[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A NATIONAL WATER INITIATIVE:
COORDINATING AND IMPROVING
FEDERAL RESEARCH ON WATER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-116
__________
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
43-528 PDF WASHINGTON : 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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
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
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona VACANCY
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. NICK LAMPSON, Texas, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARK UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 23, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Prepared Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 8
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 9
Witnesses:
Dr. Mark A. Shannon, Director, Center of Advanced Materials for
the Purification of Water With Systems, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Biography.................................................... 19
Mr. Tod D. Christenson, Chairperson, Beverage Industry
Environmental Roundtable (BIER)
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Biography.................................................... 24
Dr. Timothy T. Loftus, Project Director, Northeastern Illinois
Regional Water Supply Planning, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for
Planning
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Mr. Jerry N. Johnson, General Manager, District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 35
Mr. Bradley H. Spooner, Principal Engineer, Environmental
Services of the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG
Power)
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 37
Biography.................................................... 50
Dr. Upton Hatch, President-Elect, National Institutes for Water
Resources; Associate Director, Water Resources Research
Institute, University of North Carolina; Research Professor,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North
Carolina State University
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
Biography.................................................... 57
Discussion
The National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on
Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ) Outreach............... 57
The Federal Government's Role in Ensuring Water Availability
and Quality.................................................. 59
Carbon Sequestration's Impact on Water Supply.................. 60
Avoiding Burdensome Bureaucracy................................ 60
Benefits of Research........................................... 61
Water Conservation............................................. 62
Conservation and Agriculture................................... 66
The Federal Government's Role.................................. 68
Groundwater Research........................................... 70
Public Education............................................... 71
Municipal Water Utilities: DCWASA.............................. 72
The Draft Legislation's Potential.............................. 74
Retention Ponds................................................ 75
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
Discussion Draft, To implement a National Water Research and
Development Initiative, and for other purposes................. 78
A NATIONAL WATER INITIATIVE: COORDINATING AND IMPROVING FEDERAL
RESEARCH ON WATER
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Lampson
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
A National Water Initiative:
Coordinating and Improving
Federal Research on Water
wednesday, july 23, 2008
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
PURPOSE
On Wednesday, July 23rd the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
will hold a hearing to receive testimony on the opportunities for the
Federal Government to support and better coordinate research and
technological innovation to enhance water supplies and water quality
and to support improved water management. The Committee will also
receive testimony on a discussion draft of legislation to be introduced
by Chairman Bart Gordon entitled the National Water Research and
Development Initiative Act.
WITNESSES
Dr. Mark A. Shannon: Director of the United States
Strategic Water Initiative, a public-private effort to enhance
American competitiveness in water purification science and
technology by advancing the basic science of water purification
and accelerating the implementation of innovative U.S.
technologies to deliver, increase, and protect fresh water
supplies around the world.
Mr. Tod Christenson: Director of the Beverage
Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER), an organization
created by Coca Cola and representing eleven beverage companies
including Anheuser Busch, Beam, Pepsi, etc.
Dr. Timothy T. Loftus: Water Resource Planner for the
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and coordinator
of the Illinois 2050 Water Demand Scenario report commission by
the Governor Rod Blagojevich.
Mr. Jerry Johnson: General Manager at the DC Water
and Sewer Authority, a multi-jurisdictional regional utility
that provides drinking water, wastewater collection and
treatment to more than 500,000 residential, commercial and
governmental customers in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Bradley H. Spooner: Principal Engineer for
Environmental Services at Municipal Electric Authority of
Georgia, a public corporation providing power to 49 Georgia
communities that in turn bring energy to approximately 600,000
citizens.
Dr. Upton Hatch: Associate Director at the Water
Resources Research Institute of the University of North
Carolina, one of the fifty-four state and territorial Water
Research Institutes and Centers which perform research related
to regional and interstate water resources problems.
BACKGROUND
Water resource problems are growing in both number and intensity,
in regions across the country. As demand for water continues to rise
and as supplies dwindle, it has become increasingly apparent that there
is an important role for the Federal Government to establish a
comprehensive strategy for research and development of new technologies
to ensure a sustainable water supply.
In 2004, the National Academies of Science published a study
entitled, Confronting the Nation's Water Problems: The Role of Federal
Research, which declared, ``The United States needs to make a new
commitment to water resources research in order to confront the
increasingly severe water problems faced by all parts of the country.''
Over twenty federal agencies carry out research and development on
some aspect of water supply, water quality or water management. The
National Academies of Science surveyed these agencies for their 2004
study and based upon the responses, estimated federal expenditures on
water research to be approximately $700 million.\1\ Five of these
agencies account for 87 percent of this funding: the National Science
Foundation (22 percent), the U.S. Geological Survey (18 percent), the
Department of Agriculture (17 percent), the Environmental Protection
Agency (15 percent), and the Department of Defense (15 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Academies of Science. 2004. Confronting the Nation's
Water Problems: The Role of Research. Executive Summary. Water Science
and Technology Board. Committee on Assessment of Water Resources
Research. National Research Council. Washington, DC. p. 7.
Figure 1: Agency contributions as a percentage of the total
federal funding for water resources research in 2000.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Confronting the Nation's Water Problems: The Role of Research
(Report in Brief). Water Science and Technology Board. Committee on
Assessment of Water Resources Research. National Research Council.
Washington, DC. p. 2.
Despite a research budget of approximately $700 million, the
increased number of water shortages and emerging conflicts over water
supplies suggest we are inadequately prepared to address the Nation's
water management issues. This same report advocates for a clear
national water strategy to coordinate the 20 plus federal agencies
responsible for conducting and funding research in order to avoid
duplication and to tackle the looming challenges of maintaining
adequate water supplies. At the May 14 hearing before the Committee on
Science and Technology on challenges related to water supply and water
quality several of the witnesses also recommended better coordination
of federal efforts on water.
The NAS report discussed three options for better coordinating
research and development programs on water: Using an existing National
Science and Technology Council Subcommittee; authorization of a
neutral, third party or Water Research Board; or creating an Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) led interagency committee of senior agency
officials formally tied to the budget process.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Chapter 6: Coordination of Water Resources Research. Pp. 199-
214.
The Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ)
The Bush Administration had created the Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality (SWAQ) of the National Science and Technology
Council's Committee on Environment and Natural Resources in 2003 to:
identify science and technology needs to address the growing issues
related to freshwater supplies, develop a coordinated a multi-year plan
to improve research on water supply and water quality, and to enhance
the collection and availability of data needed to ensure an adequate
water supply for the Nation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Science and Technology Council, Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water Availability
and Quality. 2007. A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to
Support Water Availability and Quality in the United States.
Washington, DC. 35 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Academy report indicated that SWAQ is an effective forum for
agencies to share information about their programs. SWAQ is already in
place and the participating agencies' roles are well-defined. However,
the Academy report identified several issues that needed to be
addressed if SWAQ is to become an effective coordinating body. The
budget function for SWAQ should be strengthened through participation
of OMB on the Committee and SWAQ should engage in outreach activities
to develop connections to State and local governments, to wider
community of stakeholders, and to the public.
In their 2007 report, SWAQ made recommendations laying out the
federal research priorities and recommendations for a federal science
strategy to address water supply. Those recommendations included:
Implementation of a National Water Census;
Development of a new generation of water monitoring
techniques;
Development and expansion of technologies for
enhancing reliable water supply;
Development of innovative water-use technologies and
tools to enhance public acceptance of them;
Development of collaborative tools and processes for
U.S. water solutions;
Improvement in the understanding of water-related
ecosystem services and ecosystem needs for water; and
Improvement in hydrologic prediction models and their
applications.
Unfortunately, these strategic goals are not reflected in the
President's FY 2009 Budget request to Congress. While some of these
priorities were given small allocations of funding (i.e., $9 million
requested for the United States Geologic Survey to complete a new
National Water Census), agencies were not allocated funding to support
work on most of the priorities identified in the report.
DRAFT LEGISLATION
There is a need for a national initiative to coordinate federal
research water efforts is necessary to ensure we have the best tools
and information to maintain adequate supplies of water for Americans in
the coming decades. For this reason, Chairman Bart Gordon plans to
introduce legislation to create a National Water Initiative. This Act
seeks to improve the Federal Government's efforts in water research,
development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer
activities to address changes in water use, supply, and demand in the
United States. The bill codifies the existing Interagency Committee,
SWAQ, and strengthens the Committee by incorporating the suggestions in
the National Academies' 2004 report. By strengthening the SWAQ and
providing it explicit Congressional authorization, the recommendations
of the 2007 SWAQ report will receive due consideration and form the
start of a national strategy to ensure we have a sustainable water
supply.
SECTION BY SECTION
Title: National Water Research and Development Initiative Act
Purpose: To improve the Federal Government's role in water research,
development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer
activities to address changes in water use, supply, and demand in the
United States.
Section 1: Short Title
The National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2008
Section 2: National Water Research and Development Initiative
Section 2 directs the President to implement a National Water
Research and Development Initiative to improve federal activities on
water, including: research, development, demonstration, education, and
technology transfer. As part of the Initiative, the President shall
establish or designate an Interagency Committee with representation
from all federal agencies dealing with water and the Office of
Management and Budget. The Office of Science and Technology Policy will
chair the Committee.
The Committee is charged with developing a National Water
Availability Research and Assessment Plan, coordinating all federal
activities on water, and promoting cooperation among agencies with
respect to water research.
The Plan establishes priorities for federal water research and
assessment and shall utilize the recommendation from a 2007 Report
issued by SWAQ (Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality of the
National Science and Technology Council). This section also identifies
required elements of the Plan. The Plan is also lists a number of
outcomes and directs the Committee to direct agencies to achieve the
outcomes in the Plan.
The Plan will be subject to a 90 day public comment period and must
be submitted to Congress within one year of enactment.
The President is also directed to create an Outreach Office to
provide technical and administrative support to the Committee. The
Office will disseminate information to the public and serve as a point
of contact for the Initiative.
Section 3: Budget Coordination
Section 3 directs the President to provide guidance to each federal
agency in the Initiative with respect to the President's annual
request. The President is requires to describe and list the items in
the request that are elements of the Plan of help to achieve the
outcomes of the plan.
Section 4: Annual Report
Section 4 directs the President submit an annual report to Congress
describing the activities and results of the initiative.
Chairman Lampson. The hearing will come to order. I want to
welcome the Members of the Subcommittee and our distinguished
panelists to today's hearing on the creation of a National
Water Initiative to improve and coordinate federal research on
water.
Chairman Gordon plans to introduce legislation to establish
a National Water Initiative to improve and coordinate federal
research and development efforts on water. I would like to
thank him for his leadership and foresight in this area, and I
look forward to the opportunity to consider his legislation.
In order to meet the water needs or water demands of the
future, it is essential that we have the information that we
need to balance the water needs for municipalities, industry,
agriculture, recreation, and power. The population of the
United States has increased by over 25 percent since 1973,
while federal dollars for water research have remained
stagnant. A new commitment is needed to ensure that we can meet
the water challenges over the next 20 years and onward.
Without the right data, it is impossible to know if we are
going in the right direction, and the discussion draft before
us today will provide decision-makers at all levels of
government with the tools they need to make the tough decisions
of the future.
The 2004 National Academies Report on Federal Water
Research suggests that the United States is not getting its
money's worth on water resources research, because of a lack of
coordination. The Chairman's discussion draft seeks to address
this particular issue. The bill codifies an existing
interagency committee on water availability and quality led by
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and strengthens
the committee by incorporating the suggestions of a 2004
National Academies Report entitled: ``Confronting the Nation's
Water Problems: The Role of Research.''
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us to
offer their recommendations on how federal water research
programs could be better shaped, and their thoughts on the
draft legislation. Our panel represents a wide range of
interests, and I look forward to hearing each perspective.
At this point, I will turn to our friend, the Ranking
Member, Mr. Inglis, for his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Lampson
I want to welcome Members of the Subcommittee and our distinguished
panelists to today's hearing on the creation of a National Water
Initiative to improve and coordinate federal research on water.
Chairman Gordon plans to introduce legislation to establish a
National Water Initiative to improve and coordinate federal research
and development efforts on water. I would like to thank him for his
leadership and foresight in this area, and I look forward to the
opportunity to consider his legislation.
In order to meet the water demands of the future, it is essential
that we have the information we need to balance the water needs for
municipalities, industry, agriculture, recreation, and power. The
population in the United States has increased by over 25 percent since
1973 while federal dollars for water research have remained stagnant.
A new commitment is needed to ensure that we can meet the water
challenges over the next twenty years and onward. Without the right
data, it is impossible to know if we are going in the right direction.
The discussion draft before us today will provide decision-makers at
all levels of government with the tools they need to make the tough
decisions of the future.
The 2004 National Academies Report on Federal Water Research
suggests that the U.S. is not getting its money worth on water
resources research because of a lack of coordination. The Chairman's
discussion draft seeks to address this issue.
The bill codifies an existing interagency committee on water
availability and quality led by the Office of Science and Technology
Policy and strengthens the committee by incorporating the suggestions
of a 2004 National Academies report entitled, ``Confronting the
Nation's Water Problems: The Role of Research.''
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us to offer their
recommendations on how federal water research programs could be better
shaped and their thoughts on the draft legislation. Our panel
represents a wide range of interests, and I look forward to hearing
each perspective.
At this point I will turn to the distinguished Ranking Member of
this Subcommittee, Mr. Inglis for his opening statement.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
hearing. Water, as we know, is one of the essential ingredients
of life, and an issue this committee takes seriously. This is
the second hearing we have held in the Subcommittee on water
resources research. We have also held a Full Committee hearing
on the water-energy nexus.
I don't think there is a Member of this committee whose
district hasn't been affected by water, either too much of it
or not enough. Not enough right now, in the 4th District of
South Carolina.
I commend the Chairman for his draft legislation, which we
will be discussing today. I believe it is the first of many
steps that have been recommended to us by leading scientists,
industry, academia, and State and local governments.
Coordinating research is a necessary part to responding to our
nation's water problems.
However, I would caution we not take, that we take care not
to repeat the mistakes of the executive branch, approaching
water legislation in the same ad hoc manner that agencies have
approached water research. Last week, at our Full Committee
markup, we passed two water research related bills out of the
Committee. I would hope that the Chairman's legislation doesn't
undermine what we have done in those two bills, but instead,
enhances their effect.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses,
and I yield back the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Water is one of the ingredients of life and an issue this committee
takes seriously. This is the second hearing we have held in the
Subcommittee on water resources research. We have also held a Full
Committee hearing on the energy-water nexus. I don't think there is a
Member on this committee whose district has not been affected by water,
either too much of it, or not enough.
I commend the Chairman for his draft legislation we will be
discussing today. I believe it is the first of many steps that have
been recommended to us by leading scientists, industry, academia and
State and local governments. Coordinated research is a necessary part
to responding to our nation's water problems.
However, I would caution that we take care not to repeat the
mistakes of the Executive Branch by approaching water legislation in
the same ad hoc manner that agencies have approached water research.
Last week at our Full Committee markup, we passed two water research
related bills out of Committee. I would hope that the Chairman's
legislation does not undermine what we have done in those two bills,
but instead enhances their effect.
I look forward hearing from our distinguished witnesses, and I
yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. If there are
additional opening statements, they will be placed in the
record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
Good morning and welcome to the Energy and Environment
Subcommittee's hearing on my draft legislation intended to improve the
Federal Government's efforts to address changes in water use, supply,
and demand in the United States.
I thank our panel of witnesses for testifying. I believe your
perspectives are critical to developing an effective bill. I look
forward to receiving your recommendations.
The draft legislation before us today builds on the
Administration's effort to coordinate federal research on water
resources by establishing an interagency committee--the Subcommittee on
Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ) of the National Science and
Technology Council. The draft bill codifies this subcommittee and
provides it explicit Congressional authorization.
The bill also incorporates recommendations from the 2004 report by
the National Academies of Science entitled Confronting the Nation's
Water Problems: The Role of Federal Research to strengthen the
Committee's role in setting priorities and developing an integrated
budget to support research on water resources. The Academy's report
indicated that SWAQ is an effective forum for agencies to share
information about their efforts on water. However, the report
identified several issues that needed to be addressed to make SWAQ an
effective coordinating body.
The draft bill strengthens the budget function for SWAQ through
participation of OMB on the subcommittee. In addition, SWAQ is directed
to engage in outreach activities to develop connections to State and
local governments, to wider community of stakeholders, and to the
public. These recommendations, and others, helped to form the basis of
this draft legislation.
Water is essential to everything we do and there is no substitute
for it. Many of our districts are experiencing problems with water
supply. If we are to resolve these problems, we need an effective
research and development effort that provides tools and information to
manage our water resources effectively. Coordination of the programs
managed across 20 federal agencies is a logical place to start.
Again, I thank the witnesses for participating in the hearing this
morning, and I look forward to working with you as we go forward to
ensure the Federal Government is doing all it can to promote effective
water management.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today, as this is
an important opportunity to plan for the future and conserve our
recourses appropriately. It's a matter of common sense that we must
better coordinate research and technological innovation to enhance
water supplies and water quality on a national level.
As we all know from last summer's droughts and rising concern
surrounding global warming that water resource problems are growing
both in number and in intensity. Over twenty federal agencies carry-out
research and development on some aspect of water supply, and as recent
reports have indicated, we must do more to better coordinate these
efforts and together work towards solutions.
I am pleased to see that the beverage industry is represented on
our panel of witnesses today, as they have taken important steps to
address water usage policy-an issue central to the vitality of their
business. Fourtune Brands, an Illinois-based company, has taken a
leading role to promote smart technology and conservation practices,
and with companies like Anheuser-Busch have formed a coalition to come
together to share industry-wide best practices to reduce the use of
water and conserve a valued natural resource.
I look forward to our testimony today, and I believe the proposed
legislation is an important step in planning for our nation's future.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for your leadership of this subcommittee; and I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Chairman Lampson. At this time, I am pleased to introduce
our panel of witnesses.
Dr. Mark Shannon is the Director of the United States
Strategic Water Initiative. Mr. Tod Christenson is the Director
of the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable. Dr. Timothy
T. Loftus is a Water Resource Planner for Chicago Metropolitan
Agency for Planning. I enjoyed visiting your city for one hour
last night while our plane was diverted around the United
States. Mr. Jerry Johnson is the General Manager, D.C. Water
and Sewer Authority. Mr. Bradley Spooner is the Principal
Engineer for Environmental Services at Municipal Electric
Authority of Georgia, and Dr. Upton Hatch is the President-
Elect of the National Institutes for Water Resources.
You will each have five minutes for your spoken testimony.
Your written testimony will be included in the record for the
hearing, and when all of you complete your testimony, we will
then begin with questions, and each Member will have five
minutes to question the panel. Dr. Shannon, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK A. SHANNON, DIRECTOR, CENTER OF ADVANCED
MATERIALS FOR THE PURIFICATION OF WATER WITH SYSTEMS,
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Dr. Shannon. Thank you very much. I am really happy to be
here. Thank you, Chairman Lampson and Ranking Member Inglis,
and others distinguished Members of the panel.
I am really excited to be here, because I think this bill
is vitally needed for this country, and it is the right thing
at the right time, and I really think it is actually visionary
in its approach. So, I am going to talk about a number of
different things as quickly as I can, because there are so many
points to be made, but I really appreciate the fact that there
is a real idea to focus in on trying to increase water
supplies, and if I can have the next slide.
This is just a snapshot when I go around the world talking
about water issues, my record tends to focus on the arid
Southwest. They say we have real problems there, but this map
shows issues related to water, and depletions that are
occurring over the country. And the Southeast has serious
issues, and the Midwest, near one of the greatest bodies of
freshwater in the world, has also major issues in Illinois, as
well as along the Ogallala Aquifer.
In order to increase supplies, we are seeing a real
depletion of groundwaters, and we need to look at new ways of
doing this. While the water sector invests about approximately
$700 million in research foundations, such as the American
Water Works, and the Water Environment Research Foundation,
WateReuse, collectively invests another $24 million, their
efforts are really at applied research. I think a really
important thing to do is to improve and advance the basic
science and technologies, such that we can get new technologies
to fuse into the sector.
