Atmospheric Sciences.
Dr. Overpeck has published over 120 papers on climate and
the environmental sciences. He recently served as a
Coordinating Lead Author for the Fourth Assessment Report of
the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.
And I want to thank you and your colleagues for coming to
present before our committee the reports from that very
important document.
For his interdisciplinary research Dr. Overpeck has also
been awarded the U.S. Department of Commerce bronze and gold
medals, as well as the Walter Orr Roberts Award of the American
Meteorological Society. He has been a Guggenheim Fellow and
serves on the Board of Reviewing Editors for Science Magazine.
Dr. Overpeck's research focuses on global change dynamics
with a major component aimed at understanding how and why key
climate systems vary on time scales longer than seasons and
years. Through his research Dr. Overpeck is working to help
foster a new paradigm of interdisciplinary knowledge creation
between physical, biological, and social scientists, all with
the goal of serving the environmental needs of society in a
more effective manner.
I am very pleased to have Dr. Overpeck here. He is an
authority in Arizona, and I am pleased to have such a
distinguished panel, group of panelists to talk about an issue
that is vitally important to the West and to our country.
Chairman Gordon. Thanks, Ms. Giffords.
Dr. Wilkinson, I won't be quite as generous with you, but
nonetheless you are very distinguished. You are the Director of
the Water Policy Program at the Bren School of Environmental
Science and Management, at the University of California-Santa
Barbara. Welcome.
And Mr. Marc Levinson is the Economist for the U.S.
Corporate Research at J.P. Morgan Chase and author of J.P.
Morgan's recent report, ``Watching Water, a Guide to Evaluating
Corporate Risks in a Thirsty World.''
And finally, our last witness is Dr. Roger Pulwarty,
Director, Program Director for the National Integrated Drought
Information System at NOAA Climate Program Office.
We would like for you to try to keep your opening statement
to about five minutes and your written testimony will be made a
part of the record. When you have completed your testimony, we
will have questions by our Members.
Dr. Parker, please begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN D. PARKER, DIRECTOR, WATER SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY BOARD, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Dr. Parker. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, and others. I am Stephen Parker from the National
Research Council, and I am pleased to participate in today's
hearing.
I have been in my position at the Water Science and
Technology Board for 26 years and have overseen about 200
studies relevant to today's topic. Thus my remarks are general
and drawn from our body of work, not one particular recent
study.
It is hard to overstate the importance of high-quality
water supplies to our nation, yet in many areas supplies are
essentially fixed, and the quality is deteriorating. At the
same time, demands for water to support population and economic
growth, the environment, and other purposes continue to
increase. Examples of the mounting array of water-related
problems exist in every region of the country, especially the
West and Southwest.
Both of these regions have rapidly-growing populations and
have been affected by climate variability, drought, and the
tightening water supply picture as many new users vie for
limited supplies and call for changes to traditional allocation
rules.
Lasting solutions to these challenges of water supply and
demand and water quality will require creative science-based
strategies and innovative water technologies.
I have phrased my central concerns in the form of four
questions. If the answers to some of these questions are no, I
fear that we may be in for a national water crisis, something
like that portrayed in the media.
Question one, will there be sufficient water to support
both future economic and population growth while sustaining
ecosystems? The fast-growing Southwest and Southeast face great
challenges in meeting increasing water demands. Most of the
sources and supplies of water for these regions are fully
allocated among environmental, urban, and agricultural uses.
Unfortunately, the Nation seems lacking in a long-term
strategic vision of alternative means for accommodating growth
with existing supplies. We believe the Nation has under-
invested in research and development needed to help
municipalities augment water supplies in this post-dam-building
era. For example, through waste water reuse, desalination, and
other approaches, including aquifer storage and recovery.
Question two. How effectively can our water management
systems and institutions adapt to climate change? Existing data
reveal some significant climate changes in the U.S. in recent
years. Warmer temperatures in some regions and potential
impacts on water supplies are of special concern. Although
there are uncertainties regarding future climate projections,
there is broad scientific agreement that rising temperatures
are having a number of effects such as earlier melting of
snowpack, which affects agricultural production, increases
flood risks, and is forcing changes in reservoir operations.
Two, higher sea levels, which will increase salinity in coastal
water supply aquifers and alter marshes and wetlands. And
three, in changing amounts of precipitation and extreme
climatic events.
My question three. Will drinking water be safe? Over the
past 100 years investments in water treatment and distribution
infrastructure has made the quality of U.S. drinking water
among the best in the world. Today we take safe water for
granted. Nevertheless, new chemicals and biological agents
continue to emerge and intentional or unintentional
contamination of drinking water supplies represents a real and
continuing threat. Additionally, much of our urban drinking
water infrastructure is reaching the end of its expected
lifetime and will need to be replaced in the next 25, 10 to 25
years.
Question four. Can existing water policies effectively
respond to present and future challenges? Many of the Nation's
water policies and practices were created and designed for
yesterday's water resources challenges and are becoming
obsolete. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act,
the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
Endangered Species Act were all passed in the early 1970s.
Likewise, many dam operators and water allocation plans are
designed for a set of users in an earlier era and are being
challenged by increasing demands from users such as
recreational, urban, and environmental interests.
It seems important that the Nation's water management
institutions and body politics stay vigilant to assure and
perhaps restore modern and appropriate management and legal
instruments to meet the challenges. The case is compelling for
governmental leadership and support for water resources
research and maintenance of strong governmental scientific and
technical capabilities.
My written statement discusses numerous examples of past
federally-funded water research that have produced significant
payoffs to the Nation. The advances in water science and
technology that society is now requiring are likely to be
inadequate if federal action is not taken as the states and
non-governmental organizations have limited resources to invest
in required research.
That concludes my statement. I commend the Committee for
recognizing the importance of water resource and the role of
the government in water resources to the Nation. I hope you act
quickly and strategically, as I often worry that we are living
on borrowed water capacity, created by conservative engineers
in the past, and that our water supply cushion is disappearing.
I would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Parker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen D. Parker
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and others.
My name is Stephen D. Parker. I am Director of the Water Science and
Technology Board (WSTB) of the National Research Council. As you may
know, the National Research Council is the operating arm of the
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, and its goal is to
provide elected leaders, policy-makers, and the public with
independent, expert advice based on evaluations of scientific evidence.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing, which examines the challenges of managing water supplies to
meet social, economic, and environmental needs of the United States.
Population growth, changes in water use patterns, competing demands for
water supply, degradation of water quality, and climatic variations all
are factors that influence the availability and use of water. I have
held my position with the WSTB for 26 years and have overseen
approximately 200 studies relevant to the topic of today's hearing.
Thus, my remarks are drawn from a whole body of work, rather than just
one recent report. (Note that my written statement has attached to it a
listing of some our most relevant reports from the past several years.)
Given the nature of the WSTB mission--to help ensure and improve the
scientific basis for water management--my statement tends to emphasize
science and research.
High quality, reliable drinking water is fundamental to human
existence and quality of life. Not only is water a basic human need,
but adequate, safe water supplies are crucial to the Nation's health,
economy, security, and ecosystems. A key strategic challenge is to
ensure adequate quantity and quality of water to meet human and
ecological needs, especially given the growing competition among
domestic, industrial-commercial, agricultural, and environmental uses.
To successfully address the Nation's water resources problems likely to
emerge in the next 10-15 years, decision-makers at all levels of
government will need to make informed choices among often conflicting
and uncertain alternative actions.
There is abundant evidence that the conditions of water resources
in many parts of the United States are deteriorating. Further, demands
for water resources to support population and economic growth continue
to increase, although water supplies generally are fixed in quantity
and already are fully allocated in most areas. Examples of the mounting
array of water-related problems exist in every region of the country.
Today, these problems are especially pronounced in the West and in the
Southeast. Both these areas are sites of rapidly-growing populations
and have been affected by climate variability, drought, and a
tightening water supply picture as multiple and new users vie for
changes to more traditional allocation rules and patterns. Lasting
solutions to these challenges of water supply and demand balances, as
well as water quality, will require creative, science-based, and
economically feasible strategies. The following questions highlight the
central concerns; if answers to some of these questions are ``no,'' it
portends a future with complex water resource problems that will
challenge the capacities of our scientific, engineering, and management
organizations charged to address water resources issues. (Note that I
do not attempt to separate water quantity from water quality
considerations as the two are inextricably linked.)
Will there be sufficient water to both sustain
ecosystems and support future economic and population growth?
The fast-growing states and cities of the Southwest face great
challenges in meeting increasing water demands. Most of the
sources and supplies of water for this arid region are fully
allocated among environmental, urban, and agricultural uses.
Mechanisms for reallocating water away from current uses, along
with technological means for augmenting supplies, all have
physical, economic, and social limits. Other rapidly growing
areas of the Nation, like the Southeastern U.S., also are
exhibiting increasing vulnerability to drought. The traditional
means for coping with ever-increasing water demands was to
augment supplies by constructing more dams. For a number of
reasons, that strategy today is far less viable. Unfortunately,
the Nation has limited precedent and seemingly a lack of long-
term, strategic vision for alternative means for coping with
increasing economic and population growth with existing,
limited water supplies. Furthermore, we believe the Nation has
under-invested in the research needed to help municipalities
augment water supplies, for example through wastewater reuse,
desalination, or aquifer storage and recovery.
How effectively can our water management systems and
institutions adapt to climate change? Existing data reveal some
significant climate changes in the U.S. in recent years, with
implications for water quality and quantity. Warmer
temperatures in some regions, and potential impacts on water
supplies, are a special concern. Although there are
uncertainties regarding future climate projections, there is
broad scientific agreement that rising temperatures are having
a number of effects, such as (1) earlier melting of snowpack,
which affects agricultural production, increases flood risks,
and is forcing changes in reservoir operations; (2) higher sea
levels, which will increase salinity in coastal aquifers and
alter marshes and wetlands; and (3) changing patterns of
precipitation, such that extreme climatic events may increase
in magnitude and frequency.
Will drinking water be safe? Over the past 100 years,
investment in water treatment and distribution infrastructure
has made the quality of U.S. drinking water among the best in
the world. Enormous gains in public health were realized from
the virtual elimination of typhoid and cholera, such that
today, the provision of safe supplies of drinking water is
taken for granted. Nonetheless, new chemical and biological
agents continue to emerge and intentional or unintentional
contamination of drinking water supplies represents a real and
continuing threat. Further, much of our drinking water
infrastructure is reaching the end of its usable lifetime and
will need to be replaced in the next 10-25 years.
Will the quality of the Nation's waters be enhanced
and maintained? Passage of the Clean Water Act helped the
Nation make great progress during the 1970s and 1980s in
improving surface water quality, through financial support for
municipal wastewater treatment plants and a permitting process
for point sources of water pollution. Today, the more pressing
surface water quality problem is non-point source pollution.
Effective management of non-point source pollution problems
requires good data on surface water quality. However, there are
only limited water quality data for many of the Nation's rivers
and streams, including some large and very important ones. For
example, a 2008 report of ours noted the limited data and
limited monitoring efforts in many stretches of the Mississippi
River, and recommended a more extensive and integrated approach
to the river's water quality monitoring and assessment. Better
information on water quality, and better management of non-
point source pollution problems, also will require stronger,
more aggressive federal leadership.
Can existing water policies effectively respond to
present and future challenges? Many of the Nation's water
policies and practices were created and designed for an earlier
era of water resources challenges and problems. For example,
the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act all
were passed in the early 1970s. Further, many dam operations
and water allocation plans, designed for a set of users in an
earlier era, are being challenged by increasing demands from
users such as recreational, urban, and environmental interests.
Moreover, many water professionals are concerned about
declining engineering and scientific capacity in the Nation's
key water resources organizations--which is occurring at a time
when the Nation needs high-level, professional expertise in its
primary water institutions more than ever.
Advances in the science and technology through research needed to
address these problems are likely to be inadequate if no federal
actions are taken, as the states and non-governmental organizations
have limited resources to invest in required research. The Nation also
will need stronger expertise in its leading water institutions in order
to stay abreast of engineering and scientific developments, and to be
able to interact productively with the scientific community at large.
The increasing need to ensure clean and adequate water supplies, and to
manage increasingly rapid human-induced modification of natural and
social environments, make a compelling case for governmental support of
water resources research and strong governmental scientific and
technical capacity.
There are numerous examples of federal government-funded research
on water resources that have led to significant payoffs for the Nation.
The flood forecasting systems that help save lives and protect
property, and the drought forecasting systems that help keep farmers
and municipalities abreast of water availability conditions, both rest
on federally supported data gathering and research. Research in the
past has led to the development of innovative water and wastewater
treatment technologies, such as membranes. Other examples include
improved management of salts in irrigated agriculture, and better
understanding of implications regarding voluntary transfers of water
among different users. Studies of eutrophication in inland waters,
mercury deposition, and nitrogen loading in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed seem to provide examples of federally funded research that
has improved the effectiveness of regulatory processes. Research has
allowed the Nation to increase the productivity of its water resources,
such that today the same amount of water yields, on average, more
agricultural output than it did 50 or 100 years ago. Finally, the
Nation today uses many aspects of its water resources base far more
efficiently than in the past, due to advances in water-efficient
plumbing fixtures, landscaping practices, and wastewater reuse
techniques. Future scientific and technical advances will be required
to meet the water resources needs of an expanding U.S. population and
to maintain the quality of the Nation's surface, groundwater, and
aquatic systems.
That concludes my statement. I commend the Committee for
recognizing the importance of water resources--and the role of the
Federal Government in water resources--to the Nation. I'd be happy to
answer your questions. Thank you!
Some Relevant Recent WSTB Reports of Interest to the Subcommittee
Desalination: A National Perspective 2008
Colorado River Basin Water Management: Evaluating and Adjusting to
Hydroclimatic Variability 2007
Improving the Nation's Water Security: Opportunities for Research 2007
Integrating Multi-scale Observations of U.S. Waters 2007
Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water Act: Progress,
Challenges, and Opportunities 2007
Prospects for Managed Underground Storage of Recoverable Water 2007
Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States 2007
Drinking Water Distribution Systems: Assessing and Reducing Risks 2006
Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The First Biennial Review,
2006
River Science at the U.S. Geological Survey 2006
Toward a New Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) 2006
Public Water Supply Distribution Systems:Assessing and Reducing Risks
2005
Regional Cooperation for Water Quality Improvement in Southwestern
Pennsylvania 2005
Water Conservation, Reuse, and Recycling 2005
Assessing the National Streamflow Information Program 2004
Confronting the Nation's Water Problems: The Role of Research 2004
Estimating Water Use in the United States: A New Paradigm for the
National Water-Use Information Program 2002
Missouri River Ecosystem: Exploring the Prospects of Recovery, The 2002
Privatization of Water Services in the United States: An Assessment of
Issues and Experience 2002
Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing the New York
City Strategy 2000
Biography for Stephen D. Parker
Stephen D. Parker was educated in hydrology and civil engineering
at the University of New Hampshire. He is a senior staff member at the
National Research Council of the National Academies. Currently he is
Director of the Water Science and Technology Board (since 1982). With
the WSTB, Mr. Parker is responsible for study programs in a broad range
of water related and natural resources topics. Subject areas include
water supply; aquatic ecology and restoration; ground water science,
technology, and management; hydrologic science; water quality and water
resources management; pollution control; and other related topics. His
duties involve strategic planning, program development, policy
analysis, report writing, interaction with federal agency program
managers, supervision of a staff of approximately 10, and others.
Parker's technical expertise lies principally in hydrologic engineering
and water resources systems analysis. Prior to joining the NRC in 1982,
he was in charge of river basin planning studies at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (1979-82). From 1972-79, he was with the New
England Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, where he reached the
level of chief of hydrologic engineering; the focus of his technical
work included water quality, flood and drought, and hydropower system
studies. From 1970-72, Parker was employed by Anderson-Nichols
consulting engineers in Boston where he worked on water supply oriented
projects. In 1969-70, Mr. Parker served in the U.S. Navy in Vietnam,
where he commanded a river patrol boat He is a certified Professional
Hydrologist, a member of the research advisory board of the National
Water Research Institute, and active as a member of the American
Institute of Hydrology and American Water Resources Association. In
1997, he was elected a fellow by the Association of Women in Science,
and in 1998 he received the NRC Individual Achievement Award from the
National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Parker, and Dr. Overpeck,
you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. JONATHAN OVERPECK, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE
STUDY OF PLANET EARTH; PROFESSOR, GEOSCIENCES AND ATMOSPHERIC
SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Dr. Overpeck. Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall,
Congresswoman Giffords, and other distinguished Members of the
Committee, I thank you for allowing me to come and discuss
these issues with you today.
One of our chief potential challenges to ensuring reliable
water supply will be climate variability and also climate
change. And it appears likely that both climate variability and
climate change are already starting to challenge water supply
in parts of our country.
Significant parts of our nation are currently in drought.
Droughts in the West, central plains, Texas, and the Southeast
all vie for title of the worst current drought. These droughts
now occurring in the U.S. are, however, modest compared to the
severe natural droughts that took place before the 20th
century.
For example, western North America has seen 25-year and
much longer megadroughts in just the last 1,000 years. It is
safe to say that if the water supply infrastructure in many
parts of our country, for example, the West, were to see such a
drought, it would be overwhelmed today.
However, what is most disturbing about these natural
megadroughts of the past is that we are not sure what caused
them, nor are we confident that we can predict them. It is just
a matter of time before we will get another megadrought, and
this means that we should think seriously about making our
society more resilient in the face of megadroughts.
Now, I would like to turn to the issue of climate change.
The climate system is changing, very likely due to humans, and
this change could also pose another major challenge to water
supply in parts of our nation. Parts of our country have
already warmed more than two degrees Fahrenheit in the last
century and could warm another 15 or more degrees by the end of
the century if we don't do something to curb emissions of
greenhouse gases.
The warming has already led to substantial decreases in
spring snowpack, which, in turn, has led to decreased flow in
some major river systems of the United States, including the
Colorado River. Current river flow estimates for some parts of
the country, for example, the Colorado River, that serves seven
states and over 30 million people, indicates that water supply
could be greatly reduced by mid century or before.
In addition, the latest climate change science indicates
that much of the conterminous U.S. could see an increase in the
annual maximum number of consecutive dry days between rainfall
events, a decrease in average soil moisture, and an increased
likelihood of drought. Although the projected changes are less
certain outside the West and Southwest, the current state of
climate science suggests that they, these all should be
considered real possibilities for the future.
What then can we do about this challenge? Fortunately,
there are some no-regrets actions that can be taken regardless
of cause, natural or human-caused climate change. We need an
accelerated effort to understand climate-related water supply
variabilities, both physical, biological, and social.
For example, we must incorporate realistic assessments of
future climate change into water management models that are
being used to assess future supply change. Also, ground water
serves as a major buffer during times of drought. We must try
and determine how much ground water really exists underground
at local scales around our country and how quickly this ground
water can be recharged in the future, both by precipitation and
human mechanisms.
And lastly, we need to determine, for example, how much
water can be diverted safely from agriculture, another
important buffer in times of drought, to uses that support
population growth in potentially water-limited regions.
Number two, we need an accelerated effort to understand
climate change variability, climate variability and climate
change processes, as well as how to predict them. Essential
progress can be accelerated via greater funding of basic, for
example, National Science Foundation and use-inspired, for
example, NOAA, DOE, and NASA, climate research observation and
modeling.
Number three, we need a national climate service that is
designed to support local and regional decision-makers in
dealing with climate-related reductions in water supply.
Finally, in addition to no-regrets options that I have just
summarized, there is also the option of mitigating or reducing
the likely impacts of climate change on U.S. water supply. If
we wish to forestall for sure potential major climate change
threats to water supply, large reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions, namely 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, must be
initiated soon.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Overpeck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Overpeck
Summary
One of the chief potential challenges to ensuring a reliable water
supply will be climate variability and climate change. An analysis of
recent climate patterns indicates that both are already starting to
challenge water supplies in our nation, and that these on-going
challenges provide an important lesson for the future. Climate
variability, in the form of decades-long drought, is a major threat to
ensuring sufficient water supplies. Human-caused climate change,
including temperature increases, snowpack reductions, streamflow
decreases, and increased probability of drought, will only make the
situation more challenging. Options for meeting these climate
challenges include much needed focused research, a new national climate
service focused on local and regional decision-makers, and a policy
that reduces global greenhouse gas emissions. The outlook for climate-
related changes in U.S. water supply is not positive, particularly in
the West, Southwest, Texas and into the Southeast. Even in other parts
of the Nation, water supply could become more limiting. However, the
good news is that there is time to prepare for increasing water supply
challenge, and to also avoid water supply reduction threats deemed
dangerous. Urgent attention is warranted.
Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, and other Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on
Water Supply Challenges for the 21st Century.
My name is Jonathan Overpeck. I am the Director of the Institute
for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona, where I am
also a Professor of Geosciences and a Professor of Atmospheric
Sciences. I have published more than 120 papers in climate and the
environmental sciences, and recently served as a Coordinating Lead
Author for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment (2007). I have been awarded the U.S. Department of
Commerce Bronze and Gold Medals, the Walter Orr Roberts award of the
American Meteorological Society and a Guggenheim Fellowship for my
interdisciplinary research. I also serve as Principal Investigator of
the Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS), an interdisciplinary
Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (RISA) project funded by
NOAA. In this capacity, and others, I work not only on climate system
research, but also on supporting use of this research by decision-
makers in society.
One of the chief potential challenges to ensuring a reliable water
supply will be climate variability and climate change. I would like to
describe these challenges, and then discuss what our nation can do to
meet them. A basic message is that it appears likely that both climate
variability and climate change are already starting to challenge water
supplies in our nation, and that these on-going challenges are an
important lesson for the future.
Climate Variability, Drought and Water Supply
As Figure 1 shows, drought is currently affecting significant
portions of our nation. Droughts in the West, Central Plains, Texas,
and in the Southeast vie for the title of worst current drought. Most
notably, the drought in the West, although recently softened by good
winter snowfall, has persisted since about 1999, and could be far from
over.
The causes of the current droughts across the U.S. are hotly
debated in the climate science community, but it is safe to say that at
least some of the current drought conditions are due to natural climate
variability. Most likely, variability in the oceans is causing
atmospheric circulation to drive drier-than-normal conditions in parts
of our nation. For example, this seems to be the prime candidate for
explaining the Southeast U.S. drought.
Drought of the type now occurring in the U.S. is modest compared to
the more severe natural droughts that took place before the twentieth
century. These earlier droughts can be reconstructed using tree-rings,
lake sediments, cave formations, and other natural archives of past
climate. For example, western North America, from deep into Mexico,
through the western U.S. and into Canada, was gripped by a severe 20-
to 25-year drought in the late sixteenth century. Droughts lasting many
decades occurred during medieval times in the West, and likely had
profound impacts. For example, we now know from hydrological modeling
that these past ``megadroughts,'' were they to occur in the future,
would have dramatic negative impacts on the Colorado River and the
water this river supplies to seven states.
It is safe to say that the water supply infrastructure in many
parts of our country (e.g., the West) would be overwhelmed were a
megadrought like those of the past to occur again in the future. I will
return to this challenge later in my testimony.
What is most disturbing about the natural droughts of the past is
that we are not sure what caused them, nor are we confident that we can
predict them. Thus, it is difficult for climate scientists to say how
long the current droughts will last, or whether they will intensify.
What climate scientists can say, however, is that it would be foolish
to assume that droughts much longer--and more severe--than those of the
last 100 years won't happen again. It is just a matter of time, and
this means that we should think seriously about making our society,
particularly in those areas that are prone to drought (e.g., see Figure
1), more resilient in the face of future drought.
Climate Change and Water Supply
The climate system is changing, very likely due to humans, and this
change could also pose another major challenge to water supply in parts
of our nation. Although temperatures over most of our country have
risen over the last 100 years, climate change is most notable in the
U.S. West and Alaska. Across the West, temperatures have gone up by
about 2+F, and more than the national average. This warming
has led to significant decreases in spring snowpack, which in turn,
have led to decreased flow in some major rivers, including the Colorado
River. These temperature, snow, and river flow changes appear to be
due, at least in part, to human-caused climate change. These changes
are also quite similar to those projected by climate models for the
future.
Furthermore, there are some indications--still hotly debated in the
climate science community--that the current western drought itself may
be related to human causes. In the Southwest, we have seen a northward
shift in winter/spring storm systems that seems consistent with our
understanding of human-caused climate change, and leaves the region
with below-average precipitation. However, it is too early to know for
sure if the current western drought, the worst in at least 100 years,
is due to humans or not. What we do know is that human-caused warming
is making the impacts of the drought more serious than the cooler
droughts of the twentieth century.
Many of the climate changes we are currently seeing appear to be
consistent with what climate models project for the future. Given the
recent (since 2000) jump in global carbon dioxide emissions to the
atmosphere, we are now on track, over the next 100 years, to warm parts
of the coterminous U.S. by more than 15+F in summer. This
change, when coupled with dramatic warming in other seasons as well,
should drive a much greater atmospheric demand for moisture, reduced
spring snowpack, and regional river flows in the western U.S.
Figure 2 shows only one recent estimate of how runoff, and hence
river flow, could change in the next 50 years. Other estimates exist,
but for the Colorado River Basin, almost all estimates are negative;
some estimate suggest as much as a 40 percent reduction could occur by
mid-century. Future warming and precipitation change, particularly in
the spring season, appears to point only to one direction of water
supply change - down.
Might Climate Change Spare Water Supply in all but the West and
Southwest?