And so, as a representative of the U.S. Strategic Water
Initiative, one of the co-founders, what we are really wanting
to do is take the basic science that the United States is so
good at developing. We are really fantastic at that. But we
really have a disconnect with getting this diffused into
practice, and so that we can have solutions. When the water
supplies begin to drop, and we see a tremendous drop in the
level of aquifers, that we can do something about it. And I
have a lot of hope that we can do this, and from a science
point of view there is lots of room to move. We are a water
planet. We have lots of water around it. It is just how we use
it, and how we incorporate it.
We are really looking at developing new technologies that
can then get diffused into practice, so that water managers
around the country can utilize this. One of these issues is
sourcewater protection, and there is lots of critical issues
there. There is a lot of water in both saline and fresh
aquifers, and that is where it is really down. What we are
seeing is that the water is getting saltier and saltier and
needing more and more treatment. So, we need to be able to
figure out how to do this effectively and affordably.
We need to understand what the withdrawal rates are for
both the freshwater aquifers and the saltwater aquifers that
underlie them. In addition, we need to understand what we can
do about the 800 billion gallons of water that we get from
produced water. That could be a fantastic source of water that
currently is not. There are a lot of sources of water that are
available that we just don't use today. And with some more
science and technology, we can very effectively use these, and
alleviate a lot of the problems with source protection.
We have got to be able to prevent cross contamination
because as we start to pump down, cross contamination begins to
require more treatment. Can I have the next slide?
This is a projection of possible increases that are going
to occur by 2030, due to population growth. We are using more
and more water because of our economics. If you look at this,
we are seeing significant factors all over this country, and we
are going to need to see major investments by local areas. If
you are looking over at California, it doesn't look like a
large increase but they already use so much that that is
actually a huge value. We need to be able to figure out, there
is a lot of critical issues, I think, for the U.S., and you
know, I would like to go to the next slide.
To do sourcewater protection we need to be able to couple
the contamination in the sources. Finally, population growth is
really driving everything, and this one basically shows that if
we are going to increase our water supplies for this country by
62 percent we need to start conservation. Then we would only
need to increase it by 30 percent.
That sort of gives you an overview of why I think we need
science and technology here. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shannon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark A. Shannon
Good morning Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. I
want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee today. I especially want to thank Chairman Gordon for his
leadership on this issue and for producing the legislation that we are
providing testimony on today. I am Mark Shannon, Director of the Center
of Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water with Systems, a
National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center headquartered
at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This Center focuses
on finding solutions to the coming water crisis through revolutionary
advances in science and technology. We also have partnerships with
major stakeholders in the water sector with an active Industrial
Affiliates program of companies across the U.S. with interests in
solutions to water problems.\1\ I am also the Co-Founder of the United
States Strategic Water Initiative, which is a consortium of companies,
academic researchers, and water associations acting together to advance
the science of water purification and to accelerate delivery of new
U.S. technologies necessary to increase and protect fresh water
supply.\2\ The premise of these activities and partnerships is that
significant and technological advances are a critical component to
meeting the future water needs of our country and world. Our objectives
are to develop new water purification technologies that can reduce the
amount of energy and chemicals currently used to treat water, and to
create new methods to desalinate, reuse, decontaminate, and disinfect
waters so that we can gain new waters for human use from different
types of sourcewaters, including those that are not now considered
usable. By doing so, we will be able to expand the U.S. water supplies,
without needing to transport fresh waters over long distances at huge
costs in capital and energy usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Industrial Affiliates and Partners: Archer Daniels Midland
(ADM), Applied Membrane Technologies (AMT), Biolabs/Chemtura, Clorox-
Brita, Cargill, Culligan, Damon S. Williams Associates (DSWA), ITT,
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Pentair,
Porex Porous Products, PPG, Praxair, Siemens, UOP/Honeywell, Water and
Wastewater Equipment Manufactures Association (WWEMA).
\2\ List of signers: Ken Kirk--National Association of Clean Water
Agencies; Mark Shannon, Jian-Ku Shang, Michael Plewa, Eberhard
Morgenroth, Timm Strathmann, Richard Sustich--WaterCAMPWS/University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Kofi Bota, Eric Mintz--WaterCAMPWS/Clark
Atlanta University; Rishi Shukla--Archer Daniels Midland; Greg
Pepping--University of Wisconsin; David Henderson--XPV Capital
Corporation; Richard White--Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
Shaurya Prakash--Rutgers University; Lutgarde Raskin--University of
Michigan; Slav Hermanowicz--University of California at Berkeley; Tanna
Borrell--University of Michigan; Scott Husson--Clemson University; Eva
Steinle-Darling--Stanford University; Wen-Tso Liu--National University
of Singapore; Daniel Brunelle--GE Global Research; Mark Rigali--Sandia
National Laboratories; Darren Sun--Nanyang Technical University; Franz
Hoffman--Procorp Enterprises, Milwaukee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The different water using sectors (agriculture/livestock, energy,
industry and mining, and domestic use) have different needs and
requirements, for withdrawal, consumption, and discharge of waters.
Importantly, what will work for one water use sector may not work for
another. However, as supplies become more constrained, the impact of
one sector on another becomes more important, and they are coupled to
each other. Moreover, due to the extent of river systems and aquifers,
along with the interdependencies of use, the effect on water supplies
is no longer just a local issue. For the Federal Government to
adequately address all these issues across sectors, it is imperative
that coordination and cooperation occur across the different agencies
working to find solutions to the water supply and availability issues.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide input to the Committee on
the National Water Research and Development Initiative. In my view,
this visionary initiative is the right effort at the right time to
ensure that we stimulate water-related research and development (R&D)
that simultaneously lead to new opportunities for U.S. companies, not
those of foreign countries, while solving current and future problems
in water supply and quality. This can be accomplished by improving and
enhancing federal research, development, demonstration, education, and
technology transfer in water use, supply, and demand, as well as
conservation and management.
As the Committee is aware, water R&D in the United States is well
more than a century old, and is carried out by a wide range of research
organizations at all levels of government (Federal, State, and
municipalities), by technology developers and vendors, water
associations, and the academic community. While the water technology
sector invests approximately $7 million and research foundations such
as the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Water
Environment Research Foundation, and the WateReuse Foundation
collectively invest another $24 million annually, their efforts are
directed at applied research focused on specific issues of interest to
their subscribers. A great deal of additional research is done at U.S.
universities, water associations and State and local units of
government. Beyond their work, there are a number of key areas in which
direct and sponsored research at the federal level is essential. I
would like to speak to what I believe those key areas in Science and
Technology are that the proposed Bill can address.
Water Availability and Sourcewater Protection
The United States lacks sufficient knowledge regarding the actual
amount of water stored and recharged in currently utilized fresh water
aquifers. Current data indicate that levels in some monitored aquifers
are dropping rapidly. For instance, regions of the High Plains Aquifer
south of the Canadian River in New Mexico and Texas experienced water
level declines of more than 60 feet between 1980 and 1999. While there
are regional efforts to look at these issues, a nationwide effort to
inventory and quantify the existing fixed and recharging supplies of
fresh, brackish and saline water is critical not only for projecting
water availability and sustainable withdrawal capacities, but also for
helping scientists, engineers, and planners choose water supply and
community development solutions that will be viable. The effects of
withdrawal and consequent salting on lands and lakes, as well as
contamination rates of aquifers also need to be quantified. Critical
issues for federal R&D include assessment of (i) the waters contained
in both freshwater and saline/brackish aquifers, (ii) the withdrawal
and recharge rates of both, (iii) the amount of communication between
surface and both types of groundwaters and adjacent watersheds, and
(iv) the degree of cross-contamination occurring between sourcewaters.
Research Needs for Development of New Water Supplies
Local water demands from population and economic growth will vary
throughout the United States, with many areas likely to experience very
high growth rates over the next 30 years. Conventional sources of water
may not be available or too expensive to develop, and conservation and
efficiency may not be enough to ease demand. New water supplies will be
needed for these areas.
Meaningful increases in potable water supplies can only be achieved
through reuse of existing wastewater and development of brackish and
saline sources--to gain new supplies everywhere from the ``sea to sink
to the sea again.'' This effort will need to focus on augmenting water
supplies via desalination of seawater and brackish aquifers, as well as
through direct reuse of municipal, agricultural, and produced
wastewaters from energy and industrial operations. From a purification
standpoint, brackish aquifers and wastewaters present even greater
challenges than seawater desalination. Crucial issues to utilizing
inland brackish lakes and aquifers include developing methods and
materials that can separate hard water dissolved solids with minimal
fouling, and minimizing residuals created during desalination and
reclamation of contaminated and brackish sourcewaters. Critical issues
for federal R&D include (i) establishment of standards for potable and
non-potable waters derived from these sources, (ii) education of the
public of the need and safety of potable waters derived from sources
that meet the standards to gain widespread acceptance, and (iii)
development of resource recovery methodologies for concentrate
residuals and brine from brackish and saline sources, and energy and
chemicals from wastewater.
Contaminant Detection, Decontamination and Removal
An emerging trend impacting water supplies is that contamination of
sourcewaters, in particular groundwater aquifers that were previously
clean, is either reducing supplies or is requiring costly cleanup or
extensive treatment of the waters to be used by humans. To maintain the
viability of these and new sourcewaters, efficient removal of
contaminants from all types of water sources is needed, to get the
``drop of poison out of an ocean of water.''
Current treatment technologies are typically not contaminant-
specific, resulting in excessive use of energy and chemicals during
treatment, as well as necessitating the removal of benign constituents
and excessive generation of residuals requiring further processing and
disposal. Efforts to develop more marginal water sources, due to
increasing demand and depletion of existing sources, will likely become
prohibitively expensive using conventional approaches. A major cost
factor in removing trace amounts of critical contaminants from
sourcewaters is that large quantities of benign, potable constituents
are also removed. Using treated low-cost materials such as naturally
derived Chitosan from crustaceans, or new and reusable swellable glass
sorbents that can selectively and affordably remove contaminants such
as heavy metals and petroleum distillates, freeing up waters for human
use. Additionally, real-time, in situ detection, adsorption, and/or
catalytic destruction of potential warfare/terrorism agents are major
challenges for the water industry. If we can know in near real time
what contaminants are present in sourcewaters, and mitigate potential
dangers from contaminants, we can prevent major losses in water
supplies to large number of our people in times of crisis. Critical
issues for federal research include (i) establishment of what classes
of contaminants need to be removed together, (ii) determination of
necessary contaminant detection levels and reliability of in-situ
monitoring, and (iii) standards for disposal of contaminants recovered
from reused and reclaimed waters.
Pathogen Detection and Removal
Similar to chemical contamination, waterborne pathogens can sicken
significant numbers of people, and if introduced to water systems
naturally or deliberately, or via cross-contamination with waste
systems, can render even major water supplies unusable. Moreover,
treatment for pathogens can also inadvertently introduce toxic
compounds to water supplies. Disinfection technologies that effectively
deactivate known and emerging pathogens without producing toxic
substances are needed to ``beat chlorination.'' New and affordable
materials, methods, and systems are necessary to provide drinking water
free of harmful viral, bacterial and protozoan pathogens, while
avoiding the formation of toxic by-products or impairing the treatment
of other contaminants. Low cost materials such as proteins from
harvested Moringa seeds can remove pathogens such as viruses from
water, and new sunlight activated catalysts can potentially disinfect
waters from a host of pathogens without using additional chemicals or
energy. A key unsolved problem is the detection and removal of new and/
or evolving infective viruses, and resistant pathogens to standard
chemical treatment. Critical issues for federal R&D include (i)
development of standards and accepted modalities for determining
infectivity of pathogens in water for near real time detection, and
(ii) establishment of risk assessment and mitigation for disinfection
by-products from current and new treatment methods.
Water Conservation and Reuse
Population growth projections show that conservation alone will not
be enough to meet future water demand in many parts of the United
States. Projected population growth of 100 to 130 million people over
the next 32 years in the U.S. will put further stress on water demand.
With current growth in consumption patterns with respect to
domestic, industrial, agricultural, and energy usage, the U.S. will
need to increase total water supplies by up to 60 percent using current
technologies. Moreover, combined with changing demographics, this
population growth will cause increases of over 100 percent for many
cities and large metropolitan areas across the U.S., likely causing
critical water shortages. Even if we are able to maintain per capita
consumption at 2000 levels, we will need more than a 40% increase in
water supply capacity by 2040. Reduction in per capita water
consumption must therefore be an essential part of our national
strategy to extend the service capabilities of current and future water
supplies and associated infrastructure. A key issue is that leakage of
drinking water from the distribution network, and water main breaks is
the same as loss in supply. Reducing leakage in the infrastructure will
not only effectively increase water supplies, but it will reduce the
amount of energy and chemicals used to create and transport potable
water, and the overall operation and maintenance costs. Conservation
via improved efficiencies and reduction in waste can dramatically
reduce overall costs of providing clean water. Research efforts that
focus on minimizing the withdrawal of water and on the conversion of
direct draw applications to reuse systems have the potential to
substantially reduce projected water needs, particularly for specific
watersheds and aquifers. Critical issues for federal R&D include (i)
assessment of interactions between different water use sectors
(agriculture, livestock, mining, energy, domestic, and industry) on
water use, conservation, and reuse, and (ii) understanding the
environmental impact of changing withdrawal, consumption, and discharge
patterns on overall water systems.
Scalability, Ramp-Up and Technology Diffusion
We have the scientific and engineering capabilities in our
universities and government and national laboratories to make great
discoveries and find sustainable solutions to our problems, but unless
a means to move these advances from the laboratory to full production
is possible, these innovations will, unfortunately, remain in the
laboratory. Further, many novel approaches to problems, while
scientifically intriguing, may not take into consideration the costs of
mass production or implementation. Scalability focuses on capacity for
researchers to incorporate benchmarking and manufacturing scale-up
considerations as well as facilitating the testing and movement of new
materials and procedures to industry. For a technology to be successful
the total life cycle costs must be favorable and it must win in the
marketplace. Moreover, with respect to potable water systems, a history
of performance efficacy and costs of installation and operation must be
available for water managers to select with confidence one technology
over another. Because of its oversight role with respect to drinking
water, wastewater and environmental quality, research into, and
development of low-cost, highly-adaptable technology verification
methods is appropriate at the federal level to encourage diffusion and
adoption of innovative water technologies under various State and local
programs.
Perhaps just as importantly, developing new innovative and cost
effective technologies in water purification can help position U.S.
companies to compete in the rapidly expanding worldwide markets for
water technology. Many nations around the world (China, India,
Singapore, Switzerland, and within the EU) are pouring money and
resources into developing new science and technologies for increasing
water supplies and for new purification methods. While the U.S. still
leads in basic science, we are falling behind in technology diffusion
into the marketplace. The WaterCAMPWS Industrial Affiliates and the
signers of the U.S. Strategic Water Initiative are anxious to develop
new products to solve the critical problems facing the U.S. and world
and to actively compete in this growing market for water products and
systems.
Comments on the draft National Water Research and Development
Initiative legislation
Now I would like to shift my comments to the draft National Water
Research and Development Initiative legislation before the Committee.
We certainly concur with the Committee that our nation will benefit
substantively from the establishment of a National Water Research and
Development Initiative, and the creation and execution of a National
Water Availability Research and Development Plan. There are many water-
related research and management activities across the federal agencies,
from Agriculture, to Energy and the Defense Departments, to EPA, to
NASA and to NOAA, just to name a few. Not only will lateral
coordination across agency activities enhance the return on current
water investments across the agencies, but it will also facilitate the
identification and evaluation of further research opportunities for
future investment.
Recommendation for National Water Research and Development Advisory
Committee
We have initiated a similar effort, known as the United States
Strategic Water Initiative (USSWI), including stakeholders from
federal, State and municipal research programs, academia, water
technology developers, and major water users such as the agriculture
and energy sectors. The goals of USSWI are to:
Increase basic science and technology research of
water purification in academic and government research
laboratories to enhance innovation and American
competitiveness;
Provide feedback from water associations, suppliers,
users, practitioners, government officials, and the public on
water purification needs, technologies, and product performance
to S&T researchers;
Provide a direct path for new ideas and technologies
created in research laboratories to be evaluated, demonstrated,
verified, and certified;
Foster public and private investment in water
purification research, and accelerate the diffusion of
technologies (implementation, commercialization, and adoption)
that emerge from such research;
Establish a cooperative research agenda including a
prioritized list of gaps, needs, and opportunities in water
science and technology.
Because a substantial water research and development effort already
exists outside the federal agencies, we believe that input from this
external community is essential to the successful development and
implementation of the Plan envisioned in the Act. We therefore
recommend that the Act include establishment of a standing National
Water Research and Development Advisory Committee under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, to provide advice and counsel to the
Interagency Committee and information on extra-mural water research and
development activities to the National Water Initiative Outreach
Office.
We strongly support the creation of national interdisciplinary
research Centers with participation from U.S. universities, water
associations and research foundations, and the private sector including
technology companies, innovators, and finance, to accelerate the
diffusion of new science and technologies from federal, State, and
local research laboratories, as well as university and foundation
funded research, into the marketplace. The Centers should likely be
independently managed with governing boards that include the
participating stakeholders along with relevant agencies.
National Water Availability Research and Assessment Plan Outcomes
We are very pleased with the desired outcomes of the Plan, and
would like to offer several minor revisions aimed at enhancing the
practical value of the Plan for improving water management:
a) implementation of a National Water Census, which shall
include the collection of water data to create a comprehensive
water database that includes information on available quantity,
quality, consumption, recharge capacity and threats to
groundwater and surface water resources;
b) development of a new generation of water monitoring
techniques in support of the other outcomes of this subsection;
c) development and expansion of technologies for enhancing
reliable water supply, management and reclamation;
d) development of innovative, maximally-efficient water-use
technologies and tools to enhance public acceptance;
e) development of collaborative tools and processes for U.S.
water solutions;
f) advancement of understanding of the water-related ecosystem
services, ecosystem needs for water, and opportunities for
ecosystem management through beneficial water reclamation;
g) improvement of hydrologic prediction models and their
applications;
h) enhancement of technology transfer to, and technology
adoption by the water management community;
i) analyses of the energy needs and identification of energy
conservation opportunities in providing water supplies across
the country;
j) assessment of, and mitigation strategies to address, the
impacts of economic, demographic, climatic, and technological
changes that have contributed to changes in our nation's water
availability and quality;
k) creation of national research and technology Centers for
accelerating the diffusion of science and technology from
Federal and other government funded research to practice.
Minimum Funding for Act-Related Activities--Section 2(b)(4)(B)
We are concerned that the Act does not authorize the appropriation
of funds to carry out the objectives of the Act, but relies on
contributions from the agencies represented on the Interagency
Committee. To the extent practicable, we recommend that an aggregated
contribution sufficient to carry out the objectives of the Act be
included in this section. To fully accomplish the research objectives
under the Plan, we anticipate that substantial increases in
appropriations to participating federal agencies will be necessary. To
create new national research Centers additional funding will be needed.
Other nations establishing such Centers, such as two in Singapore, are
funding them at $30 million per year per Center for periods of five to
ten years, with similar investments by the private sector. A greater
amount is being expended in Switzerland ( $100 million/year) to develop
new technologies to reduce water usage in the domestic and particularly
the energy sectors. It is likely that a greater level of funding will
be needed in the U.S. to solve the larger problems the U.S. faces over
several sectors and over disparate geographic regions. The basic
research in water science and technology for increasing water supplies,
efficiency, and conservation that I am aware of is funded at about $12
million/year between the NSF, EPA, and DOE. To rapidly increase water
R&D, we recommend that this Act authorize a federal funding level of
$100 million per annum beginning in FY 2010 with annual increases of
five percent through 2019.
In closing, on behalf of the academic research community and the
water technology sector commend the Committee for recognizing the need
for coordination across the breadth of federal agencies conducting
water-related research. The proposed National Water Research and
Development Initiative is vital for the United States. The Initiative
is visionary and will ensure the U.S. will be the leader in creating
solutions for the pending crisis in water availability that has is
already impacting the quality of life of many U.S. citizens, and this
is only the beginning of the coming problems. For our part, we stand
committed to assisting the proposed Interagency Committee in the
development of a National Water Availability Research and Assessment
Plan and in coordinating our own work in furtherance of such a Plan. It
is our fervent belief that this coordination is essential to the
Nation's success in addressing water management issues, both now and in
the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for this
opportunity to provide this testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Biography for Mark A. Shannon
Mark A. Shannon is the Director of the National Science Foundation
Science and Technology Center for Advanced Materials for the
Purification of Water with Systems, the WaterCAMPWS, which is a
multiple university and government laboratory center for advancing the
science and engineering of materials and systems for revolutionary
improvements in water purification for human use, with participation
from companies across the water sector spectrum from utilities to
vendors to consultants. He is also the Co-Founder of the United States
Strategic Water Initiative, which is a consortium of companies,
individuals, and water associations acting together to advance the
science of water purification and to accelerate delivery of new U.S.
technologies necessary to increase and protect fresh water supply. He
is the James W. Bayne Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and received his B.S.
(1989) M.S. (1991) and Ph.D. (1993) degrees in Mechanical Engineering
from the University of California at Berkeley. He received the NSF
Career Award in 1997 to advance microfabrication technologies, the
Xerox Award for Excellence in Research (2004), the Kritzer Scholar
(2003-2006), the Willet Faculty Scholar (2004-2007), and received the
BP Innovation in Education Award in 2006.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much. Mr. Christenson, you
are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. TOD D. CHRISTENSON, CHAIRPERSON, BEVERAGE
INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL ROUNDTABLE (BIER)
Mr. Christenson. Thank you, Chairman Lampson and Ranking
Member Inglis, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Tod Christenson. I am the Director and Chair for the
Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable, not so
coincidentally named BIER, B-I-E-R.
BIER is a unique, creative, voluntary collaboration of 12
global beverage companies from across four beverage sectors,
beer, wine, distilled spirits, and nonalcoholic beverages. Our
member companies operate nearly 200 production and packaging
facilities spread across 35 states, with many, many auxiliary
operations.
BIER is unique in that it is an independent, proactive
convenience of private industry working together to drive water
conservation, resource protection, energy efficiency, and
climate change mitigation. We do this through benchmarking and
data collection, best practice sharing, as well as working on
various venues like this to inform public policy.
We are here today to applaud the Subcommittee and Chairman
Bart Gordon for their focus and commitment to look at policy
changes that will allow us to succeed in meeting our country's
water challenges today and into the future. We applaud the
opportunity of this act under consideration, to provide for the
Federal Government to demonstrate leadership, employing its
role in inventorying and coordinating collaboration on water
initiatives from across the federal agencies, facilitating
commitment to allocation of resources to support the research
and development, creating space for stakeholders to come
together and share and input to this process, and the ensuing
agenda that is implied. And as well, in building awareness,
both across industry and government, and within the public
domain itself.
The September 2007 Strategy Report, which we have been
provided a copy with, produced by the National Science and
Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources, which we understand is a founding work leading to
today's policy discussion, we believe is an excellent work
product. It is one that provides both a comprehensive look at
water challenges we face today, and expect in the future, as
well as outlines what we believe are some implied research and
development activities and needs going forward. We support the
current policy considerations, and those that will lead to
streamlining, increased efficiency, and collaborative efforts
across federal agencies. We believe that is a very important
factor for us. It provides a much stronger working environment
for our industries.
A few of the research priorities that we would note include
a comprehensive water resource inventory, but not only of
today, but looking at future needs and possibly doing some
scenario planning. We believe there is a need in research to
assess our country's water infrastructure, which includes both
supply, delivery, as well as treatment capabilities.
As many of us know, we have an aging infrastructure. There
is a lot of opportunity for conservation within that structure,
and we believe that a thorough assessment needs and
opportunities assessment of the system is warranted. We also
believe in the priorities innovative technology and practice
development. As Dr. Shannon has implied here, I believe that is
an important piece.
Public awareness and education is the fourth piece that we
see that needs development. We need to improve the practices of
our public, of our industry, and create a greater level of
focus to water stewardship.
We would like to leave you with a couple thoughts for
consideration as you move forward in the policy development
efforts. To highlight a few points of my written testimony that
has been submitted, we would ask you to consider establishing a
long-term vision, and empower the developing interagency
committee with clear goals and milestones aligned with the
developed vision. We see an opportunity, given the current
roles, that State and tribal entities play in water management
today, for incorporation of that role into the work of the
interagency committee, and/or future policy development.
We hope you consider the experience, knowledge, and
technology that resides in American industry groups and NGOs,
and those that they will be developing into the future. There
is quite a bit of energy and money being put towards water
consumption and efficiency technologies, to drive water use
efficiency within our industry. There is a lot of valuable
technology out there to be mined, distributed and shared. We
see that as a role of the Federal Government to help
facilitate.
Lastly, Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Inglis, water
issues are a serious and growing concern with all Americans. We
will need new technologies, changes in water use practices, and
new collaborations across all industry, public, and
governmental concerns to meet our future challenges.
To these efforts, you have our full support. On behalf of
the BIER member companies and myself, thank you for the
opportunity to address you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Christenson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tod D. Christenson
Chairman Lampson and Ranking Member Hall. My name is Tod
Christenson; I am a senior consultant with Delta Consultants and
Director of the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER). I
have a Masters in Geology and Organic Chemistry with over 20 years of
experience in working with private industry on strategically important
environmental issues. My office is in St. Paul, Minnesota. On behalf of
BIER, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present this
written testimony.
BIER Background
First, I would like to introduce the organization I am representing
with this testimony; BIER. BIER is a voluntary convenience of twelve
global, leading beverage companies and two leading beverage industry
suppliers. BIER is facilitated by myself and additionally supported by
colleagues of mine from Delta Consultants (HQ in St. Paul, Minnesota).
Founded in August 2006, BIER member companies build on the
technical knowledge and skill, brand power and strength in aggregate to
make meaningful impact to water conservation and resource management,
energy efficiency and climate change mitigation through reduction in
carbon emissions. The group strives to be industry leading and serve as
a role model in industry sector collaboration within the space of
environmental stewardship.
The current members of BIER are:
Anheuser-Busch.
Bacardi
Beam Global Spirits & Wine
Brown Forman Corporation
Coca-Cola Enterprises
Diageo
Danone
Miller Coors (previously Coors Brewing Company)
Nestle Waters North America
PepsiCo
Pepsi Bottling Group
The Coca-Cola Company
Ecolab
JohnsonDiversey
BIER's current agenda involves the following key initiatives:
Developing common frameworks to guide our working
agendas in water conservation and resource management, energy
efficiency and climate change mitigation.
Qualitative benchmarking of Water Conservation
Practices (2007) and Watershed Management Practices (2008)--the
benchmarking results are used in developing the best practice
sharing agenda, defining current best practices and identifying
individual company opportunities for improvement.
Water Use and Efficiency Benchmarking (2007 & 2008)--
a quantitative measurement of water use and efficiency across
the varied beverage industry sectors.
Best Practice Guidance Tool Development--recent
topics included drought preparedness and management, rainwater
harvesting, clean-in-place (CIP) and water use, re-use, and
recycle practices.
Beverage Industry Sector Guidance for Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Emissions Reporting--a sector specific guidance to
support calculation of GHG emissions against the World Resource
Institute (enterprise basis) and British Standards Institute
(PAS-2050; Life Cycle Assessment or Product) GHG protocols.
Stakeholder Engagement--taking a variety of forms,
BIER is actively engaging with external stakeholders to build
awareness, collaborate and inform public policy development as
it relates to water conservation and resource protection,
energy efficiency and climate change mitigation.
Water is Common Thread between Diverse Beverage Companies
The beverage companies that constitute BIER membership represent
four unique sectors of the beverage industry: beer, distilled spirits,
wine, and non-alcoholic beverages.
In the United States alone, member companies operate nearly 200
production and packaging locations spread across 35 states, with many
other auxiliary locations. Member operations also extend into
agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and even tourism sectors.
BIER membership constitutes a majority of beer, carbonated soft drink,
non-carbonated beverages, and bottled water sales in the United States.
The congregation of these companies is rather unique, given the
significant difference in their operations. However, all of the
companies are tied together by a common thread: each of their products
share water as the primary ingredient.
Members of the beverage industry have identified that access to
clean water is not only an essential concern to business continuity,
but a basic human need.
To this end, beverage companies have donated many millions of
servings of clean drinking water in response to domestic emergency
situations, such as hurricane relief and recent floods in the
Mississippi River Basin. In other communities, beverage companies
contribute to resource management by receiving municipal wastewater to
their treatment systems and sharing technical experts with community
planning agencies.
However, BIER members truly stand out in the realm of resource
management and water conservation technologies. Member companies are
continually challenging themselves to be more efficient with their
resources, and to ensure that operations are conducted in a manner that
will sustain business and quality water access for generations to come.
The simple fact that these companies have been convening for the past
two years on a quarterly basis to discuss matters of environmental
conservation demonstrates their awareness to these issues and
willingness to allocate resources to pursue environmental solutions.
Among the most notable achievements of BIER membership in water
conservation and resource management are:
Universal improvements in water efficiency from 2005
to 2006, through which the industry avoided the use of over
nine billion liters of water. This is enough water to support
the annual home water use of 65,000 Americans.
Development of internal environmental management
systems and water management systems which promote and
communicate best practices and drive continuous improvement
through data measurement and goal setting.
Implemented water reuse for non-product uses and
beneficial reuse of wastewater for energy recovery and
agricultural uses.
Collaborative effort through benchmarking studies and
practice sharing sessions to advance drought management
planning efforts and watershed management through third-party
communication efforts.
Community engagement efforts through educational
initiatives, community awareness fairs and organized habitat
cleanups.
General Comments
BIER applauds the efforts embodied in the proposed ``National Water
Research and Development Initiative Act of 2008,'' and we thank this
subcommittee and Committee Chairman Bart Gordon for your focus and
commitment. Combined, these efforts will provide a framework that will
allow all of us to succeed in meeting the water conservation challenges
of the future.
As an industry that relies on water as a core ingredient to the
very products we produce and given the challenges we envision going
forward in maintaining adequate supply and water quality to meet all
the needs of our country and society, we believe your efforts will be
very useful and help assure availability and access of this precious
natural resource well into the future.
We have separated our input into three basic categories for your
consideration and offer an end-user perspective in the interest of
helping shape policies that will benefit all consumers and users of our
water resources.
Role of Federal Government in Water Supply, Water Conservation, and
Water Management
We applaud the opportunity this Act provides for the Federal
Government to demonstrate leadership on many key aspects of water
supply, water conservation and water management in an active and well
coordinated way.
We view the principal role of Federal Government as it relates to
water supply, water conservation and water management, to include the
following functions:
1. Inventory, coordinate and communicate the existing work
being performed across all federal agencies. In doing so,
ensure improved coordination, interagency collaboration and
development of priority projects that have clear deliverables.
2. Commit and allocate resources to support and drive the
needed research and development on water-related issues.
3. Create the space for stakeholders to come together and
share technology and innovations.
4. Support innovative water projects and promote water
conservation practices across both public and private industry.
5. Create tools to promote and enact water efficiency
practices and technologies.
6. Build public, industry and state/local/tribal awareness on
water issues and solutions that our country is facing today and
will be facing tomorrow.
7. Drive responsible ``water stewardship'' behavior and
practice across all aspects of our society (public and private)
without favor (RE: in an unbiased and non-partisan fashion).
8. Drive efficient water consumption and use across the
Federal Government enterprise, instilling in our Federal
Government a culture of water stewardship; in essence lead by
example when it comes to water supply, conservation and water
management practices and performance improvement.
9. Execute its' strategic water agenda against a long-term
vision for achievement and in a manner that makes very clear
the role of the Federal Government and States.
Priority Needs for Federal Research and Development
The work completed by the National Science and Technology Council
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources entitled ``A Strategy
for Federal Science and Technology To support Water Availability and
Quality In The United States (September, 2007) was a very comprehensive
look at the challenges facing this country and thus the implied
research and development work that would benefit sound stewardship of
our country's water resources. It is a thorough summary of the
challenges in meeting our future water demands and facing the
challenges. We recognize that much work is currently being done or has
been initiated on meeting these challenges. We also recognize that the
current policies under development will lead to a more streamlined,
efficient and collaborative effort as the various federal agencies work
to address the variety of these challenges and we applaud the efforts
of all federal and State agencies involved. Rather than add to the list
of challenges and needs, we instead, offer what we see as a few of the
priorities of focus for federal research support.
1. Water resources inventory (mapping) and needs forecasting
and/or scenario planning.
2. U.S. water supply, delivery and treatment infrastructure
assessment.
3. Innovative technology development in how we use supply,
treat, re-use water and direct water to beneficial re-use.
4. Public awareness and education on re-use technologies and
advanced water treatment technology.
5. Water conservation behavior modification practices and
tools; i.e., methods to shift our attitude and culture to be
more sensitive to water stewardship needs and continue to drive
improvement and public and industry water management
performance.
Regardless, of the specific projects taken forth, we feel it is
important that priorities for research and development be established
in alignment with the desired end-state vision and strategic plan set
forth by the Interagency Committee. Further, any research taken on
needs to include clear delineation of expectations or outcomes, be
appropriately resourced and aggressively driven to completion.
Considerations Moving Forward
As your Subcommittee moves forward from this hearing, Mr. Chairman,
we offer some thoughts for your consideration.
1. The consideration of goals and/or milestones might help
enhance the important work you envision for the Interagency
Committee in increasing the efficiency and use of federal
funds, streamlining the efforts on the all critical issues
related to water management, and setting the foundation for
some very collaborative and creative solutions.
2. We see an opportunity, given the current roles that State
and tribal entities play in water management, for an
incorporation of that role in the work of the Interagency
Committee in managing our country's water resources.
3. We applaud the purpose to drive greater interagency
collaboration, and hope that you will consider the experience,
technology and knowledge of water management that likewise
resides in American industry groups and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs).
4. Much work has and is currently being developed to assess
existing water resource availability, access and quality across
many states and tribal lands. In addition agencies like the
U.S. Geological Survey have numerous on-going research projects
that involve inventorying/mapping/monitoring of our water
supplies and quality. We hope you will consider leveraging the
work being done in assessing water supply, quality, forecasting
future needs, etc. and would encourage you to provide
additional clarification on Water Research Outcome number one
(Under Section 2 (d) (1)).
5. Given the general age and current state of our country's
water delivery and treatment infrastructure(s), we suggest a
Water Research Outcome be considered to provide for an
assessment of our current water supply, delivery and treatment
infrastructure, with an eye toward allowing us to improve the
reliability, conservation and efficiency along the complete
water supply chain.
6. As it relates to long-term water resources planning and
needs assessment, we would suggest adding a Water Research
Outcome that involves future use forecasting or scenario
planning for future water supply, availability and quality as
may be impacted by evolving demographics, public and industry
needs and/or climate change.
Closing
Chairman Lampson, Ranking Member Hall and Members of the
Subcommittee, water issues are a serious issue for our country. We are
facing increased water shortages and distribution challenges. We have
an aging infrastructure and in general, a society that has not yet
fully embraced the need for improved water stewardship. Technologies
exist today that will help us meet some of the challenges, but
additional innovation in technology, practices and new collaborations
will be needed to meet future challenges. As one end-user and as an
industry that relies on reliable supply and quality water, the beverage
industry takes water conservation and resource protection very
seriously. It is an area that will continue to receive our attention
and represents an area we will work to provide leading effort.
We are thankful for the opportunity to provide testimony and hope
we have the opportunity to continue to work with this subcommittee and
any resulting policy developments.
As you examine the policy considerations before you today, and
consider taking a bold new step in helping the management of our
country's limited water resources, we hope that our input has been
helpful. We look forward to working with all of you in the future.
On behalf of all BIER Member Companies, thank you!.
Biography for Tod D. Christenson
Experience Summary
Tod D. Christenson has more than 20 years of professional
experience as an environmental strategic thinking partner to private
industry. He is a management consultant with unique skills and
expertise in the following areas.
strategic thinking and planning,
business meeting facilitation,
benchmarking,
environmental organizational diagnosis and coaching,
goal setting and performance management
corporate social responsibility
environmental sustainability
Tod utilizes his technical knowledge and management skills in
leading for Delta Consultants its' delivery of Corporate Responsibility
and Benchmarking practices. Tod is fluent in all aspects of Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR), helping customers develop, and implement
affirmative CSR disciplines across their enterprises.
Education
M.S. Masters of Geology and Organic Chemistry, Idaho State University,
Pocatello, Idaho
B.A. Bachelor of Arts in Geology, St. Thomas University, St. Paul,
Minnesota
Advanced Professional Training Course Work in Contract Management,
Facilitation, Organizational Diagnosis.
Current/Recent Speaking Engagements
Water Stewardship in the Beverage Industry--Wal-Mart Supplier Water
Stewardship Forum, Bentonville, AR, March 2008.
Water Sustainability and Stewardship--Keynote Speaker, 20th Annual
Canadian Bottled Water Convention, Niagara Falls, Ontario,
April 2008.
Sustainability Metrics Development and Measurement--Grocery
Manufacturers Association 1st Annual Sustainability Summit,
Washington, DC, February 2008.
EHS and Sustainability Metrics Management Systems--Air & Waste
Management Association, Atlanta, GA, December 2006.
Water Conservation in the Beverage Industry--International Society of
Beverage Technologists, May 2006.
Representative Project Experience
Affirmative Environmental Sustainability Discipline Consultation--2007
to current
Senior consultant supporting the development and implementation of
an affirmative environmental sustainability discipline for a global,
diversified consumer products company. The consulting assignments
involve participation in setting strategic direction, designing
governance structures and facilitating working groups in the areas of
product stewardship, eco-efficiency and communications and training.
Metrics development and baseline measurement represent additional
area of consultative support and comprises the aspect of internal
benchmarking to drive continuous improvement and external reporting.
Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BEIR)--2006 to current
Director of BIER whose mission is to drive continuous improvement
and inform public policy as it relates to Water Stewardship, Energy
Efficiency and Climate Change Mitigation.
As Director, Tod is applying his leadership skills to coalesce this
voluntary industry collaboration to develop a common framework for
environmental stewardship, share best practices and use the collective
knowledge, expertise and shared learnings to affect public policy.
Under Tod's leadership, BIER is currently:
developing a GHG Protocol for the beverage sector
following World Resource Institute (Enterprise) and British
Standards Institute (Life cycle) protocols,
developing industry best practice guidance tools,
facilitating cross industry collaboration and
networking, and
is helping the global, brand leading beverage
companies achieve new standards of performance.
BIER participants include global environmental affairs, marketing
communications and public affairs leaders from the following beverage
companies: Anheuser-Busch, Bacardi, Beam Global Spirits & Wines, Brown
Forman, Coca-Cola Enterprises, Danone, Diageo, Miller Coors, Nestle
Waters North America, PepsiCo International, The Coca-Cola Company, and
Pepsi Bottling Group. Additionally, Ecolab and JohnsonDiversey
participate as key suppliers to the beverage industry.
Water Use and Efficiency Benchmarking to the Food and Beverage
Industry--2005
Project Manager and lead consultant on the benchmarking of water
use and efficiency across a diverse group of companies in the food and
beverage industries. Participants include world-wide organizations as
Coca-Cola, Cadbury Schweppes, Heineken, SAB Miller, Molson Coors, and
others. The focus of this environmental sustainability-related
benchmarking study focused on the aspects of Total Water Use, Water Use
Ratios, Efficiency Initiatives, and company Watershed Protection
Programs.
Environmental Liability Management Benchmarking--1999-Present
Lead consultant and project manager for the Annual Petroleum
Industry Environmental Liability Management Benchmarking Study. The
participants for these annual studies and practice exchange summits
have included, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Sunoco, Ashland, Marathon
Oil Company, Amerada Hess, Getty Realty, Shell Oil Products and
ExxonMobil. Responsibilities include: participant interview (data
collection), data analysis and presentation of findings on the ELM
business practices and processes component of the benchmarking study.
The annual benchmarking studies covers liability management business
processes/practices and performance metrics for Downstream Petroleum
operations that relate to refining, bulk storage, pipeline and retail
distribution.
The work is conducted annually and culminates in a Summit where
participants engage with their peers in best practice sharing and
common environmental issue problem-solving.
Portfolio Analysis and Organizational Design--2002
Project Manager and lead consultant for a major oil company's
liability management organization portfolio analysis and organizational
design. Responsibilities included: providing coaching to the
responsible manager, developing a process plan for developing the
optimum organizational management scheme, and facilitation of the
organization through the process of designing and implementation of the
new organization.