Figure 2, as well as most other projections of future climate-
related water supply, paints a challenging picture for the West and
Southwest regions of the country that have recently been experiencing
some of the fastest growing populations in the Nation. Does this mean
the rest of the country is safe from climate-related reductions in
water supply? The answer is almost certainly ``No.''
In addition to the average change depicted in Figure 2, climate
theory and projections also point to a human-caused increase in the
frequency of drought. The recent IPCC (2007) assessment of climate
model projections indicates much of the conterminous U.S. should see an
increase in the annual maximum number of consecutive dry days between
rainfall events, a decrease in average soil moisture, and an increased
likelihood of drought. Although these projected changes are less
certain outside the West and Southwest, the current state of climate
science suggests they should be considered real possibilities for the
future.
The Combined Challenge of Climate Variability and Climate Change.
Current scientific understanding of both climate variability
(drought) and climate change indicates that there is a real future
likelihood of both natural and human-caused reductions in climate-
related water supply. We now know that decades-long droughts can occur
naturally in parts of the U.S., just as climate change could lead to
greater aridity and an enhanced probability of drought in many parts of
the country, particularly the West, Southwest, Texas, and across to the
Southeast. These are the same parts of the country that are now
experiencing drought. Thus, the present could be a window on the
future.
Meeting the Climate Challenge to U.S. Water Supply.
The future climate challenge confronting our nation's water supply
is real, and will likely be due to both natural and human-caused
threats. Fortunately, there are some ``no-regrets'' actions that can be
taken regardless of cause:
(1) Call for, and support, an accelerated effort to understand climate-
related water supply vulnerabilities, both physical, biological, and
social. Much remains to be learned about our nation's water supply, and
how it might be managed in the future. It is outside the scope of this
testimony to go into great detail, but some key questions warrant
greater understanding:
How can we improve the current generation of
hydrologic models used to project future river flow? For
example, model-based estimates of future climate-change related
reductions in Colorado River flow range from small (e.g., 10
percent) to large (e.g., 40 percent) by the middle of the
century. Effective management of future water supply will
require better hydrologic models.
How best incorporate realistic assessments of future
climate change into river management models? This process has
begun, but needs to be accelerated given the importance of
realistic projections not just of physical water supply, but
also how well these supplies can be managed to meet projected
use.
How much groundwater exists locally around the
country, and how quickly can groundwater be recharged in the
future, both by precipitation, and/or human mechanisms? Many
parts of the country, particularly in the West, consider
groundwater to be a principal source of water, at least in
times of surface-flow shortage. And yet, precise information
about the volume of these underground water resources is often
not available, nor is the full potential of underground water
banking fully understood. This limits realistic planning.
How much water can be diverted safely from
agricultural use to uses that support population growth in
potentially water limited regions? In many areas, agriculture
accounts for 70 percent or more of total water usage. How much
of this water should be diverted from agricultural use in order
to support population growth, or is water left in agriculture
best viewed as a resource that can buffer long droughts when
other water resources become inadequate. Water left in
agriculture can be sold to non-agricultural users in order to
make up for water lost to drought. What is the true value of
agricultural water use?
(2) Call for, and support, an accelerated effort to understand climate
variability and climate change processes, as well as how to predict
them. Climate change science has made tremendous advances in the last
decade, but is still limited due to incomplete science infrastructure
and knowledge. Essential progress can be accelerated via greater
funding of basic (e.g., NSF) and ``use-inspired'' (e.g., NOAA, DOE and
NASA) climate change research. Well-planned global climate observing
systems--both in situ and space-based--must be completed, and special
efforts are needed to extend these observing networks to include much
denser climate-related observations at the local to regional scales so
important for decision-making. Climate modeling capability must also be
enhanced to improve the realism of state-of-the-art models,
particularly with regard to simulating (and predicting) climate
variability and change at the global to regional-scales needed for
enhanced planning and decision-making.
Some regions with likely greater-than-average exposure to climate-
related water challenges, require an extra effort to understand what is
at stake and what we can do about it. For example, the Southwest U.S.
is the fastest growing part of the country, but it is also the region
that could be most at risk to water supply shortage. Despite this, we
lack an adequate understanding of the summer monsoon system that brings
substantial rainfall to some parts of the region. We can't say whether
this summer rainfall will likely go up, or go down. We don't know the
implications of how changes in this basic water resource could be
managed. As with other key regional issues, urgent attention is needed
to make sure that some parts of the country don't become big losers in
the face of climate variability and change.
(3) Call for, and support, a national climate service that is designed
to support local and regional decision-makers in dealing with climate-
related reductions in water supply. At present, the climate-related
decision-support needs of regional stakeholders (e.g., water managers)
are not met adequately. A number of federal and State agencies have
recognized this problem, and planning has begun at a number of levels
for a more organized, interagency, national climate service. The key to
success for such a service is that it be accountable to, and meet the
needs of, regional decision-makers. This service should benefit from
the national climate research, observations and modeling infrastructure
(e.g., within NOAA), and it should also benefit from the experiences,
and stakeholder-partnerships, of the NOAA-funded interdisciplinary
Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (RISA) program. Any national
climate service needs to have a strong accountability mechanism to
ensure that the regional decision-making needs are met, first and
foremost.
In addition to the above ``no-regrets'' options, there is the
option of mitigating--or reducing--the likely impacts of climate change
on U.S. water supply:
(4) Create policy that reduces global greenhouse gas emissions. Current
state-of-the-art climate science indicates that a tighter water supply
could occur in many parts of our nation due to climate change. Large
temperature increases, greater atmospheric demand for moisture,
increasing snow reductions, river flow declines, and a likely increase
in the probability of drought, all appear to be already underway in
some parts of the globe, including the U.S. Climate model projections
indicate that these trends will likely create an increasing challenge
to water supply into the future, to 2100 and beyond. A national climate
service (see #3 above) would serve to quantify the levels of climate-
related water reductions that can be met through technology, planning
and adaptation. Beyond any ``adaptable'' level of climate change-
related water supply reduction, however, exists potentially dangerous
levels of climate change that can be avoided through an aggressive
effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Summary
The outlook for climate-related changes in U.S. water supply is not
positive, particularly in the West, Southwest, Texas and into the
Southeast. Even in other parts of the Nation, water supply could become
more limiting. However, the good news is that there is time to prepare
for increasing water supply challenge, and to also avoid water supply
reduction threats deemed dangerous. Urgent attention is warranted.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
Biography for Jonathan Overpeck
Jonathan Overpeck is a climate system scientist at the University
of Arizona, where he is also the Director of the Institute for the
Study of Planet Earth, as well as a Professor of Geosciences and a
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences. He received his BA from Hamilton
College, followed by a M.Sc. and Ph.D. from Brown University. Jonathan
has published over 120 papers in climate and the environmental
sciences, and recently served as a Coordinating Lead Author for the
Nobel prize winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment (2007). He has also been awarded the U.S. Department
of Commerce Bronze and Gold Medals, as well as the Walter Orr Roberts
award of the American Meteorological Society, for his interdisciplinary
research. Overpeck has also been a Guggenheim Fellow, and was the 2005
American Geophysical Union Bjerknes Lecturer. He serves on the Board of
Reviewing Editors for Science Magazine.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Overpeck, and Dr.
Wilkinson, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT C. WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, WATER POLICY
PROGRAM, DONALD BREN SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND
MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-SANTA BARBARA
Dr. Wilkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gordon,
Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to share
some thoughts with you today. I have got some Power Points, and
I will try to click through them quickly.
Let me start with the four points I would like to make.
Integrated policy and planning I am going to pitch, and I have
in my written testimony that we couple the science and
technology assets that we have with policy processes. Multiple
benefit strategies, designs for flexibility, and put it all in
a climate change context.
This is a map of total water withdrawals in the U.S., and I
will draw your attention to the little mountains off on the
right-hand side of the picture. Most of those are thermal power
plants. I was asked to address the water energy nexus, and so
there is a differentiation here between the east and the west
to some extent as to what we are withdrawing water for in
different areas.
Many water systems in the U.S. are already over-allocated
and stressed. Every major supply system in California is
already over-allocated.
Here is a population growth map and water resources, and
you can see even in areas that are marked in blue in terms of
water resources when we look at the drought monitor for the
U.S. Jonathan has in his presentation the same map for two
months later, almost exactly, drawn from the current map here
in May, it looks almost identical, so you can see some of that
tremendous drought in the Southeast is occurring in areas that
until recently many thought were wet and somewhat immune to the
same kind of droughts.
Nearly 20 years ago two of the stars in the field of
climate science, Roger Evall and Paul Wagoner, made a very
important observation. Governments at all levels should
reevaluate legal, technical, and economic procedures for
managing water resources in the light of climate changes that
are highly likely.
Indeed, we are seeing those changes unfold, and we need to
visit, again, our institutions and legal frameworks as well as
our science and technical capacity.
Just a quick little bit of history of where we were only 50
years ago in our thinking about water resource management. This
is a map of North America. You will see in the upper left the
water collection region. Coming down through the water transfer
region it was thought that Oregon and Washington didn't need
much, and we will distribute it down in the Southwest and be
very generous right on across the Mexican border. And you will
see in the middle of the picture the optional water
distribution region, maybe even share some there.
This was a serious plan. Here is the plumbing for that
plan, and that was the way we were thinking about managing
water through inter-basin transfers only 50 years ago. A lot of
thinking has changed from the idea of building facilities in
the West in particular with surface storage, with conveyance
systems. We have some remarkable engineering and remarkable
systems, but we are having difficulty with the match between
hydrology and those systems providing for our needs.
What we need is integrated whole-system approaches to water
and energy management in the context of science and technology,
of climate change, economics, and environmental concerns. We
need policy strategies that are designed to tap multiple
benefits and are flexible in the face of changing
circumstances.
So let me briefly go through then some energy observations
here. About nineteen percent of California's electricity (I am
going to focus here on California, if I may) and about a third
of our natural gas goes to water. In fact, water is the top use
of electricity in California. Now, our systems, as you can see
ground water and local water projects, actually provide the
majority of water, but we have major plumbing facilities as
well.
I will run you through the State project very quickly. That
is the red line on this map. Here is all the pumping plants for
that system. Here is one of them, the largest pumping plant in
the world. That is only half of it at the foot of the Tehachapi
Mountains, and this is what it looks like as we plot out all of
the energy inputs to those systems.
Putting that on a bar chart, the red bars are the inner-
base and transfer points, including the Colorado River Aqueduct
and the State Water Project. You will note that they exceed
ocean water desalination in terms of energy intensity already.
Energy intensity is the total amount of energy embodied in
water used in a particular place.
We run through a calculation, California has been doing
quite a bit of this work now, to figure out every step in that
water process and then to understand opportunities to manage it
differently.
Here is one of the largest uses as you can see, single
families for the U.S., not just California, and then going to
the, half this residential, half of that is outdoors, half is
indoors. Here is California's official State water plan, and
here are the sources of water for the next quarter century. I
will draw your attention to the bar on the right. Urban water
use efficiency, doing something about that water use on the
demand side is where we expect to get most of our water in the
future, along with conjunctive management and recycled water.
Those are the big ones.
I am going to skip through because my time is out, but here
are some of those opportunities for water management that are
going to provide the new water supplies, at least according to
our State planning process in California. Coupled to that is
capturing storm water in different techniques that are often
simple but very effective, recycling water, going to hi-tech
filtration, reverse osmosis for different sources.
And then going to the flip of that very quickly, the water
intensity of energy, actually energy, thermal energy facilities
are the largest use of water withdrawn in the United States
along with agriculture over a third and about a three percent
of total consumption.
The federal labs are doing a lot of work on this. Analysis
is indicating that we have got lots of opportunities to produce
energy with very little or no water, and we have other
opportunities that use tremendous amounts of water. So we have
choices to make.
Quick conclusions then. Water scarcity and quality will
remain key issues. Vast opportunities do exist, though, for
efficiency improvements. Science and technology are critically
important in addressing water supply quality challenges but
policy design and implementation is equally as important. So
integrated whole-system planning and designing policies and
infrastructure for flexibility and multiple benefits.
I pose two questions in my written testimony. How can we
decouple water and energy systems where there are high costs,
stresses, damages, or vulnerabilities to systems, and how can
we maximize water and energy efficiency and productivity so as
to maximize benefits to society?
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wilkinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert C. Wilkinson
The Committee on Science and Technology of the United States House
of Representatives has chosen a critically important topic with this
hearing on Water Supply Challenges for the 21st Century. Thank you for
the opportunity to share some information and ideas with you today.
I will focus on the water/energy nexus as it relates to science and
technology, and also as it relates to policy design and implementation.
The selection and implementation of policy instruments to address water
and energy management challenges is integrally linked to the foundation
provided by science and technology. Policy frameworks are important in
achieving positive outcomes based on our investments in science and
technology.
The two main points I would like to convey today involve the need
for:
1. Integrated, whole-system approaches to water and energy
management in the context of science and technology, climate
change, economics, and environmental concerns, and;
2. Policy strategies that are designed to tap multiple
benefits and are flexible in the face of changing
circumstances.
Due to the importance of the climate change context for both water
and energy, I provide brief comments on water/energy/climate links and
tie them specifically to science and technology policy developments,
particularly at the State level.
This testimony presents both detailed California examples and U.S.-
wide data and considerations. Because we have developed good data and
analyses of some of the water/energy/climate challenges in California,
I will focus in this testimony on specifics from the state. The
methodology and many of the lessons may be extrapolated to other parts
of the country.
The Water and Energy Context
Water use for urban and agricultural purposes around the world has
been facilitated through diversions of surface water and extraction of
groundwater delivered through conveyance systems. Both water and energy
are often transported over long distances from their sources to the
place where they are ultimately used. As technological capacity
developed over the past century, surface water diversions, groundwater
extraction, and conveyance systems increased in volume and geographic
extent. Interbasin transfers supplemented water available within
natural hydrological basins or watersheds. Agricultural and urban uses
of arid lands were vastly extended by imported water. Similarly, energy
systems have evolved from largely local sources a century ago to
continent-wide electricity grids and pipeline networks, and to global
supply-lines.
Rainfall patterns in the United States vary widely. In Las Vegas,
the driest of America's major cities, precipitation averages barely
four inches (102 mm) per year. Portland, Oregon has nine times the
precipitation of Las Vegas. Miami, Florida is doused with over 55
inches (1,397 mm) per year, and the Northeast usually receives above 75
inches (1,778 mm) per year.
Generally, states east of the Mississippi have been assumed to have
abundant water resources for water supply purposes. Recent droughts and
shortages in Florida and the Southeast as well as other parts of the
``wet'' east are changing this perception. West of the Mississippi, and
particularly west of the Rocky Mountains, federally subsidized
engineered systems of large dams and aqueducts or pipelines provide
water supplies to many users. These systems were constructed during the
1900s, motivated primarily by droughts that occurred periodically.
Today, the sources of water for these facilities are over-allocated,
and ``new'' future supplies are increasingly coming from improved
water-use efficiency and recycling rather than from expensive new water
supply development projects.
The focus of technology development and policy for much of the past
century has been on the supply side of both the energy and water
equations. That is, the emphasis was on extracting, storing,
converting, and conveying water and energy from natural systems to
users. Water and energy policy throughout the world has generally been
designed to facilitate the development and use of these supply-side
technologies. In the last quarter century, however, scientific
developments and technological innovation has increasingly been applied
to improvement of the efficiency of use of energy and water resources.
(``Efficiency'' as used here describes the useful work or service
provided by a given amount of water or energy.) Significant potential
economic as well as environmental benefits can be cost-effectively
achieved through efficiency improvements in water and energy systems.
Various technologies, from electric motors and lighting systems to
pumps and plumbing fixtures have vastly improved end-use efficiencies.
Today, the main constraints on water extractions are not technology
limitations. Indeed, there is significant spare capacity for pumping
and conveyance in many areas. The limits are increasingly imposed by
competing claims on scarce water resources (e.g., the various claims to
the Colorado River), legal constraints, and environmental impacts.
Costs of building and maintaining infrastructure have also risen
dramatically. The maintenance cost for existing water and wastewater
systems is staggering. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimate
an annual need for over $30 billion for safe drinking water ($11
billion) and properly functioning wastewater treatment systems (about
$20 billion) in the United States.\1\ They also indicate a need for
about $1 billion per year to repair unsafe non-federal dams, the number
of which has increased by a third in the past decade.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Society of Civil Engineers, Report Card, http://
www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=23
\2\ American Society of Civil Engineers, Report Card, http://
www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The focus of technology development and implementation policy to
meet water needs is therefore increasingly on more efficient use and on
water treatment technologies. Innovation and development of technology
in the areas of end-use water applications and water treatment has
progressed rapidly. Techniques and technologies ranging from laser
leveling of fields and drip irrigation systems to the improved design
of plumbing fixtures, industrial processes, and treatment technology
have changed the demand side of the water equation. End-uses of water
now require much less volume to provide equivalent or superior
services. Rainwater capture for groundwater recharge and other
innovative water capture strategies are also enhancing water supply
reliability. Water supply systems (e.g., treatment and distribution)
are also becoming more efficient. For example, geographical information
systems (GIS) and field technologies allow for improved capabilities to
locate leaks in buried pipes.
The Climate Change Context for Water Policy
Climate change poses important water and energy management
challenges. Science is indicating that the rate and magnitude of
warming and related impacts are increasing. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change's (IPCC's) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 projected
that the rate of warming over the 21st century--up to 11.5 degrees
Fahrenheit--would be much greater than the observed changes during the
20th century. The report also confirmed that ``11 of the last 12 years
(1995 to 2006) rank among the twelve warmest years . . . since 1850.''
\3\ (The year 2007 has now registered as the second hottest year,
extending the trend.) The IPCC projects the following changes as a
result of increased temperatures:\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for
Policy-makers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p. 4. http://
www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
\4\ Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for
Policy-makers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://
wvw.ipcc.ch/index.htm
more frequent hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
precipitation events
more intense hurricanes and typhoons
decreases in snow cover, glaciers, ice caps, and sea
ice
rise in global mean sea level of seven to 23 inches,
however this projection does not include accelerated ice sheet
melting and other factors.
Climate models consistently indicate a warmer future for the U.S.
West. Evidence of warming trends is already being seen in winter
temperatures in the Sierra Nevada, which rose by almost two degrees
Celsius (four degrees Fahrenheit) during the second half of the 20th
century. Trends toward earlier snowmelt and runoff to the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta over the same period have also been detected.\5\
Water managers are particularly concerned with the mid-range elevation
levels where snow shifts to rain under warmer conditions, thereby
reducing snow-water storage. California's Department of Water
Resources, along with the California Energy Commission, has been
tracking the climate change science since the 1980s.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Dettinger, MichaeLD., and Dan R. Cayan. 1994. Large-scale
atmospheric forcing of recent trends toward early snowmelt runoff in
California. Journal of Climate 8: 606-23.
\6\ California Department of Water Resources, 2006. Progress on
Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California's Water
Resources, http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/documents/2006-
07-DWR-CLIMATE-CHANGE-F1NAL.
PDF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California law states clearly that ``Global warming poses a serious
threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources,
and the environment of California.'' \7\ The potential impacts of
climate change and variability to California are serious.\8\ Integrated
policy, planning, and management of water resources and energy systems
can provide important opportunities to respond effectively to
challenges posed by climate change. Both mitigation (i.e., reducing
greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (dealing with impacts)
strategies are being developed. While both energy and water managers
have used integrated planning approaches for decades, the broader
integration of water and energy management in the context of climate
change is a relatively new and exciting policy area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, (AB32) Section
38501 (a).
\8\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm; Wilkinson, Robert C., 2002. The Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for California, The
California Regional Assessment, Report of the California Regional
Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National
Center for Geographic Information Analysis, and the National Center for
Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa
Barbara. Available at: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/products.html
Integrating Water and Energy Policy
Government agencies at various levels are currently integrating
water and energy policies to respond to climate change as well as to
environmental challenges and economic imperatives. Water and energy
systems are interconnected in important ways. Developed water systems
provide energy (e.g., through hydropower), and they consume energy
through pumping, thermal, and other processes. Government agencies are
looking at water delivery system and end-use water efficiency
improvements, source switching (e.g., using recycled water for industry
and irrigation), improved rainwater capture and groundwater recharge,
and other measures that save energy by reducing pumping and other
energy inputs. Recent studies are indicating significant opportunities
in each area.\9\ Several California examples of coupled science/
technology/policy approaches are presented here. While they are
specific to the state, many of the basic features are similar in other
states across the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See for example: Park, Laurie, Bill Bennett, Stacy
Tellinghuisen, Chris Smith, and Robert Wilkinson, 2008. The Role of
Recycled Water In Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reduction,
California Sustainability Alliance, available at: www.sustainca.org.
Also see: California Energy Commission (2005). Integrated Energy Policy
Report, November 2005, CEC-100-2005-007-CMF: and Klein, Gary (2005).
California Energy Commission, California's Water--Energy Relationship.
Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy
Policy Report Proceeding, (04-IEPR-01E) November 2005, CEC-700-2005-
011-SF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New approaches to the integration of water, energy, and climate
change policy and planning, including policy processes at the state's
Energy Commission, Public Utilities Commission, Department of Water
Resources, Water Resources Control Board, and Air Resources Board, are
being developed. Methodologies to account for embedded energy in water
systems--from initial extraction through treatment, distribution, end-
use, wastewater treatment and discharge--and water use by energy
systems, have been developed and are outlined below.\10\ Institutional
collaboration between energy, water, and other management authorities
is also evolving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Wilkinson, Robert C. (2000). Methodology For Analysis of The
Energy Intensity of California's Water Systems, and an Assessment of
Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency
Measures, Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency;
California Energy Commission (2005). Integrated Energy Policy Report,
November 2005, CEC-100-2005-007-CMF: California Energy Commission
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Energy Policy Report, November 2005, CEC-100-2005-007-
CMF: and Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California's
Water--Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of
the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, (04-IEPR-01E)
November 2005, CEC-700-2005-011-SF.
Water is now recognized as the largest electricity use in
California. Water systems account for approximately 19 percent of total
electricity use and about 33 percent of the non-power plant natural gas
use in the state.\11\ The California Energy Commission (CEC) and the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have both concluded that
energy embedded in water presents large untapped opportunities for
cost-effectively improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. The CEC commented in its 2005 Integrated Energy
Policy Report that: ``The Energy Commission, the Department of Water
Resources, the CPUC, local water agencies, and other stakeholders
should explore and pursue cost-effective water efficiency opportunities
that would save energy and decrease the energy intensity in the water
sector.'' \12\ Fortunately this corresponds with the state's 2005 Water
Plan.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ California Energy Commission (2005). Integrated Energy Policy
Report, November 2005, CEC-100-2005-007-CMF.
\12\ California Energy Commission (2005). Integrated Energy Policy
Report, November 2005, CEC-100-2005-007-CMF.
\13\ California Department of Water Resources (2005). California
Water Plan Update 2005. Bulletin 160-05, California Department of Water
Resources, Sacramento, CA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Energy Commission's staff report, California's
Water--Energy Relationship, notes that: ``In many respects, the 2005
Water Plan Update mirrors the state's adopted loading order for
electricity resources described in the Energy Commission's Integrated
Energy Policy Report 2005 and the multi-agency Energy Action Plan.''
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California's
Water--Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of
the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, (04-IEPR-01E)
November 2005, CEC-700-2005-011-SF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the top recommendations in the California Energy
Commission's 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) is as follows:
``The Energy Commission strongly supports the following energy
efficiency and demand response recommendations: The CPUC, Department of
Water Resources, the Energy Commission, local water agencies and other
stakeholders should assess efficiency improvements in hot and cold
water use in homes and businesses, and include these improvements in
2006-2008 programs.'' It observes that ``Reducing the demand for energy
is the most effective way to reduce energy costs and bolster
California's economy.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ California Department of Water Resources (2005). California
Water Plan Update 2005. Bulletin 160-05, California Department of Water
Resources, Sacramento, CA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improvements in urban water use efficiency have been identified by
the Department of Water Resources in its official State Water Plan as
the largest new water supply for the next quarter century, followed by
groundwater management and reuse. The following graph indicates the
critical role water use efficiency, groundwater recharge and
management, and reuse will play in California's water future.
The CEC staff report notes that, ``As California continues to
struggle with its many critical energy supply and infrastructure
challenges, the state must identify and address the points of highest
stress. At the top of this list is California's water-energy
relationship.'' \16\ It continues with this interesting finding: ``The
state can meet energy and demand-reduction goals comparable to those
already planned by the state's investor-owned energy utilities for the
2006-2008 program period by simply recognizing the value of the energy
saved for each unit of water saved. If allowed to invest in these cold
water energy savings, energy utilities could co-invest in water use
efficiency programs, which would in turn supplement water utilities'
efforts to meet as much load growth as possible through water
efficiency. Remarkably, staff's initial assessment indicates that this
benefit could be realized at less than half the cost to electric rate
payers of traditional energy efficiency measures.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California's
Water--Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of
the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, (04-IEPR-01E)
November 2005, CEC-700-2005-011-SF.
\17\ Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California's
Water--Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of
the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, (04-IEPR-01E)
November 2005, CEC-700-2005-011-SF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This finding is consistent with an earlier analysis which found
that energy use for conveyance, including interbasin water transfer
systems (systems that move water from one watershed to another) in
California, accounted for about 6.9 percent of the state's electricity
consumption.\18\ Estimates by CEC's Public Interest Energy Research--
Industrial, Agriculture and Water (PIER-IAW) experts indicate that
``total energy used to pump and treat this water exceeds 15,000 GWh per
year, or at least 6.5 percent of the total electricity used in the
state per year.'' They also note that the State Water Project (SWP)--
the state-owned storage and conveyance system that transfers water from
Northern California to various parts of the state including Southern
California--is the largest single user of electricity in the state,
accounting for two percent to three percent of all the electricity
consumed in California and using an average of 5,000 GWh per year.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Wilkinson, Robert C. (2000). Methodology For Analysis of The
Energy Intensity of California's Water Systems, and an Assessment of
Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency
Measures, Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency.