Personal
Tod is married (27 years) and with his wife Kim has three children;
Jenni (21), Jack (20) and Jacy (16). Tod enjoys all forms of outdoor
activities, is an avid reader for entertainment and enjoys the abundant
water resources of his native and home State of Minnesota.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Christenson. I will get
that out in a minute. And Dr. Loftus, you are recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. TIMOTHY T. LOFTUS, PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS RREGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING, CHICAGO
METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING
Dr. Loftus. Chairman Lampson, Members of the Illinois
delegation, and fellow Members of the Energy and Environment
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to comment this
morning.
I come before you to speak of implementing a new National
Water Research and Development Initiative. On behalf of the
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and with funding from
the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, I have had the
privilege for the past two years of leading a new regional
water supply planning initiative in an 11 county Greater
Chicago region. This regional planning effort was initiated
following Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's Executive Order
20061.
The National Water Initiative could provide states, local
partners, and the private sector with the guidance and
information necessary to meet the challenges similar to what we
have encountered during this initial phase of planning in
Illinois. For example, earlier this month, CMAP issued a water
demand study for our region that reveals gaps in data due to
inadequate water use reporting. It has been said that you can't
manage what you don't measure. Thus, the current status of
water use reporting must be addressed if we are to fully grasp
how future water demand will reconcile with our water supplies.
The National Water Initiative should enable states and
their local planning partners to address the need for
comprehensive reporting across all water use sectors as part of
a new National Water Census that has been recommended by the
Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality.
The population in the Chicago metropolitan region is
projected to grow by over three million people, or 38 percent
by the near 2050. Water demand scenarios for our region
indicate that water use could increase as much as 64 percent
during that time, absent any policy intervention, and without
specific strategies for actively managing both demand and
supply. Factoring in climate change scenarios reveals that
demand for our water in our region could grow even further.
On the supply side, our region's water sources are
generous, but finite. Illinois access to Lake Michigan water is
constrained by U.S. Supreme Court consent decree. The deep
bedrock aquifer underlying Northeastern Illinois is being de-
watered. The system of shallow aquifers shows evidence of
increasing contamination from chlorides. Our two inland river
sources are threatened by non-point source pollution, and
required to maintain minimum in-stream flows. Overall, as
elsewhere in the United States, our challenge in the Chicago
region is not so much scarcity, but water waste, and an
institutional structure for water management that leaves plenty
of room for improvement.
As part of our charge from the State, CMAP created a 35-
member Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply Planning
Group composed of elected officials, private sector
representatives, and other stakeholders. The Regional Water
Group has already adopted several water use conservation and
efficiency measures as the centerpiece of the nascent Regional
Water Supply Plan that is expected next year.
Regrettably, our regional studies funding is currently
jeopardized by State of Illinois budget issues. While our
planning effort in Northeastern Illinois is proactive rather
than a response to a crisis situation, I can tell you from
experience that it is difficult to get people to take a long-
term view. That can be one important function of the National
Water Research and Development Initiative, to define and help
implement a water conservation and efficiency agenda that
encourages long-range planning by giving clear guidance to
states and the private sector alike.
The National Water Initiative's promise of improved
horizontal cooperation among federal agencies should be coupled
with improved vertical coordination with those of us at State,
regional, and local levels who are working to increase
stewardship of our most vital resource. Among other
considerations, a new federal effort should also recognize the
five following points.
Issues of water quality are inseparable from our need for
water availability. Improved water monitoring is prerequisite
to informed decision-making. Achieving water conservation and
efficiency goals will help our nation achieve energy efficiency
goals. It is our nation's best interest to improve our
understanding of water-related ecosystem services, and
ecosystem needs for water, as well. Finally, federal support
can provide key incentives for effective planning, especially
when local pressures tend to promote short-term rather than
long-term thinking.
Thank you very much for your time this morning.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Loftus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy T. Loftus
Chairman Lampson, Members of the Illinois delegation, and fellow
Members of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to comment today. I come before you to speak of
implementing a new National Water Research and Development Initiative.
Never before has the need for a fresh and more coordinated federal role
in addressing our nation's water use, demand, and supply been so
urgent.
On behalf of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP)
and with funding from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR), I have had the privilege for the past two years of leading a
new regional water supply planning initiative in the 11-county, greater
Chicago region. This regional planning effort was initiated following
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's Executive Order 2006-1, which
called on the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, in coordination
with the State Water Survey, to define a comprehensive program for
state and regional water supply planning and management. CMAP has been
charged by IDNR to lead the planning process in northeastern Illinois.
Water supply planning in the Chicago region, an iterative process
that is expected to evolve over the years ahead, could be greatly
strengthened by the promise of the National Water Research and
Development Initiative. The National Initiative could provide states,
local partners, and the private sector with the guidance and
information necessary to meet the challenges similar to what we have
encountered during this initial phase of planning in Illinois.
For example, earlier this month CMAP issued a water-demand study\1\
for our region that reveals gaps in data due to inadequate water-use
reporting. It has been said that you can't manage what you don't
measure. Thus, the current status of water-use reporting must be
addressed if we are to fully grasp how future water demand will
reconcile with our water supplies. The National Initiative should
enable states and their local planning partners to address the need for
comprehensive reporting across all water-use sectors as part of a new
National Water Census that has been recommended by the Subcommittee on
Water Availability and Quality.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Regional Water Demand Scenarios for Northeastern Illinois:
2005-2050. Project Completion Report, June 15, 2008. Prepared by
Benedykt Dziegielewski and Farhat Jahan Chowdhury, Southern Illinois
University Carbondale, Department of Geography and Environmental
Resources.
\2\ A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water
Availability and Quality in the United States. Report of the National
Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources. Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality. September
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The population in the Chicago metropolitan region is projected to
grow by over three million people or 38 percent by 2050. Water-demand
scenarios for northeastern Illinois indicate that water use could
increase as much as 64 percent during that time absent any policy
intervention and without specific strategies for actively managing both
demand and supply. Factoring in climate change scenarios reveals that
demand for water in our region could grow even further.
While our regional analysis of demand and supply is not complete,
there is ample reason for concern. On the supply side, our region's
water sources are generous, but finite. Illinois access to Lake
Michigan water is constrained by U.S. Supreme Court Consent Decree. The
deep-bedrock aquifer underlying northeastern Illinois is being de-
watered. The system of shallow aquifers shows evidence of increasing
contamination from chlorides (i.e., road salts). Our two inland river
sources are threatened by non-point source pollution and required to
maintain minimum in-stream flows. Overall, as elsewhere in the United
States, our challenge in the Chicago region is not so much water
scarcity, but water waste.
As part of our charge from the State, CMAP created a 35-member
Northeastern Illinois Regional Water Supply Planning Group (RWSPG)
composed of elected officials, private sector representatives, and
other stakeholders. The RWSPG has already adopted several water-use
conservation and efficiency measures as the centerpiece of the nascent
regional water supply plan that is expected next year. In July 2009,
this diverse group is scheduled to issue its plan with recommendations
for managing water supply through 2050. While our regional study's
funding is currently jeopardized by State of Illinois budget issues,
CMAP is committed to moving forward with our partners to complete this
important effort.
I can tell you from experience that it is difficult to get people
to take a long-term view. That can be one important function of the
National Water Research and Development Initiative: To define and help
implement a water conservation and efficiency agenda that encourages
long-range planning by giving clear guidance to states and the private
sector alike.
The inherent complexity and uncertainty associated with planning
for our nation's water resources, water availability and quality, make
for a formidable challenge that needs to be met now. Those of us
working on this front should benefit from the National Initiative
achieving its purpose of improving the Federal Government's efforts
with research, development, and outreach as it pertains to water use,
supply, and demand.
The National Initiative's promise of improved horizontal
cooperation among federal agencies should be coupled with improved
vertical coordination with those of us at State, regional, and local
levels who are working to increase stewardship of our most vital
resource. Among other considerations, the effort should also recognize
that:
1) Water quality is a prime attribute of water availability.
2) Improved water monitoring is prerequisite to informed
decision-making.
3) Achieving water conservation and efficiency goals will help
achieve energy efficiency goals.
4) It is in our nation's best interest to improve our
understanding of water related ecosystem services and ecosystem
needs for water.
At CMAP, we believe our region is at a turning point, and that
could apply equally to other urban areas and the U.S. as a whole.
Pressures in the economy--particularly housing and fuel costs--are
increasing public support for compact growth patterns and other
policies that planners have long promoted. Sensible growth will be an
important component of our regional water strategy, to discourage
development in locations that will strain supplies. Water-supply
planning can benefit from the heightened public awareness of how
quality of life can be preserved and improved through effective
stewardship of regional resources. Again, federal support can provide
key incentives for effective planning, especially when local pressures
tend to promote short-term rather than long-term thinking.
Thank you for considering my testimony, and I look forward to the
National Water Research and Development Initiative becoming law and
fulfilling its promise to ensure adequate water supplies for the
Nation.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Dr. Loftus. Mr. Johnson, you
are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MR. JERRY N. JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Lampson, Members of the
Committee. I am Jerry Johnson, General Manager of the District
of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, otherwise known as
DCWASA. I appreciate your interest in the federal role in
research, development, and research coordination in the areas
of water supply, water conservation, and water management.
I also appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
House Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on
Energy and the Environment, and to comment on the national
water research and development effort.
DCWASA has a broad mission of providing reliable, cost-
effective water and wastewater services. We are an independent
authority of the District of Columbia, and serve a multi-
jurisdictional area here in the region. We distribute drinking
water and collect wastewater for more than 500,000 residential,
commercial, and government customers here in the District of
Columbia, including this U.S. Capitol complex. We treat
wastewater for another 1.6 million residents in Maryland and
Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, from my perspective, there are a number of
factors that complicate efforts to better coordinate and manage
water resources, including geography, State and local
jurisdiction and political boundaries, the site-specific nature
of statutory and regulatory framework, the structure of local
and regional water and land use agencies, as well as a strong
history that includes the evolution of development around
waterways that serve as both sources of drinking water, support
for industrial and other economic activities, and receiving
waters for discharges of effluent from wastewater treatment
plants, and overland runoff. However, all of these can be
overcome.
A broad framework to establish supporting water resources
research and development is a pathway for identifying important
national priorities, while also helping to disseminate
information on a range of issues we confront in improving our
management of water resources. However, the opportunity to
establish a framework that better coordinates ongoing research
will certainly strengthen our efforts in, with the research and
our research agendas. Providing a stronger brand of national
leadership that promotes a consensus and identifies priorities
will encourage even greater initiative on the part of academic
institutions, professional organizations and associations,
research foundations, local agencies, and industry.
As you know, water rarely is a localized resource. It rises
and crosses jurisdictional boundaries, and cities, counties,
and states, which makes the federal role extremely critical as
we address these issues. A number of federal agencies, ranging
from the U.S. EPA, the U.S. State Department, Agriculture, and
others are making a number of national professional and
industry associations work together, and have established over
the years a very important research effort that is based on
collaboration across these professional lines.
Another example, a couple of examples of those are the
American Water Works Association, which has sponsored over 635
completed research projects, with another 300 that are
underway, with in excess of 500 researchers that have been
involved.
Another example is the Water Environment Research
Federation, a leading independent scientific research
organization, and I am proud to be a member of the board of
that organization, and we have, in fact, done over 400 research
projects, totaling some $89 million in value. Similarly,
academic institutions participate in important research that
constitutes, that contributes to the understanding of our
interactions with the environment. These efforts also enhance
our ability to manage water resources and reduce potentially
negative effects on human activity.
Scientists who are employed in our wastewater plant and our
Water Quality Division are participating in a fair amount of
this research in areas of bio-solids management, and providing
a good bit of information on corrosion control as it relates to
the drinking water distribution system. We also work with a
number of universities, to include Virginia Tech and Howard
University, on a number of research initiatives.
But there are a number of initiatives that really need to
be examined, and I think a few examples of those are
understanding when water is safe to drink, understanding the
phenomena of pharmaceuticals and nanotechnology as it relates
to water, bio-solids management, point source control, just to
name a few.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I wish to express my appreciation
to you and the Committee for your interest in these critical
issues. We most often come to Capitol Hill seeking support for
massive infrastructure improvements, and to undertake, to
ensure protection of our resources and the environment. There
are, however, initiatives that the Federal Government can
undertake that are at least as important as appropriation
bills. A national initiative to build better coordination and
stronger foundation for developing priorities, enhancing
overall national research agenda, and providing the information
we need to improve our management of our water resources, is
just that initiative.
I believe that you can be confident that the successful
effort will result in not only a more cost-effective research
initiative, but also a positive impact on water resource
development and management through better planning, lower
costs, and improved efficiency.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, many of the issues that I have
discussed in this testimony, and particularly, the written
testimony, are not new to the research community. Climate
change, however, is a substantially different kind of
challenge. Although the debate regarding global warming
continues in some quarters, there is no doubt that water
resources can and are dramatically affected by local and
regional climate change.
Strengthening the national research agenda through better
coordination could help to develop an important new role, and
provide a critical advantage for the successful addressing of
many of these new challenges that we face.
Also, I would just point out to the Committee that a couple
of things in the legislation, one relates to funding, that I
think probably could be addressed and strengthened, and the
other is consideration of the difficulty in uncoupling water
resources from wastewater management and the whole notion of
things related to that particular industry.
Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you have and I apologize for going over my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jerry N. Johnson
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Jerry N.
Johnson, and I am the General Manager of the District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority, otherwise known as DCWASA. I appreciate your
interest in the federal role in research, development and research
coordination in the areas of water supply, water conservation and water
management.
I also appreciate this opportunity to testify before the House
Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment, and to comment on a national water research and
development effort.
DCWASA's broad mission includes providing reliable and cost-
effective water and wastewater services. We are an independent
authority of the District of Columbia that serves a multi-
jurisdictional service area.
Specifically, we distribute drinking water and collect and treat
wastewater for more than 500,000 residential, commercial and
governmental customers in the District of Columbia, including this U.S.
Capitol complex. We also treat wastewater for 1.6 million customers in
Montgomery and Prince George's counties in Maryland and Fairfax and
Loudoun counties in Virginia.
In many ways we are unique:
- Unlike almost every other municipal water utility in the
country, we were established in both local and federal law.
- We are directly regulated by the Federal Government, through
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Region 3.
- The source of our drinking water is the Potomac River--a
river that is bounded by several states and the District of
Columbia, and although we distribute drinking water, our
supplier is the Baltimore District of the United States Army
Corps of Engineers Washington Aqueduct.
- Although we treat wastewater for both wholesale and retail
customers at a District of Columbia facility that is regulated
by the EPA, our wholesale customers operate under separate
permits and different pollution limits, and also have different
regulatory regimes established under state governments.
These factors do not necessarily impact all of DCWASA's operations
on a daily basis, but they do impact how we plan, develop and manage
water resources. Even though we are unique we share many of the
challenges that confront other municipal and regional water and
wastewater agencies. For example:
- The fact that DCWASA is responsible under its NPDES permit
for addressing the District's estimated three billion gallons
of annual combined sewer overflows that reach the Anacostia and
Potomac rivers and Rock Creek, while at the same time the
District of Columbia Department of the Environment is
responsible for managing the District's stormwater flows into
these waterways under a separate MS4 permit issued by EPA;
- The fact that the Federal Government provides drinking water
treatment means that the periodic disagreements between
jurisdictions that border the Potomac River (and which are
mirrored in other regions of the country) have important
implications for many area residents, but not for customers
whose water is treated by the federal U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
- When local drought conditions require Maryland or Virginia
to impose voluntary or even mandatory water restrictions in
communities that border the District, we usually escape these
limits because we rely on the Potomac which has substantial
natural and manmade reserve capacity far upstream;
- Although the Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
was the first to meet the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program
voluntary limits on nitrogen discharges, and even though we
will expend about $1 billion dollars to meet more stringent
requirements, EPA and states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
have yet to establish effective means to limit the most serious
source of pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay--run-off from
non-point sources;
- The District of Columbia is required to expend approximately
$2 billion to address the combined sewer overflows, while most
of the pollution in the Anacostia River is caused by legacy
pollutants in river bed sediments and other pollutants from
upstream beyond the District's borders--another example of the
essential need to develop more effective watershed-based
approaches to water, wastewater and storm water management.
Mr. Chairman, from our perspective there are a number of factors
that complicate efforts to better coordinate the management of water
resources, including:
- Geography
- State and local jurisdictional and political boundaries
- The site-specific nature the statutory and regulatory
framework within which we ail work
- The structure of local and regional water and land use
agencies, and
- History--the evolution of development around major waterways
that serve as both sources of drinking water and as receiving
waters for the discharge of effluent from treatment plants and
overland run-off.
A broad framework established for supporting water resources
research and development is a pathway to identifying important national
priorities while also helping to disseminate information on the range
of issues we confront in improving our management of water resources.
However, the opportunity to establish a framework that better
coordinates ongoing research will certainly strengthen our research
agenda. Providing a stronger brand of national leadership that promotes
consensus and identifies priorities will encourage even greater
initiative on the part of academic institutions, professional
associations and research foundations, local agencies and industry.
As you know, water is rarely a localized resource; it raises inter-
jurisdictional challenges across cities, counties and states. The
federal role in coordination is crucial. A number of federal agencies
ranging from the EPA, to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Centers for Disease Control, just to name a few, are making important
contributions to research, and many national professional and industry
associations have established over the years very important research
efforts that are based on collaboration across professions, academia,
government and water agencies.
For example, the mission of American Water Works Association
Research Foundation (AwwaRF) is to advance the science of water to
improve the quality of life by focusing on drinking water research. To
date, AwwaRF has sponsored 635 completed research projects, and more
than 300 studies are currently underway. In excess of 500 researchers
and 30 partner research organizations have been involved in research
efforts, which are guided by stakeholders in the water industry and
supported by nearly 1,000 member organizations in nine countries
worldwide.
Another example is the Water Environment Research Foundation
(WERE), formed in 1989, is a leading independent scientific research
organization dedicated to wastewater and stormwater issues. As a member
of the WERF Board of Directors, I am proud of the fact that we have
managed nearly 400 research projects, valued at more than $85 million.
This nonprofit organization operates with funding from subscribers
(wastewater treatment plants, stormwater utilities, and regulatory
agencies and the Federal Government, industry and equipment companies,
engineers and environmental consultants. And the approach to research
stresses collaboration among teams of subscribers.
Similarly, academic institutions participate in important research
that contributes to our understanding of our interactions with the
environment. These efforts also enhance our ability to manage water
resources and reduce potentially negative effects of human activity.
Less well known are the research efforts of local agencies like DCWASA.
Scientists who are employed in our wastewater treatment and our
drinking water quality units are participating, and some instances
leading, important research efforts in, for example, the use of
biosolids, a byproduct of wastewater treatment. We are also conducting
research and providing important data to EPA and other agencies in the
area of corrosion control in the treatment and distribution of drinking
water.
This work is being undertaken in many instances in collaboration
with academic institutions like Virginia Tech, Howard University, the
University of Washington and Cincinnati University, as well as with
organizations like AWWARF.
Yes, this work is important. Yes, we are establishing important and
valuable affiliations. Yes, this applied research will improve our
ability to operate more efficiently and at lower cost, or alternatively
to improve our ability to comply with increasingly stringent regulatory
standards.
However, given the nature of our mission, our research agenda can
sometimes be driven by relatively shorter-term objectives. I genuinely
believe that the Nation will benefit from a stronger, better
coordinated approach to research that supports better management of
this increasingly scarce resource.
We are strongly supportive of an initiative that creates a more
centralized opportunity to review, discuss and build a consensus on how
we should approach some of these many challenges. DCWASA has been an
advocate for strengthening the national research effort on a range of
issues that relate to both wastewater treatment and drinking water
treatment and distribution. For example:
Simultaneous Compliance
More research and coordination should be encouraged in the area of
simultaneous compliance with all federal regulations under the federal
Safe Drinking Water Act. Changes in one regulation may require a
drinking water treatment change that has a negative impact on
compliance with another regulation.
As current research is showing, for example, the pipe scales that
form on the interior of pipes and which protect the pipes from the
corrosive effects of water are very sensitive to chemical changes.
These chemical changes may cause extensive metal release (including
lead) into the water. Drinking water distribution systems are dynamic
and sensitive systems and treatment changes required by regulations can
have unforeseen and far reaching consequences. Research in the area of
simultaneous compliance requires a much more aggressive and coordinated
response.
When is Water Safe to Drink?
Almost every day, a water utility is faced with demonstrating that
the water it delivers is, in fact, clean and safe to drink. A recent
example is the water main break in Montgomery County Maryland where
there was a potential microbial contamination after a major water main
break. When a system loses complete water pressure in a large area, the
distribution system becomes vulnerable to contamination. Current
practice is to issue a boil advisory for at least 48 hours because it
takes 24 hours to analyze bacteria samples that are collected
immediately after the outage occurs.
Another set of samples is analyzed 24 hours later, placing a burden
on local businesses, hospitals, and the entire community, Improving the
speed of bacteriological analysis from days to hours or minutes in a
manner that meets nationally accepted standards to ensure can help
ensure the integrity of our water systems as well as consumer
confidence.
I believe that this ought to be a higher priority. That is of
course only an opinion, but this initiative may provide a better
opportunity for all interested parties to create a consensus on this
and many other issues.
Pharmaceuticals and Nanotechnology
Better coordination between federal agencies like the National
Institute of Health, USDA and EPA, on pollutants that are discharged to
our waterways, especially in the emerging areas of pharmaceuticals and
nanotechnology is critical.
Water and wastewater utilities end up holding the bag because we
are a regulated point source, but we must do a vastly better job
assessing the environmental impact in the product development phase of
many of these current and future potential contaminants. There have
been concerns about pollutants such as estrogens in the Potomac, but
there has been too little effort to evaluate source reduction
strategies to regulate these chemicals, leaving the onus on end-of-pipe
technologies that are very difficult and/or expensive to implement.
The variety of pollutants are also expanding to include
nanotechnology constituents that may potentially harm the environment
or human health, but there is, again, too little work evaluating the
fate of these constituents once they reach the environment.
Biosolids
Better federal stewardship of biosolids management is another
example of the need for greater attention in the area of wastewater and
wastewater treatment by-product re-use. DCWASA staff members are
involved in WERF and self-funded projects that are intended to ensure
that the application of biosolids to land as a fertilizer is practiced
in a safe and sustainable manner and in accordance with EPA guidelines.
- We are involved in WERE work to produce a protocol for rapid
response to biosolids safety related issues.
- We are also evaluating sustainability measures for biosolids
reuse. Our determination is that biosolids recycling can
significantly reduce our greenhouse gas footprint through
carbon sequestration and by off-setting the energy needs and
greenhouse gases produced from manufacturing commercial
fertilizer.
- DCWASA is also involved in a WERF project verifying reliable
destruction of pathogens in digested biosolids.
Even better efforts to coordinate biosolids research could help
address local concerns around the Nation regarding perceived risks
associated with biosolids, while also assessing the current and
potential future value of biosolids as a safe and sustainable resource.
Non-Point Source Controls
Better coordination on non-point source control may be one of the
most critical challenges in improving water quality in the nations
receiving waters. Point sources are subject to regulation, but often
non-point sources are major sources of pollution and the clean-up of
water bodies will not be realized until non-point sources are
addressed.
An example is the mitigation of nutrient related pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay, where the Bay clean-up will not be realized without
participation of non-point sources. Non-point source pollution is the
main cause of nutrient pollution in the Bay. Point sources make up less
than a quarter of nutrient related pollution. Yet DCWASA rate payers
are being asked to spend $1 billion to build facilities under stringent
standards and deadlines with absolutely no guarantee to these rate
payers that the Chesapeake Bay will be remediated, because much of the
non-point source related nutrient pollution remains unabated. It is
critically important that we work more diligently to develop watershed-
wide and non-point source strategies for managing and improving water
quality in receiving waters.
Mr. Chairman, I once again wish to express my appreciation to you
and the Committee for your interest in these critical issues. We most
often come to Capitol Hill seeking support for massive infrastructure
improvements that water agencies must undertake to both ensure reliable
service and to protect the environment.
There are, however, initiatives that the Federal Government can
undertake that are at least as important as appropriations bills. A
national initiative to build a better coordinated and stronger
foundation for developing priorities, enhancing the overall national
research agenda and providing the information we need to improve our
management of our water resources is just such an initiative.
I believe that you can be confident that a successful effort will
result in not only more cost-effective research initiatives, but also a
positive impact on water resource development and management through
better planning, lower costs, and improved efficiency.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, many of the issues I've noted in my
testimony are not new to the research community, or the industry.
Climate change, however, is a substantially different kind of
challenge. Although the debate regarding global warming continues in
some quarters, there is no doubt that water resources can and are
dramatically affected by local and regional changes in climate.
Strengthening the national research agenda through better
coordination could help develop important new tools that provide a
crucial advantage in successfully addressing this new challenge.
I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
Biography for Jerry N. Johnson
Jerry Johnson currently serves as General Manager of the District
of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. The Authority provides retail
and wholesale water and wastewater treatment services to the District
of Columbia and parts of Virginia and Maryland with a customer base of
approximately two million. The Water and Sewer Authority operates Blue
Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is the largest advanced
Wastewater Treatment Plant in the world.
Johnson is nationally known as a turnaround specialist. As the
first General Manager of the newly created Authority, he guided it from
an unrated agency with a projected $8 million deficit to one with an A+
credit rating and $170 million reserve in two years, (currently double
A rating). He has developed long-term capital and financial plans, a
comprehensive rate strategy in addition to resolving major operating
and regulatory agency issues. Public/private partnerships,
infrastructure planning, and organizational development are also among
Johnson's areas of expertise.
Prior to joining the Water and Sewer Authority, Johnson served as
Deputy City Manager for Operations in the City of Richmond, Virginia.
During his tenure in Richmond, he also served as Director of Public
Utilities, responsible for four separate utility operations including
gas, electric, water and wastewater providing service to the
metropolitan Richmond area. He has also been the General Manager for
the Metropolitan Richmond Convention and Visitors Bureau, responsible
for marketing the metropolitan area for tourism and conventions. Jerry
began his service in Richmond as the Director of Community Facilities
for the City.
Before moving to Richmond, he was Assistant to the City Manager for
the City of Alexandria, Virginia and was a Senior Planner for the City
of Charlottesville, Virginia.
He graduated with a Business Degree from Ferrum College; a Degree
in Urban Affairs and Economics from Virginia Tech and completed the
Program for Senior Executives in State and Local Government at the JFK
School of Government, Harvard University.
He serves on a number of boards and commissions, holds leadership
positions in several national organizations and has numerous honors and
awards resulting from his professional accomplishments and community
involvement. He also has a number of publications to his credit.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Spooner, you
are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. BRADLEY H. SPOONER, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF
GEORGIA (MEAG POWER)
Mr. Spooner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am here today on behalf of the American Public
Power Association (APPA), which represents the interests of
more than 2,000 publicly owned electric utility systems serving
approximately 45 million Americans. APPA members serve some of
the Nation's largest cities, along with many small and medium-
sized communities in 49 states.
Water availability is crucial to many types of electricity
generation. For hydroelectric power, it is the energy source.
For fossil and nuclear steam generation, water is needed for
many in plant process uses. Water is, therefore, crucial for
APPA's members to deliver electricity to support a healthy
environment and a vibrant economy.
Today, APPA would like to highlight three of its
recommendations for the Committee to consider. The first
recommendation is that the legislation should include measures
to ensure high quality data. Developing a research and
assessment plan, and conducting the research called for the
plan, will involve the production, analysis, and use of a
significant amount of technical data. APPA recommends that the
bill consider available resources and guidelines intended to
ensure data of high quality. An example would be the resources
and guidelines developed under the Federal Data Quality Act of
2001, also known as the Information Quality Act.
Of particular importance is that data used for implementing
the bill be objective, transparent, peer-reviewed, unbiased,
and reproducible. Because many departments and agencies will
participate in developing the plan and conducting the research,
coordination of high quality data among the parties by the
interagency committee will be especially important.
The second recommendation is that the legislation should
include research related to projected significant water
consumption increases with carbon capture and sequestration
technology. Various global climate bills introduced in Congress
have contemplated the future use of a technology called carbon
capture and sequestration, or CCS. The intent of CCS is to
capture carbon dioxide resulting from the combustion of fossil
fuels at power plants before the carbon dioxide is emitted.
Several studies done by the Department of Energy's National
Energy Technology Laboratory indicate that capturing the carbon
dioxide at a power plant would require a doubling of the
plant's consumptive water use. This significant increase in
water consumption appears to run contrary to the goals of the
bill, and therefore, appears to be an issue ripe for research
under the bill.
The third recommendation is that the legislation should
ensure participation by states, local communities, and
stakeholders. Early in 2008, the State of Georgia adopted a
Georgia Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan. The Plan
came about following an extensive stakeholder process involving
agriculture and business interests, local governments,
nonprofit agencies, trade associations, and others. Under the
guidance of Governor Perdue and the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division Director Dr. Carol Couch, the Georgia Plan
was approved by the State Water Council and the State General
Assembly.
Of particular note is that the Georgia Plan was
successfully developed in a state experiencing both drought
conditions and strong economic growth. The success of the
Georgia Plan process suggests some similar processes that may
be beneficial to the proposed plan called for in the draft
bill. For example, the bill should consider extending the
duties of the outreach office to specifically bring states and
local communities into the federal plan development process
earlier and more extensively. Likewise, consideration should be
given to extending the duties of the outreach office to
establishing a stakeholder group to provide input during
development of the plan. These entities and groups should be
able to provide valuable information to make the final federal
plan more effective.
In wrapping up, I would like to mention that in April of
2007, APPA sent a letter to Full Committee Chairman Gordon in
support of legislation designed to develop a methodology for,
and a complete national assessment of geologic storage capacity
for carbon dioxide. This legislation was ultimately included in
the Energy Bill enacted into law in December of 2007, and APPA
thanks the full Committee Chairman and the Committee as a whole
for their hard work on this important matter, and we look
forward to the results being made available.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input today. We
hope that you will consider the American Public Power
Association and MEAG Power as resources for questions that may
arise as the process moves forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spooner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bradley H. Spooner
APPA represents the interests of more than 2,000 publicly owned
electric utility systems across the country, serving approximately 45
million Americans. APPA member utilities include State public power
agencies and municipal electric utilities that serve some of the
Nation's largest cities. However, the vast majority of these publicly-
owned electric utilities serve small and medium-sized communities in 49
states, all but Hawaii. In fact, 70 percent of our members are located
in cities with populations of 10,000 people or less. Public power
systems own approximately 10.1 percent of the total installed electric
utility generating capacity in the United States. Hydroelectric
projects comprise nearly 19 percent of public power's total generating
capacity. There are 132 municipally-owned utilities with hydroelectric
capacity, of which 94 are APPA members. The remaining mix of public
power's generating capacity is comprised of approximately 27 percent
coal, 36 percent gas, eight percent nuclear and eight percent oil.
Public power systems' primary purpose is to provide reliable,
efficient service to their local customers at the lowest possible cost.
Like hospitals, public schools, police and fire departments, and
publicly owned water and waste water utilities, public power systems
are locally created governmental institutions that address a basic
community need: they operate to provide an essential public service,
reliably and efficiently, at a reasonable, not-for-profit price.
The Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (MEAG Power) is a
public corporation whose primary purpose is to generate and transmit
reliable and economical electric power to 49 Georgia communities that
are Participants of MEAG Power. MEAG Power is Georgia's third-largest
electric power supplier. Power is provided through co-ownership of two
nuclear and two coal-fired generating plants, sole ownership of a
natural gas-fired combined cycle facility, and ownership of over 1,300
miles of high voltage transmission lines and nearly 200 substations.
APPA and MEAG appreciate the opportunity to testify at this
important hearing on ``A National Water Initiative: Coordinating and
Improving Federal Research on Water.'' In addition, APPA appreciates
the opportunity to comment on the draft ``National Water Research and
Development Initiative Act of 2008'' and to provide additional comments
about the water/electric generation nexus. Water availability is
crucial to many types of electricity generation. For hydroelectric
power, water is the energy source. For fossil and nuclear steam
generation, water is needed for many in-plant process uses including
for condensing steam. Water is therefore crucial for APPA's members to
be able to deliver a reliable and reasonably priced electricity supply
to residences and businesses in our communities in order to support a
healthy environment and a vibrant economy.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a report entitled:
Energy Demands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the
Interdependency of Energy and Water. DOE found that: ``Water is an
integral element of energy resource development and utilization. It is
used in energy-resource extraction, refining and processing, and
transportation. Water is also an integral part of electric-power
generation. It is used directly in hydroelectric generation and is also
used extensively for cooling and emissions scrubbing in thermoelectric
generation. For example, in calendar year 2000, thermoelectric power
generation accounted for 39 percent of all freshwater withdrawals in
the U.S., roughly equivalent to water withdrawals for irrigated
agriculture (withdrawals are water diverted or withdrawn from a
surface-water or groundwater source) (Hutson et al., 2004). Water
withdrawal statistics for thermoelectric power are dominated by power
plants that return virtually all the withdrawn water to the source.
While this water is returned at a higher temperature and with other
changes in quality, it becomes available for further use.
Comments on Draft National Water Research and Development Initiative
Act of 2008
Today, APPA would like to offer several recommendations for the
Committee to consider as it further develops the bill. The comments
include: encouraging high quality data in developing the National Water
Availability Research and Assessment Plan established in the draft
legislation; discussing concerns with projected water usage increases
with carbon capture and sequestration technology; and relating some
positive experiences associated with a statewide water management plan
adopted by Georgia earlier this year.
For some APPA members, there is an intrinsic relationship between
serving water utility customers and electric utility customers. Many
APPA members anticipate significant load growth in water and
electricity as populations increase. End-use energy efficiency, water
use efficiency, and renewable energy, although important, will not be
sufficient to meet these increased electricity and water demands.
One of the common misconceptions is that surface and groundwater
challenges are only in the arid Southwest. The challenges are not
limited to that area of the country alone. For example, according to
the Michigan Land Use Institute, nearly the entire western shoreline of
Lake Michigan has water demand above available precipitation, and
aquifers in that region have declined as much as 900 feet, and are
declining as much as 17 feet per year in some cases. For these reasons,
we need additional research on how to reduce water consumption from
many industrial users (including power plants) which do not take away
energy capacity. APPA, therefore, appreciates the draft legislation's
national scope and acknowledgement of the challenges facing water use
in the future.
The Legislation Should Include Measures to Insure High Quality Data.
Developing a National Water Availability Research and Assessment
Plan, and conducting the research called for by the Plan to achieve the
Water Research Outcomes, as proposed in the draft bill, will involve
the production, analysis, and use of a significant amount of technical
data. The data would include information on water quantity, water
quality, technologies, consumption, and other criteria. A well-
constructed Plan and the associated research will necessarily rely on
accurate and reliable data.
APPA recommends that the bill consider available resources and
guidelines intended to ensure that federal activities such as
contemplated by the bill use data of high quality. An example of
resources and guidelines can be found in the principles for the federal
Data Quality Act of 2001 (also known as the Information Quality Act),
which called for the Office of Management and Budget to ``provide
policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and
maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of
information.'' In the February 22, 2002 Federal Register, OMB published
Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity,
Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies.
Since that time, many federal departments and agencies have developed
data quality guidelines.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://www.ombwatch.org/article/archive/231?TopicID=13 for
a list of Department and Agency guidelines and links to the guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of particular importance is that, as appropriate, data used for
implementing the bill be objective, transparent, peer-reviewed,
unbiased, and reproducible. These criteria will especially help to
insure that the data are credible and therefore useful for the intended
purpose. Because many Departments and Agencies will participate in
developing the Plan and conducting the research, coordination of high
quality data among the parties by the Interagency Committee will be
especially important.
The Legislation Should Include Research Related to Projected Water
Consumption Impacts with Carbon Capture and
Sequestration Technology.
Various global climate and greenhouse gas emission reduction bills
in Congress have contemplated the future use of a technological process
called Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) or what EPA calls
``geosequestration,'' sometimes also referred to as carbon capture and
storage. The intent of CCS is to ``capture'' carbon dioxide
(CO2) resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels at power
plants before the CO2 is emitted, direct the captured
CO2 into an underground pipeline system, and store the piped
CO2 safely underground such as in a saline geologic
formation.
According to studies done by the U.S. Department of Energy's
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and others, ``capturing''
the CO2 at a power plant would require significant amounts
of additional consumptive water use at the plant. For example, data
from two NETL reports\2\ on CCS indicate that there would be
approximately a doubling of water consumption, when comparing new
pulverized coal plants of similar net capacity, with and without post-
combustion CCS technology. The table below summarizes the DOE/NETL
water data; the range for supercritical units shown represents the data
in the two DOE/NETL reports. The same doubling of water consumption
would likely occur with retrofitted coal generation. This significant
increase of water consumption appears to run contrary to the goals of
the draft ``National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of
2008''--and therefore appears to be an issue ripe for research pursuant
to the bill. Attached to this testimony are APPA Comments to NERC on
Reliability Impacts of Climate Change Initiatives. Comment No. 7,
Competition for Scarce Water Supplies, provides additional insight,
information, and referenced materials that are relevant to this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants,
DOE/NETL-2007/1281, May 2007, Revised Aug 2007; and Pulverized Coal
Oxycombustion Plants, DOE/NETL-2007/1291, Aug. 2007, Revised Oct. 2007
and associated Nov. 2007 presentation slides.
Data Are Needed on Geologic Formations Before Large Commercial Power
Plants With CCS Can Be Realistic.
While APPA has not yet performed an exhaustive study of the impact
of carbon sequestration on current or future water supplies, we are
concerned that neither the state of the science nor the existing
regulations are sufficiently developed to where carbon sequestration
can seriously be considered as a greenhouse gas mitigation technique.
It would be very difficult to do site characterization assessment
properly in many locations because not enough is known about the
subsurface geology and hydrology.
In April of 2007, APPA sent a letter to Full Committee Chairman
Gordon in support of legislation designed to develop a methodology for,
and complete a national assessment of, geological storage capacity for
carbon dioxide. This legislation was ultimately included in the energy
bill enacted into law in December of 2007 and we thank the Full
Committee Chairman and the Committee as a whole for their hard work on
this important matter and we look forward to the results being made
available.
Water Use, Energy and Discharge Temperatures
APPA encourages DOE or other agency funding of ways to reduce
thermal impacts from power plants (and industrial facilities) through
less expensive cooling tower technologies. Today cooling towers have
parasitic energy impacts which are very high. Parasitic power is the
amount of the power used to run pollution controls, cooling towers,
chemical processes to reduce pollutants, and to run booster
compressors. This parasitic power takes away from the net energy output
from the power plant. Additionally, it is very difficult to retrofit
the current fleet with cooling towers due to both parasitic power
capacity losses and due to physical space. Localized drought conditions
and multiple dischargers of water can threaten to exceed the
temperature limit of a receiving stream. In 2007 a major utility in the
U.S. had to shut down its utility operation because the receiving
waterbody's temperature could not tolerate the incoming water from the
power plant. The confluence of population changes, density of
population and location of manufacturing facilities will make this
concern even more difficult in future years. New technologies or
operational practices to reduce the effluent temperature from thermal
power plants without causing parasitic power losses would be very
helpful.
For municipal power plants associated with APPA communities that
have both electric and water utilities, it would also be helpful to
find additional ways to reduce the costs of desalinization plants
(whether simple distillation or reverse osmosis) using waste heat from
the power plant. This research could include the use of grey water, re-
usable water, and even water that could be sufficiently cleaned for
drinking water. Research in this area could provide communities with
additional surface water which would be enormously beneficial.
The Legislation Should Insure Participation by States, Local
Communities, and Stakeholders.
Early in 2008, the State of Georgia adopted a Georgia Comprehensive
Statewide Water Management Plan. The Georgia plan came about following
an extensive stakeholder process involving agricultural and business
interests, local governments, non-profit agencies, trade associations,
and others. Under the guidance of Governor Purdue and Georgia
Environmental Protection Division Director Dr. Carol Couch, the Georgia
plan was approved by the State Water Council and the State General
Assembly.\3\ Of particular note is that the Georgia plan was
successfully developed in a state experiencing both drought conditions
and strong economic growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.georgiawatercouncil.org/index.html for the
Georgia Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan and associated
documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The success of the Georgia plan process suggests some similar
processes that may be beneficial to the proposed National Water
Availability Research and Assessment Plan called for in the draft bill.