\19\ California Energy Commission (2006). Public Interest Energy
Research--Industrial, Agriculture and Water, http://energy.ca.gov/pier/
iaw/industry/water.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The magnitude of these figures suggests that failing to include
embedded energy in water and wastewater systems, and failing to tap
energy saving derived from water efficiency improvements would be a
policy opportunity lost.
Tapping Integrated Water/Energy Opportunities
Elements of typical water infrastructures are energy intensive.
Moving large quantities of water long distances and over significant
elevation gains, treating and distributing it within communities, using
it for various purposes, and collecting and treating the resulting
wastewater, accounts for one of the largest uses of electrical energy
in many areas.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For a methodology to examine water intensity, see: Wilkinson,
Robert C., 2000. Methodology For Analysis of The Energy Intensity of
California's Water Systems, and an Assessment of Multiple Potential
Benefits Through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency Measures,
Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency.
Water systems include extraction of ``raw'' (untreated) water
supplies from natural sources, conveyance, treatment, storage,
distribution, end-uses, and wastewater treatment. The total energy
embodied in a unit of water used in a particular place varies with
location, source, and use.
There are four principle energy elements of water systems:
1. primary water extraction, conveyance, and storage
2. treatment and distribution within service areas
3. on-site water pumping, treatment, and thermal inputs
(heating and cooling)
4. wastewater collection, treatment and discharge
Pumping water in each of these stages is energy-intensive. Other
important energy inputs include thermal energy (heating and cooling)
applications at the point of end-use, and aeration in wastewater
treatment processes.
1. Primary water extraction, conveyance, and storage.
Extracting and lifting water is highly energy intensive.
Surface water and groundwater pumping requires significant
amounts of energy depending on the depth of the source. Where
water is stored in intermediate facilities, net energy is
required to store and then recover the water.
2. Treatment and distribution within service areas. Within
local service areas, water is treated, pumped, and pressurized
for distribution. Local conditions and sources determine both
the treatment requirements and the energy required for pumping
and pressurization. Some distribution systems are gravity-
driven, while others require pumping.
3. On-site water pumping, treatment, and thermal inputs.
Individual water users require energy to further treat water
supplies (e.g., softeners, filters, etc.), circulate and
pressurize water supplies (e.g., building circulation pumps),
and heat and cool water for various purposes.
4. Wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge. Finally,
wastewater is collected and treated by a wastewater system
(unless a septic system or other alternative is being used) and
discharged. Wastewater is sometimes pumped to treatment
facilities where gravity flow is not possible, and the standard
treatment processes require energy for pumping, aeration, and
other processes.
The simplified flow chart\21\ below illustrates the steps in the
water system process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ This schematic and method is based on Wilkinson (2000) with
refinements by Gary Klein, California Energy Commission, Gary Wolff,
Pacific Institute, and others.
The energy intensity of water varies considerably by geographic
location of both end-users and sources. Water use in certain places is
highly energy-intensive due to the combined requirements of conveyance
over long distances and elevation lifts, treatment and distribution,
and wastewater collection and treatment processes. Important work
already undertaken by various government agencies, professional
associations, private sector users, and non-governmental organizations
in the area of combined end-use efficiency strategies has demonstrated
considerable potential for improvement. Significant and profitable
energy efficiency gains are possible through implementation of cost-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
effective water efficiency improvements.
The Energy Intensity of Water in California: A Case Study
California's water systems are uniquely energy-intensive due in
large part to the pumping requirements of major conveyance systems
which move large volumes of water long distances and over thousands of
feet in elevation. Some interbasin transfer systems such as
California's State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River Aqueduct
(CRA) require large amounts of electrical energy to convey water.
Water use (based on embedded energy) is the second or third largest
consumer of electricity in a typical Southern California home after
refrigerators and air conditioners.\22\ The electricity required to
support water service in the typical home in Southern California is
estimated to be between 14 percent to 19 percent of total residential
energy demand.\23\ The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) reached similar findings, estimating that energy
requirements to deliver water to residential customers equals as much
as 33 percent of the total average household electricity use.\24\
Nearly three quarters of this energy demand is for pumping imported
water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Wilkinson, Robert C. (2000). Methodology For Analysis of The
Energy Intensity of California's Water Systems, and an Assessment of
Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency
Measures, Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency; QEI,
Inc. (1992). Electricity Efficiency Through Water Efficiency, Report
for the Southern California Edison Company.
\23\ QEI, Inc. (1992). Electricity Efficiency Through Water
Efficiency, Report for the Southern California Edison Company.
\24\ Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (1996).
Integrated Resource Plan for Metropolitan's Colorado River Aqueduct
Power Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water system operations pose a number of challenges for energy
systems due to factors such as large loads for specific facilities,
time and season of use, and geographic distribution of loads. Pumping
plants are among the largest electrical loads in the state. For
example, the SWP's Edmonston Pumping Plant, situated at the foot of the
Tehachapi Mountains, pumps water 1,926 feet (the highest single lift of
any pumping plant in the world) and is the largest single user of
electricity in the state.\25\ In total, the SWP system is the largest
user of electricity in the state.\26\ A study for the Electric Power
Research Institute by Franklin Burton found that at a national level,
water systems account for an estimated 75 billion kWh per year (about
three percent of total electricity demand).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ California Department of Water Resources (1996). Management of
the California State Water Project. Bulletin 132-96.
\26\ Anderson, Carrie (1999). ``Energy Use in the Supply, Use and
Disposal of Water in California,'' Process Energy Group, Energy
Efficiency Division, California Energy Commission.
\27\ Burton, Franklin L. (1996). Water and Wastewater Industries:
Characteristics and Energy Management Opportunities. (Burton
Engineering) Los Altos, CA, Report CR-106941, Electric Power Research
Institute Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The schematic below shows the cumulative net energy, and the
incremental energy inputs or outputs, at each of the pumping and energy
recovery facilities of the SWP. (Energy recovery is indicated with
negative numbers, which reduce net energy at that point in the system.)
Approximately 5,418 kWh are required to pump one acre-foot of SWP
water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Cherry Valley on the
East Branch, 2,580 kWh/af at Castaic on the West Branch, and 2,826 kWh/
af to Polonio on the Coastal Branch. Approximately 2,000 kWh/af is
required to pump Colorado River water to Southern California.\28\ This
is raw (untreated) water delivered to those points. From there
conveyance continues by gravity or pumping to treatment and
distribution within service areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (1996).
Integrated Resource Plan for Metropolitan's Colorado River Aqueduct
Power Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that at certain points in the system the energy intensity is
high because the service areas are located at higher elevations. At
Pearblossom (4,444 kWh/af) raw water supplies are roughly equivalent to
estimates for desalinated ocean water systems. (Ocean desalination is
estimated at 4,400 kWh/af based on work by the author for the
California Desalination Task Force.) At Crafton Hill and Cherry Valley,
the energy intensity of imported water is well in excess of current
estimates of ocean desalination.
The following graph shows the energy intensity of major water
supply options for actual inland and coastal locations in Southern
California.
Each bar represents the energy intensity of a specific water supply
source at selected locations in Southern California. The data is
presented in kWh/af. Water conservation--e.g., not using water in the
first place--avoids additional energy inputs along all segments of the
water use cycle. Consequently, water use efficiency is the superior
water resource option from an energy perspective (and typically from a
cost perspective as well). For all other water resources, there are
ranges of actual energy inputs that depend on many factors, including
the quality of source water, the energy intensity of the technologies
used to treat the source water to standards needed by end-users, the
distance water needs to be transported to reach end-users, and the
efficiency of the conveyance, distribution, and treatment facilities
and systems.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Wilkinson, Robert C. (2000). Methodology For Analysis of The
Energy Intensity of California's Water Systems, and an Assessment of
Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency
Measures, Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that improved efficiency (e.g., fixing leaks, replacing
inefficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems, and other cost-
effective measures) requires no water system energy inputs. Next to
water conservation, recycled water and groundwater are lower energy
intensity options than most other water resources in many areas of
California.\30\ Even with advanced treatment to deal with salts and
other contaminants (the blue and green bars), recycled water and
groundwater usually require far less energy than the untreated imported
water (red bars) and seawater desalination (yellow bars). The Chino
desalter, a reverse osmosis (RO) treatment process providing high-
quality potable water from contaminated groundwater (the energy figure
above includes groundwater pumping and RO filtration) is far less
energy intensive than any of the imported raw water. From an energy
standpoint, greater reliance on water conservation, reuse and
groundwater provides significant benefits. From a greenhouse gas
emissions standpoint, these energy benefits provide significant
potential emissions reduction benefits in direct relation to their
energy savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Park, Laurie, Bill Bennett, Stacy Tellinghuisen, Chris Smith,
and Robert Wilkinson, 2008. The Role of Recycled Water In Energy
Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Reduction, California Sustainability
Alliance, available at: www.sustainca.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundwater pumping energy requirements vary depending on the lift
required. The California Energy Commission's Public Interest Energy
Research--Industrial, Agriculture and Water program provides the
following assessment of pumping in important parts of the Central
Valley: ``The amount of energy used in pumping groundwater is unknown
due to the lack of complete information on well-depth and groundwater
use. DWR has estimated groundwater use and average well depths in three
areas responsible for almost two-thirds of the groundwater used in the
state: the Tulare Lake basin, the San Joaquin River basin, and the
Central Coast region. Based on these estimates, energy used for
groundwater pumping in these areas would average 2,250 GWh per year at
a 70 percent pumping efficiency (1.46 kWh/acre-foot/foot of lift). In
the Tulare Lake area, with an average well depth of 120 feet, pumping
would require 175 kWh per acre-foot of water. In the San Joaquin River
and Central Coast areas, with average well depths of 200 feet, pumping
would require 292 kWh per acre-foot of water.'' \31\ Analysis of these
different sources provides a reasonably consistent result: Local
groundwater and recycled water are far less energy intensive than
imported water or ocean desalination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ California Energy Commission (2006). Public Interest Energy
Research--Industrial, Agriculture and Water, http://energy.ca.gov/pier/
iaw/industry/water.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy intensity of most water supply sources may increase in
the future due to increased concerns regarding water quality.\32\ It is
worth noting that advanced treatment systems such as RO facilities that
are being used to treat groundwater, reclaimed supplies, and ocean
water have already absorbed most of the energy impacts of higher levels
of treatment. By contrast, some of the raw water supplies may require
larger incremental energy inputs in the future for treatment. This may
further advantage the local sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Burton, Franklin L. (1996). Water and Wastewater Industries:
Characteristics and Energy Management Opportunities. (Burton
Engineering) Los Altos, CA, Report CR-106941, Electric Power Research
Institute Report.
Policy Implications: Tapping Multiple Benefits Through Integrated
Planning
When the costs and benefits of a proposed policy or action are
analyzed, we typically focus on accounting for costs, and then we
compare those costs with a specific, well-defined benefit such as an
additional increment of water supply. We often fail to account for
other important benefits that accrue from well-planned investments that
solve for multiple objectives. With a focus on multiple benefits, we
account for various goals achieved through a single investment. For
example, improvements in water use efficiency--meeting the same end-use
needs with less water--also typically provides related benefits such as
reduced energy requirements for water pumping and treatment (with
reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emissions related to energy
production as a result), and reduced water and wastewater
infrastructure capacity (capital costs) and processing (operating
costs) requirements. Impacts caused by extraction of source water from
surface or groundwater systems are also reduced. Water managers often
do not receive credit for providing these multiple benefits when they
implement water efficiency, recharge, and reuse strategies. From both
an investment perspective, and from the standpoint of public policy,
the multiple benefits of efficiency improvements and recharge and reuse
should be fully included in cost/benefit analysis.
Policies that account for the full embedded energy of water use
have the potential to provide significant additional public and private
sector benefits. Economic and environmental benefits are potentially
available through new policy approaches that properly account for the
energy intensity of water.
Energy savings may be achieved both upstream and downstream of the
point of use when the energy consumption of both water supply and
wastewater treatment systems are taken into account. Methods, metrics,
and data are available to provide a solid foundation for policy
approaches to account for energy savings from water efficiency
improvements, though can and should be improved. Policies can be based
on methodologies and metrics that are already established.
Policy Precedents and the Role of Government
Water and energy are currently regulated by government because
there is a compelling public interest in oversight and management of
these critical resources. Encouraging and requiring the efficient use
of both water and energy is a well-established part of the policy
mandate under which government agencies operate. Inefficient use of
water and energy leads to public and private costs to the economy and
the environment. The public interest in resource-use efficiency relates
directly to environmental impacts and public welfare. This is why we
have efficiency standards for energy and water resources. Water-using
devices, like energy-using devices, are often regulated through various
policy measures including efficiency standards.
Policy regarding both energy and water already addresses water use
and related embedded energy use. For example, the U.S. Energy Policy
Act of 1992 set standards for the maximum water use of toilets,
urinals, showerheads, and faucets. (See Table below.) Why does the U.S.
Energy Act include standards for water use? It is because the energy
required to convey, treat, and deliver potable water supplies, and the
energy required to collect, treat, and discharge the resulting
wastewater, is significant. The energy savings resulting from water
efficiency are also significant.
These standards became effective in 1994 for residential and
commercial plumbing fixtures, although the commercial water closet
standard was not required until 1997 because of uncertainties regarding
performance of the fixtures. In this respect, the United States is well
behind certain countries of Europe, where the six-liter water closet
has been in use for many years and where horizontal axis washing
machines are more common than in the United States.
In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed a reauthorization of the Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act. For the first time, Congress formally
recognized the need for water conservation planning by allowing
individual states to mandate conservation planning and implementation
as a condition of receiving federal grants for water supply treatment
facilities.\33\ This was a significant step for the federal government.
At about the same time, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation set conservation
and efficiency requirements for those agricultural and urban water
agencies that receive federally subsidized water from the Bureau
facilities. This also was a significant step. Other federal statutes
create incentives for farmers and landowners to participate in soil and
water conservation programs, and to initiate voluntary water transfers
of conserved water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998). Water
Conservation Plan Guidelines for Implementing the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The significant water efficiency and conservation activity,
however, takes place at the State and regional levels. Interest in
water efficiency is primarily highest in those regions of the country
where precipitation is lowest, or where wastewater treatment costs have
skyrocketed. Seventeen states, representing over 60 percent of the
Nation's population, had already adopted their own plumbing efficiency
standards long before passage of the federal law in 1992. Fifteen
states have also adopted specific conservation programs, which vary
from mandating conservation planning by water utilities to requiring
actual implementation of specific water efficiency programs. The states
most active in conservation activities are: Arizona; California;
Colorado; Connecticut; Florida; Kansas; New Jersey, Oregon; Texas; and
Washington State.\34\ Individual cities have also adopted water
efficiency programs where necessary (New York City, Boston, and Las
Vegas are examples).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Miri, Joseph, 1999. ``Snapshot of Conservation Management: A
Summary Report of the American Water Works Association Survey of State
Water Conservation Programs.'' American Water Works Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, where water supply withdrawals are regulated by State
agencies, water conservation is usually a prominent planning
requirement for water utilities. A number of states not only require
plans of their water utilities, but also require that progress be
demonstrated in water efficiency programs before approvals for
continued water supply withdrawals are given. Many states also
condition State grants for new facility construction upon a
satisfactory demonstration of conservation planning and implementation
by the water utility.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ One of the best sources on water efficiency in the U.S. is
Mary Ann Dickinson, Executive Director, Alliance for Water Efficiency,
P.O. Box 804127, Chicago, IL 60680-4127. The Alliance web site is:
www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California adopted plumbing standards in 1978 for showerheads and
faucets, and water closet standards in 1992. Comprehensive conservation
planning was adopted in 1983 for all water agencies serving more than
3,000 connections or 3,000 people.\36\ In a unique consensus
partnership, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 1991 by major
water utilities and environmental groups pledging to undertake water
efficiency practices (the ``Best Management Practices'').\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ California Water Code, Sections 10620 et seq.
\37\ California Urban Water Conservation Council (1991).
``Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in
California,'' (First adopted September, 1991).
Environmental Benefits of Integrated Water and Energy Efficiency
Strategies
Water conservation is a powerful tool in the integrated resource
management toolbox. By reducing the need for new water supply and
additional wastewater treatment--particularly in areas of rapid
population growth--conserved water allows more equitable allocation of
water resources for other purposes. By way of illustration, one
estimate indicates that the installation of 1.6 gallon per flush
toilets in the U.S. will save over two billion gallons per day
nationwide by the year 2010.\38\ These saved water resources can be
directed toward future water supply growth or other uses for the water.
It ``stretches'' the available supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Osann, Edward and John Young (1998). Saving Water Saving
Dollars: Efficient Plumbing Products and the Protection of American
Water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps most significantly, it has become clear in recent decades
that the extraction and diversion of water supplies has had major
impacts on the quality of the natural environment and on individual
species. Facilities built to dam, divert, transport, pump, and treat
water are massive projects that often cause serious and sometimes
irreversible environmental impacts.
As a result, water conservation is playing an important role in
helping meet the environmental goals of many communities. Efficiency
programs have been required in numerous areas to help achieve some of
the following results:
Maintaining habitat along rivers and streams and
restoring fisheries;
Protecting groundwater supplies from excessive
depletion and contamination;
Improving the quality of wastewater discharges;
Reducing excessive runoff of urban contaminants; and
Restoring the natural values and functions of
wetlands and estuaries.
The Role of Price Signals Coupled With Policy
Attention has turned to technologies that improve energy and water-
use efficiency. From industrial processes to plumbing fixtures and
irrigation systems, water is being used far more efficiently than in
the past. One reason the focus of technological innovation has shifted
from supply development to improving efficiency is economics. When
water is cheap, there is little incentive to design and build water-
efficient technologies. As the cost of water increases, technology
options for reducing waste and providing greater end-use efficiency
become more cost-effective and even profitable. Technologies for
measuring, timing, and controlling water use, and new innovations in
the treatment and re-use of water, are growing areas of technology
development and application.
Impetus for scientific inquiry and technology innovation and
development has been provided by both price signals (increasing costs)
and public policy (e.g., requirements for internalization of external
costs). Public policy is increasingly incorporating these costs,
including those of climate change, into resource prices. As water and
energy prices continue to reflect full costs, including environmental
costs previously externalized, they increase.
At the same time, technology has provided a wide range of options
for expanding the utility value through efficiencies (less water and
energy required to perform a useful service). The ability to treat and
reuse water, improve energy efficiency, and substituting ways to
provide services previously performed by water and energy. Broader
application of these technologies and techniques can yield significant
additional energy, water, economic, and environmental benefits.
Public policy can be designed to encourage ``best management
practices'' by both water and energy suppliers and users. Appliance
efficiency standards (for both energy and water) and minimum waste
requirements are examples. Policy measures have also been used to frame
and guide market signals by implementing mechanisms such as increasing
tiered pricing structures, meter requirements (some areas do not even
measure use), and other means to utilize simple market principles and
price signals more effectively.
In an economic and resource management sense, efficiency
improvements are now considered as supply options, to the extent that
permanent improvements in the demand-side infrastructure provide
reliable water and/or energy savings. Most experts agree that coupling
technology options such as efficient plumbing and energy-using devices
to economic incentives (e.g., rebates) and disincentives (e.g.,
increasing tiered rate structures) is the best strategy. The coupling
provides both the means to improve productive water and energy use and
the incentive to do it.
Seawater Desalination's Role in Integrated Water Supply Portfolios
Seawater desalination has been viewed as the ultimate drought
hedge, enabling water providers to augment water supplies with desalted
ocean water, a virtually inexhaustible water source. Both the theory
and practice of desalination date back to the ancient Greeks and
perhaps earlier, but costs have held desalination to limited use.
The salinity of ocean water varies, with the average generally
exceeding 30 grams per liter (g/l). The Pacific Ocean is 34-38 g/l, the
Atlantic Ocean averages about 35 g/l, and the Persian Gulf is 45 g/l.
Brackish water drops to 0.5 to 3.0 g/l. Potable water salt levels
should be below 0.5 g/l.
Reducing salt levels from over 30 g/l to 0.5 g/l and lower
(drinking water standards) using existing technologies requires
considerable amounts of energy, either for thermal processes or for the
pressure to drive water through extremely fine filters (RO), or for
some combination of thermal and pressure processes. Recent improvements
in energy efficiency have reduced the amount of thermal and pumping
energy required for the various processes, but high energy intensity is
still an issue. The energy required is in part a function of the degree
of salinity and the temperature of the water.
Seawater desalination is a primary source of water in some
countries in the Middle East. It is also becoming an important resource
in other countries including Spain, Singapore, China, and Australia. A
few recent examples include:
In 2006, Singapore completed a 36 MGD seawater
reverse osmosis (SWRO) plant capable of serving 10 percent of
its national water demand.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``Tuas Seawater Desalination Plant, Seawater Reverse Osmosis
(SWRO), Singapore,'' watertechnology. http://www.water
technology.net/projects/tuas/, viewed April 23, 2008.
As of 2006, more than 20 seawater desalination plants
were operating in China.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ``Seawater desalination to relieve water shortage in China,''
China Economic Net, Feb. 28, 2006, http://en.ce.cn/Insight/200602/28/
t20060228-6217706.shtml
In November 2006, Western Australia became the first
state in the country to use desalination as a major public
water source.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``Perth Seawater Desalination Plant, Seawater Reverse Osmosis
(SWRO), Kwinana, Australia,'' watertechnology. http://www.water
technology.net/projects/perth/
A number of desalination plants are currently being planned or
developed in the U.S. On January 25, 2008, Tampa Bay Water announced
that it had commenced full operations of its 25 MGD desalination plant,
presently the largest seawater desalination plant in North America. At
full capacity, the plant will provide 10 percent of the drinking water
supply for the Tampa Bay region.\42\ In 2004, the Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB) identified desalination as an important
strategy for meeting growth in water demand.\43\ In its 2006 update to
the Governor and the Legislature, the TWDB stated that ``Seawater
desalination can no longer be considered a water supply option
available only to communities along the Texas Gulf Coast.\44\ It must
also be considered as an increasingly viable water supply option for
major metropolitan areas throughout Texas.'' \45\ The report encourages
State investments for a full-scale seawater desalination demonstration
project by the Brownsville Public Utilities Board ``. . . as a
reasonable investment in a technology that holds the promise of
providing unlimited supplies of drinking water even during periods of
extreme drought.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ ``Drought-Proof Water Supply Delivering Drinking Water, The
Nation's first large-scale seawater desalination plant eases Tampa Bay
region's drought worries.'' News release, January 25, 2008, http://
www.tampabaywater.org/whatshot/readnews.aspx?article=131, viewed April
23, 2008.
\43\ ``According to the 2002 State Water Plan, four of the six
regional water planning areas with the greatest volumetric water supply
needs in 2050 will be regions that have large urban, suburban, and
rural populations located on or near the Texas Gulf Coast. These
populations could conceivably benefit from a new, significant, and
sustainable source of high-quality drinking water.'' The Future of
Desalination in Texas, 2004 Biennial Report on Semvater Desalination,
Texas Water Development Board, p. ix.
\44\ Section 16.060 of the Texas Water Code directs the Texas Water
Development Board to ``. . . undertake or participate in research,
feasibility and facility planning studies, investigations, and surveys
as it considers necessary to further the development of cost effective
water supplies from seawater desalination in the state.'' The Code also
requires a biennial progress report be submitted to the Governor,
Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House of Representatives.
\45\ ``The Future of Desalination in Texas, 2006 Biennial Report on
Seawater Desalination,'' Texas Water Development Board, Executive
Summary, pp. iv-v.
In California, interest in seawater desalination is also
escalating. Heather Cooly and colleagues at the Pacific Institute found
that as of 2006, about 266 to 379 MGD of new seawater desalination
facilities were planned in California.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Cooley, Heather, Peter H. Gleick, and Gary Wolff, 2006.
Desalination, With a Grain of Salt, Pacific Institute for Studies in
Development, Environment, and Security, 654 13th Street, Preservation
Park, Oakland, California 94612, http://www.pacinst.org/reports/
desalination/index.htm
In November 2007, Poseidon Resources won conditional regulatory
approval from the California Coastal Commission to build a $300 million
plant north of San Diego. The Carlsbad Desalination Plant will be the
largest in the western hemisphere if completed as planned. On its web
site, Poseidon reported that most of the plant's capacity has already
been committed to serve baseload water requirements for local water
agencies.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Posidon Resources, http://www.carlsbaddesal.com/
partnerships.asp
Water Inputs to U.S. Energy Systems
The other side of the water/energy nexus is the water intensity of
energy. In this case, water inputs to energy systems are identified and
quantified to understand where water is used, and how much is required
for different types of energy sources and services.
Water inputs to energy systems are significant but highly variable.
For example, primary fuels, such as oil, gas, and coal, often require
water for production, and they sometimes ``produce'' water of various
qualities as a by-product of extraction. Biofuels may require water not
only for irrigation of crops but also for production processes.
Electricity generation in thermoelectric plants typically uses water
for cooling and other processes, although dry cooling technology exists
and is improving. Some forms of electricity production such as wind and
certain co-generation processes require no water at all.
The USGS estimates in its most recent analysis that 48 percent of
all U.S. freshwater and saline-water withdrawals were used for
thermoelectric power, with the majority of the fresh water extracted
from surface sources (e.g., lakes and rivers) and used for once-through
cooling at thermal power plants. USGS notes that ``about 52 percent of
fresh surface-water withdrawals and about 96 percent of saline-water
withdrawals were for thermoelectric-power use.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S.
Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, 2005. Estimated Use of
Water in the United States in 2000, U.S. Geological Survey, Circular
1268, (released March 2004, revised April 2004, May 2004, February
2005) USGS, P. 1. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/
index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water is increasingly viewed as a limiting factor for thermal power
plant siting and operation. Large-scale thermoelectric plants in the
U.S., Europe, and elsewhere have experienced serious problems in recent
years due to the lack of available cooling water. Power production was
reduced or curtailed in Europe during the heat wave in 2003, and power
plants in the U.S. have been impacted by low water and by elevated
temperatures, or both, during the past decade. As recently as this past
winter power plant operators were concerned about the impact of the
drought in the U.S. Southeast and the potential for adverse impacts to
thermal power plants. Hydroelectric power production is also impacted
by low water levels, including a continuing long-term dry period in the
Colorado River basin.
Although cooling systems account for the majority of water used in
power generation, water is also used in other parts of the process:
water may be used to mine, process, or transport fuels (e.g., coal
slurry lines). These processes may have important local impacts on
water resources. Some energy sources such as oil shale, tar sands, and
marginal gas and petroleum reserves may have additional water needs
and/or significant local impacts on water quality and quantity.
The U.S. National Labs have been working for several years on an
``Energy/Water Nexus'' effort.\49\ A report entitled ``Energy Demands
on Water Resources Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy
and Water'' was submitted to Congress in 2007.\50\ As with other
analyses of the issue, the report found that some energy systems are
highly dependent on large volumes of water resources (and vulnerable to
disruptions), while other energy sources are independent of water.
Further analysis of the opportunities for improving resilience and of
beneficial decoupling water and energy are in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See for example Sandia's web site at: http://www.sandia.gov/
energy-water/
\50\ See ``Energy Demands on Water Resources Report to Congress on
the Interdependency of Energy and Water,'' U.S. Department of Energy,
December 2006, http://www.sandia.gov/energy-water/
congress-report.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has developed
several studies and reports, including an updated report entitled
``Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation
Requirements'' in 2007.\51\ NETL has strong expertise on coal and
thermal power production at coal-fired power plants. Its study
indicates that water consumption is projected to increase over a range
of scenarios, while extraction is expected to decline. This is due to
an expected shift away from one-through cooling systems, which cycle
more extracted water through the plants, but consume (e.g., evaporate)
less than recycle cooling systems. The study also indicates that carbon
capture and storage (CCS) as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions will add significant water consumptive demands to coal-based
power production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2007. ``Estimating
Freshwater Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric Generation
Requirements'' 2007 Update, DOE/NETL-400/2007/1304, www.netl.doe.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other studies from federal labs and research institutions are
exploring links between energy systems and water requirements. The
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), for example, has been working on
the role of renewables to reduce water demands from the energy sector.
A recent research project by graduate students at the University of
California, Santa Barbara found that water use for renewable forms of
energy varies substantially.\52\ Solar photovoltaics, wind turbines,
and landfill gas-to-energy projects require very little water, if any.
Likewise, geothermal and concentrating solar power (CSP) systems that
employ dry cooling technology also have minimal water requirements. In
contrast, irrigated bio-energy crops could potentially consume
exponentially more water per unit of electricity generated than
thermoelectric plants. Geothermal plants may also have high water
requirements, depending on the geothermal resource and the conversion
technology employed. Many geothermal plants, however, rely on
geothermal fluids (often high in salts or other minerals). Finally,
although reservoirs often have multiple purposes (e.g., flood control,
water storage, and recreation), evaporative (consumptive) losses from
hydroelectric facilities per unit of electricity are higher than many
other forms of generation. As the following graph indicates, water
requirements vary substantially, depending on the primary fuel source
and the technology employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Information and graph are from Dennen, Bliss, Dana Larson,
Cheryl Lee, James Lee, Stacy Tellinghuisen, 2007. ``California's
Energy-Water Nexus: Water Use in Electricity Generation,'' Group
Project Report, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science &
Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, available at:
http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/ energywater/
The various water inputs to energy systems are, as noted, highly
variable. It is not at all clear that meeting our energy needs requires
large amounts of water, as has been the case in the past. Indeed, the
data above indicate that we have choices. An important step in
addressing the water and energy challenge is to analyze the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
relationships between them and the technology and policy options.
Recommendations for Further Research and Development
There are of course various approaches to meeting the challenge of
water and energy in the 21st century. I am pleased to have been asked
by this committee to provide some thoughts on directions for research
and development.
It is always useful to begin by examining the questions to be
addressed. If one asks how to provide low-cost water for energy
supplies and low-cost energy for water supplies, then the question
leads to certain kinds of analysis. This indeed is how some are framing
the question at present.
It seems clear that both water and energy are scarce in both the
economic and physical sense, and that there are many competing demands
for them. It also seems self-evident that environmental impacts (often
externalized in the past), are real and growing. One of the most
significant, but by no means the only one, is climate change.
These observations lead to a conclusion that we should ask a
different set of questions. It is tempting to take this opportunity to
deluge a Congressional Committee with a wish-list of research ideas.
Instead, I will start with just two questions:
1. How can we decouple water and energy systems where there
are high costs, stresses, damages, or vulnerabilities to
systems?
2. How can we maximize water and energy efficiency and
productivity so as to reduce demands on each and maximize
benefits to society?
Of course these questions involve important data collection and
analysis of sub-elements of each. To take my first example, we need to
identify costs (full costs and an accounting for distortions--e.g.,
subsidies and externalities--at all levels), stresses (e.g., limits of
systems and things like the causes of, probabilities of, and
consequences of, exceeding those limits), potential economic,
environmental, and social damages (including irreversible damages), and
vulnerabilities of systems to perturbations caused by either natural
events (dry spells) and/or of those with bad intensions (national
security). These are critically important questions for the Nation, and
they are not being properly asked and framed, let alone addressed.
The second question leads to a set of studies that is long overdue.
We have focused so heavily on supplying energy and water in unlimited
quantities at ``low prices'' that we have failed to ask the basic
questions regarding opportunities to do more with less, let alone
limits of the capacity of systems and the implications of inefficient
and unproductive use (waste) of critical resources.
My recommendation to this committee is that you follow these
important hearings with a process to formulate key questions and issues
to be addressed by the unsurpassed research, business, and public
policy capacity of the United States in addressing these critical
challenges. The Committee should give careful consideration to
designing, framing, and setting forth key questions to be addressed by
the research and development community (which I would take to include
research institutions, business, NGOs, and other interested
stakeholders as well as key government agencies) to meet the challenges
of water and energy for the country.
A good example of an effective collaborative along these lines that
involves a number of federal agencies as well as the research
community, local and State government, NGOs, business, and others is
the Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable, http://acwi.gov/swrr/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By focusing on the key questions, the Committee can provide both
the leadership and the guidance that is needed.
Conclusion: Opportunities for Integrated Water/Energy Policy Policy
Policy frameworks are critical to achieving success based on
advances in science and technology. In considering alternative policy
strategies, decision-makers should carefully analyze and consider the
potential multiple benefits available from integrated strategies.
The United States, like other nations, faces formidable challenges
in providing water and energy to its citizens in the face of scarcity,
rising costs, security threats, climate change, and much else. We are
fortunate to have the scientific and technological capacity, and the
institutions of governance, to take on these difficult challenges.
Policy formulation, starting with Congress asking penetrating and
thoughtful questions, is a critical starting point. From this
framework, research and development strategies can be developed to
address society's challenges in effective ways.
For the past century, the focus of technological innovation in
water systems was on the extraction, storage, and conveyance of water.
Huge dams, aqueduct systems, and ``appurtenant'' facilities were
designed, financed, and built to accomplish the task. Major rivers have
been entirely de-watered. The costs--economic, environmental, and
social--are evident.
Integrated water and energy management strategies, with a focus on
vastly improved end-use and economic efficiency for both, and careful
consideration of alternative technology opportunities provided by
advances in science and technology, can provide significant multiple
benefits to society. Costeffective improvements in energy and water
productivity, with associated economic and environmental quality
benefits, increased reliability and resilience of supply systems (all
elements of the ``multiple benefits''), are attainable.
It may be worth quoting the California Energy Commission from its
Integrated Energy Policy Report: ``Reducing the demand for energy is
the most effective way to reduce energy costs and bolster California's
economy.'' \54\ Consistent with this approach, improvements in
efficiency are identified by the California Department of Water
Resources as the largest (and in fact the most certain) new water
supply for the next quarter century, followed by groundwater recharge
and water reuse. The state's Energy Commission noted: ``The 2005 Water
Plan Update mirrors the state's adopted loading order for electricity
resources.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ California Energy Commission (2005). Integrated Energy Policy
Report, November 2005, CEC-100-2005-007-CMF.
\55\ Klein, Gary (2005). California Energy Commission, California's
Water--Energy Relationship. Final Staff Report, Prepared in Support of
the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report Proceeding, (04-IEPR-01E)
November 2005, CEC-700-2005-011-SF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodologies and metrics exist to tap the multiple benefits of
integrated water/energy strategies, though they can and need to be
improved. The policies required to incentivize, enable, and mandate
integrated water and energy policy exist and are being refined to tap
ample opportunities to improve both the economic and environmental
performance of water and energy systems.
With better information regarding energy implications of water use,
and water implications of energy use, public policy combined with
investment and management strategies can dramatically improve
productivity and efficiency. Potential benefits include improved
allocation of capital, avoided capital and operating costs, and reduced
burdens on rate-payers and tax-payers. Other benefits, including
restoration and maintenance of environmental quality, can also be
realized more cost-effectively through policy coordination. Full
benefits derived through water/energy strategies have not been
adequately quantified or factored into policy.
Public concern regarding environmental costs of diverting and
extracting water is another reason for the shift in technology focus
from extraction to efficiency. Precipitous declines in populations of
fish, and damage to ecosystems around the world, have driven this
growing call for more sustainable water systems.
Current technology can provide water supplies through efficiency
improvements at substantially less cost than the development of new
supplies in most areas. As water prices increase to reflect full
capital, operating, and environmental costs, it is likely that
technology will play an even greater role in providing water efficiency
improvements.
Biography for Robert C. Wilkinson
Dr. Robert C. Wilkinson is Director of the Water Policy Program at
the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at the
University of California, Santa Barbara, and he is a Lecturer in the
Environmental Studies Program at UCSB. Dr. Wilkinson's teaching,
research, and consulting focus on water policy, energy, climate change,
and environmental policy issues. Dr. Wilkinson is also a Senior Fellow
with the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Dr. Wilkinson advises businesses, government agencies, and non-
governmental organizations on water policy, climate research, and
environmental policy issues. He serves on the Task Force on Water and
Energy Technology for the California Climate Action Team and as an
advisor to State agencies including the California Energy Commission,
the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of
Water Resources, and others on water, energy, and climate issues. He
served on the advisory committee for California's 2005 State Water
Plan, and he represented the University of California on the Governor's
Task Force on Desalination. Dr. Wilkinson advises various federal
agencies including the, U.S. DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory
and the U.S. EPA on water and climate research, and he served as
coordinator for the climate impacts assessment of the California Region
for the US Global Change Research Program and the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy.
In 1990, Dr. Wilkinson established and directed the Graduate
Program in Environmental Science and Policy at the Central European
University based in Budapest, Hungary. He has worked extensively in
Western Europe, every country of Central Europe from Albania through
the Baltic States, and throughout the former Soviet Union including
Siberia and Central Asia. He has also worked in Australia, New Zealand,
Canada, Japan, South Africa, and China.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Wilkinson.
And Mr. Levinson, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARC LEVINSON, ECONOMIST, U.S. CORPORATE
RESEARCH, J.P. MORGAN CHASE
Mr. Levinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is quite an honor
for me to be with such a distinguished panel today. I am going
to speak about water supply risks and their impact on
investors.
First, it might help if I explain exactly where I fit in
the Wall Street ecosystem. I specialize in economic issues,
including environmental regulation, and my clients are
institutional investors who buy publicly-traded stock and
bonds. I say that to make clear that I have no connection
whatsoever to our mergers and acquisitions business or to the
lending business or to the many other things that an investment
bank does.
In my opinion, investors are much less concerned about
water supply risks than they should be. We recently published a
report, to which the Chairman alluded, contending that water-
supply risks are far more important to many companies than
investors believe. We also found that very few companies are
fully aware of these risks.
A lot of companies now produce PR brochures that talk about
how they are reducing water use per unit of output, but almost
none of these companies thoroughly assesses what we call its
water footprint, which is the total usage of water in its
supply chain, clear through to the consumption of its products.
Investors really have no way of evaluating the risk of business
disruption due to water scarcity or of comparing risks among
companies.
We think these risks take three forms. One is physical
risk. That is the most obvious. This is the risk to which the
Chairman alluded earlier that occurred with the Brown's Ferry
Reactor last year. It simply had to be shut down because there
was not enough water in the Tennessee River to cool it
adequately.
The second is a different situation. It is regulatory risk.
Regulatory risks involve government decisions to allocate and
price water in response to scarcity. Perhaps the best U.S.
example occurred in 2001, when lack of water in the Columbia
and Snake Rivers caused the Bonneville Power Administration to
curtail electricity sales to aluminum smelters in Montana,
Oregon, and Washington. In the short run, aluminum production
plummeted in the U.S. In the long run, the aluminum industry is
leaving the region because regulators responded to water
scarcity by raising the price of a key input, electricity. In
2001, there were ten aluminum smelters in the Northwest. Today
there are three still operating.
The third set of corporate risks is reputational. In a
number of places around the world consumers are taking
environmental considerations into account in deciding which
goods and services to buy, and we think companies that are
perceived as bad actors face a serious risk of consumer
backlash.
The risks of water scarcity, of course, are not evenly
spread through the economy. In addition to semiconductors and
power generation, water sensitivity is particularly acute in
the food processing and in oil and gas production.
I think food processing risks are well known to people,
perhaps less so in oil and gas where there is now a lot of
interest in shale formations. Shale rock contains very small
pores. Basically the oil or gas cannot migrate to the well
readily. The way this oil is recovered is by injecting large
amounts of water under high pressure, a technology called
fracture stimulation. This runs afoul of a lack of water in
many places, and so the lack of water is actually inhibiting
the recovery of oil that would otherwise be available.
The Committee asked me what the Federal Government might do
to facilitate the equitable and efficient allocation of water
supplies, and I wanted to give you three thoughts here.
First, if you look at overall U.S. water consumption, it
has actually been fairly flat, but there are some disturbing
trends. An increasing share of this consumption comes from
groundwater, which suggests that surface water resources have
been tapped out.
Irrigation accounts for about two-thirds of U.S.
groundwater withdrawals, and this share is probably growing. I
would point out that the effort to increase production of
ethanol actually increases the draw on groundwater by
encouraging the planting of corn and other crops in fairly arid
regions where it has to be irrigated.
There are more than 100,000 irrigation wells in the United
States, and only one-seventh of them, according to the
Agriculture Department, only one in seven irrigation wells has
a meter on it. If something is not metered, it is not being
paid for. And there is very little incentive to conserve
something that you are getting for free.
So I would suggest that here is an area for the Committee
to look at. I understand that State law rather than federal law
governs groundwater, but excessive use of groundwater clearly
affects interstate commerce, and so there is a federal interest
here. And in my view it would be useful for Congress to
encourage the states to apply methods of pricing groundwater
withdrawals to stimulate conservation. This should apply not
just to agriculture but to all groundwater withdrawals.
A second subject in which Congressional involvement might
be useful is localized water treatment. Almost all of our
public supplies are now treated centrally. As a result, we are
using drinking water to water roses and wash down parking lots.
This represents a huge waste of resources. There is now a lot
of work going on in developing decentralized water treatments.
This is in the R&D stage by many private companies. It might be
an area in which federal research funds or changes in federal
water treatment regulations would be helpful.
There is one other subject I want to touch on, and this is
power generation. I know there is a lot of talk on Capitol Hill
now about federal loans or guarantee programs for new-
generation nuclear plans and for coal plants with carbon
capture and sequestration. Both of these technologies require
large amounts of water. I think it important that the social
costs of these large water withdrawals be reflected in the
prices users pay for the electricity from these plants. It is
just bad policy for the government to be subsidizing water
usage, and this applies to power plants as much as to
agriculture and other industries.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Levinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marc Levinson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Marc Levinson, and I'm an
economist at JPMorgan Chase in New York. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak with you today about water-supply risks and their impact on
investors.
First, let me explain just where I fit in the Wall Street
ecosystem. I specialize in economic issues, including environmental
regulation, and my clients are institutional investors who buy publicly
traded stocks and bonds. I have no connection whatsoever to our loan
officers or to our investment bankers. My perspective is strictly that
of investors in public companies.
In my opinion, investors are much less concerned about water supply
risks than they should be. We recently published a report contending
that water-supply risks are far more important to many companies than
investors believe. We also found that very few companies seem fully
aware of these risks. While many companies now produce public relations
brochures that tell how they are reducing water use per unit of
production, almost none of these companies thoroughly assesses what we
call its water ``footprint,'' the total usage of water in the
production and consumption of its product. Investors have no way of
evaluating the risk of business disruption due to water scarcity, or of
comparing risks among companies.
We think these risks take three forms. The most obvious is physical
risk, which means an actual lack of water. This could have heavy costs
for an industry such as semiconductor manufacturing, which needs
massive quantities of clean water. Intel Corporation alone uses as much
water each year as a city the size of Rochester, New York. We estimate
that a single production interruption at a semiconductor plant could
cost $200 million in lost revenue and badly hurt the company's share
price. The customers waiting for those semiconductors would suffer
financial losses as well.
Physical risk is more common than generally realized. In 2007, for
example, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut a nuclear
plant because there simply wasn't enough acceptable cooling water in
the Tennessee River. We don't think the TVA is the only utility that
will experience this problem.
The second set of risks that companies face is regulatory.
Regulatory risks involve government decisions to allocate and price
water in response to scarcity. Perhaps the best US example occurred in
2001, when lack of water in the Columbia and Snake Rivers caused the
Bonneville Power Administration to curtail electricity sales to
aluminum smelters in Montana, Oregon, and Washington. In the short run,
US aluminum production plummeted. In the long run, the aluminum
industry is leaving the region, because regulators responded to water
scarcity by raising price of a key input, electricity. In 2001, there
were 10 aluminum smelters in the Northwest. Today, there are only
three.
The third set of corporate risks arising from water shortage is
reputational. In a number of places around the world, consumers are
taking environmental considerations into account in deciding which
goods and services to buy. We think companies that are perceived as
``bad actors'' by wasting water face a serious risk of consumer
backlash.
The risks of water scarcity are not evenly spread through the
economy. In addition to semiconductors and power generation, water
sensitivity is particularly acute in food processing and in oil and gas
production.
The food processing sector requires large amounts of water in its
supply chain, principally for crop production. Getting one pound of
beef to the consumer's table in the United States requires, on average,
about 2,200 gallons of water. Higher input costs, due in part to
increased competition for and uncertainty about water supply, already
are hurting food manufacturers.
In the oil-and-gas sector, there is a lot of excitement now about
shale formations. Shales contain rock with very small pores, such that
the oil and gas within the rock cannot readily migrate to wells. A
technology called fracture stimulation can help recover these
resources--but it does so by injecting large amounts of water under
high pressure. Water scarcity is already limiting the development of
energy shales in several parts of the country.
The Committee has asked me what the Federal Government might do to
facilitate the equitable and efficient allocation of water supplies.
Here are a few thoughts.
If you look at the aggregate numbers, U.S. water use has been
fairly flat since the 1980s, at about 400 billion gallons per year. But
there are disturbing trends. An increasing share of those 400 billion
gallons per year is groundwater rather than surface water. Annual
groundwater withdrawals rose 14 percent between 1985 and 2000, while
surface water withdrawals were flat. This suggests that many rivers and
reservoirs are being fully utilized, so water users are increasingly
relying on groundwater, which is subject to less regulation. This shift
will probably continue, because climate change is expected to reduce
the flow of surface water, especially in the Southwest.
Irrigation accounts for about two thirds of U.S. groundwater
withdrawals. Government promotion of biofuels has led to large
increases in corn plantings in some fairly arid states, especially on
the Great Plains, and it's likely that a lot of this increased acreage
is irrigated. This means even more demands on groundwater.
There more than 100,000 irrigation wells in the U.S., and only one-
seventh of them have meters. An unmetered well is likely to be a well
that a farmer can use without paying for the water. Of course, there is
little incentive to conserve something that is free. When the
Department of Agriculture asked farmers about barriers to reducing
energy use or conserving water, the most common response was that
conservation would not save enough money to cover its own costs. The
second most common response was that conservation measures are not
affordable. Both of these responses are ways of saying that water is so
cheap that it's not worth conserving.
I recognize that State law, rather than federal law, usually
governs groundwater. But excessive use of groundwater clearly affects
interstate commerce, so there is a federal interest here. In my view,
it would be useful for Congress to encourage the states to adopt
methods of pricing groundwater withdrawals to stimulate conservation.
Pricing should apply not just to agriculture, but to all users
withdrawing groundwater.
A second subject in which Congressional involvement might be useful
is localized water treatment. Almost all of our public water supplies
are treated in centralized treatment plants. As a result, drinking
water is being used to water rose bushes and wash down parking lots.
This represents a large waste of resources. It might be more cost
effective to treat water at individual buildings rather than centrally,
so that only water needed for human consumption is treated. Several
companies are looking into technologies for decentralized water
treatment, and this may be an area in which federal research funds or
changes in federal water-treatment regulations would be helpful.
There is one other subject I want to touch on, and that is power
generation. I know there is a great deal of talk on Capitol Hill about
federal loans or loan guarantees for new-generation nuclear plants and
for coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration. Both of these
technologies require very large amounts of water. I think it is
important that the social cost of those large water withdrawals be
reflected in the prices users pay for electricity from those plants.
It's simply bad policy for the government to be subsidizing water
usage, and that applies just as much to power plants as to agriculture
and other industries.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
Biography for Marc Levinson
Marc Levinson is an economist at JPMorgan Chase in New York. He
specializes in microeconomic issues, including industry structure and
regulation, and works closely with JPMorgan's equity and credit
analysts and their clients in understanding the impact of economic
developments on publicly traded securities. He is accredited both as a
supervisory credit analyst and as an equity analyst, although he does
not make investment recommendations with respect to individual
companies.
Mr. Levinson frequently publishes investment research on energy,
climate change, and environmental regulation. In 2007, he participated
in drafting the National Petroleum Council's report to the U.S.
Secretary of Energy, entitled ``Facing the Hard Truths About Energy.''
He also contributed to the London Accord, a collaborative effort among
several major investment banks to examine the investment implications
of climate change.
Prior to joining one of JPMorgan's predecessor companies in 1999,
Marc Levinson was finance and economics editor of The Economist in
London. He was formerly a writer on business and economics for
Newsweek. His articles have appeared in such publications as the
Harvard Business Review, the Financial Times, and Foreign Affairs. He
is the author of four books, most recently The Box: How the Shipping
Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger
(Princeton University Press, 2006), which has received numerous awards.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Levinson, and Dr. Pulwarty,
Dr. Pulwarty, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER S. PULWARTY, PHYSICAL SCIENTIST, CLIMATE
PROGRAM OFFICE; DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL INTEGRATED DROUGHT
INFORMATION SYSTEM (NIDIS), OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
RESEARCH, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Pulwarty. Good morning, Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member
Hall, and the Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting
me to speak with you today on the National Integrated Drought
Information System and its role in addressing some of our water
supply challenges in the 21st century.
My name is Roger Pulwarty. I am a climate scientist in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
Director of the National Integrated Drought Information System
or NIDIS Program. I have also been fortunate to be a lead
author on adaptation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Fourth Assessment report and on the recently released
IPCC technical report on climate and water resources, the
results of which I was fortunate to have presented before this
committee last year.
As is widely acknowledged, drought is not a purely physical
phenomenon, but is an interplay between water availability and
the needs of humans and the environment. Drought is slow in
onset and its effects, such as impacts on energy including
hydropower, tourism, and commodity markets, can continue to be
felt long after an event is over.
As outlined in Public Law 109-430, NIDIS is envisioned to
serve as an early warning information system for managing
drought-related risks in the 21st century. Impetus for
information services to support federal, State, and local
responses has risen from ongoing concerns over water security
and scarcity as mentioned before in the Southwest since 1999,
and the Southeast since early 2007, along with declining water
levels in the three largest Great Lakes since the late 1980s.
A great deal of progress has been made since the NIDIS
Program was established in December 2006. A national
interagency and interstate program implementation team has been
developed, the web-based drought portal was launched in
November 2007. It now provides comprehensive national-level
information on ongoing drought conditions and emerging
conditions. NOAA and NIDIS are accelerating their improvements
of operational climate forecasts and information on past
droughts tailored to watersheds and local scales such as the
upper basin of the Colorado and the Southeast, including
Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and the Carolinas.
NIDIS works through numerous federal agencies, tribes,
states, and local governments. As such, there is significant
leveraging of existing observing system infrastructure and
products such as the drought monitor to provide improved data
streams at the level of detail needed for decision-making at
watersheds, Colorado basin, and at regional scales such as the
Southeast.
Data and predictions are by themselves insufficient to
ensure adaptation and flexibility in the water resources
sector. A hallmark, no pun intended, of NIDIS is the provision
of decision support tools and training, coupled with the
ability of users to report local conditions back to the portal.