For example, the bill should consider extending the duties of the
National Water Initiative Outreach Office to specifically bring states
and local communities into the federal Plan development process,
earlier and more extensively. Likewise, consideration should be given
to extending the duties of the Outreach Office to establishing a
stakeholder group (those who may be affected by the research or its
results) to provide input during the development of the federal Plan.
These entities and groups should be able to provide valuable
information (e.g., State and local plans already in place, ongoing
research) to make the final federal Plan more efficient and effective.
New Energy-Related Water Use Issues: Biofuels
Due to the recent influx of investments in ethanol to provide
alternatives to fossil fuel based gasoline (and other fuels), it is
expected that there will be enormous water use impacts of this increase
in the use of biofuels. While APPA does not have an official position
on the use of ethanol, the impact that adding corn harvesting and
ethanol processing will have on water use and the energy nexus is
important. As referred to earlier in my testimony, the DOE Energy-Water
Roadmap stated:
``The potentially massive water demand posed by ethanol
production is a significant concern for those in the Central
region. New directions in national biofuels supply and demand
suggest that new research into techniques that do not require
crops grown with fresh water are needed.''
Hydropower Challenges
According to Energy Information Administration (EIA) data from
2006, hydropower accounts for almost 80 percent of renewable capacity
in the United States. Hydropower has long been a vital piece of the
United States electric utility industry and a driving force in the
development of the economies in certain regions. Not only is hydropower
a clean, efficient and renewable source of electric power, the dams
themselves are multi-purpose in nature--providing flood control,
irrigation, industrial and municipal water, and fish and wildlife
habitat improvements. Finally, the dams also provide transportation and
recreational benefits.
Over 500 of the 2010 public power systems nationwide receive all or
a portion of their power supply from the four federal Power Marketing
Administrations (PMAs). The PMAs market federally generated hydropower
from federal dams, and sell this hydropower to APPA members at cost-
based rates plus interest (to be used to repay the cost of building the
dams). The purchase price for this hydropower also factors in O&M for
the hydropower facilities on these multi-purpose dams. However, because
the rates paid by APPA members to the PMAs must go back to the Treasury
and be appropriated back out by Congress annually, the funds for O&M at
these facilities have often been used for other purposes thereby
leaving a need for significant rehabilitation at these facilities.
The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
manage the dams and are responsible for the O&M for hydropower
facilities at the dams. While we recognize that this committee does not
manage the appropriations process, it is important to understand that
by rehabilitating these hydropower facilities, a significant amount of
zero-emissions, low-cost hydropower could be added to our generation
mix without building another dam. Therefore, we hope that the Committee
would support increases in the federal appropriations for O&M at the
Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers to undertake these
rehabilitations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the bill
development process. We hope that you will consider us as a resource
for questions that may arise as the process moves forward.
Attachment
APPA Comments to NERC on Reliability Impacts of Climate Change
Initiatives
July 16, 2008
APPA is the national association for the 2,000 State, municipal and
other publicly owned electric utilities in the United States. APPA's
membership also includes numerous multi-service utilities including
irrigation districts. Approximately one-third of all public power
utilities own and operate electric generation, including coal, oil and
gas-fired, nuclear, hydro-electric and a variety of renewable energy
facilities such as wind, geothermal and municipal solid-waste.
APPA is concerned about the convergence of the numerous public
power issues raised by climate change that create pressures to pick
certain technology options and discard others prematurely before their
operational and cost consequences are fully characterized. APPA
anticipates increased physical, economic and political supply pressures
in the competition for (relatively) cleaner energy sources and for
access to related infrastructures such as local water supplies, gas
pipeline capacity and rail transportation that are needed for electric
generation. These tensions could create increased risks to electric
system supply adequacy and operational reliability in the following
seven areas:
1. The Dash for Gas and International Energy Demand Pressures. The most
immediate risk to reliability has been called the ``dash for gas.''
Public policy decisions and market forces will likely cause many
companies to choose the ``quick fix'' of fuel switching. These market
forces include pressure on company stock prices and bond prices if they
do not mitigate carbon risk in anticipation of public policy decisions
by ``going green'' now. The United States has adopted such coal/gas/
coal/gas fuel switching policies several times before--and each such
switch has had unintended consequences. The dash for gas in electric
generation could create conflict with basic manufacturing industries
that need reliable natural gas supplies as feed stocks and with
widespread use of gas for space heating. Further, increased domestic
reliance on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) implies that U.S.
natural gas demand will increasingly be driven by international oil and
gas markets. See discussion below.
2. Replacement of Generation Retired Due to Climate Change. The second
risk to reliability arises from the need to rapidly replace the base
load power supplied from generating capacity that is likely to be
retired in the near future due to the combined effects of equipment age
and regulatory requirements to reduce CO2 emissions.
Continued reliance on coal for power generation implies that the
utility industry will need to install over 100 GW of new capacity to
replace existing conventional steam-electric capacity (with no
additional capacity to meet forecast demand growth).
3. Parasitic Losses from CO2 Capture and Compression. The
third reliability risk identified by APPA results from the enormous
parasitic energy demands associated with CO2 capture and
compression. Research sponsored by APPA indicates that the Nation will
need to install as much as 320 GW of additional generating capacity to
meet the parasitic losses associated with CO2 capture and
compression systems at existing coal-fired power plants. While the loss
factors for some new technologies may be as low as 30 percent, the
parasitic losses associated with retrofitting existing conventional
coal-fired plants are as much as 50 percent of total gross output. By
way of comparison, roughly 100 GW of capacity might be needed to meet
the parasitic losses associated with SO2 scrubbers and NOX
selective catalytic reduction systems under the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), which was vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court. See
discussion of CCS issues below.
4. Generation Outages from Rapid Deployment of New CO2
Control Technologies. The fourth risk to reliability associated with
climate change is the move to CO2 control technologies that
have not been fully developed beyond small scale demonstration
projects. Commercial scale projects will undoubtedly raise numerous
logistical, technical and cost factors that are as yet not well
understood. Until shown otherwise, it is unreasonable to assume that
planned and forced outage frequencies and durations for new generation
and carbon control technologies are in any way similar to the much
lower outage rates for mature conventional generation technologies.
Particularly for coal-fired generation in conjunction with CO2
capture, compression and permanent storage, the critical skill sets and
technology requirements to permit, build, own, operate and maintain
such a facility are more similar to those required for a major chemical
plant than a conventional steam-electric power station. See discussion
of CCS issues below.
5. Non-Electric Infrastructure Required for Large-Scale Carbon Capture
and Sequestration. All new technologies for controlling CO2
for climate change purposes rely heavily upon new non-electric
infrastructure that must be built in order to complete the process of
safely injecting and storing CO2 in geologic formations. An
extensive network of new pipelines and rail for transportation of
chemicals required for carbon capture, pressurization and storage will
be required. Nearly all existing coal-fired plants and most new plants
that intend to capture, pressurize and inject CO2 into
geologic formations will be forced to transport such pressurized
CO2 by pipeline to remote locations. See discussion of CCS
issues below.
6. Heavy Reliance on Remote and Intermittent Renewable Energy Sources.
Heavy increased reliance in many regions of the United States on
renewable energy sources that are remote from load centers and/or
intermittent or variable in their output characteristics may pose
reliability risks. A major build-out of EHV transmission is required to
ensure the deliverability of wind and other generation to major
regional load centers. The alternative, which entails very, very heavy
reliance on renewable generation in the subregions where it is
produced, is likely to introduce new operational problems for the
interconnected grid. System operators and renewable energy operators
may be forced to curtail significant amounts of otherwise economic and
environmentally beneficial generation in source regions. Particularly
where wind output is counter to the daily and seasonal patterns in
customer load, NERC's analyses should take into account the potential
operational risks of high penetration levels of wind generation in
particular subregions. APPA anticipates that the report of the NERC
Operating Committee's task force on variable resource integration will
fully describe many of these issues; however, the combined effects of
all five of the risks to reliability associated with climate change
mitigation will be very difficult to foresee.
7. Competition for Scarce Water Supplies. Population and economic
growth in more arid regions of the United States, depletion of ground
water supplies, and increased risk of drought due to climate change all
increase the general scarcity of water. Further, new generation
technologies may compound these factors, by significantly increasing
the per MWh water requirements for power generation. These factors
increase the difficulties encountered in siting of new plants and
meeting operating restrictions for existing plants. See discussion
below.
APPA has developed a series of white papers to address some of the
technology, legal and public policy issues associated with carbon
capture and storage. These APPA white papers, which are offered for
NERC's use in its assessment of the Reliability Impacts of Climate
Change Initiatives, are publicly posted at: http://www.appanet.org/
files/HTM/ccs.html
L.D. Carter, ``Carbon Capture and Storage From Coal-based
Power Plants: A White Paper on Technology for the American
Public Power Association (APPA),'' May 2007 [pdf]
L.D. Carter, White Paper, ``Retrofitting Carbon Capture
Systems on Existing Coal-fired Power Plants,'' November 2007.
[pdf]
Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group; James Rollins,
Policy Navigation Group; Theresa Pugh, APPA, White Paper,
``Will Water Issues/Regulatory Capacity Allow or Prevent
Geologic Sequestration for New Power Plants? A Review of the
Underground Injection Control Program and Carbon Capture and
Storage,'' November 2007. [pdf]
Marianne Horinko, White Paper, ``Carbon Capture and
Sequestration: Legal and Environmental Challenges Ahead,''
August 2007 [pdf]
Issue 1--The Dash for Gas and International Energy Demand Pressures
In an April 2008 white paper entitled, ``Natural Gas and
Electricity Costs and Impacts on Industry,'' the U.S. Department of
Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) reported that
opposition to new coal-based power plants is leading to generation
capacity shortages in many areas of the country and endangering U.S.
energy security. The opposition is also inducing a ``dash to gas'' and
quickly causing a rise in natural gas prices at a time when federal
climate change legislation could immediately lead to a doubling of
natural gas consumption for power generation. This legislation would
increase the country's dependence on foreign energy sources in the form
of liquefied natural gas (LNG) causing both natural gas and electricity
prices to increase dramatically.
NETL also describes how coal has protected consumers from even
higher natural gas prices. Unfortunately, the current opposition to
continued reliance on coal will help ensure that U.S. natural gas
prices continue to rise toward parity with the price of oil. Such
increases in natural gas prices could cause trade-exposed sectors of
U.S. industry to shut in production, particularly when faced with coal-
powered competitors in China or regions like the Middle East, where
cheap natural gas reserves supply power needs. NETL estimates that by
2016, the absence of 18 GW of currently forecasted new coal-based power
plants would mean additional natural gas demand of 1.4 Tcf/year,
equivalent to almost all of the Nation's presently forecasted LNG
supply growth.
If actual electricity growth is higher, as forecasted in U.S.
Energy Information Administration's latest Annual Energy Outlook (AEO),
up to an additional 2.3 Tcf of natural gas for generation will be
needed.
Foreign Uses of Natural Gas
The recent trend of increasing reliance of imports of LNG from
overseas is expected to continue. Recently, there has been major
expansion of LNG terminals in the United States, and the capacity to
import LNG is expected to double in the near future. As can be seen by
the figure (below) from EIA, the amount of natural gas imported from
Canada and Mexico is decreasing, and the amount imported from overseas
as LNG has been increasing and is predicted to continue that rise. The
United States will be competing with other countries for this LNG on
the open market. As the energy needs of developing countries continue
to increase, the demand for this LNG will increase as well, potentially
leading to less LNG imports into the U.S. and higher prices.
Issues 3, 4 and 5--The Complex Configurations of New Power Plants with
Carbon Capture and Storage Will Pose New Risks for Infrastructure
Reliability
All of the new technologies discussed at major technical
conferences for injecting CO2 into geologic formations for
climate change mitigation purposes rely heavily upon new industrial and
transportation infrastructure that must be built in order to complete
the process of safely injecting and storing CO2 in geologic
formations. These include product pipelines to get enormous volumes of
ammonia, H2S, and other chemical solvents to the new power
plants for carbon separation. These are chemicals that have either
never been used at power plants or never at this scale. These
additional infrastructure demands on rail lines, given current
``captive rail'' concerns, may well create electric reliability risks
if the entire infrastructure does not work seamlessly. Like the
creation of a national highway system for surface transportation of
commodities and people, the new CCS technology at power plants will
require a very sophisticated infrastructure of chemical products
delivered by surface shipping, barges and trains to CCS-equipped power
plants. Some CCS plants may even require construction of chemical
delivery pipelines that have traditionally only been constructed to
serve refineries, natural gas production plants or other industrial
facilities. Assuming that CCS is the technology chosen at new power
plants, water treatment of produced waters (the byproduct of produced
water from geologic formations) as well as salt and ammonia disposal
must be undertaken on a scale never seen before in the U.S.
Most power plants with CCS will operate as though they are
refineries with extractive businesses on-site alongside product
movement through pipelines and rail cars. The electric power industry
will be required to address and develop new ``just in time''
manufacturing techniques and relationships with suppliers and
pipelines. Any failure of ammonia transport or CO2 movement
through pipelines to geological storage facilities could easily cause
power plant shutdowns--a new class of reliability risks not yet seen in
the power sector.
Power plants with carbon separation and geologic storage of
CO2 raise a host of new technology issues with as yet
unknown reliability impacts. Future power plants with CCS will be
dependent upon the chemical and chemical transportation industries. CCS
reliability and economics depend on the ability to continually inject
CO2 into geologic formations throughout the lifetime of the
power plant. This critical assumption has not yet been tested in the
gas volumes likely to be produced by major power plants. The
presumption that CO2 can be injected in situ at a new power
plant with two 500 MW units for the next 60 years is a huge leap of
faith. Since none of these new power plants has yet been permitted, it
is not clear if there will be provisions for ``start up, shut down and
maintenance'' or for times when the CO2 must be vented to
allow for the power plant to run fully if there is a problem with the
carbon separation technology or carbon injection technologies. New
carbon dioxide control technologies will create highly complex power
plants that function with chemical processes at very high temperatures
and under intense pressures. Similar batch chemical plants often prove
to have complex maintenance issues. The figure below illustrates some
of the complexity associated with an IGCC plant, with carbon capture
and storage technologies.
Although the illustration shows one ammonia delivery system, some
power plants might require ammonia product pipelines or other ammonia
delivery methods. The size and proximity to a chemical plant may
dictate delivery method and cost. If all of the necessary product
deliveries do not take place as scheduled, the plant might not be able
to operate reliably without recurring unplanned outages.
The map shown below illustrates how few pipelines exist today to
transport the CO2 to locations for currently permitted
injection (oil and gas recovery locations). In contrast to the
substantial networks for rail delivery for coal and transmission of
natural gas and electricity, most of the U.S. has no existing
transportation system to deliver CO2 to locations suitable
for geological injection. This infrastructure must be built and provide
a highly reliable and predictable delivery system.
Scheduled and Unscheduled Outages:
Reliability across the U.S. grid is inextricably linked to the
frequency and duration of generating unit outages--whether planned or
unplanned. Current IGCC technology has evidenced considerably longer
planned outages than conventional power plants, which in retrospect
seems unsurprising since IGCC coal gasification plants look and
function much more like refineries than power stations. Anecdotal
conversations about maintenance issues for IGCC technology for
manufacturing and power production currently indicates an annual
planned outage rate of up to 60 days per year. While future coal
gasification plants (IGCC) may well improve on this scheduled down
time, these scheduled outages remain a concern for APPA if gasification
technology becomes the dominant form of coal based generation.
Since no commercially demonstrated carbon separation and
geosequestration company exists anywhere in the world, it is impossible
to predict outage rates for these new technologies or whether the
planned and unplanned maintenance of CCS systems within the power plant
would lead to a significantly greater number of scheduled and
unscheduled outages and a reduction in total plant availability and
capacity factors. But since few new technologies are as reliable during
their early years of operation as proven existing technologies for
which we have extensive operation and maintenance experience, caution
and conservatism is advised.
Issue 7--Energy and Water Interdependencies
In December, 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy released a report
titled: Energy Demands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the
Interdependency of Energy and Water. DOE found that: ``Water is an
integral element of energy resource development and utilization. It is
used in energy-resource extraction, refining and processing, and
transportation. Water is also an integral part of electric-power
generation. It is used directly in hydroelectric generation and is also
used extensively for cooling and emissions scrubbing in thermoelectric
generation. For example, in calendar year 2000, thermoelectric power
generation accounted for 39 percent of all freshwater withdrawals in
the U.S., roughly equivalent to water withdrawals for irrigated
agriculture (withdrawals are water diverted or withdrawn from a
surface-water or groundwater source) (Hutson et al., 2004). Water
withdrawal statistics for thermoelectric power are dominated by power
plants that return virtually all the withdrawn water to the source.
While this water is returned at a higher temperature and with other
changes in quality, it becomes available for further use. Many power
plants, including most of those built since 1980, withdraw much less
water but consume most of what they withdraw by evaporative cooling. In
1995, agriculture accounted for 84 percent of total freshwater
consumption. Thermoelectric power accounted for 3.3 percent of total
freshwater consumption (3.3 billion gallons per day) and represented
over 20 percent of non-agricultural water consumption'' (Solley et al.,
1998).
As the figure below suggests, there are many counties in the U.S.
(shown in red in the figure below) where the annual groundwater
withdrawals exceed the amount of precipitation, implying that local and
regional aquifers will not be able to be recharged. Population growth,
agriculture and electric power generation will likely be viewed by the
public as competing users of scarce water supplies, particularly during
the permitting process for new generation.
As shown in the map shown above, the U.S. Census Bureau predicts
dramatic increases in population over the next 20 years, particularly
in parts of the mountain west, the west coast, Texas, and the
southeast. These increases in population will likely mean considerable
increases in electricity usage and summer peak demands. Many of these
areas also face severe pressures on water supplies.
Further complicating the limited availability of water is the fact
that that new fossil electric generation technologies require a minimum
of twice the water that existing plants use, as shown in the figure
shown below.
How is Water Availability Connected to Reliability?
If we have a lack of water, that will create a reliability concern
as it will be difficult to build new plants, and existing plants may be
required to reduce their operations/shed load if there is insufficient
water in the river for thermal cooling. For example, a large baseload
plant in the Southeast U.S. had to cease operations for five days due
to the high temperature of the receiving water body. Power plant water
releases would have violated their discharge permit requirements.
Similarly, several years ago, a severe drought in the upper great
plains (coupled with directives to maintain water flows to support
barge traffic) forced numerous fossil-fired plants located on the
Missouri River to shut down or operate at reduced output levels.
Biography for Bradley H. Spooner
Brad serves as Principal Engineer, Environmental Services for MEAG
Power in Georgia. He manages environmental permitting and compliance
for MEAG's fossil fuel units, develops strategies for MEAG to meet
future environmental requirements, and works with regulatory and
legislative bodies to insure that future requirements reflect sound
science and public policy.
Brad chairs the American Public Power Association's Energy and Air
Quality Task Force and Air Regulatory Committee and represents MEAG on
the Large Public Power Council's Environmental Task Force.
Brad is a registered professional engineer and a member of the bar.
He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering with high honors from the
University of Rhode Island, an M.S. in Engineering Management from
Northeastern University, and J.D. cum laude from Suffolk University Law
School.
Chairman Lampson. I think we will. Thank you very much. And
recognizing, via teleconference, we have Dr. Hatch. You are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. UPTON HATCH, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL
INSTITUTES FOR WATER RESOURCES; ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WATER
RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA;
RESEARCH PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE
ECONOMICS, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Hatch. Chairman Lampson, Representative Inglis, I hope
the AV is working sufficiently. I am Upton Hatch, the Interim
Director of the North Carolina Water Resources Research
Institute, located in North Carolina State. I am also
President-Elect of the National Institute of Water Resources,
or NIWR. I appreciate this opportunity, and I apologize. We are
hosting an annual conference of the University Council Water
Resources here in Durham.
As an academic, my degrees are from Dartmouth, Georgia, and
Minnesota, all in economics, particularly water resource
economics, and my research currently is focusing on the
effectiveness of water conservation measures and efficiency.
I am testifying on the part of NIWR, which is an
organization of 54 institutes, 50 states, and four territories.
It was created by the Water Resources Act of 1964. It has been
continuously funded since then, but inflation adjusted dollars
have actually declined quite dramatically. In authorizing these
institutes, Congress' intent was to increase the amount of
research conducted in the water area, aiding the entry of new
scientists, also to train new scientists, and distribute the
results of the sponsored research to the water managers and the
general public. It was recently, in 2006, reauthorized.
The Water Resources Institute received core funding from
the U.S. Geological Survey, and this core funding is a
dependable source of funding that is leveraged on the order of
five or ten to one, with other federal agencies, State, and
also some local groups. And we strongly support this idea of
better coordination.
As has been suggested by others, there have been three well
known reports that we support strongly, the so-called SWAQ
Report, and the 2001 and 2004 NRC studies. Just without going
through all the results there, of course, several major points
jump out. The condition of the water resources in many parts of
the United States and the world are deteriorating. Our
institutions that can balance the ecological, environmental
types of needs for water, and also, human needs are not
sufficient. Obviously, population growth and competing uses for
the water are a major problem.
In the Southeast, where I grew up, most of the
infrastructure was built in the '60s, and obviously, the
population has increased dramatically in that area. And also,
there is the climate issue. So, I guess you might say the major
issues in my mind would be the competing uses, the population
growth, the age of the infrastructure, and the lack of
coordination, and stagnant financial support at the federal
level.
It is interesting that the NRC report did say that we need
to make a new commitment to research on water resources, and we
need a new mechanism is needed to coordinate water research,
currently fragmented among approximately 20 federal agencies.
In the NRC report, there were several research areas that were
focused, although there were 43 in total. Just a couple of
those would be water supply enhancing technologies,
understanding land use change, doing a better job of
measurement and monitoring, understanding the frequency and
cause of severe weather and climate, global climate change,
economic returns to these competing uses, our legal regimes,
adaptive management, the role of the private sector, and also,
doing a better job of getting stakeholder input.
Federal involvement in water resources is particularly
important, because watersheds, or water drainage areas, if you
will, don't conform to State boundaries, and so, we inevitably
end up with contentious situations among the various states
that share a watershed. Also, research from one state is
obviously applicable to research or to solutions in another
state. So, we have a classic public goods situation.
In North Carolina, our recent droughts have made it clear
that it is rainfall, to some extent, that causes our problems,
but it is not just rainfall. Our technologies and our
management of these competing uses is crucial, and the
coordination among federal and State groups that represent
these competing uses is a very important area that I believe
this legislation targets.
It is also, I think, interesting to pull forth from the NRC
report, and actually, read a quote here: ``The World Resource
Research Institute system,'' which is NIWR, ``provides an
existing, well organized mechanism for articulating State-based
research needs, and for bringing together water managers,
stakeholders across a wide cross section of the public, and
academic researchers and academic institutions throughout each
state. . .the institute system can provide an effective means
for communication between, for example, a national level
research coordination body,'' which is similar to what we are
proposing, or is being proposed today, ``and State and regional
water resource agencies.''
I would like to conclude by saying that WRRI or NIWR is
uniquely positioned to address this initiative, or to assist
because, as mentioned by several of our earlier speakers, high
quality, unbiased research results are crucial. And also, long-
term and multidisciplinary work is also useful. And the
flexibility and adaptability to local conditions is another
aspect that WRRI can help provide.
It can also go from institutional to technical solutions,
and the full spectrum there. It has an established network that
has been working over 40 years now, and is good at addressing
regional issues. The education, the students who have graduated
and developed their expertise through this program. I don't
have an exact number, but we have about 50 right now in North
Carolina that are currently being supported in some fashion by
the Institute, and we can then multiply by the 50 states, and
get some kind of notion as to the level of support that this is
providing to students.
Also, I think the Institutes have experience in assessing
priorities, assisting in increasing the efficiency of water
resource investments. And as mentioned earlier, high quality
data is very much the hallmark of the Water Resources
Institutes.
So, I would like to, first, I would like to express my
appreciation for being involved in this, and I apologize for
this AV situation we have here, but we strongly support this
initiative, and we agree that something over than an ad hoc
process that has been mostly done in the past is needed.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hatch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Upton Hatch
Mr. Chairman and Representative Inglis,
My name is Upton Hatch. I am the Interim Director of the North
Carolina Water Resources Research Institute (NC WRRI), located at North
Carolina State University. In addition, I am President-Elect of the
National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR).
I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this hearing on
proposed legislation, ``National Water Research and Development Act,''
today by video conference. I am unable to provide this testimony in
person because we are co-sponsors of the annual meeting of the
Universities Council on Water Resources (UCOWR) today here in Durham,
NC.
My academic degrees are from Dartmouth College (B.A.), University
of Georgia (M.S.), and University of Minnesota (Ph.D.), all in
economics, particularly resource economics with a specialty in water
resource economics. I am currently involved in research on the
effectiveness of water conservation measures, particularly drinking
water, and have established water conservation as a major focus of NC
WRRI's program.
I am testifying today on behalf of the National Institutes for
Water Resources (NIWR), an organization composed of the fifty-four
State water resources research institutes established under legislation
enacted by Congress. The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (42 USC
Sec. 10301 et seq.) authorized the establishment of water resources
research and technology institutes at land-grant universities
throughout the Nation. There are institutes or centers in each of the
50 states, plus four territories.
In authorizing the water institutes, Congress intended that they:
arrange for competent research that addresses water
problems or expands understanding of water and water-related
phenomena;
aid the entry of new research scientists into water
resource fields;
train future water scientists and engineers; and
distribute the results of sponsored research to water
managers and the public.
Congress reauthorized the Act in 2006 in Public Law 109-471.
While the State WRRIs receive core funding through and partner with
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), they also collaborate and undertake
research with a diverse set of federal agencies, e.g., Environmental
Protection Agency, Agriculture Department, Forest Service, Army Corps
of Engineers, NASA, and the Energy Department.
Copies of the 2008 Executive Summary of the activities institutes
established under provisions of the Water Resources Research Act has
been provided to the Subcommittee with my prepared statement.
I understand this hearing is to develop legislation to better
coordinate the Federal Government's role in ``designing and
implementing federal water research, development, demonstration,
education, and technology transfer activities to address changes in
water use, supply, and demand in the United States.''
As you know, the National Science and Technology Council issued a
report in September 2007 entitled ``A Strategy for Federal Science and
Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in the United
States.'' The interagency report was prepared by the Subcommittee on
Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ). We strongly support the findings
of this report.
In 2001 and 2004, two seminal National Research Council (NRC)
reports (``Envisioning the Agenda for Water Resources Research in the
Twenty-First Century'' and ``Confronting the Nation's Water Problems:
The Role of Research'') thoroughly examined the urgency and complexity
of water resources issues facing the U.S. Among others, the following
water resources challenges were cited as motivation for these studies:
There is abundant evidence that the condition of
water resources in many parts of the U.S. and the world is
deteriorating;
Our institutions appear to have limited capacity to
manage water-based habitats to maintain and improve species
diversity and provide ecosystem services while concurrently
supplying human needs;
In some regions of the country, the availability of
sufficient water to service growing domestic uses is in doubt,
as is the future sufficiency of water to support agriculture in
an increasingly competitive and globalizing agricultural
economy;
Demands for water resources to support population and
economic growth continue to increase, although water supplies
to support this growth are fixed and already fully allocated in
most areas;
Renewal and repair of the aging water supply
infrastructure will require time and hundreds of billions of
dollars;
Frequency and magnitude of damages attributable to
droughts and floods are increasing, providing evidence of
increasing vulnerability to extreme climate and weather events;
Threat of water-borne disease is constantly present,
as exemplified by recent outbreaks of cryptosporidium.
This NRC report highlighted the Nation's need ``to make a new
commitment to research on water resources in order to confront the
increasingly severe water problems faced by all parts of the country''
and that ``a new mechanism is needed to coordinate water research
currently fragmented among nearly 20 federal agencies.''
There are many critical areas where knowledge and information need
improvement for better water resources management. The cited NRC
reports developed a comprehensive list of 43 areas needing further
scientific inquiry. Selected (unranked) examples are:
Improve existing supply enhancing technologies such
as wastewater treatment, desalinization, and groundwater
banking;
Understand the impact of land use changes and best
management practices on pollutant loading to waters, ecosystem
services, and biodiversity;
Understand regional and national hydrologic
measurement needs and develop a program that will provide these
measurements;
Understand and predict the frequency and cause of
severe weather (floods and droughts);
Understand global change and the associated
hydrologic impacts;
In all sectors develop more efficient water use
strategies and optimize the economic return for the water used;
Develop legal regimes that promote groundwater
management and conjunctive use of surface water and
groundwater;
Develop adaptive management as a better approach to
water resources management;
Understand the role of the private sector in
achieving efficient water and wastewater services; and
Develop different processes for obtaining stakeholder
input in forming water policies and plans.
These areas are examples of the need to improve our current
understanding on the interdependence of water quantity and quality; the
balance between human and ecological water uses; and the legal,
institutional, and social factors that contribute to sustainable water
resources management.
Why should the Federal Government lay the funding cornerstone for
water research? In the first place, water resources are defined by
physical geography and not by State boundaries. The vast majority of
water problems are of regional or national character. Even those of
limited scope are usually very similar between states. Hence, research
funding at the federal level, with results transferred nationwide, is
the only truly comprehensive and efficient approach. In the second
place, water research epitomizes the economic concept of a public good.
As such, State and local governments and private entities will not
produce as much of it as is justified by the overall value of the
results.
My own State of North Carolina, Mr. Chairman, is presently in the
second year of an unprecedented drought, rapidly depleting our water
supplies, halting our economy, threatening the sustainability of
aquatic ecosystems, and increasing tensions among water users in our
state and across the borders with South Carolina and Virginia. While
droughts are the result of a natural climate cycle, drought stresses
and impacts reach a new height with every new drought as urban,
industrial, and agricultural water demands rise steadily. North
Carolina, as well as most U.S. regions, is not well prepared to
effectively manage these unprecedented water stresses. The main reasons
for the lack of preparedness are symptomatic across the U.S. and
include:
Lack of comprehensive knowledge and information on
the interdependencies of natural processes and water uses;
Narrow perspective on the part of water user groups
acting to protect their short-term interests with total
disregard of long-term risks; Lack of a shared and system-wide
management vision and strategy;
Lack of federal and State agency coordination and
cooperation; Inflexible legal and institutional bureaucracies;
Insufficient federal and State research investments
for the development and implementation of innovative, adaptive,
and integrated management technologies, systems, and processes;
and
Weakening of water resources research and education
programs which are naturally suited to integrate knowledge
across disciplines and create human resources qualified to
develop sustainable solutions for our complex water resources
challenges.
I would like to briefly comment on each of these areas.
Knowledge and information: There are many critical areas where
knowledge and information need improvement for better water resources
management. The above cited NRC reports developed a comprehensive list
of 43 areas (listed above) needing further scientific inquiry. These
areas exemplify the need to improve our current understanding on the
interdependence of water quantity and quality; the balance between
human and ecological water uses; and the legal, institutional, and
social factors that contribute to sustainable water resources
management.
While there is a lot to learn, a lot is already known and can
significantly benefit water resources planning and management. However,
making this knowledge and information meaningful for and accessible to
those involved in decision-making processes has proved to be another
very serious challenge. Paradoxically, in spite of our information age,
water resources policy-makers, managers, and stakeholder groups are
becoming ever more removed from current scientific and technological
advances. There is thus a compelling need to establish and invest in
effective information and technology transfer mechanisms.
Local vs. system-wide perspectives: Water stresses are often
compounded by the efforts of individual stakeholders acting to
safeguard their own local interests without regard for the long-term
risks of such actions. A local and short-term perspective by each water
user group sharing the resource cannot be sustainable and only serves
to hasten the depletion of water reserves and the onset of disastrous
impacts for all. The same ``tragedy of the commons'' scenario is likely
to occur when water uses and impacts are planned and managed
individually, without regard for their multiple temporal and spatial
linkages. It is thus imperative that the proposed Initiative take a
holistic perspective in the development of a comprehensive national
water strategy.
Federal and State agency coordination and cooperation: Water
resources management falls within the mandates of several federal
agencies including EPA, NASA, and NSF and various Departments such as
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, and Interior. Further complicating water management,
monitoring and oversight responsibilities are found within different
groups of these departments, for example, ARS, NOAA, CORPS, USGS,
ATSDR, NIEHS, and USBR. In reviewing the existing federal coordination
mechanisms, the 2004 NRC report concluded that ``coordination among
agencies has occurred only sporadically over the last several decades,
despite repeated calls for more coordination.'' As a result, the
national water resources agenda among the federal agencies is
fragmented and has a disciplinary rather than a broad and holistic
scope. Furthermore, although the states adjudicate, administer, and
regulate water rights and uses, federal and State agencies must work
together to ensure harmonization of and compliance with federal and
State laws in the management of transboundary water resources. However,
the existing coordination and cooperation mechanisms, if any, have been
ineffective, and more often than not turn water conflicts and disputes
into costly litigious battles.
Lack of investments in integrated and adaptive management: A
striking finding of the 2004 NRC report was that over the last 30 years
total funding in the areas of (1) water supply augmentation and
conservation, (2) water quality management and protection, (3) water
resources planning and institutional issues, and (4) water resources
data collection have severely declined. As a result, long-term basic
research and technology transfer in integrated and adaptive water
resources planning and management have been neglected, and the majority
of our water resources are managed by reactive, disciplinary, and
inefficient methods and procedures. The main impediments in the use of
modern management methods are: (1) inflexible bureaucracies that have
evolved around the use of old management procedures and (2) inadequate
training of agency personnel. Thus, a promising and largely unexplored
strategy to address water scarcity is the modernization of the current
management procedures through recent but proven scientific advances,
transferred to professional practice through education and training.
Water resources research and educational programs: The other
casualty of declining funding has been the weakening of our water
resources research and educational programs. At a time when
universities increasingly depend on ``soft'' funding, faculty positions
and student support have migrated to other higher priority areas. In
sharp contrast to the 60's, 70's, and early 80's, very few academic
programs can now claim significant expertise in water resources. This
is not to imply that academic programs are shrinking. On the contrary,
they are expanding, as they should, to cover much finer and very
exciting frontiers of geophysical, environmental, and life sciences. In
doing so, however, universities have lost their commitment to
interdisciplinary education and are becoming over-specialized. An
important role that water resources programs can play is to provide a
scientific and policy framework for interdisciplinary research,
education, and technology transfer. Such a framework is necessary to
create broadly educated scientists, engineers and policy-makers able to
invent technological and institutional solutions for the Nation's water
resources and environmental challenges.
In this regard, the WRRI provides a unique network to address the
challenges of interdisciplinary research, education, and technology
transfer. However, the institutes cannot fully realize their potential
at the current low rate of federal and State investment. I hope that
the Initiative proposed here will also address the need for sustainable
and sufficient funding needed to reverse the continued weakening of our
water resources programs.
The NRC report also notes the need for a systems approach to water
resources research, to avoid the ``myopia'' of limited jurisdictions or
agency missions. Universities have a unique ability and range of
disciplinary expertise necessary to take the broad view of water issues
and to probe their resolutions. Universities, and WRRI in particular,
are uniquely situated to facilitate information exchange between State
and local government agencies, non-governmental organizations and the
private sector, and whatever federal body might be designated to
coordinate federally-sponsored research.
As the NRC report notes, ``The Water Resources Research Institute
system . . . provides an existing, well-organized mechanism for
articulating State-based research needs and for bringing together water
managers, stakeholders across a wide cross section of the public, and
academic researchers and academic institutions throughout each state.''
As such, ``. . . the institute system can provide an effective means of
communication between, for example, a national-level research
coordinating body and the State and regional water resources
agencies.'' In addition to State and local agencies and non-
governmental organizations, the institutes already have close ties to
State-based offices of Federal Government agencies.
WRRI welcomes the opportunity to work with this committee and with
this subcommittee to address water resource issues. WRRI is uniquely
positioned to assist in the proposed Initiative because:
WRRI program is not limited by a policy-driven or
regulatory mission and thus can address the entire spectrum of
water resources issues, including gaps between government
agencies. By focusing on science, the program serves as an
objective broker of information among a wide range of
constituencies.
University-based institutes are conducive to
examining long-term consequences of policies and recognizing
long-term problems, with access to expertise in all water-
related disciplines.
The WRRI program can be more flexible in addressing
emerging problems and more adaptable to local cultures,
institutions of governance, and regional socioeconomic and
physical conditions.
Institutes and academic researchers are more likely
than mission-driven agencies to consider institutional, in
addition to technical, solutions.
NIWR is an established network of immense and
geographically diverse capabilities on the cutting edge of
virtually every facet of water resources. The network
facilitates regional as well as State and local cooperation.
The Institutes provide hands-on educational
opportunities to develop the highly trained workforce necessary
to build our national capacity for sustainable water resource
management.
Technology transfer programs at each Institute
provide scientifically credible communication of research needs
and results upward from the states and localities to federal
agencies and downward from these agencies to users of research
results.
Institutes are experienced in assessing priorities
for research, having established Technical Advisory Committees
with representatives from virtually all interested agencies and
non-governmental organizations.
WRRI Program provides information to increase the
efficiency of federal water resources research investment by
identifying research gaps and avoiding redundancies.
WRRI Program provides funding to fill research gaps
to improve the effectiveness of water resources management.
WRRI Program includes a quality-review process
(similar to GPRA requirements) with mandated reviews every
three years. Institutes are held accountable for expenditures
as well as for the quality and relevance of scientific results
and the vigor of outreach programs.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to participate in
today's hearing. I applaud and encourage efforts by our federal and
State-elected leadership to develop new policies and programs to meet
the water challenges we face in the Twenty-first Century. I know I
speak for my fellow directors of the State water resources research
institutes when I say we are anxious to work with you and other
stakeholders to address the water challenges we face in the future
through research, education and training, and information transfer and
exchange.
Biography for Upton Hatch
Upton Hatch is Interim Director of the North Carolina Water
Resources Research Institute, located at North Carolina State
University. He is President-Elect of the National Institutes for Water
Resources (NIWR). His academic appointment at North Carolina State
University is in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
His degrees are from Dartmouth College (B.A.), University of Georgia
(M.S.), and University of Minnesota (Ph.D.), all in economics,
particularly resource economics with a specialty in water resource
economics. He is Professor Emeritus of Auburn University and former
Director of the Auburn University Environmental Institute and the
Alabama Water Resources Research Institute. His research and teaching
have focused on resource economics.
Discussion
The National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on
Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ) Outreach
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Dr. Hatch. We will now begin
with our first round of questions, and the Chairman will
recognize himself for five minutes.
Let me ask you all a couple of questions. The Academies'
Report indicated the outreach mandate needed to be strengthened
and improved. What is the current experience with SWAQ, with
respect to communication with yours or similar organizations,
and are additional funds needed to support broader outreach
effort, or is explicit direction to undertake these actions
sufficient?
And Dr. Shannon, if you would start, and the rest of you
comment.
Dr. Shannon. Thank you, Chairman. Just to recap. The issue,
you are asking specifically about the communication from the
group, SWAQ, to the----
Chairman Lampson. And experience, yes.
Dr. Shannon. The experiences from the industrial side of
things, which is really what I have been representing, is that
there has not been a lot of diffusion from the Federal
Government to an organization that are building water
technologies, and that would be a fantastic thing, if this
could be improved and increased, to increase the diffusion of
knowledge, and coordination.
Where there has been some with my, through the National
Science Foundation, that I represent as well, and that is, of
course, much more closely allied, so--with, you know, the work
that has been done at the National Academy of Sciences, et
cetera.
So, perhaps these folks here would be better in addressing
your question.
Mr. Christenson. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I am speaking
for the beverage companies, I think there is, the right word
from our participants is that there is a general need for
greater coordination, but also, that communication is a key
piece to that coordination, and interactive communication. So,
it is a two way flow.
I think the general feeling of my constituents is probably
to have access and provide input, so there is not a clear
pathway or vehicle to communicate into these organizations
necessarily, and communication outwards, and synthesis of that
communication could be improved.
Dr. Loftus. It is my sense that there is little to no
dialogue taking place between SWAQ or many federal agencies,
and perhaps, the State of Illinois, which might be the most
logical first step in communication, so I think there is room
for improvement there.
Mr. Johnson. It seems to me that most of the communication
has probably been through interest groups and associations, as
opposed to bringing the effort down to the local level, where
individuals who may not have the resources, or may not be a
part of some of the national organizations, would have an
opportunity to have more direct input into the effort. So, I
think that that would be a very critical element. And I think
it ought to be mandated, and I think that those agencies that,
again, are having to do the outreach, would probably be better
positioned to understand what the resource requirements would
be in order to reach down to the actual local governments, as
opposed to just assuming that they cast a broad enough net by
dealing with the interest groups.