Near-term activities include tailoring of the drought portal to
add locally-specific data and information at the watershed and
county levels. Water managers are already explicitly
considering how to incorporate the potential effects of a
changing climate into specific designs.
For example, in the California Southern Metropolitan Water
District and Seattle and Las Vegas, adaptive measures have been
undertaken. But the barriers to implementing adaptive measures
include the inability of some natural systems to adapt at the
rate of combined demographic pressures and climate,
understanding and quantifying our water demands and impediments
to the flow of timely and reliable information relevant for
decision-making.
Climate services designed to support adaptation, of which
NIDIS is an example, will be important in coping with current
and future extremes and their effects on water resources,
regardless of how that change is derived. As part of their
drought management, municipalities and State agencies will have
improved climate information and forecasts at key entry points
for allocating domestic and industrial water usage.
Water resource managers will have access to more detailed
information on low-flow conditions when balancing irrigation
and hydropower with the needs of wildlife and flows to support
coastal economies. Emergency declarations can now better reach
out to those communities in need of assistance with improved
information on the aerial extent and severity of developing
droughts.
So while per-capita water use is declining in some parts of
the country, trends and demand, observational records, and
climate projections provide abundant evidence that our fresh
water resources are vulnerable. Priorities for drought early
warning information and decision support tools to prepare our
nation for these challenges requires a mixed portfolio of
approaches, including: enhancing the networks of systematic
observations of key elements in the human, ecological, and
physical systems, including monitoring groundwater and
vegetation stress; promoting drought plans that maintain State
sovereignty but responds to the needs of shared watersheds,
including developing trans-boundary monitoring and early-
warning information for our internationally-shared watersheds
with our neighbors to the north and the south; developing
drought information impact assessment tools that include the
costs and benefits of various adaptations and changing water
demands; and finally, developing usable drought management
triggers for specific planning thresholds and scenarios in
agriculture, water, energy, and the coast.
The challenges of managing water supplies to meet social,
economic, and environmental needs requires matching what we do
with what we actually know. NIDIS offers the Nation a mechanism
to achieve this service requirement by providing a basis for
integrating drought monitoring, research, and information for
decision support.
Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing today,
and I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pulwarty follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger S. Pulwarty
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting me to speak with you today about the National Integrated
Drought Information System (NIDIS); the information/data currently
available to local, State and regional water decision-makers; and how
we can improve the information available to these decision-makers for
adapting to current and future drought conditions.
My name is Roger Pulwarty; I am a Physical Scientist in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Climate
Program Office and the Director for the U.S. National Integrated
Drought Information System (NIDIS). I had the honor of serving as a
lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Working Group II, in Chapter 17, Assessment of Adaptation Practices,
Options, Constraints and Capacity, and on the IPCC Special Report on
Climate Change and Water Resources released this past April. I am also
a lead author of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP),
Synthesis and Assessment Report on Weather and Climate Extremes in a
Changing Climate and the Unified Synthesis Report. My role in these
reports focuses on impact assessment and adaptation responses.
In general, NOAA's climate programs provide the Nation with
services and information to improve management of climate sensitive
sectors, such as energy, agriculture, water, and living marine
resources, through observations, analyses and predictions, decision
support tools, and sustained user interaction. Our services include
assessments and predictions of climate change and variability on time
scales ranging from weeks to decades for a variety of phenomena,
including drought. In this testimony I will highlight: (1) present
drought-related adaptation measures being undertaken in the water
sector across the U.S., and (2) the role of the NIDIS in improving our
capacity for responding to drought.
Drought is not a purely physical phenomenon, but is an interplay
between water availability and the needs of humans and the environment.
Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate and while its
features vary from region to region, drought can occur almost anywhere.
Because droughts can have profound societal and environmental impacts,
there are several definitions of drought, each correct in its use.
These definitions include meteorological drought, which is defined by
the magnitude of precipitation departures below long-term average
values for a season or longer; agricultural drought, which is defined
as the soil moisture deficit that impacts crops, pastures, and range
lands; and hydrological drought, which is defined by significant
impacts on water supplies. NOAA provides information on all three types
of droughts in its U.S. drought information products.
Drought is a unique natural hazard. It is slow in onset, does not
typically impact infrastructure directly, and its secondary effects,
such as impacts on tourism, commodity markets, transportation,
wildfires, insect epidemics, soil erosion, and hydropower, are
frequently larger and longer lasting than the primary effects. Primary
effects include water shortages and crop, livestock, and wildlife
losses. Drought is estimated to result in average annual losses to all
sectors of the economy of between $6 to $8 billion (in 2002 dollars;
Economic Statistics for NOAA, April 2006, 5th edition). The costliest
U.S. drought of the past forty years occurred in 1988 and caused more
than $62 billion (in 2002 dollars) of economic losses (Economic
Statistics for NOAA, April 2006, 5th edition). Although drought has not
threatened the overall viability of U.S. agriculture, it does impose
costs on regional and local agricultural economies. Severe wild fires
and prolonged fire seasons are brought on by drought and strong winds.
These fires, similar to the ones in California this past year, can
cause billions of dollars in additional damages and fire suppression
costs.
Recent IPCC reports, including the recent Technical Report on
Climate Change and Water Resources, highlight emerging needs for the
development and communication of climate and climate impacts
information to inform adaptation and mitigation across sectors when
changes are beyond average climate conditions and extremes. Drought
risk management provides an important prototype for testing adaptation
strategies across the full spectrum of climate time scales. Most
communities (and countries) currently manage drought through reactive,
crisis-driven approaches. Experience shows that effecting change in
managing climate-related risk is most readily accomplished when: (1) a
focusing event (climatic, legal, or social) occurs and creates
widespread public awareness; (2) leadership and the public are engaged;
and (3) a basis for integrating monitoring, research, and management is
established. The NIDIS offers the Nation a mechanism to achieve this
latter service requirement. The IPCC Fourth Assessment (2007) and the
CCSP reports offer impetus for integrating knowledge about the nature
of societal and environmental vulnerability, attribution of the
relative influences of climate variability and change, and for services
to support federal, State and local adaptive responses to the full
spectrum of climate. This impetus is further strengthened by the
ongoing debates as seen occurring in connection with water scarcity in
the West since 1999 and in the Southeast since 2007, along with
declining Great Lake water levels since 1986.
Given that a drought occurs when water supply is insufficient to
meet water demand, drought impacts are evaluated relative to the demand
from environmental, economic, agricultural, and cultural uses. The
impacts of past droughts have been difficult to estimate. This problem
results from the nature of drought, which is a phenomenon with slow
onset and demise that does not create readily-identified and discrete
short-term structural impacts. Drought may be the only natural hazard
in which the secondary impacts can be greater than the more
identifiable primary impacts, such as crop damage. Impacts may continue
to be felt long past the event itself as secondary effects cascade
through economies, ecosystems, and livelihoods.
The National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006
(NIDIS Act; 15 U.S.C. 313d and 313d note) prescribes an approach
for drought monitoring, forecasting, and early warning at watershed,
State and county levels across the United States. Led by NOAA, this
approach is being developed through the consolidation of physical/
hydrological and socioeconomic impacts data, engaging those affected by
drought, integration of observing networks, development of a suite of
drought decision support and simulation tools, and the interactive
delivery of standardized products through an Internet portal
(www.drought.gov). NIDIS is envisioned to be a dynamic and accessible
drought risk information system that provides users with the capacity
to determine the potential impacts of drought, and the decision support
tools needed to better prepare for and mitigate the effects of drought.
As requested in the 2004 Western Governors' Association Report,
Creating a Drought Early Warning System for the 21st Century: The
National Integrated Drought Information System, NIDIS is being designed
to serve as an early warning system for drought and drought-related
risks in the 21st century. With these guidelines in mind, the explicit
goal of NIDIS is to enable society to respond to periods of short-term
and sustained drought through improved monitoring, prediction, risk
assessment, and communication.
Over the next five years, NIDIS will build on the successes of the
U.S. Drought Monitor, Seasonal Outlooks, and other tools and products
provided by NOAA and other agencies to effect fuller coordination of
relevant monitoring, forecasting, and impact assessment efforts at
national, watershed (e.g., the Colorado Basin), states (e.g., GA, AL,
FL), and local levels. NIDIS is beginning to provide a better
understanding of how and why droughts affect society, the economy, and
the environment, and is improving accessibility, dissemination, and use
of early warning information for drought risk management. The goal is
to close the gap between the information that is available and the
information that is needed for proactive drought risk reduction.
Federal monitoring and prediction programs that feed into NIDIS are
also working with universities, private institutions, and other non-
federal entities to provide information needed for effective drought
preparedness and mitigation.
NIDIS will provide more comprehensive and timely drought
information and forecasts for many users to help mitigate drought-
related impacts. For example, hydropower authorities will benefit from
enhanced water supply forecasts that aim to incorporate improvements in
monitoring soil moisture, precipitation, and temperature for snowpack
conditions into forecasting efforts and drought information for water
management decisions. Municipalities and State agencies will have
improved drought information, based on present conditions and past
events, and forecasts when allocating both domestic and industrial
water usage. Water resource managers will have access to more
information when balancing irrigation water rights with the needs of
wildlife. Purchasing decisions by ranchers for hay and other feed
supplies will be enhanced through the use of drought information to
identify areas of greatest demand and the potential for shortages.
Changes in water quantity and quality due to climate change and other
factors are expected to affect food production and prices. Farmers will
be better positioned to make decisions on which crops to plant and when
to plant them. Since drought information is used in allocating federal
emergency drought relief, improvements in monitoring networks will also
lead to more accurate assessments of drought and, as a result,
emergency declaration decisions that better reach out to those
communities in need of assistance. An example of a specific improvement
in monitoring networks is the addition of soil moisture sensors to the
climate reference network by NOAA/NIDIS. The identification of gaps in
monitoring needed for early warning system development, primarily
within snow cover, soil moisture, stream gauge, and ground water
networks (in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey), will be
identified in NIDIS early warning pilot programs in selected locations.
Also, in partnership with Department of Agriculture (USDA), priorities
for snow cover/snow telemetry sites will be updated as need arises.
Cross-agency partnerships to fill monitoring gaps will be developed
with the interagency NIDIS Executive Council.
Data alone is not sufficient to ensure effective adaptation. A
hallmark of NIDIS is the provision of decision support tools coupled
with the ability for users to report localized conditions. To this end,
NIDIS will link multi-disciplinary observations from a number of
sources to `on-the-ground' conditions that will yield value-added
information for agricultural, recreational, water management,
commercial, and other sectors. Multi-disciplinary observations include
land surface conditions (e.g., for fire/fuel risk and soil moisture),
streamflow and precipitation observations, climate models, and sectoral
and environmental impacts information (to identify potential high
impact areas or sectors for different types of drought events). Also,
impacts information (i.e., how drought is affecting a location, how
similar/past droughts have affected the location) will be provided by
NIDIS, as required in the NIDIS Act, and as recommended by the Western
Governors Report, and decades of study on the types of information
leads to effective early warning triggers for response.
The first step towards accomplishing these goals was to produce an
implementation plan. With the results of deliberate and broad-based
input from workshops held with federal, State, and local agencies,
academic researchers, and other stakeholders, the NIDIS implementation
plan was produced and published in June 2007. To provide guidance on
system implementation, technical working groups were formed to focus on
five key components of NIDIS. These components are public awareness and
education, engaging preparedness communities, integrated monitoring and
forecasting, interdisciplinary research and applications, and the
development of a national drought information portal.
A great deal of progress has been made since the NIDIS program was
established in December 2006. The U.S. Drought Portal, launched in
November 2007 and hosted on the NIDIS website (www.drought.gov), is
operational and providing comprehensive information on emerging and
ongoing droughts, and enhancing the Nation's drought preparedness.
Other Current NIDIS activities include conducting the first national
workshop to assess the status of drought early warning systems across
the United States, 17-19 June, Kansas City, MO. A NIDIS Southeast
drought workshop was recently held in Peachtree City, Georgia, 29-30
April 2008 to begin coordinating drought early warning information
systems for the Southeast region especially for the Appalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa basins
encompassing the upper watersheds of Georgia to the coastal resources
of Alabama and Florida.
While NOAA is the lead agency for NIDIS, NOAA works with numerous
federal agencies, emergency managers and planners, State
climatologists, and State and local governments, to obtain and use
drought information. NOAA routinely disseminates drought forecast
information via its National Weather Service (NWS) drought statements,
and collaborates with State drought committees and the media to assure
NOAA information is correctly understood and used. NOAA strives to
provide an end-to-end seamless suite of drought forecasts, regional and
local information, and interpretation via its Climate Prediction
Center, six Regional Climate Centers, Regional Integrated Sciences and
Assessments (RISA) including the Southeastern Climate Consortium, local
NWS field offices and State climatologists. Efforts are underway to
improve drought early warning systems including coordinating
interagency drought monitoring, forecasting, and developing indicators
and management triggers for societal benefit. The other major federal
agencies involved in NIDIS are the Department of the Interior, USDA,
the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the Department of
Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of
Transportation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation. There is
significant leveraging of existing observing system infrastructure,
data, and products produced by operating agencies, for example,
stations of the NOAA National Weather Service Cooperative Observer
Program, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service SNOTEL (SNOpack
TELemetry) network, Soil Climate Analysis Network, National Climate
Data Center Climate Reference Network, and the United States Geological
Survey streamflow and ground-water networks, as well as the USDA-Joint
Agricultural Weather Facility and the USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service/Water and Climate Center Weekly Report--Snowpack/
Drought Monitor Update. NIDIS also provides a framework for
coordinating the research agenda among these agencies.
At present NOAA/NIDIS is supporting the development of new drought
monitoring and prediction products and accelerating future improvements
of NOAA's operational climate forecast and application products through
the use of competitive grants, and through the tailoring of the U.S.
Drought Portal to add locally specific data and information at the
level of watersheds and counties. Questions being addressed include
early warnings of low flow conditions on the Colorado, on drought and
fire risk, agriculture on the Southern Great Plains and the reliability
of water supplies in the Southeast U.S.
Information services for adaptation on short-term (seasonal) or
longer-term (multi-year) drought, will be important in coping with
current climate vulnerabilities and early impacts in the near-term, and
will help build resilient economies as our climate changes, regardless
of how that change is derived. It is important to note that unmitigated
climate change could, in the long-term, exceed the capacity of some
natural, managed and human systems to adapt especially in drought
prone--heavily developing regions such as the Southwest. If climate
change results in increasing water scarcity relative to demands, future
adaptations may include technical changes that improve water use
efficiency, demand management (e.g., through metering and pricing), and
institutional changes that improve the tradability of water rights. If
climate change affects water quality, adaptive strategies will have to
be developed to protect the ensuing human uses, ecosystems and aquatic
life uses. It takes time to fully implement such changes, so they are
likely to become more effective as time passes. The availability of
water for each type of use may be affected or even limited by other
competing uses of the resource.
Climate is one factor among many that produce changes in our
environment. Demographic, socioeconomic and technological changes may
play a more important role in most time horizons and regions. As the
number of people and attendant demands upon already stressed river
basins and groundwater sources increase, even small changes in our
climate, induced naturally or anthropogenically, can trigger large
impacts on water resources. Present hydrological conditions are not
anticipated to continue into the future (the traditional assumption).
It will be difficult to detect a clear climate change effect within the
next couple of decades, even if there is an underlying trend.
Consequently, methods for adaptation in the face of these uncertainties
are needed. Early warnings of changes in the physical system and of
thresholds or critical points that affect management priorities become
important. Water managers in some states are already considering
explicitly how to incorporate the potential effects of climate change
into specific designs and multi-stakeholder settings. Integrated water
resources and coastal zone management are based around the concepts of
flexibility and adaptability, using measures which can be easily
altered or are robust to changing conditions. For example, in
California and Nevada adaptive management measures (including water
conservation, reclamation, conjunctive use of surface and groundwater,
and desalination of brackish water) have been advocated as means of
pro-actively responding to climate change threats on water supply.
Consequently a complete analysis of the effects of climate change on
human water uses should consider cross-sector interactions, including
the impacts of and opportunities for changes in water use efficiency
and intentional transfers of the use of water from one sector to
another. For example, voluntary water transfers (including short-term
water leasing and permanent sales of water rights) from agricultural to
urban or environmental uses are becoming increasingly common in the
Western United States. An additional major challenge in the coming
decades will be maintaining water supplies for environmental services,
which support tourism, hunting, fishing and other recreational
economies throughout the United States.
Adaptation is unavoidable because climate is always varying even if
changes in variability are amplified or dampened by anthropogenic
warming. Moreover, adaptation will be necessary to meet the challenge
of demographic pressures and climate trends which we are already
experiencing. There are significant barriers to implementing adaptation
in complex settings. These barriers include both the inability of
natural systems to adapt at the rate and magnitude of demographic,
economic, climatic and other changes, as well as technological,
financial, cognitive, behavioral, social and cultural constraints.
There are also significant knowledge gaps for adaptation, as well as
impediments to flows of knowledge and information relevant for
decision-makers. In addition, the scale at which reliable information
is produced (i.e., global) does not always match with what is needed
for adaptation decisions (i.e., watershed and local). New planning
processes are attempting to overcome these barriers at local, regional
and national levels in both developing and developed countries.
Adaptive capacity to manage climate changes can be increased by
introducing adaptation measures into development planning and
operations (sometimes termed `mainstreaming'). This can be achieved by
including adaptation measures in land-use planning and infrastructure
design, or by including measures to reduce vulnerability in existing
disaster preparedness programs (such as introducing drought warning
systems based on actual management needs).
Major barriers to implementing adaptive management measures are
adaptation itself is not yet a high priority, and that the validity of
local manifestations of global climate change remains in question.
Coping with the uncertainties associated with estimates of future
climate change and the impacts on economic and environmental resources
means we will have to adopt management measures that are robust enough
to apply to a range of potential scenarios, some as yet undefined.
Greenhouse gas mitigation is not enough to reduce climatic risks, nor
does identifying the need for adaptations translate into actions that
reduce vulnerability. By implementing mainstreaming initiatives,
adaptation to demographic and climate change will become part of, or
will be consistent with, other well-established programs to increase
societal resilience, particularly environmental impacts assessments,
adaptive management and sustainable development.
Climate variability and change affect the function and operation of
existing water infrastructure--including hydropower, structural flood
defenses, drainage, and irrigation systems--as well as water management
practices. Observational records and climate projections provide
abundant evidence that freshwater resources are vulnerable and have the
potential to be strongly impacted by climate variability and change,
with wide-ranging consequences on human societies and ecosystems.
Observed warming over several decades has been linked to changes in the
large-scale hydrological cycle. Several gaps in knowledge exist in
terms of observations and research required to better understand the
relationship between climate change and water issues. Observational
data and data access are prerequisites for adaptive management, yet
many gaps exist in observational networks. It is important to improve
understanding and modeling of changes in climate related to the
hydrological cycle at scales relevant to decision-making. Information
about the water-related impacts of climate change, including their
socioeconomic dimensions, is incomplete, especially with respect to
water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and groundwater.
Early warning information and decision support tools that are
currently being developed to better prepare our nation, locally and
regionally, for drought include:
Enhancing networks of systematic observations of key
elements of physical, biological, managed and human systems
affected by climate variability and change particularly in
regions where such networks have been identified as
insufficient;
Strengthening and expanding water conservation and
efficiency programs;
Adopting integrated strategies at the federal level
(including high level advisory councils) and support a
framework for collaboration between research and management;
Promoting local watershed efforts;
Improving groundwater monitoring and management
strategies;
Developing usable drought management triggers for
planning in agriculture, water, energy, health, environment,
and coastal zones;
Developing economic impacts assessment tools
including the costs and benefits of various adaptations;
Coordinating among drought monitoring and forecasting
efforts at federal regional, State, and local levels; and
Actively engaging communities and states in
monitoring, preparedness, and planning.
The challenges of managing water supplies to meet social, economic,
and environmental needs requires matching what we know with what we do.
NOAA and NIDIS provide mechanisms for the Federal Government to help
agencies, states and local communities meet their economic, cultural,
and environmental water management challenges in a timely and efficient
manner.
Thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing today and I
will be happy to answer any questions the Members of the Committee may
have.
Biography for Roger S. Pulwarty
Roger S. Pulwarty is a climate scientist and the Director of the
National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) at the
Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
in Boulder, Colorado. He also leads the risk management component of
the World Bank/NOAA project on ``Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate in
the Caribbean.'' From 1998-2002 Roger directed the NOAA/Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) Program. Roger's research
interests are on climate in the Americas, assessing social and
environmental vulnerability, and designing climate services to meet
information needs in water resources, ecosystem and agricultural
management in the United States.
Dr. Pulwarty has served in advisory capacities to various Federal
and State agencies, the National Research Council, the Glen/Grand
Canyon Adaptive Management Program, and to the UNDP, UNEP, World Bank
and the Organization of American States. He is a lead author on the
2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group 2, the IPCC Special
Report on Climate Change and Water Resources, and on the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment reports. Roger is
Professor Adjunct at the University of Colorado, Boulder and the
University of the West Indies. He is the co-editor of Hurricanes:
Climate and Societal Impacts (Springer, 1997).
Discussion
Expanding the Federal Government's Role in Water Research and
Development
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Pulwarty. At this point we
will open our first round of questions. The Chair recognizes
himself for five minutes.
When I was growing up, my father used to tell me about how
really his life and life on our farm changed when the rural
electrification came out there. At that time we had a good
well. That is how we got our water, and my other grandparents,
we had a good spring, and everybody had their own little tin
can down at the, or cup rather down at the spring. But those
times have gone. Even if you have a spring or a well, they
probably are going to be contaminated now.
And so particularly in rural America, and when I saw rural
America, I am not talking about way out farms like we were. I
am talking about even small little subdivisions right outside
of town, oftentimes they don't have water. And as we call it
toting water is something that many, many Americans are doing
right now.
And constantly folks are telling me, well, you know, the
waterline is within a mile of our home, you know, but we can't
get it the rest of the way. So this is a real problem. It is a
problem as you pointed out with the nexus of water and energy
and manufacturing. Wars have been fought and they will continue
to be fought over water and probably more so in the future.
So what I would like to do is, using your cumulative
wisdom, is to get some suggestions on a federal role. You have
already, if any, and you have given us some of those ideas, but
I want to be more narrow in the sense that this committee
really only has jurisdiction over federal research and
development, I think, in this area.
And so I think we have been, done a pretty good job of
trying to take good ideas and build a consensus and move them
forward. So what I would like for you to do, what I might say
in the longer-term, is to submit back to us any suggestions you
might have that this committee can do.
But right now I would like to hear you cumulatively talk
about one, two, or three of the maybe most significant things
that this committee could come forward with in terms of federal
R&D. Mr. Matheson and Mr. Hall already have a bill on that, and
we would like to see how that, you know, that role could be
expanded.
So I will open the floor to whoever wants to start off.
Anyone want to start?
Dr. Overpeck. Without any doubt research and development
can play a huge role in how we manage our water. I think what
is really the biggest problem is what we don't know. We don't
know what water lies underground. We don't really know how to
predict what kind of stream flows will occur in the future, or
how groundwater infiltration will change in the future at the
scales that are important for decision-makers, that is, at the
scale of your farm or watershed.
We don't know how climate is going to vary in the future
with enough precision to be able to forecast it, and we don't
know how climate change is going to affect our water reserves.
So all of these things require more research and
development to get the clear answers so that we develop our
country and move populations around and grow in a way that is
sensible and makes sense with regards to our true future water
supply.
And I think my colleagues will talk about also as we start
to develop new energy economy, that has to take into account
water. Water is far more valuable, I think, than many of our
citizens realize. We have to provide the underlying framework
for making good decisions, and I think much of that stems from
research and development.
I applaud the bill that your colleagues have put together.
I think it is very important to be looking at efficiency and
conservation because certainly we can save a lot of water that
way. Thank you.
Dr. Parker. I would like to compliment you on the creation
of this H.R. 3957 bill that I was handed. I was just scanning
it and realized that it covers everything from water pricing
for conservation and water reuse for efficiency of use of the
resource. I think Dr. Wilkinson mentioned water reclamation in
California and the use of perhaps dual systems and the use of
water of various qualities for various purposes.
Now, it is an infrastructure challenge, but I think we
better be heading in that direction, particularly in the arid
West where I think the availability of the resource probably
may, is becoming a limiting factor.
Chairman Gordon. Anyone else?
Dr. Parker. I think it is a terrific bill.
Chairman Gordon. Well, Mr. Matheson, being from Utah, has a
firsthand interest and knowledge of that.
Dr. Wilkinson. Just quickly, I think there is some obvious
opportunities in technology development for efficiency. We have
come a long way just in the last decade or two with the
efficiency of a lot of plumbing fixtures and a lot of other
opportunities for laser leveling of fields and irrigation
technologies and the rest. So I think there is a long way to
go, and there is a lot of opportunities there.
The other is water efficiency of our energy systems. What
can we do to develop energy systems that require less water or
no water, and how can we develop portfolios of energy systems
that take pressure off of our water systems. I think those two
are important areas.
Finally, filtering technology. A lot of our water now with
concerns about pharmaceuticals and the rest is going to be
treated to greater degrees, and looking for efficient ways to
use water and to filter and treat it in ways that meet the
health standards that we all want to see but do that efficiency
I think is going to be very important.
Chairman Gordon. I will try to abide by the rules here.
Does anyone else have a real quick suggestion?
Mr. Levinson. Yes, sir. I did want to touch on the point
that water availability is not simply an engineering issue and
an issue of R&D. I think that while the Committee clearly
doesn't have a tax jurisdiction, the Committee can do a great
deal to bring into public discussion the point that water is,
in fact, a scarce resource and needs to be priced. Because,
frankly, without pricing the possibilities are quite limited.
Chairman Gordon. But right now with our limited time, but I
am trying to be more specific to what we can do from this
committee right now, getting suggestions.
Mr. Levinson. Yes. I think that to, while certainly there
is a need to promote conservation technology and that is all
well and good, you really also have a bully pulpit here to use
in order to make clear that this is a scarce resource. There
does need to be action on the pricing front if we are actually
going to have conservation.
Chairman Gordon. We are going to have a variety of
hearings, and we hope to do that.
Dr. Pulwarty, did you have anything you want to add?
Dr. Pulwarty. One of the major issues is developing some of
the new technologies, not only for efficiency but for the
transfer of technology into practice, and I think the bills
make that case.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you. There will be a point where we
are going to have, as was pointed out, a megadrought or other
problem that will bring the whole Congress, the Presidency all
together for a water program, and what happens oftentimes is
that is, you know, the cow is out of the barn.
So what I hope that we can do is lay a foundation with R&D
so that at that time we can really start to implement it. What
I would request that you do is get back to the Committee any
suggestions in that area that you think, again, that there is
either a legislative role or a role for us to request different
agencies to be involved. We will then try to take those ideas
and build a consensus and do some good work here.
Ms. Johnson is recognized for five minutes. Oh, excuse me.
I am sorry. Mr. Hall is recognized for five minutes.
Water Information and Technology Abroad
Mr. Hall. I would always yield to Ms. Johnson if she wanted
me to, but let me get mine behind us here, and thanks for that
peek into your background, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed that. No
telling how good you could have done if you would have had more
opportunities as a young man.
One of the old references I have always heard and any time
you get a speech as long as 15 or 20 minutes, someone always
refers to water and fire as wonderful friends but fearful
enemies. And we have sure experienced that on more than one
time on the plains of Texas and in the drought that we had and
then the over-availability of water. So I guess, Dr. Parker,
availability is important, and it is also important to manage
it.
So I would ask Dr. Parker, we have to operate on
information and knowledge, and what, how would you compare the
information and technology available to water managers in the
United States to those in other nations that face similar
problems to what we face?
Dr. Parker. I would say the short answer is I think we have
got better information. I think that there are nations such as
Germany that we might be lagging behind in terms of pushing
innovative alternative green technologies, that kind of thing,
but in terms of hydrologic information, et cetera, I think we
are a little better off.
Mr. Hall. Well, you very ably pointed out, I think, in your
testimony that when you discussed water quality and how it has
improved since the passage of several federal water laws or
water acts.
What else can we do to ensure the quality and security of
our water supply? We have you here to testify, and the Chairman
and others here will take your testimony, study it, and
everything you say is available to every Member of Congress
because of the court reporter that is taking it down somewhere
here that will report it.
What else can we do to ensure the quality and security of
our water supply? We can pass laws. What is the next step?
Dr. Parker. I actually edited it out of my spoken testimony
some ideas about non-point source pollution, which is, it is
not only a technical and a management issue, but it is also a
legal issue in the sense that where I referred to some of our
laws and practices as becoming obsolete. There is a prime
example of an issue that isn't dealt with very well within the
legislation.
We have done some work for EPA. Now, this isn't the,
probably the appropriate thing for me to say, advising them on
urban water supply system security. They have a research
program in Cincinnati. It is a very good one. It is under-
funded. It ought to be well supported. It was driven by
concerns about deliberate acts of harm to water supply systems.
They are doing good work. It has brought application beyond the
terrorism context, but I think it is kind of a hand-to-mouth
operation that each year has to fight for the limited
resources. It seems under-appreciated to me to the extent that
you have any influence over that.
Mr. Hall. I thank you.
Biofuels
Quickly, Dr. Pulwarty, one of the benefits of NIDIS that
you described in your testimony is that farmers would be better
positioned to make decisions on which crops to plant and when
to plant them. Now, given the overwhelming incentives we passed
last year for biofuels and the reference to other crops that
they ought to plant and those that planted other crops
including corn followed the market and the increase in
reception of the benefits of planting that. Have you seen
caution or hesitation on the part of farmers to plant fuel
crops after seeing the information that NIDIS has provided? Or
is the monetary incentive overwhelming the risk of the natural
environment?
Got an answer for that?
Dr. Pulwarty. The latter.
Mr. Hall. That is a good answer, and I think my time is up.
Chairman Gordon. You are a very good witness.
Now the gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
Climate and Water Quality and Quantity
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
To the panel, I chair the Subcommittee of Water Resource
and Development on transportation infrastructure, and we are
dealing a great deal with supply. I am wondering what about the
temperature change affects water supply, quality or quantity?
Dr. Overpeck. Well, temperature change certainly has a
major effect on water supply. As temperature goes up, there is
an increase, and it is not a linear increase, in the amount of
moisture that the atmosphere can hold. So the atmosphere will
demand more moisture, and where will it get that moisture? It
will get it from soil, it will get it from forests, it will get
it from agricultural plants. It will get them from reservoirs.
It will get them from any open source of water, and it will
draw that water out.
So these temperature changes that are coming are huge, just
gigantic, and they will demand a lot of water, and they will
make the droughts of the past look pale, because it will be so
much hotter.
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Dr. Pulwarty. I wanted to complement Dr. Overpeck's
statement. One of the impacts on temperatures is on snowpack,
and what we have seen not only in terms of early runoff, there
has been an impact on the actual quality, the amount of water
that is in the snow. In 2005, 2006, on the upper Colorado we
received 105 percent of precipitation. Because of the dryness
before that and because of the warmth of that spring, 105
percent of precipitation was reduced to about 70 percent of the
reliable stream flow.
We have been seeing that in different years based on
temperature, evaporation, and sublimation, and vegetation
stress.
Workforce and Education
Ms. Johnson. I know that every major body of water in this
country is contaminated, and I also know that we have a
shortage of expertise in addressing this issue. And we have
dealt with that somewhat in this committee, because we know
there is such a shortage of science and math engineering
students.
I am wondering how would you determine that we would
address many of the problems now as it relates to the research
here with such a shortage of people? Of qualified people?
Dr. Overpeck. I think this goes back to Congressman Hall's
question between the United States and other countries of the
world, our advantage is that we are an advanced country. That
means that we ought to be able to bring to bear much more
knowledge. Knowledge is power. But it is not just knowledge,
power for our country, it is power for every individual that
has to make decisions in their day-to-day life about water.
And so we really need programs that educate everybody, not
just the water managers, but the people who use water, because
so many of the solutions will require cooperation of the
citizens of the United States and that we work together. There
are huge discrepancies between the per-person water use in
cities in the West that really are astounding, and we need to
learn how to use our very valuable water treasure more
carefully.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I am doing a series of
cable shows on subjects to try to begin to educate the public,
and one of the major questions I still have is how do we pay
for all of this? We are looking at creating a dedicated fund or
maybe the economist----
Mr. Levinson. If I may, being the economist in the room,
offer two thoughts on this. One is that this all doesn't have
to be in the public sector. There is in certain areas a lot of
potential for private investment in water conservation, if it
pays off. And I, you know, hate to sound like a broken record,
but to a certain extent you get back into pricing here because
that is what makes it interesting for people to buy
conservation equipment.
And to the extent that there is a demand for water
conservation, there will be a lot of private initiative in
developing ways to conserve water and process technologies in
particular industries, for example, or improving irrigation or
that sort of thing. And there will be private people paying for
this R&D. It doesn't have to be done by the government.
And second, to the extent that it is priced, part of the
amount that people pay for water can, in fact, be used for
public sector research and public sector infrastructure in this
area.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Levinson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Chairman Gordon. And Mr. Rohrabacher, you are recognized.
More on Climate and Water Quality and Quantity
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
coming from California I certainly understand the significance
of what has been presented to us today. We live on a desert
that goes right up to the ocean, and a lot of times we forget
about that and Mulholland and other great champions of
California, well known and appreciated, and I wonder if we are,
our generation is going to have, create a better future as the
Mulhollands did for us in the past.
Dr. Wilkinson, let me just ask you, and I did really
appreciate your detailed analysis of the California situation.
What, this year and the last couple of years, have we had
trouble with snowfall in California?
Dr. Wilkinson. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We did? We do? Okay. Tell me about it. Do
we, is the snowpack, I understand the snowpack in the Sierra
Nevada is actually higher this year than it was.
Dr. Wilkinson. Well, we have considerable variability. We
had good snowpack earlier in the year. For the last two months
we have had very little, and actually it started quite late. I
took my graduate students up to Yosemite in December, and we
drove across the pass. Over the mountains there was virtually
no snow at all in early December. Normally, of course----
Mr. Rohrabacher. In December?
Dr. Wilkinson. In December. Normally we would have a lot of
snow.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. Okay.
Dr. Wilkinson. But between early December then when it
started snowing and about two months ago we got a pretty good
snowpack.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And on the average is it higher this year
than last year?
Dr. Wilkinson. It is a little bit----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Than years in the past?
Dr. Wilkinson.--below the average level but not a huge
amount. The problem is that with very little for the last two
months, we are now facing very serious water situation. Of
course, you probably know last week they did the snow survey at
the Summit by Echo Lake, and they were walking on soil. There
was virtually no snow. So it is quite troubling.
Now, in terms of a water supply situation this year, we
certainly are seeing a very clear signal that we are getting a
shift at mid-elevations from snow to rain because of warmer
conditions. So that pattern is already evident.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. I just note, Dr. Overpeck, that you
did mention that the droughts were so much worse in the past
than we are experiencing today, and while I certainly, you
know, I am clearly one who disagrees with the idea that we have
man-made climate change going on, but why is it, why are you
convinced that these droughts in the past have, which, of
course, obviously had nothing to do with human activity, why
are you so convinced that today it is all a result of human
activity even though the droughts in the past were worse than
they are today?
Dr. Overpeck. Good question. In my testimony where I was
able to expound a little bit longer, I tried to highlight that
we don't know the origin of the current droughts. We do know
that they are being made worse by the higher temperatures. That
is causing the rain on snow problem and the early melting of
the snow that is giving California a little fit this year. But
we really don't know the origin of these droughts that are
going on now, and that is why I tried to emphasize this idea of
a no-regrets approach.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. I would suggest that we also don't
know the cause of the temperature rise. I have a lot of
sympathy with people who say, ``Look, this is what the climate
is, and we got to prepare for it because there will be
droughts, we need to do water, et cetera.'' But when people
have to lace their testimony with a reconfirmation of the man-
made global warming theory, it doesn't add to the validity
here. It doesn't. To me it seems, frankly, it takes away from
the presentation.
One last thing here, and I would like to note this, and Mr.
Levinson mentioned that nuclear energy uses water. Have you
looked at the high-temperature gas cool reactor as a new type
of reactor, and does that use the same water?
Mr. Levinson. I am probably not the best one here to talk
about that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me note, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Levinson. Others may be more familiar.
Mr. Rohrabacher.--traditional nuclear power plants do use
water, obviously, because they are based on steam. There is a,
and I keep pushing this because I want people to take a look at
this alternative, there is a high-temperature gas cool reactor.
My friends who believe in global warming will love it as well,
I might add, because it is, of course, clean and does not
produce ``greenhouse gases,'' but it does not use the water
that the traditional nuclear power plants do.
And I would suggest it is something we should look at,
because I do understand there is a direct relationship between
the amount of energy and water, and Dr. Wilkinson, your
testimony was very insightful in that. In fact, the
desalinization now actually uses less water than we use in
pumping water throughout the State of California, and I think
that is a significant fact that we need to take into
consideration.
Thank you very much to the whole panel.
Population Growth and Water Supply Concerns
Mr. Baird. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman. I will fill
in for, as Chair until Mr. Gordon returns.
I will recognize myself for five minutes.
Do we have a sense of carrying capacity of our country in
terms of how big our population can get? You know, population
is growing rather rapidly right now, and we are talking about
already seeing shortfalls of water. Any thoughts of that in
terms of what the tradeoffs would be? Do we have some numbers
that say if our population grows by X, then we are going to
have to reduce water consumption by Y? Any thoughts about that?
Dr. Wilkinson.
Dr. Wilkinson. I don't know the specific answer in terms of
what number we might accommodate. I can give you, though, some
breakdown. In California we use about 80 percent of the water
for agriculture and about 20 percent for the urban system for
people directly. In much of the west it is even more for
agriculture, on the order of 90 percent. This varies, of
course, tremendously around the country and the type of
agriculture and so forth. In California, a lot of the
discussion revolves around transfers of water from agriculture
to urban.
So in theory, one could double the state's population and
only take 20 percent of the water currently going to
agriculture. That would leave another 60 percent still. That is
in theory. I am not sure anybody really wants twice as many
people in California or anywhere else. We have a lot of
crowding already.
But the transfer of water back and forth becomes in terms
of a limiting factor and carrying capacity an interesting
question. I will say that Los Angeles has increased by one
million people and held water use level. That means per capita
use has gone down considerably, and that is mainly through
these efficiency programs, more efficient plumbing fixtures and
the rest.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Levinson.
Mr. Levinson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to mention there
is our recent report that was referred to earlier a very
interesting picture of population growth and water consumption
in southern Nevada. The story there is that the local water
authorities simply imposed very draconian measures right at the
start of this decade, basically telling people, no, they
couldn't plant grass anymore, golf courses couldn't draw public
water supplies anymore, that sort of thing. They experienced
quite rapid population growth during the past seven or eight
years, and at the same time they experienced a fairly sharp
decline in water consumption.
So I think that the notion that there is a necessary
correlation between population growth and the growth of water
consumption isn't right.
Mr. Baird. Dr. Pulwarty.
Dr. Pulwarty. To complement that, there has been changes in
the efficiency of use. We know that it took 200 tons of water
to create a ton of steel years ago. Now it takes three to four.
We are seeing lots of reductions in the per capita use of
water. But that does not mean that demand is not increasing
because population is increasing, even if we are leveling off
in terms of per capita use.
One of the things we do have to keep in mind when we talk
about carrying capacity is also we are ingenious, you know. One
hundred years ago we talked about some of these issues, and we
did have a lot of adaptive strategies in place. Where we are
seeing the most immediate threats are in the environmental
services provided by the natural environment in terms of
recreation and tourism and the sources of our water supply.
That I think is where we will bear the brunt of immediate
pressure.
Water Quality Concerns
Mr. Baird. We had a rather disturbing report here in the
D.C. Metro area about a month and a half or so ago about
contamination of the drinking water. Admittedly in parts of a
trillion but reports of anti-seizure medications, a host of
other medications, et cetera.
Two questions. How common is this across the U.S. water
supply, and what technologies exist today to get us actually
pure water? If somebody has twin boys at home and any parent
here could get him water out of the drinking fountain, and you
say to yourself, so what meds am I giving my kids today with
their glass of water in their sippy cup? You would feel a
little bad about that.
What can you tell us about what we can do to purify the
water further and how common this problem is?
Dr. Overpeck. Well, I don't think we have any experts here
on that side of water, but I certainly share your concern as a
parent. And I know from my colleagues at the University of
Arizona that there is lots we can do in terms of researching
out what is in our water and how we then treat it to remove
unwanted contaminants, because most of our water treatment
doesn't deal with that. And one of the solutions down the road,
which my colleagues in California are already adopting is
essentially toilet-to-tap. We are having to use this water that
has been used before, and we will do that more and more into
the future.
So we better get some research going to figure this out.
That is all I can say.
Mr. Baird. A more appetizing terminology might help advance
that effort.
Ocean Desalinization's Environmental Impacts
One last question. We read in some of your testimony about
desalinization. What are the adverse, or are there adverse
environmental impacts to desalinization if you have got a bunch
of, you know, are we changing the mineral makeup of the near-
shore environment?
And any thoughts on that? I am particularly thinking about
as we look at ocean acidification as a byproduct of climate
change and the reduction of available carbonate. Does
desalinization also take carbonate out of the, as a mineral,
take it out of the system or----
Dr. Wilkinson. There are two primary concerns about
environmental impacts from ocean desalinization. One is the
entrapment and entrainment of marine organisms on the intake
side of the equation, and there are ways to remedy that by
drawing in the water through the sand and beach wells and so
forth. But there are concerns about that.
And then on the flip, as you mentioned, is discharge, the
brine discharge back to the ocean, which is more saline than
what was taken out because we are taking some fresh water and
then returning a saltier mix back in. Some of the solutions to
that proposed are to mix that with effluent from waste water
systems so actually the salinity is closer to the ocean, may
not be a bad solution. But both of those are challenges for
ocean deals.
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith.
Water Storage
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel
for your insight on the issues.
It is interesting. I come from rural Nebraska, where
irrigation is very important. It is actually helping feed the
world I would argue. Yet I only heard a little bit about
surface storage.
Dr. Wilkinson, would you say that surface storage can
perhaps help us mitigate climate change?
Dr. Wilkinson. Surface storage clearly plays an important
role already in our water supply systems around the country.
One of the concerns with surface storage is with increased
variability in the system, as Dr. Overpeck described, we may
need, where we have surface systems that are providing both
flood control as well as water supply, we may need to hold
those systems at lower levels to provide that flood control or
take further risks because of pattern changes in precipitation.
So that becomes problematic. We would sacrifice water
supply and hydropower for those systems that provide those
services if we are to operate those systems to deal with
increased flood control risks.
The other issue with surface storage----
Mr. Smith. Wait. If I could have clarification. I am sorry.
Dr. Wilkinson. Uh-huh.
Mr. Smith. I am trying to follow you. You are saying that
we need to draw down?
Dr. Wilkinson. We will have to leave more flood control
space during the flood.
Mr. Smith. Because of----
Dr. Wilkinson. Because of concerns that we may have strong
precipitation events that would fill them up quickly and then
spill into flood, and we have experienced some of that. We have
had some problems around the country, and so one of the
concerns when you have less certainty as to what might happen
with precipitation, but an increased chance that you may have
high precipitation events, then to maintain that flood control
system you begin to lose, there is a tradeoff there. You begin
to lose some of that water storage.
The other big issue, of course, as Jonathan mentioned, with
increased temperatures, we are going to have increased
evaporation, and that is actually quite a serious issue with
surface storage, especially in arid areas. We are losing a lot
of water. Now, that doesn't mean we are not going to continue
to use surface storage systems, but we may need to recalibrate
our rural curves and our expectations of water supply coming
out of them based on climate change.
Mr. Smith. Can you give any numbers for what you think the
difference is today? It is, I think we might be able to agree
that climate change is a bit of a moving target in terms of
defining it. We are even getting away from the global warming
terminology and going to climate change based on some of the
numbers of the last 24 months or so.
Can you paint a picture with numbers, easily understood,
perhaps, of where we are with surface storage today, where we
need to be, compared to the past 100 years or so?
Dr. Wilkinson. I can't give you a specific number, we need
X amount more. Of course, it depends around the country what
our water supply situation is. Let me suggest two other
considerations, though, in addition to and coupled with surface
storage, and that is groundwater management. We have tremendous
opportunities right now around the country, certainly in
California we have huge opportunities to manage groundwater
more effectively and to use groundwater storage. Picture it as
an empty bucket underground, storage potential, that can be
managed. That is an opportunity, I think, we pretty much all
agree is a priority for water management. Of course, that means
maintaining quality of what gets into the ground and once it is
in the ground, maintaining that quality so we don't have the
kinds of issues that were just mentioned, the concerns about
water quality and what is safe to drink.
Mr. Smith. Now, you said we needed X amount more of what? I
think you said something like we need X amount more.
Dr. Wilkinson. I can't tell you exactly how much more
surface storage the country would need, and part of that would
depend on how well we use groundwater and how efficiently we
use water. That would, in turn, reflect what our surface
storage requirements would be nationwide.
So I would have to think about it in the context of the
demand side, how are we using water, the other options for
storage, including groundwater, and then what we need to do
with our surface storage systems. I would suggest we would need
to consider that as a package in the integrated way.
Mr. Smith. And would you suggest that we need more
reservoirs?
Dr. Wilkinson. I think in some places we might and some
places there is serious discussion of removing reservoirs. So I
think you probably have everything on the table. Where do we
need more? Where do we have systems that may not be cost
effective and may need to come out.
Mr. Smith. Very good. Very good.
Dr. Overpeck.
Dr. Overpeck. Yeah. Thank you. I mean, I think what we
really are running up against here is we don't have the
knowledge to answer your questions. We don't know exactly how
the water supply from the atmosphere will change in the future
and how the demand by the atmosphere in terms of evaporation
will change in the future. We need to nail that down and factor
that into our models of both above ground and below ground
storage.
But I do agree with Dr. Wilkinson that below ground storage
might turn out to be a much more advantageous approach,
particularly in states like your own that have abundant
aquifers. We are already doing this in Arizona and many other
states, such as Texas, are putting the water underground. And
you don't always get out what you put in, but nonetheless, you
don't have the problem of evaporation or some of the other
problems that are associated with above-ground storage.
And one of the ironies of climate change is that with the
probability of increased frequency of drought comes a
probability of increased flood as well. This is because the
hydrologic cycle of the atmosphere is getting accelerated, and
there is more moisture up there, more energy, and it gives us
both extremes in greater frequency.
And we are already seeing this around the world.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Smith. We are trying to
beat a vote here, and Ms. Richardson has been gracious enough
to yield to Mr. Matheson, who has another commitment, and you
are recognized for five minutes.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Role
Mr. Matheson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief and
maybe not use all five minutes.
You had a discussion with the Chairman earlier about the
bill I introduced, the Water Use Efficiency and Conservation
Research Act of 2007. As you probably know, it would establish
a research, development, and demonstration program within the
EPA's office of research and development to promote efficiency
in conservation.
I was curious what role that the people on the panel would
envision the EPA should have in supporting our long-term water
efficiency and conservation effort policies in this country?
I don't know who wants to answer. Anyone can answer.
Dr. Wilkinson. Let me just start out briefly, I think that
EPA deserves a lot of credit for some very good work over the
years. The low-impact development, some of the slides I was
showing, storm water capture and attenuation of pollution, for
example. That they are doing very good work on water use
efficiency.
Of course, it is the 1992 Energy Act that includes the
requirements for efficiency in plumbing fixtures, and that has
made a huge difference. EPA has done a lot to follow up on
that, so I think they have already done a lot of good work. I
think it is a very helpful move in what you have proposed here
to take it a step further.
Dr. Parker. I see EPA as a very visible entity throughout
the water supply community. I see them as advocates as various
approaches to water supply and completion. They are out at
conferences, they are in regulatory situations, they are in
planning activities. There is only so much that they can do,
though, to advocate without putting a little money on the
table. And their research budget has been cut back so severely
in the last few years they are losing their credibility.
I think you have nailed it with this, to give them a little
bit of money to push just what is needed.
Mr. Matheson. I appreciate that, and I notice in your
testimony and reports from your organization, Dr. Parker, you
make a number of recommendations for additional research.
Could you maybe offer just your opinion about what you
think are the highest priorities or the most critical areas
where we ought to be investing in R&D, looking out over the
next 20, 30 years for where we want to go? What do you think
are the best priorities for R&D on water conservation and water
use?
Dr. Parker. I think we need to invest more in dual water
systems. I think we need to invest more in the institutional
side of the house. It is severely neglected. Ms. Johnson from
Texas was talking about her concern about human resources, and
I interpreted her concern as being professionals in the field
but then the conversation took sort of the direction of public,
the level of how informed the public is.
But the truth is is that in terms of having professionals
available to address problems and staff our agencies and our
consulting companies, et cetera, is really in sorry shape. The
dwindling research budget for graduate students in universities
is not adequate to produce the people that we need in our field
just when the problems are becoming most challenging. And the
social science side of it has always been neglected. The water
policy experts that I know are all in their 60s. So we are
losing the few that we have.
So the social sciences, innovative supply technologies,
conservation, I think our hydrologic networks are probably
adequate, but they have been allowed to be eroded.
Mr. Matheson. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague letting me go.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, and now Mr. Hall is recognized
for a quick question, and then we are going to finish up with
Ms. Richardson.
Can We Capture and Store Rain Water?
Mr. Hall. I ask the question of Dr. Pulwarty. Something
that has been bothering me for a long time, and you know, need
spawns breakthroughs and wars bring on weaponry like the
Manhattan Project and things like that. And shouldn't we be
thinking in the long-term thinking in the future of how to save
water?
And it worries me, I have been working on a bill trying to
put together something for a future, a study for the future of
working on a bill, maybe even a sense of Congress or something
that or some study group, when a bottle of water gets to be
worth more than a good bottle of beer or a bottle of oil, you
know, we got to go to thinking more about it.
And I see in Texas and west Texas the rains fall, and in
east Texas rain is falling, and it goes on down to the sea.
Shouldn't we be capturing that someday, even at 100,000 acres
at a time to have it? And we don't have that need yet, and it
is too expensive now, but I remember when it was too expensive
to have a module for astronauts to escape a shuttle from. And
we shouldn't ever think anything is too expensive to save
lives, but it was also too heavy. Engineers couldn't prove it,
but someday is there, I will just leave this thought with you
gentlemen.
Be thinking about a way to, giant sumps or something, to
capture that water and not let it run off to the sea and have
it for the time when we have the droughts.
Yes, sir.
Dr. Pulwarty. I think this is an extremely important
question as to what mix and types of storage mechanisms that we
are, in fact, talking about, and at the same time have enough
left over in the system to make sure that the coastal economies
that depend on fresh water and flow for oyster beds, mussels,
and other things like that are themselves supported as a
result.
One of the issues we have with withdrawing water for
storage is we then increase saline intrusion from salt water
into the near-shore aquifers. So as long as we are balancing
all of those kinds of issues, then I think, yes, storage is one
of the options.
And we do have to think in terms of groundwater as well,
simply because if you can't fill the reservoirs you have, extra
storage does not help us.
Mr. Hall. One day I think we will see a huge metal or
otherwise sumps under there, and at my age I don't even buy
green bananas, so I can't look that far. I can't see that far
ahead, but you younger men, and this young Chairman here, I am
going to get him to work with me on something to set up some
kind of a study like that so we have a plan for 30 years from
now.
And I will try to stay in Congress that long to see that
they carry it out.
Mr., I yield back my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I have already made
arrangements for Mr. Hall to say my obituary so, Ms.
Richardson, you are recognized.
More on Ocean Desalinization's Environmental Impacts
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Parker, as you can hear from Mr. Hall and our Chairman
here, you are in need of the next generation of water folks. As
you can see, we have got great folks here that I am really
concerned of the day when we won't have Mr. Hall here to give
us good analogies.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite you and or maybe one
of the hearings we could have in the future would be about
desalination. The largest home of the country's largest and
most advanced federally-sponsored seawater desalination
research and development project is in my district. Dr.
Wilkinson, I was a little surprised with your comment because
back on January 30, 2008, the Long Beach Water and the United
States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
constructed an under-ocean floor intake and discharge
demonstration system, which I happened to view because it is
right there at the Bluff Park where I walk my dogs on the
weekend. And the only other similar facility is in Japan, and I
was particularly, caught your comment because it was founded
that essentially the underwater ocean floor intake system, the
ecological impacts of entrainment and impingement typically
associated with open ocean intakes are avoided with this
system, which is what when you were asked the question. And
this natural biological filtration process reduces the organic
and suspended solids largely eliminating the need for
additional pretreatment, which reduces the overall energy
footprint and cost of operation.
So I am not sure if you are familiar with the success of
what we recently had. The project was, as I said, recently
completed. I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be well worth either
one of us taking a trip. We can take a Tennessee guy and have
you have a real good time in California, or we could have a
hearing here. I think there has been some very recent
information.
And Dr. Wilkinson, I am not sure if you are familiar with
those results, but they have been substantial to the impacts of
being nearly 30 percent more energy efficient than the reverse
osmosis technology system.
Dr. Wilkinson. I think you are exactly right. The Long
Beach project is quite good, and the Bureau of Reclamation has
been helping.
My point was that using that kind of an intake avoids the
entrainment and impingement, so that is one of the
opportunities where the geology supports it to use that kind of
system. I think that is a success, and I think they are doing
some very good work in Long Beach.
Ms. Richardson. So, in terms of funding and research and
things that we can do, I think it is a valid area for us to
consider.
Chairman Gordon. I certainly agree. I just talked to our
staff and she said that we need to be sure to get somebody in
on a future hearing. Her response was that we have been talking
with them extensively, and the term she used about what they
are doing was ``fascinating.'' So I am glad that is coming out
of Long Beach, and we want to continue to learn more about it.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you. We are maybe eight minutes away
from a vote, so let me thank our witnesses for appearing here
today. Under the rules of the Committee the record will be held
open for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements
and additional questions that they might have of the witnesses.
I ask witnesses if you will respond to us if you see particular
areas of federal R&D and also if you know a particular agency
you think where that should be carried out. Such information
would be most welcome, and it will be a part of our thought
process.
And this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Stephen D. Parker, Director, Water Science and Technology
Board, National Research Council
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Please provide the Committee with recommendations of additional
Federal research and development to increase water supply and water use
efficiency.
A1. See Confronting the Nation's Water Problems (2004)\1\ by a
committee of the Water Science and Technology Board. This report was
called for by a Congressional mandate and would seem to provide a very
complete response to this question. See in particular the executive
summary and Table 3-1 for particulars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Academies of Science, 2004. Confronting the Nation's
Water Problems: The Role of Research. Water Science and Technology
Board, Committee on Assessment of Water Resources Research, National
Research Council, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. In your testimony, you point out a number of issues that exist do
to aging infrastructure and outdated water management systems. If you
were to prioritize these issues, which we are often called on to do as
lawmakers with limited funds, which of these issues would you address
first? What viable solutions exist that need to be adopted on a broad
scale? Which area has been lacking research that we now need to devote
resources to?
A1. Personally, I believe federal leadership through EPA programs or
research funding should give priority to (not necessarily in order):
water reuse for potable and non-potable purposes,
including use of dual water supply systems;
alternative, innovative, green urban stormwater and
combined sewer overflow system design and management; and
water demand management approaches.
Q2. In recent years we have been exploring a number of new energy
sources to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels;
however, as you know, a number of these alternative energy sources
require large amounts of water. How do those changes in societal
preferences affect your calculations on available water resources?
A2. The ``water-energy'' nexus presents many challenges to those
concerned with water requirements for energy development and energy
requirements for water supply. The WSTB has been unsuccessfully trying
to develop a comprehensive study in this area. We have few positions as
an entity and my personal experience is limited. My only
recommendations would be that consideration of energy alternatives take
into account very carefully the water implications. This does not
appear to have been the case in the crafting of biofuels policy as
indicated in a 2007 WSTB report Water Implications of Biofuels
Production in the United States (summary attached).
Q3. In order to face the coming challenges in water availability and
quality, we need qualified scientists and engineers. Could you discuss
the number of graduate and post-graduate students going into water
issues versus other scientific pursuits? Is this enough to provide
critical information to decision-makers over the next few decades? What
can be done to encourage greater interest in this subject?
A3. The issue you identify is worrisome. I have no real numbers, as
perhaps the National Science Foundation might, but it appears that new
folks are not entering the water field and that our workforce is aging.
It seems that restoration of respectable funding levels for water
resources research might reverse the problem, as we certainly are going
to have well qualified people in many disciplines, including the social
sciences, to help address the increasingly complex problems that are
emerging. The attached Confronting the Nation's Water Problems (2004)
should help shed some light.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. Federal drinking-water quality regulations for naturally occurring
toxins, such as arsenate, can be burdensome to small communities, as
costs of remediation are very high and far beyond the budget of a small
town. Are these challenges best addressed at the local, State, or
national level, and what types of solutions should be proposed?
A1. This question identifies a very large and challenging issue that
affects a fifth of the U.S. population. It is also a problem being
addressed by EPA. In 1997 the WSTB published Safe Water from Every Tap:
Improving Water Service to Small Communities, a report that provides
guides on relevant technological, financial, institutional, and
operational issues. The report is attached in pdf; I personally have
not tracked EPA follow through. You might peruse this report or its
summary and then ask EPA for information and opinions.
Q2. What are your views on balancing the demand for various uses of
water, including, drinking water; agricultural uses; energy generation;
habitat, especially for endangered species; and recreation?
A2. Conflicting demands are presenting themselves in many regions of
the Nation, and conflicts are not limited to arid areas. The ACF-ACT
basins in GA-FL-AL provide a vivid example and there will be more of
this in the future. Each case is unique and it is hard to generalize,
but in my opinion decisions must be informed by advanced simulation/
optimization models, with visualization capabilities, to produce
results for discussions by experts in all relevant disciplines and
decision-makers along with all stakeholders. Not everyone is going to
get everything they desire but consensus on outcomes can be achieved.
It is unfortunate that the venues for such decision-making were
effectively eliminated with the demise of the many river basins in the
early 1980s. In my opinion, such river basin commissions may have been
ahead of their time and should be resurrected.
Question submitted by Representative Russ Carnahan
Q1. Could better data and monitoring improve water quality and
quantity for St. Louis and surrounding areas?
A1. Yes. Such data would be necessary but insufficient. The attached
2008 WSTB report Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water
Act: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities discusses this and
describes several implementation actions that should be pursued at the
federal, State, and local levels.
Question submitted by Representative David Wu
Q1. It is important that states and local communities are part of the
discussion regarding water challenges. However, I am worried that some
stakeholders may have been overlooked. The United States has unique
political relationships with more than 560 tribes. Many of these tribes
have treaties with the United States that recognize tribes continue to
have certain rights; in some cases this includes water. This is a very
important topic we are discussing here today and all stakeholders
should have a voice at the table. Has your board included tribes in its
work? If not, why has this not been done? Will you include tribes in
the future?
A1. Yes. The WSTB has engaged tribes and other relevant stakeholders in
its work--both as committee members and as ``resource people'' to help
inform our process.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Jonathan Overpeck, Director, Institute for the Study of
Planet Earth; Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences,
University of Arizona
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Please provide the Committee with recommendations of additional
federal research and development to increase water supply and water use
efficiency.
A1. Several federal research and development efforts would contribute
to increasing water supply, and/or using our water supply more
efficiently. These include:
1) A well-funded multi-year (I suspect at least 10 years would be
needed) National Water Supply Science and Assessment Program. This
effort would undoubtedly have to be multi-agency (e.g., NOAA, NSF,
USGS, NASA, USDA), and ensure at least 50 percent of the funds were
targeted at the extramural research community (e.g., universities and
private firms)--to ensure maximum peer-review, regional focus, and
interdisciplinarity. This Program could be part of, and would benefit
greatly from, a National Climate Service (see more below) that was
explicitly directed to include water supply in its mandate. Major foci
should include:
1a) documenting the size and quality of current below-ground
water resources at the scale of one kilometer or less. This is
currently not known for most parts of the country, and would
require drilling, geophysics, modeling and data synthesis.
1b) obtaining much improved estimates of likely future
climate-related changes in water availability, in terms of
rainfall, snow, evaporation run-off, stream-flow, aquifer
recharge and other metrics. This will require substantial
climate research (e.g., to understand the dynamics of the North
American monsoon and tropical storms), climate modeling and
hydrological modeling. The goal should be to make substantial
improvements on the climate and water projections included in
the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (2007). Close partnership between the scientific
research community and regional water-related decision-makers
is critical, and the program should focus significant funding
on the regional science and assessment often neglected in
federal R&D programs.
1c) a thorough investigation of how well the Nation's current
water storage system is working, and how it can be augmented,
e.g., by increased above-ground and below-ground storage. This
investigation should factor in climate change (1b, above), as
well as possible social and environmental issues that are, or
could emerge as, problems. Although the promise of further
above-ground storage is limited, below-ground storage potential
has not been thoroughly evaluated.
1d) a complete interdisciplinary (e.g., natural science,
social science, economics and law) examination of how water is
currently used, and how greater efficiency could be achieved.
Studies of this type have occurred, but they have tended to be
small, short-term, and not interdisciplinary enough to guide
effective policy at both national and regional scales. All
aspects of water use need to be examined, understood, and
optimized for maximum efficiency.
2) An improved Integrated National Climate and Water Monitoring System
is needed to track water supply, water quality and water use
projections, and to help update them as will inevitably be needed. The
system should be designed to support water-use policy and to give
stakeholders a comprehensive inventory of local to national water
supplies (below and above ground) at any given point in time, from the
present into the future. Over the past couple decades, streamflow
monitoring (gauging) has declined due to funding cuts just as water
supply concerns have become more acute. The same holds true for climate
monitoring at the local to regional scales needed for water supply
prediction. The proposed Integrated National Climate and Water
Monitoring system should include monitoring of all underground
resources, and should be designed to support the proposed (#1 above)
National Water Supply Science and Assessment Program and other water
storage programs.
3) A funded National Water Oversight Program or Commission is needed to
ensure that all policy decisions made at local to national levels
include scientifically robust assessments of their possible impact on
water supply. For example, as the Nation explores alternative energy
solutions, water requirements (savings or usage) should be factored in.
The same holds true for public lands and agricultural policy. Water
supply is too important to be just an afterthought.
4) A national Water Education initiative is needed in order to make
sure that our citizens understand water supply issues broadly (e.g.,
including climate and energy issues) and are prepared to work together
to ensure the Nation's water supply into the future. Essential parts of
this initiative should include K-12 education, informal programs, and
university training, and--especially critical--the next generation of
water supply scientists and engineers. As water supplies become more
limited due to population increases, aquifer depletion, and/or climate
change, the need for this expanded workforce will only increase.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. One of the things that has been stressed in recent National
Academies of Science reports is the need for more regional modeling and
greater information resources at the regional level. You state in your
testimony that the current warming has led to a decrease in spring
snow-pack. Given that this year was a record year for snowfall in the
Rockies, what is your confidence level regarding the fall off of spring
snowpack attributable to climate change versus natural climate
variability?
A1. I strongly concur with the NAS-stated need for great focus on
regional climate and water research, observation, modeling and
assessment. All of the research and development initiatives that I
advocate in this document need to have greater regional focus than is
the norm for federal programs. The reason for more regional focus is
simply because most decisions, particularly with respect to water, are
made at the regional-scale. Also, our scientific understanding of
physical processes (e.g., climatic and hydrologic) at the regional
scale lags understanding at broader scales. This limits effective
regional decision-making.
Both natural climate variability and human-caused climate change
are, and will increasingly be, water supply concerns, particularly in
the U.S. West and Southwest. Because there is substantial climate
variability from year to year, and particularly with respect to
precipitation, it is dangerous to read much into what happens in any
given year. The details of the most recent ``water year'' (starting in
October, 2007) have not all been analyzed yet, but the trend over the
last couple decades has been toward an increasingly small spring
snowpack at the scale of the U.S. West. This has recently been
attributed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature to warmer
temperatures, and also--in the same study--connected to a trend toward
smaller Colorado River flows. Thus, there may always be exceptions in
any given year, but the longer-term trend is what we should be focused
on and worried about.
Q2. In your written statement, you include a figure from the IPCC that
illustrates the changes in runoff projected by the mid-21st century
relative to the average run off from 1900-1970. Isn't it true that the
early part of the 20th century is recognized as being an unusually wet
period and that rainfall and water supply were at the high range of
natural variability? Does this IPCC figure take into account such that
this level of run off may not have been average, but in fact above
average if looking over a longer period of time?
A2. Parts of the 20th century do appear to have been wetter than the
long-term (e.g., 1000 year) average in some regions (e.g., much of the
U.S. West, particularly the Southwest and region of the Colorado
River). The figure in my testimony was not from the IPCC 4th
Assessment, but rather was from the more recent work of Milly et al.,
2008 (reference included in my written testimony). They probably used
the 1900-1970 average because run-off records exist for this period
across the U.S. (and much of the globe), and because they considered
the period to be representative of what many people think of as
``average.'' This period did include the extremely wet period of the
1920's (when the Colorado water allocations were made), but also the
drier periods of the 1930's and 50's. In their work, Milly et al., do
not compare projected future runoff with the longer-term average,
perhaps because it is not possible to calculate the longer-term (multi-
century) average for all of the U.S.
Q3. Dr. Overpeck, in your testimony you call for a national climate
service designed to support local and regional decision-makers in
dealing with climate-related reductions in water supply. How would such
a service differ from NIDIS and its current mission? Would you envision
expanding the role of NIDIS or creating another entity?
A3. Although it is still young, NIDIS should--in addition to being a
valuable program in the face of drought--be considered an excellent
``pilot'' for some of what a National Climate Service should be. NIDIS
was designed to deal with drought, particularly at the regional scale
so important to decision-making, and it should grow and flourish in
that capacity. The design of a National Climate Service should learn
from NIDIS, as well as other existing programs, but it should be a new
program with a broader mission.
Without any doubt, a National Climate Service should be designed to
be--first and foremost--responsive to the needs of regional decision-
makers: those that have a true ``stake'' in climate variability and
climate change. In this respect, a National Climate Service should be
designed not just after the innovative aspects of NIDIS, but should
also be heavily informed by the design and successes of the Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessment (RISA) Program funded out of the
NOAA Climate Program Office (http://www.climate.noaa.gov/
cpo-pa/risa/); indeed, much of NIDIS was informed by this
NOAA RISA program. One of the key innovations of the RISA program is
sustained partnership between regional science experts and regional
decision-makers. Another innovation is that the RISA's enable
interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration, and--first and
foremost--serve to be constant champions of regional climate and water
science. The needs of regional stakeholders should then drive a much
larger integrated, multi-agency, National Climate Service that meets
those needs via interdisciplinary climate system (including water!)
research, observations, modeling and assessments.
Because NOAA is by far the strongest climate agency in the Federal
Government, they should lead the National Climate Service. However, the
trickiest part, perhaps other than funding, will be to devise a new
mechanism to ensure that (1) multi-agency partners truly work together,
(2) use their funding within, and among agencies as intended, and (3)
work--as a priority--to meet the needs of the regional stakeholders.
Some entity, such as a Commission of regional scientists and
stakeholders, is needed that reports both to Congress and the White
House, and that has a responsibility to verify that funds are being
used to--first and foremost--meet the needs of the regional
stakeholders. Otherwise, interagency cooperation and coordination will
not be optimal, as many current ``interagency'' programs unfortunately
demonstrate.
One of the primary benefits of a new National Climate Service would
be to provide advantage to the Nation, and its regional stakeholders,
in adapting to climate change as well as natural climate variability--
including drought. I am currently working with a national group of
regional climate (i.e., RISA) scientists to develop a more
comprehensive plan for a regionally driven National Climate Service,
and I will forward our proposed plan to you and your committee as soon
as we have a complete document.
Q4. Dr. Overpeck, in your testimony you discuss the vulnerability of
the Southwest to climate change related drought and you also point out
the many times in the past the Southwest has dealt with drought. Given
the susceptibility of this region to drought, would you say it is more
important to invest in research to predict it or research to mitigate
the effects and explore other ways to increase potential supply?
A4. The Southwest U.S., extending from California into Texas, and
northward into the central Rockies, is going be increasingly challenged
by water supply problems no matter what. The region is prone to more,
and longer droughts, than the rest of the Nation, and climate change is
already making the situation worse with higher temperatures, less
spring snowpack, and declining river flow. It is safe to say, that the
situation could easily get worse, but it is also safe to say that there
are things we can do about it.
We need to take both climate change (and drought) adaptation and
mitigation seriously. This means the region, hopefully with help from
the Nation as a whole (which also has a stake in climate change and
drought), must learn to use water more wisely, but also do whatever it
can to reduce future threats--namely climate change--to water supply.
In my response to Chairman Gordon's question above, I have outlined
some important research and development initiatives that could help,
and because of the inevitable climate and water challenges facing the
Southwest, I am a strong advocate for a National Climate Service (also
see above). For these same reasons, I think it is also imperative that
the nations of the globe--with the United States in the lead--start
working aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. To say that Southwesterners--Arizonans and
Texans alike--have a real stake in all these efforts is an
understatement.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. Nebraska's panhandle has experienced nearly a decade of severe
drought. What steps or technologies are needed to prepare for and
mitigate long-term drought?
A1. Clearly Nebraska has a major stake in seeing something done about
drought, just as we in the Southwest do. Fortunately, what I have
outlined above summarizes the national research and development efforts
needed by Nebraska and neighboring states. In the past, I have
researched what the Dust Bowl drought did to the Nebraska region, and I
learned first-hand that the record-hot--and wilting--temperatures of
the 1930's will seem cool in comparison with what will likely come if
greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced dramatically and quickly.
Nonetheless, the climate change already in the pipeline (due to inertia
in the climate system) AND natural drought variability, means that the
people of Nebraska and surrounding states must also prepare for, and
adapt to, likely future drought. My foregoing responses should help
understand what is needed.
Q2. What are your views on balancing the demand for various uses of
water, including, drinking water; agricultural uses; energy generation;
habitat, especially for endangered species; and recreation?
A2. This is as much a values question as it is scientific. I value each
of the entities that you mention, and I also have faith that our
country can figure out a way--using knowledge and technological
innovation--to keep all of these entities healthy and in the balance.
However, we cannot do this assuming business as usual, and that is why
I have suggested a number of research and development programs in my
foregoing responses. It is also why I am a strong supporter of cutting
global greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050. We do not want to sacrifice any of these fundamental--
and valued--entities.
Your question raises one additional critical point: the role of
water in energy production. I note this in my above responses, but also
would be a supporter of a massive (ca. $50-$100B/year) government
effort to develop new and improved energy alternatives that will speed
the much needed greenhouse gas emission reductions that are needed to
curb climate change, as well as to make our country truly energy
independent and a global leader in energy technology sales. I bring
this up here because it is critical that we factor in water demand as
we develop new sources of energy: the climate-water-energy nexus is
critical not just for Nebraska, but for our entire nation.
Question from Representative David Wu
Q1. Western communities, specifically, have unique circumstances and
relationships with tribal governments as it relates to water. Tribes
often have priority water rights that states and local governments, and
other users, must account for when creating water plans. As far as
partnerships go, what types of opportunities exist for collaborative
efforts that recognize tribal water rights and support both non-tribal
and tribal efforts?
A1. I am not a Native Nations water rights specialist, but I live in
state, and in a region, blessed with many Native American neighbors. In
this context, I have worked with some of our regional Tribes on
climate-related issues. In my foregoing responses, I have emphasized
the need to drive research and development--including a National
Climate Service--with the needs of regional decision-makers. In the
Southwest, and across the U.S., the Tribes are at the table as
important regional stakeholders. As it stands, we don't have the
institutions that treat climate and water supply issues (including
energy--another key issue in Indian Country) holistically, and that is
what I am advocating in my foregoing responses. Any legislation that
comes to pass needs to be crafted to ensure the Tribes, and their
members, are fully invested partners in the activities that result.
On a slightly more personal side, I recently supervised a Navajo
graduate student who just received her Master's degree after completing
a Four-Corners climate and society (agriculture and ranching) thesis.
Her focus included helping leaders and kids on the Navajo Nation learn
about climate issues. There is a clear need for more such graduate
students, and the Federal Government could help with funding at both
the undergraduate and graduate levels. The desire is often there, but
funding and appropriate opportunities can be harder to find--especially
for the interdisciplinary knowledge creation and learning that is
needed. Climate and water partnerships would undoubtedly benefit from
such increased funding for education.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Marc Levinson, Economist, U.S. Corporate Research, J.P.
Morgan Chase
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Please provide the Committee with recommendations of additional
Federal research and development to increase water supply and water use
efficiency.
A1. The greatest urgency involves exploration of pricing schemes to
encourage conservation. Federal R&D money would be well spent in the
agricultural area, developing crop varieties that require less
irrigation, but there is little incentive for developing and planting
such crops so long as most farmers are able to draw on water for free.
It might also be worth considering a requirement for Congress to
evaluate water impacts when considering legislation; such a requirement
might have been useful during consideration of last year's law
increasing the renewable fuels standard and this year's farm bill. I
think there will be ample private funding available for R&D into water-
conservation and decentralized water-treatment technologies if these
are economically viable, and no federal R&D effort is required.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. You mention in your testimony the concept of a water
``footprint.'' Could you provide us with a couple of examples of
companies that are aware of their water footprint and steps they may be
taking to address their water footprint?
A1. We have examined a limited number of companies around the world and
do not claim to have complete information on this subject. Among the
companies we have examined, only Unilever has ever reported its water
footprint. Subsequent to the publication of our recent report on this
subject, other food and beverage companies have advised us that they
intend to do further analysis of their water footprints. In general,
large food manufacturers appear to recognize that they can achieve the
largest reductions in their water footprints by encouraging greater
water efficiency among agricultural suppliers, and some are starting to
examine this issue.
Q2. You discuss in your testimony that companies face regulatory risks
in the form of allocation and price controls when water becomes scarce.
In your work, has JPMorgan Chase found any regulatory reform options
that might address such problems such that water utilized responsibly
while business can remain on track?
A2. Yes, we have seen two types of regulatory reforms that are
important in this way. First, there are a number of jurisdictions that
have imposed significant cost increases for water. Unfortunately, these
increases often affect only customers drawing water from municipal
systems, not agricultural and industrial users that draw water directly
from rivers or groundwater sources. Better pricing schemes are urgently
needed. Second, some jurisdictions have imposed strong non-price
regulations that limit water usage, such as requiring the use of
recycled water to irrigate golf courses or barring the use of grass in
landscaping in desert areas. We are not aware of jurisdictions that
have adopted regulations concerning allocation of water in the event of
physical scarcity.
Q3. You mention nuclear power as an energy source that utilizes large
amounts of water and therefore includes a ``societal'' cost that should
be factored into the price users pay for electricity for these plants.
Should the same hold true from other sources of power, including
renewables, such as biofuels and solar?
A3. Certainly. Water is a scarce resource, and its cost should be borne
by those who consume it. Biofuels impose very heavy water demand,
particularly by encouraging the cultivation of corn in water-scarce
areas. In the case of solar, the water-related cost is likely to occur
mainly in the manufacturing process rather than at the generating site.
Q4. In your testimony you touch upon the impact increased biofuels
production has on water usage. In examining the development of the
biofuels industry, has JPMorgan Chase performed an analysis of the
water usage associated with feedstocks other than corn for biofuels
production? Are there drought resistant plants that could provide
biofuels feedstock at lower ``water'' cost?
A4. We have not performed an analysis of the water usage associated
with biofuels feedstocks. This would require complex modeling, as much
of the impact is likely attributable to changed patterns of land use
arising from higher crop prices. For example, ethanol has led to a
large increase in cultivated corn acreage in the Great Plains states;
whereas corn grown for ethanol in Ohio might not require extensive
irrigation, corn grown for ethanol in Nebraska is likely to require
heavy irrigation. The intrusion of cultivation into former conservation
reserve areas, another consequence of U.S. biofuels policy, also
increases water demand while potentially reducing the recharge of
aquifers. Switchgrass and sorghum are frequently mentioned as plants
with lower water requirements that are suitable for ethanol, but
suitable varieties are not presently commercially available. In any
event, their impact on water consumption would depend upon whether they
supplant corn production in arid locations, or whether they are planted
in even more arid locations and serve to increase the total amount of
land under cultivation.
Q5. Please expand on your comments alluding to the fact that several
companies are looking into technologies for decentralized water
treatment and that federal R&D funds may be helpful? If we were to
decentralize water treatment for human consumption, how would we ensure
that all water for human consumption met baseline standards? What
regulatory mechanisms would be needed? What would the costs associated
with such a change from centralized to decentralized water treatment be
for a city like Washington, DC?
A5. I'm not sure the need here is for federal funding, as I hear
anecdotally that considerable venture capital is active in the field of
decentralized water treatment. A more important issue may be whether
federal water-treatment regulations inadvertently favor large-scale
municipal plants over smaller-scale treatment. For the cost reasons you
indicate, it is probably not cost-effective to decentralize water
treatment in an area where centralized treatment is already in use.
However, it may well be sensible to consider decentralized treatment
for new housing subdivisions, large office complexes, and rural areas
being connected to piped water for the first time. Decentralized
treatment effectively requires two sets of supply pipes, one for
purified water and the other for non-potable water, which would be
connected to outdoor spigots, cooling towers, and similar uses, but not
to indoor plumbing.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. Many energy generation methods require water to produce power.
Hydropower, nuclear energy, petroleum refining, clean coal
technologies, and biofuels production all require large amounts of
water. What steps should be taken in both the public and private
sectors to address water-use challenges as energy demand increases?
A1. I think the big issue here is that subsidies encourage energy
consumption without regard to the social costs involved in producing
the energy. It would be desirable for Congress to pay more attention to
the water impacts when crafting energy legislation, and for energy
produces to be forced to pay a reasonable price for the water they
draw. It is worth considering whether closed-loop recycling systems
should be mandated at new energy facilities. This undoubtedly would
raise energy costs, but is highly desirable from the viewpoint of water
conservation.
Q2. If new hydropower facilities were to be built to meet the growing
energy needs of the United States, what would be the main water-use
challenges that would need to be addressed?
A2. I do not expect extensive construction of hydropower facilities in
the U.S., due both to environmental concerns and to the fact that many
of the most suitable locations are already in use. My comment on this
is that in the past we have mistakenly relied almost entirely on
supply-side measures to meet water demand. It is highly desirable to
provide incentives to limit demand, and pricing is the best mechanism
for this purpose.
Q3. Mr. Levinson, my home State of Nebraska has a large agricultural
industry, and irrigation is a common practice in much of my district.
You mentioned in your testimony that groundwater use should be governed
by federal, rather than State, law. What federal legislation would you
propose for the best allocation of ground- and surface-water, and what
would be the major benefits of regulation on a federal level, instead
of a State level?
A3. My testimony was not that the Federal Government should take
control of groundwater use, but rather that the Federal Government
should explore methods of requiring states to adopt groundwater pricing
schemes. I note that the Federal Government uses its budgetary powers
to impose many such obligations on states, by threatening to withhold
grants for particular programs unless State governments take specific
actions. This same approach could be used to force states to adopt
schemes to price both groundwater and surface water. As a practical
matter, I think it would be extremely difficult for the Federal
Government to make detailed allocation and pricing decisions at a great
remove from the affected communities, so I think it is wiser to leave
this task to lower levels of government within broad parameters.
Q4. What are your views on balancing the demand for various uses of
water, including, drinking water; agricultural uses; energy generation;
habitat, especially for endangered species; and recreation?
A4. I have no particular views on this subject. Insofar as the subject
of my testimony is concerned, I think it would be helpful if those
responsible for planning for water scarcity were to outline in advance
a series of emergency conservation measures in priority order, so that
individuals and companies would be able to have a better sense of the
likelihood that their supplies would be curtailed in the event of
severe supply shortfalls.
Questions submitted by Representative David Wu
Q1. How do we ensure that rural minority communities are addressed
when we build out water infrastructure? Many of these areas have little
to no existing infrastructure in place, and I'm afraid if they are not
a part of our plans, we will be significantly short-changing a large
population. What roles can corporations play in this?
A1. Please see my response to Representative Hall's question concerning
decentralized treatment, which may provide a more cost-effective
alternative for rural communities than laying supply pipes for great
distances. There has been considerable private investment in water-
distribution systems, but whether such companies would find it
attractive to invest in a relatively small-scale distribution system
would depend on the specifics.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Roger S. Pulwarty, Physical Scientist, Climate Program
Office; Director, The National Integrated Drought Information
System (NIDIS), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Please provide the Committee with recommendations of additional
Federal research and development to increase water supply and water use
efficiency.
A1. Some of the relevant priorities identified by the National Science
and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality
are: (1) Quantifying the future availability of freshwater in light of
both withdrawal uses, and ecosystem uses; (2) Assessing and predicting
the effectiveness of land use practices and watershed restoration on
water quality and ecosystem health; (3) Developing information and
efficiency tools to aid in water management including wastewater reuse
and low-water-use crops; and (4) Improve linkages between climate and
hydrologic prediction models and their applications.
To address these priorities, we will need to focus on improvements
in the ability of climate models to recreate the recent past as well as
make projections under a variety of forcing scenarios. Research should
focus on the development of a better understanding of the physical
processes that produce extremes and how these processes change with
climate as well as the reconciliation of model projections of
increasing drought severity, frequency, or duration for different
regions of the U.S. The creation of annually-resolved, regional-scale
reconstructions of the climate for the past 2,000 years would help
improve our understanding of present rates of change in the context of
very long-term regional climate variability.
Development of improved recharge monitoring techniques and social
science research on the severity of drought impacts and institutional
responses (to understand the effects of human activity on groundwater
recharge) would provide information needed to increase our water
supply.
In addition, it is important to understand the response of the
biological community to changes in streamflow and stream temperature,
clarity, and chemistry, which are key issues in addressing instream
flows and aquatic needs. It is also important to understand the degree
to which aquifer storage is changing and will change in the future
(given various climate, land and water use patterns), in addition to
how changes in groundwater will affect streamflow and surface-water
flow as a result of water management activities, land-use change,
climate change, diversions, and storage.
Adaptive measures include both demand and supply side approaches.
Demand-side measures include water recycling, reducing irrigation
demand, water markets, and economic incentives such as metering and
pricing. Supply-side measures include conjunctive surface-groundwater
use, increases in storage capacity, and desalination of sea water.
Critical issues over the near term include: (1) ensuring adequate water
to maintain environmental services that support economic and cultural
benefits; (2) ensuring development, marketing, and adoption of
efficient technologies, and (3) managing information needed to
coordinate data collection and quality control, which will allow us to
transform data and forecasts into accessible, credible, and usable
information for early warning, risk reduction and adaptation practices
in the water resources sector.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. In his testimony, Mr. Levinson mentioned that the Tennessee Valley
Authority had to shut a nuclear plant since there was not enough
cooling water in the Tennessee River. What monitoring, prediction, risk
assessment, and communication tools could NIDIS provide for existing
plants to avoid such a circumstance? Similarly, what monitoring,
prediction, risk assessment, and communication tools could NIDIS
provide so that states and companies could make informed decisions as
to where to site a nuclear power plant, or any other type of electrical
power plant, in relation to water access?
A1. To clarify, and for the record, the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) advises that its Brown's Ferry Nuclear Plant was not shut down
because of a lack of cooling water. The plant was derated because of a
permitting agreement with the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management that states TVA will not exceed a 24-hour downstream average
temperature of more than 90 degrees.
Demand for energy increases demand for freshwater supplies, and
increased demand on water requires additional energy to store and
transport water. Freshwater withdrawals for energy account for 39
percent of total withdrawals in the United States. Transportation of
water to produce energy introduces additional costs in plant design.
Increases in water temperature in streams and reservoirs can reduce the
water's effectiveness as cooling water for nuclear plants (as occurred
at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama in 2007).
As part of its forecast of precipitation, NIDIS communicates
forecasts of ambient air temperature. This is useful because there is a
close correlation between air and stream temperatures. The Department
of the Interior (the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service) and others can use NIDIS information to provide
improved information regarding potential risks of high temperature
instream events.
NIDIS could provide valuable information used to make more informed
decisions for the siting of nuclear power plants. Plant sitings require
assessments of municipal and industrial demands and associated water
supply reliability. NIDIS can provide information on past drought
records for a particular location, water supply reliability for
projected uses, and air temperature-stream temperature relationships.
NIDIS works with states, communities, and agencies to enable
development of risk assessment tools based on past events and
forecasted droughts.
Q2. In your testimony, you discuss the need to develop adaptive
measures to increase the available water supply or use water more
efficiently to address threats to the water supply. I have introduced
legislation that would encourage research into treating water derived
from underground when extracting oil and gas to utilize it for other
purposes. Is this the type of adaptive measure you would encourage us
to explore?
A2. NOAA does not have an established position on H.R. 2339, but as a
researcher on adaptation strategies, my answer would be: Yes. Sixty-
five percent of the produced water generated in the U.S. (over one
trillion gallons in 1993) is injected back into the producing
formation, 30 percent is injected into deep saline formations, and five
percent is discharged to surface waters. The produced water typically
contains a mix of contaminants, including high saline levels. Standards
of treatment for reuse are set by industry technical organizations such
as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Oil Producers
Association. The API has listed carbon absorption, air stripping,
filtration, biological treatment, ultraviolet light, and chemical
oxidation as potential treatments.
Standards for produced water disposal are determined by State,
national, and international regulatory bodies. Key questions to be
addressed include:
(1) What technologies exist to treat produced water to
disposal or re-injection standards and what water quality
standards must be met?
(2) How much would this cost?
Q3. Several reports, and some of the witnesses who testified at the
hearing, have called for the creation of a National Climate Service.
Would NIDIS be a good platform to emulate for the collection,
organization and dissemination of all climate information and products?
Or does the shear volume of climate information require a larger or
more complex set up? Would NIDIS be integrated into such a service, or
would it stay a separate entity?
A3. The NIDIS structure could provide guidance for the development of a
National Climate Service. NOAA and our partner agencies are still in
the process of developing an operational definition of ``climate''
services (i.e., examining how these services are different from
``weather'' services) and completing its analysis of what is lacking in
the way such services are currently delivered throughout the Federal
Government. Any National Climate Service would likely focus on a
broader class of issues and information users, and could provide an
umbrella for programs such as NIDIS by developing a cross-agency
partnership to sustain comprehensive observations and monitoring
systems, and provide for state-of-the-art research, modeling,
predictions, and projections.
NIDIS could function within this broader system, and would continue
to inform collaborative coordination and planning and act to identify
innovations in drought preparedness for transferability to other parts
of the country. NIDIS is in essence a decision support system; its main
function is to develop, deliver, and communicate drought information,
forecasts impacts, information for preparedness and risk reduction (or
more generally valued climate services).
Q4. The National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on
Water Availability and Quality, or SWAQ, released a report last year
about science and technology requirements for water availability and
quality. This report was a follow-up to their 2004 report. In both
papers, the Subcommittee strongly recommends that the U.S. develop a
standardized and integrated measuring measures and create an account of
its water. Although they suggest that some agencies have been involved
in bringing this project together, would NIDIS be an appropriate place
for the dissemination of this type of data? Or should it be housed in a
sister program, that would feed information into and receive
information from NIDIS, but be separate for separate management and
decision-making purposes?
A4. NIDIS should not be tasked with the full collection and archiving
of such data but as a recipient or client to help shape the collection
by advising on priorities (e.g., key areas for monitoring improvements)
through its focus on drought response and risk reduction; a separate
program working with NIDIS would be most appropriate.
NIDIS would be a good coordinator for integrated information,
acting as a clearinghouse for information that feeds into specific
early warning and decision support systems, and would provide a
catalyst for drought mitigation practice. Data on water availability
and quality would feed into NIDIS' early warning design.
Q5. Would you give an example of what Federal, State and non-
governmental monitoring programs feed into NIDIS? How much do these
monitoring efforts cost? Are there gaps in the monitoring system? If
so, where do they occur?
A5. Given its preliminary status, main inputs into NIDIS so far are
from federal agencies, such as NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey (e.g.,
Stream Gauge Network), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (e.g.,
Soil Climate Analysis Network). In addition, recent efforts have begun
to include water and reservoir levels in partnership with U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and states. In June
2008, NIDIS convened a national workshop on the status of drought early
warning system across the U.S. States, private sector (energy water,
agriculture) and Tribal representatives at the conference agreed to
engage with NIDIS on data provision and integration. These are actively
being pursued for inclusion (with appropriate data standards) into the
U.S. Drought Portal, and are important for supplementing and improving
the U.S. Drought Monitor in locations with pilot early warning systems
in development.
The original recommendations for NIDIS (in the 2004 Western
Governors' Association report) included supporting county-level
monitoring, because droughts are declared at the county level. At that
recommended density, there are still gaps in our monitoring network.
NOAA is addressing these through the Historical Climate Network
Modernization and the Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) network.
The needs for improved monitoring are in groundwater quantity and
quality, soil moisture, high elevation snowpack runoff timing, and
ecosystems. These characteristics are important in modulating
streamflow. Data on these variables are not yet collected using
standardized approaches at similar spatial or temporal scales, and the
long-term viability of the data collection efforts is uncertain. Recent
initiatives such as the National Environmental Status and Trends
Indicators action plan and pilot activity would provide guidance on
assimilating and archiving existing data. A comprehensive groundwater-
level network may be needed to assess groundwater-level changes, the
data from which should be easily accessible in real time.
Soil moisture in the first one or two meters below the ground
surface regulates land-surface energy and moisture exchanges with the
atmosphere, and plays a key role in flood and drought genesis and
maintenance. Soil moisture deficit partially regulates plant
transpiration and, consequently, constitutes an effective diagnostic.
Active and passive microwave data from polar orbiting satellites or
reconnaissance airplanes provide some estimates of surface soil
moisture with continuous spatial coverage. However, these approaches
are limited in that they only measure soil moisture within the first
few centimeters of the soil surface, and they are reliable only when
vegetation cover is sparse or absent. NIDIS recently (February 2008)
convened a small workshop to assess the reliability of such sensors for
soil moisture measurements.
The lack of long-term soil moisture data over vast areas of the
United States affects how well soil moisture is incorporated into
hydrologic models for watersheds or large regions. NIDIS, in
collaboration with the National Climatic Data Center (and with USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)'s Soil Climate Analysis
Network to complement their network), is in the process of deploying
over 100 soil moisture sites around the country. Even a few long-term
monitoring networks of soil moisture would substantially decrease the
uncertainty in predicting processes that are critically dependent on
soil moisture levels (like flow, water chemistry, and plant response).
Similarly, the uncertainty of predictive models for managing water
supply in western streams reflects the density of stream flow and
rainfall monitoring networks, because the amount and the quality of
data in areas characterized by high spatial variability in
precipitation determine the reliability and precision of such models.
Inclusion of nonagricultural areas, along with a long-term commitment
for high quality data will assist water resources analysis on climatic
and regional scales.
The U.S. Geological Survey has the beginnings of a ground-water
network in the Ground Water Climate Response Network. This network
provides ground-water level data from 167 of the 366 Climate Divisions
in the United States and Puerto Rico. About half of the data in this
network are accessible in real time.
Q6. Recognizing that this is a fairly new effort, how successful has
NIDIS been in predicting expected drought areas thus far? What
resources or assistance would you need to improve your ability to make
such predictions?
A6. Historically, skill in predicting drought has not been very high.
However, there are climate regimes in which predictability of seasonal
drought has improved, particularly during El Nino or La Nina
conditions. NOAA's Climate Prediction Center has shown demonstrable
skill in predicting drought at seasonal time scales, during El Nino or
La Nina events (and in particular during the winter). However, El Nino
and La Nina conditions are only active about half the time. Prediction
of multi-season and multi-year drought has not been successful. NIDIS
has been successful in developing a nascent system for monitoring the
climate and identifying potential drought conditions as they evolve,
but additional time will be required before we see great improvement in
drought prediction.
Predictions could be improved through increased focus on multi-
season and multi-year drought prediction capabilities, through focused
research on drought prediction. In the interim, some significant
improvements in prediction are possible through improved monitoring of
all the components of the climate system related to drought. These
components include estimates of rain and snow, snowpack depth and
liquid water equivalent, as well as estimates of the soil
characteristics, ground water, and vegetation. Improved monitoring
requires better integration of data from observation systems that
already exist (computers to store, merge, analyze and provide the data)
as well as installation of additional observation equipments (e.g., in
situ instruments and satellite sensors) where needed. Monitoring of the
physical climate system must also be augmented by estimates of the
demand for water resources imposed by agriculture, industry, and
population shifts and growth. A ``drought'' is not felt until available
water is insufficient to meet specific needs.
Q7. Have you received all the necessary information from State and
local partners? What about federal agencies? What barriers have you
encountered?
A7. Agencies and states have been very responsive by providing
information and data sets to be linked to NIDIS activities.
As conceived in NIDIS, coordination includes:
Establishment of a national research agenda,
Efforts targeted at emerging problems, (e.g., as in
the Southeast in 2007),
Sustained attention on identifying monitoring and
forecasting gaps, and
A competitive grants and contracts program to
addresses national research needs not addressed by specific
agency missions.
Coordination can facilitate technology transfer from research
organizations to user communities. However, agencies must maintain a
high level of leadership, accountability and autonomy.
In the next few years NIDIS will begin to tailor the Drought Portal
for multi-state watersheds. This will provide a mechanism for more
fully understanding the barriers to integrating State and local partner
data and information for early warning information needs.
Q8. In an ideal world, how far into the future would your predictions
need to be able to reach to fully prepare or mitigate the effects of an
impending drought?
A8. The time it takes to fully prepare or mitigate the effects of an
impending drought varies depending on the specific problem(s) being
addressed. For agriculture, predictions are required for three to six
months ahead of an impending drought event. However, the sustainability
of economic activities and environmental goals requires warnings of
droughts onset, areal extent, and potential duration (a season, a year
or a decade or longer), and potential impacts on each of these time
scales. This is especially the case in regards to urban water needs in
the west, forest health, low flow thresholds for meeting interbasin
transfer requirements, energy plant siting, and environmental flows.
Q9. How well known is the drought portal? Does the website collect
statistics on hits per month or types of users it is getting? What can
be done to ensure that this portal becomes a well-known information
source with farmers and local water managers as it is with universities
and State governments?
A9. NIDIS is actively engaging all of its partnering agencies to help
educate the public on the U.S. Drought Portal (USDP). Examples include
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has agricultural extension
agents in nearly every county in the Nation, and NOAA's National
Weather Service, which has local weather experts in 135 offices around
the country.
The USDP will provide education and outreach materials, publicly
available, which will be geared toward local agency representatives
engaging constituents at the local level and touting the benefits of
USDP use. In addition, representatives of NIDIS are participating in
numerous workshops, forums, and meetings around the country in order to
communicate what is available on the USDP, to encourage its use and
develop its role in proactive drought risk management, and to receive
feedback on its content.
The USDP keeps track of web hits for users entering the Portal.
Currently USDP receives 40,000 hits per month. Software is currently
being developed to allow tracking of hits to web pages hosted as
``portlets'' within the USDP. The USDP cannot track its users by type
at this time.
Q10. Have the droughts we have been experiencing strained our ability
to meet international obligations regarding water resources?
A10. Please see the response to question 11 (below) for a combined
response.
Q11. The U.S. shares not only its borders with Canada and Mexico, but
it also shares watersheds. With respect to this geographical reality,
how has U.S. water policy, particularly in the western half of the
country, affected relations with our neighbors?
A11. These are critical concerns and have been broached in numerous
constituent meetings and other public fora. Canada and Mexico are
actively seeking to complement and link to NIDIS with their own
information, since droughts cross these political boundaries.
The U.S. has treaties with Mexico over both the Rio Grande River
and the Colorado River. The Rio Grande agreement, resulting from a 1994
treaty, stipulates that Mexico must allow a certain amount of water
from the Rio Grande to reach the U.S. In return, the U.S. must provide
Mexico with 1.5 million acre feet a year from the Colorado River. These
commitments have not entirely been met on either side. Drought and
growing economic development have affected the ability of both
countries to meet their international commitments. Unfortunately, the
treaty provisions for allocating shortages during a drought, and in
fact what legally constitutes ``exceptional drought,'' are ambiguous
and no provisions in the treaty cover the possibility of a climatic
change that could alter the long-term availability of water in the
river. Research of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (Synthesis
and Assessment Report (SAP) 3.3, pp. 22-23; SAP 4.3, pp. 121-150)
suggests that even modest climatic changes might have serious and
dramatic impacts on the Colorado River flow. Critical concerns include
changes in: (1) water availability from altered precipitation patterns
or higher evaporative losses due to higher temperatures; (2) the
seasonality of precipitation and runoff; (3) flooding or drought
frequencies; and (4) the demand for and the supply of irrigation water
for agriculture.
Changing water demands in the United States, combined with climate
change, could seriously compromise hydroelectric power generation and
other uses in Canada, especially in drier regions in southern areas of
the Canadian part of the basin (e.g., Okanagan and Osoyoos lakes).
There are several (at least 12) large bilateral drainage basins, or
groups of small basins, for which the International Joint Commission
has responsibility under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Many of
these basins, and their sub-basins, have water-sharing agreements where
rivers flow north or south across the border. In some basins, pollution
control agreements are also in place to protect ecosystems and water
quality (e.g., Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River). Climate affects both
the quantity and quality of these waters, and the ability of one
country to meet its present obligations to the other.
Thirty to thirty-five percent of the water in the Columbia River
basin originates in Canada yet only 15 percent of the basin lies in
Canada. On the Columbia River, the predicted trend towards greater flow
in winter and less flow in spring is expected to continue affecting
salmon migration as well as hydropower.
Increased evaporation (especially during winter) is expected due to
warmer temperatures, which would lower Great Lakes water levels and
reduce the flow of rivers in the system, including the St. Lawrence. In
the scenario described above, adverse impacts on shipping,
hydroelectric power generation, and water quality are projected. A
recent amendment to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act by
Canada prohibits bulk-water removals and diversions from border and
trans-border waters but does not deal with attempts to divert internal
Canadian waters, an issue that a number of provinces have similarly
addressed. There is also a risk that these disagreements will spill
over into economic policy, trade agreements, and security arrangements.
International obligations have been met, but not without contention
during drought situations. However, given trends in the Great Lakes,
the Colorado, the Rio Grande and the Columbia Rivers, further strains
are foreseeable in the near future and will be exacerbated during
conditions of exceptional drought.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. Nebraska's panhandle has experienced nearly a decade of severe
drought. What steps or technologies are needed to prepare for and
mitigate long-term drought?
A1. Mitigation options will be different for agricultural producers,
municipal water suppliers, city and county land use planners,
environmental interests, and State agencies, but ideally, all should be
working in coordination. NIDIS works very closely with the National
Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of Nebraska,
Lincoln. The NDMC director co-chairs the interagency and interstate
NIDIS Implementation Team with the NIDIS director. The following are
collaborative activities led by the NDMC using, in part, funds provided
by NOAA Grants:
Mitigation measures already underway:
(1) Nebraska Rural Response Hotline: Interchurch Ministries of
Nebraska, an interdenominational non-profit organization based
in Lincoln, spearheaded the establishment of the Nebraska Rural
Response Hotline during the farm crisis of the 1980s. The
Hotline has grown steadily in both the number of calls it
receives and in the resources and partnerships available to
help callers, as responders listened to needs and found ways to
meet them. In 2007 it took nearly 5,000 calls. Among the ways
they assist are listening to individual farmers and ranchers to
help identify options in a crisis, providing vouchers for
counseling and referrals to other professional services, and
organizing regular workshops around the state focusing on needs
such as financial and legal planning. Drought is one of many
stressors facing the agricultural community.
(2) Nebraska Health & Human Services is working with
municipalities to reduce the vulnerability of their water
supplies.
(3) Increased soil moisture monitoring.
Planned mitigation measures:
Nebraska has a drought mitigation plan that has identified more
strategies, some of which will require additional funding, either for
agency staff time or for assistance or incentives for farmers and
ranchers. The planned mitigation activities are included in the
appendices of the state's drought plan (http://carc.agr.ne.gov/docs/
NebraskaDrought.pdf).
Some agricultural policies may lead to hazard-resistance or to
practices that increase vulnerability. This is of increasing importance
because of the disruptions in food security that may come about as a
result of climate change (irrespective of what drives that change).
Q2. What are your views on balancing the demand for various uses of
water, including, drinking water; agricultural uses; energy generation;
habitat, especially for endangered species; and recreation?
A2. In addition to water supply planning, both urban and rural land-use
practices can either contribute to drought vulnerability or to drought
resistance. In most cases, practices that build resilience to drought
can also build resilience to other possible threats, including
wildfires, energy production reliability, and economic down-turns. In
general, practices that lead to increased soil fertility, redundancy in
natural systems, and increased biodiversity build resilience. Practices
that encourage more risk-taking and deplete natural resources faster
than they are replenished increase vulnerability.
Recreation forms the backbone of the economy for many western
states. The impacts of impending changes are anticipated to be felt by
the environment sector, and these will impact the environmental
services that provide tourism, recreational and other economic
generators for rural communities. Environmental requirements for water
are actually minuscule compared with municipal, industry, and
agricultural needs. In some regions environmental needs are less than
10 percent of supply with agriculture, household, and industrial needs
accounting for the rest. The economic benefits of environmental
services outweigh the costs of their water needs and as such,
efficiency in the other three sectors will provide a large economic and
social benefit. Multi-objective planning is a logical approach for
developing strategies to pursue complex goals.