Mr. Spooner. No additional comments, thank you.
Chairman Lampson. Okay. Dr. Hatch.
Dr. Hatch. Yes. If you talk about the communication between
SWAQ and NIWR, that has been excellent. In fact, we are quite
familiar with many of the people on the committee. Then, when
you go from a NIWR, or the State institutes to the local group,
in North Carolina, actually, it is fairly good. It is, to some
extent, it is the local initiative. We have workshops for
continuing education for construction people, and we have PDHs,
they call it, Professional Development Hours. We work closely
with the State government people and Departments of Natural
Resource. We actually have a consortium we call the Urban Water
Consortium, that the city managers, or the water managers, for
the 11 largest cities in the State of North Carolina. So, I
think it is very much a mixed picture for our NIWR group.
Some states have quite an extensive program that could be
supported further, or could be used as an example for some
other states. But I would have to admit that it is not
completely that NIWR deserves all the accolades there. It is
often the local communities, and our particular community,
universities and research, we are the Research Triangle. We
have Duke, we have NC State, we have University of North
Carolina. We have Wake Forest. So, it is a very unique
situation that probably isn't replicated in many areas of the
country.
The Federal Government's Role in Ensuring Water Availability
and Quality
Chairman Lampson. I am going to squeeze this in, and let
you comment on it. If you will, make it as succinct as
possible. What is the most significant deficiency with respect
to the Federal Government's current role in ensuring water
availability and quality? The most significant deficiency with
respect to the Federal Government's current role in ensuring
water availability and quality.
Dr. Hatch. Are you saying deficiency or inefficiency?
Chairman Lampson. Deficiency.
Dr. Hatch. Deficiency.
Chairman Lampson. The most significant deficiency.
Dr. Hatch. I believe it is coordination. I think the
general public looks in the newspaper, and they see something
about the Corps has this requirement, and they look in there,
and they see that the hydropower, FERC, has another
requirement. Then, they look at the city municipal drinking
water, and they see yet another, and the governor has yet
another opinion. So, it seems to me that this coordination is
crucial that you are suggesting. We strongly support it.
Chairman Lampson. Anyone else want to comment? Dr. Loftus.
Dr. Loftus. We have the Clean Water Act and the Coastal
Zone Management Act for water quality guidance. We don't really
have anything similar for issues of water supply. And so, in my
view, we might benefit from a National Water Policy Act of some
sort, that does the water quantity what the other two acts have
done for water quality. That is the biggest deficiency, in my
view, and then, the other matter would be to ensure that we
have got that vertical coordination. We definitely can use
better coordination at the horizontal federal level, but we
need it to also move up and down through states, providing
states with goals and guidance and incentives, so that at the
regional, on the ground level, where I am at, we have a strong
sense for, you know, what the big picture is, and overarching
goals are.
Chairman Lampson. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to make
a comment?
Mr. Christenson. Quick comment if I may, Chairman. I
believe the representative group that, the biggest deficiency
is in the consolidation of information and data and
communication. This Act is intended to address--serve as a
clearinghouse, consolidate available information on water
quantity and quality, and distribute that information. So, some
of the research that is here, to define our water resources,
and provide the basis for planning and decision-making, and
consolidation of the research at the federal level, is needed.
That leadership piece is missing right now, in my opinion.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you.
Dr. Shannon. I actually agree with all of these gentlemen.
But just the issue is, is that there really is no coordination
right now between the research that is done by the Federal
Government, and funded by the Federal Government, and its
diffusion into practice. That is also a key issue. It is just,
it is missing.
Chairman Lampson. Yes. Mr. Spooner.
Carbon Sequestration's Impact on Water Supply
Mr. Spooner. I would just like to repeat my concern about
carbon capture and sequestration, that would effectively be
mandated or strongly encouraged with some of the global climate
legislation, where perhaps, the water quantity impacts have not
been adequately considered.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you very much. My time has expired,
and I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for five
minutes.
Mr. Inglis. Mr. Spooner, following up on that part of it,
does it--I am not sure I know how water is used in carbon
sequestration. What is the process there? Do you happen to
know, or are you just aware it uses a lot of water?
Mr. Spooner. DOE has produced a series of reports, where
they have looked at a number of the impacts of carbon capture
and sequestration, on both retrofitting existing utility units
and constructing new units. And that goes into quite a bit of
detail, hundreds of pages, and I can't really paraphrase or
summarize that very well, but it is a very water intensive
process to capture the carbon dioxide.
Mr. Inglis. Interesting. Anybody else know anything about
that? I have to find out what the process is for the various
technologies that we might use for carbon sequestration.
Avoiding Burdensome Bureaucracy
This concept of coordination has got to be balanced against
the experience, say, of homeland security, which some people
think hasn't been so coordinated, and has, in fact, created
additional layers of bureaucracy to respond to threats. Any
ideas about how we make sure that we don't repeat those
mistakes? To have coordination, but not a layer of additional
bureaucracy that just is overlaid over the existing
bureaucracy?
Mr. Christenson. If I may make a comment, from a strategic
thinking perspective, or a strategic planning perspective, I
think success is always founded in having a clearer vision of
what you define as success, and putting those controls in. The
catch to that is milestones, and clearly defining expectations
for outcomes. So, I think they set it in a clear direction, and
the boundaries and scope are probably the most critical piece
to avoiding scope creep, which is often a problem. And I think
that is one of the things that we see is, we are having a hard
time envisioning, in the current discussion, and we see an
opportunity to add more clarity on what the vision is, and the
purpose. This policy does not create another agency. This is
not, that is how we are interpreting this policy, but it is
actually a functional group that spans a certain scope of
activity to the Federal Government, and helps create, set some
focus, tighten the budgeting, and things of that nature. But
from our perspective, I think that is one of the missing
pieces, or truly a place to enhance the current policy
discussion.
Benefits of Research
Mr. Inglis. I suppose that each of you must have some
hypothesis about what this research is going to show about
water usage and availability. Anybody want to dare to state a
hypothesis about, I think it is going to have something to do
with conservation, that would be my guess, as a hypothesis
here? Anybody want to venture one, as to what the main thrust
of this research might prove? Leaving aside some of the key
issues that Mr. Johnson had mentioned about the pharmaceuticals
and things like that, and that is very interesting research
that is very important. And the other, the availability issue;
there are probably some hypotheses out there about what you are
going to find.
Dr. Shannon. At the risk of trying to project out with a
crystal ball, which I don't really have--but the issue, I
think, if we get much better information as to where the water
is, and the state that the water is at. Particularly the issues
with downwater. Surface water is fairly well understood. USGS
has done a great job. There has been a real fracture of who is
responsible for collecting groundwater information, and we have
really gone county by county. I mean, it is very, there is not
really a whole database which is, you keep hearing referred to.
I think what people will find is that the replenishment
rate is less than the withdrawal rate, and that issue will
become really crucial. The main issue with what one can do
about this. Can we reuse? Can we restore? Can we reclaim water,
and recharge aquifers? That would be a critical issue, which
nobody right now, there is no federal agency that says that is
their charter. You can say, well, EPA has its charter for water
quality, but what is the charter for that.
The Bureau of Reclamation has some charter, but there is no
one particular agency, so the issue really, through your
earlier question, what could happen is, is really to be, as Mr.
Christenson said, you really make sure the scope is well-
defined at each agency. I think right now, we have many
agencies that are doing the same thing, and yet, nobody has a
single charge, and to try to, if you can craft a way that this
committee could actually define who does what, and who has what
charter, I think, would be the best way of approaching it.
Dr. Loftus. Mr. Inglis, I would hypothesize that a
nationwide commitment to conservation and efficiency will be
the least expensive new supply we can develop.
Mr. Johnson. That is very profound. I agree with all of
the, both of my colleagues here, but I think that one of the
things that we have learned, in particular, with the looking at
nanotechnology and pharmaceuticals, is that we have developed
technology to identify and define many of these elements that
are out in the environment, and that that technology has been,
has far outstripped the research and the technology that is
necessary to avoid having those constituents and elements that
have the potential to be harmful to health, in getting into the
environment.
So, I think that those, that kind of research is going to
need to catch up with the research for the identification of
these things. The other thing, I think, is just methods that we
might employ, in particular, in urban environments, to try to
reduce pollution, and to capture that water supply as a better
water supply, as it comes out of our urban environment, in
particular.
Dr. Hatch. I have a comment. I think the most important
element right now is the competing uses of this, of the supply.
I think that we, through the last so many decades, have always
used increasing storage, building reservoirs, as our way to
deal with water resource problems, and I think now, it is more
competing demands, and management, better efficiency,
conservation, looking at things on a more long-term basis.
Looking at things on a watershed basis is also crucial. Because
we are getting into so many issues of jurisdiction. So--and I
guess water quality is the other one. You can't separate
quality from quantity. It is quality of a certain, I mean,
quantity of a certain quality, so--I think those are the kinds
of issues that are coming up.
Mr. Spooner. I would just like to mention that, with the
Georgia Water Management Plan, one of the first implementation
steps was water conservation, more emphasis on that could be
started and implemented, to some degree, almost immediately.
And I would be glad to furnish a copy of the plan for the
record, along with some information on CCS water use, in
response to the prior question. Thanks.
Mr. Inglis. Thanks.
Chairman Lampson. You are welcome. I now recognize, for
five minutes, the gentlelady from Maryland.
Water Conservation
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am curious. Each of
you did talk about conservation as an important component,
maybe even a principal component of looking at our nation's
water supply. I am really curious as to whether you think that
there is a place in the legislation that we are considering,
where we might ask specific data points, and what those might
be, regarding conservation. Mr. Christenson, particularly, you
and your industry, looking at aspects, for example, of bottling
water and that industry, competing uses of agriculture, and
then what questions we also might ask regarding conservation
that we can do as individuals and homeowners, that might impact
our water supply. I think begin with you, Mr. Christenson.
Mr. Christenson. I need to ask for a clarification again,
if you would restate or summarize your question.
Ms. Edwards. Well, I am curious about what your industry,
you know, how your industry would look at conservation, because
you mentioned conservation----
Mr. Christenson. Sure. Sure.
Ms. Edwards.--is an important aspect of the water supply,
and how your industry looks at conservation and the data points
that we might ask about what we can do around conservation to
get----
Mr. Christenson. Certainly. We have measured, in the
beverage industry, total water consumption amount very closely.
They look at water use at various departments within the
production process, and within the supply chain. So, we look
beyond the four walls of the operating facilities, but also
look down the supply chain, so beginning to take a life cycle
assessment look at water consumption to develop a product.
In addition, you use the quantitative measurement, the use
of water, and you begin to attack your heavy user water
departments conceptually. And so, you are looking at water use
efficiency, against some production quantity.
The other piece that I think people have had great
effectiveness at is to create a culture within these businesses
to water stewardship and conservation. So, if the employee that
is walking around the plant sees a faucet on, turns it off, it
is like turning the lights off when you leave the room.
So, the two aspects that we are looking at are the
quantitative aspect of water use and efficiency, usually
measured against, normalized against--production level, whether
it is kilograms or per liter of product developed, whatever.
And the other is really trying to look at and benchmark
practices and culture within the business, as a data point and
an indicator of how we are doing.
So, I hope that answers your question.
Ms. Edwards. Dr. Loftus, do you have a comment about what
we might look at around conservation that could have an impact
on water supply?
Dr. Loftus. Yes, thank you. In the Chicago region, we have
adopted 14 specific measures, and they will aim at households,
residential use. They will aim at commercial, industrial,
institutional accounts, and so, there is something in there for
everyone.
Some of those measures will require changes of behavior,
and some will not. Some of those measures, you can very easily
quantify water savings that could be expected upon
implementation. Others are a little less easy to quantify. But
the beauty of the whole conservation movement is that we only
have to look to other states that have been in crisis mode,
that have been forced to really lead this edge, California,
Arizona, for example, Texas, and more or less emulate what they
have already tried and learned about through trial and error,
so that is one of the messages I brought back to Chicago, is we
don't have to really recreate new wheels, so much as we have to
emulate a lot of the good work that has already taken place in
various parts across the country.
So, I called out California. The California Urban Water
Conservation Council is a real pioneer, for example, in
establishing a whole structure for promoting and achieving real
conservation savings. The New Alliance for Water Efficiency, in
some respects, is an outgrowth of the success of the California
Council, but now, the Alliance has a North American scope
headquartered in Chicago. They are very committed to promoting
the whole conservation and efficiency agenda, because there are
so many benefits, both on the water intake side, as well as on
the wastewater treatment side.
Ms. Edwards. And is there a national snapshot of what a
conservation strategy might look like for the country, as
opposed to the individual snapshots that we might get in a
region or a locality?
Dr. Loftus. Well, that is a good question. I want to say we
could create one without too much work, if one didn't exist
already. Maybe my colleagues can respond to whether or not such
a snapshot exists.
Ms. Edwards. I think my time is up.
Dr. Shannon. Oh, I actually, that was one of the--sorry--I
actually showed one where I actually tried to capture the
Nation as a snapshot in just one graph. Conservation is
essential, because if we don't, if we stay on our current rate
of increasing consumption per capita, we will have to increase
our total water supplies by 60 percent over the next 30 years,
which is not possible. So--but if we just focus on domestic
use, that--we would have to cut our domestic use by 60 percent.
Everybody would have to use 60 percent less. Our industries
would have to use 30 percent, energy would have to use 30
percent less, and ag would have to use 20 percent less. Really,
agriculture consumes 70 to 80 percent of the water used in the
United States. So, in this talking about the different sectors,
we really have to--and that is one of the essential things that
the Federal Government can help do, is to bring all these
different sectors together. Dealing with one sector without
thinking of the other is--we can't----
Chairman Lampson. Okay. Thank you. Next, we have, I will
recognize for five minutes Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. It is going to be a race
between water availability and availability of liquid fuels,
which brings our communities to their knees first.
You have been talking about water conservation, and we are
not very aggressive in water conservation. I remember that I
was proposing building houses that got all of the water from
the water that falls on their roof. If you are in this area,
with 40 inches of rainfall, you have an average house, enough
water falls on the roof of your house to meet all of your water
needs for the year, if you are at all conserving.
And I say, people said, oh, gee, you can't drink rainwater,
cistern water, and I said well, let me understand this. The
rain falls on the hog lot, and the water from the hog lot goes
into the creek, and the creek goes into the river, and you pull
the water out of the river and treat it, and that is my
drinking water. I said can I please have the water before it
goes through the hog lot. That seems to me to be a reasonable
request.
I also suggested that in conserving water in the home, that
you might use gray water. We are one of the few major countries
that uses drinking water to flush its toilets and wash its
streets. And one of the counties, they said oh, gee, you can't
do that. Somebody might drink the water of the hose when they
were washing their car. And my response was you don't drink
water out of your toilet, do you? You learn where you get
drinking water, and where you don't get drinking water.
You mentioned the relationship between energy and water.
Indeed, they are very closely related. We are getting, now, a
bit more than a million barrels of oil a day from the Canadian
oil sands. The availability of water will shortly, severely
limit that. And I note in our country that we use drinking
water to cool our power generation plants. In most of the rest
of the world, they are placed in population centers, and the
waste heat is used for district heating. We do almost none of
that in this country. So, we have lots and lots of
opportunities for conservation. I see little effort to conserve
either water or energy, and we need aggressive conservation in
both of those.
I understand that in some parts of the West, that we are
actually pumping glacial waters, that these aquifers are not
being replenished. Is that true?
Dr. Shannon. Yes, but mostly in the Midwest. It is mostly
the upper Midwest.
Mr. Bartlett. The upper Midwest.
Dr. Shannon. The upper Midwest, yes.
Mr. Bartlett. But if that is true, how can sensible people
issue one more building permit in an area where you are getting
your water from glacial water, and you are not replenishing the
reservoir? Can you help me understand that?
Dr. Shannon. I wish I could. Most of those permits, it is
all very local. Each state has different laws on groundwater
withdrawals, sometimes, even each county, each city has
different regulations, and so, in my hometown, if you own land,
you can drop a well, and start, and it is glacial water, and we
can just pump it out as our, as we desire.
It is a problem.
Mr. Bartlett. Then what will we do when it is gone? What
will those communities do?
Dr. Shannon. This is an absolutely critical issue that we
have to address.
Mr. Bartlett. I am really kind of depressed, because that
is a pretty simple kind of a thing, and if we can't have any
rational response to that, what kind of confidence do you have
that we are going to have a rational response to our national
very challenges with water?
Dr. Shannon. In the issue of groundwater recharge is the
real issue, and can we actually start recharging? And humans
have actually started to change this by digging basements, and
all sorts of activities where we have now gotten a connection
between the surface water and these glacial aquifers.
So, there is issues of recharging, and you just want to
make sure you recharge these aquifers cleanly. And there are
possibilities for doing it. We are not doing it currently, but
we can, in fact, change that if we start working on it now.
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, there are three things that we
have just taken for granted, that is, breathable air and
adequate amounts of usable water, and adequate amounts of
liquid fuels.
Our society, our world, our country faces real challenges
in these areas, and I want to thank you for holding this
hearing. Most people don't much think about water, but it is
just about as critical as liquid fuels, which we are thinking a
lot about now. So, thank you for your foresight in holding this
hearing, and I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. Your thoughts
are always impressive and causes us to think. We will see where
we go with it all. We have, next, Mr. McNerney. You are
recognized for five minutes.
Conservation and Agriculture
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The areas I am most
interested in is the impact of efficiency, water efficiency and
conservation on farming, in terms of productivity and
profitability. Could any of you take that question on? How is
efficiency is going to make farming more profitability or more
productive? Can it, or are farmers going to be taking a hit
when we go toward conservation? It is inevitable.
Dr. Shannon. Anybody else? I will be willing to tackle
this.
Mr. McNerney. Sure.
Dr. Shannon. I actually went to India and--a couple of
weeks ago, just to give, issue about agriculture, and they
doubled their food production by basically doubling their water
withdrawals out of their aquifers to reach the Green
Revolution, and now, their aquifers are drying. So, they are
very, very worried about to do to maintain their efficiency.
Well, Israel has really done a tremendous job in cutting the
amount of water and increasing their agricultural output.
So, this is an area that, with some new technologies and
some new investment, we can actually increase, I think,
agricultural output in many regards, while reducing the amount
of water use. Doing groundwater drip irrigation, where you go
right below the soil, has benefits, by reducing the amount of
fertilizers needed, as well as water, and you can increase
productivity.
So, there are a lot of places in the world that are looking
at this. The United States is somewhat doing this in
California, from what I understand. Of course, through the
Midwest, we don't yet.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I have got a lot of almond farmers in
my district, and I mean, they tell me, when they reduce water
usage, their almond production goes down. It is that simple. Is
that, in your mind, is that necessarily the case?
Dr. Shannon. Well, it is connected with the biology, which
is the trans-evaporation rate. To get more output, you have to
have that go up, and so, that is where the consumption comes
in. But it is the pan-evaporation that is not, doesn't lead to
that, that we have to minimize. And if you can minimize the
pan-evaporation, that doesn't leave the crop, but you do have
to have the, what is called trans-evaporation to produce crop,
and there is just no way of getting around that.
Mr. McNerney. You seem to be----
Dr. Hatch. I have a comment.
Mr. McNerney. Oh, go ahead.
Dr. Hatch. There is the basic issue of getting the water to
where it is needed, which is the root zone or the leaf. You
could argue that spraying water out into the air isn't very
efficient. You could argue that where it is possible, drip
irrigation doesn't work with all crops, but drip irrigation not
only delivers water, but more and more farmers find they can
deliver various chemicals or other things, it becomes like an
IV, if you will, for a human. It is a great delivery system.
So, in crops and agricultural situations where you can use
something like that, or you can figure out a way to get more of
the water that you are taking out of a storage pond, or out of
a river, wherever it is coming from, get more of that water
into the affected location, then that is a great efficiency,
and if that is done, then the productivity could actually
increase. And I think that is what he is referring to in
Israel.
Mr. McNerney. And sort of a related question, you discussed
the depletion of groundwater aquifers. It is a big issue. Are
there geologic consequences to that, and how can we better use
rainfall to recharge these? I mean, in California, we are close
to the ocean. The rain comes, and we flush it out to avoid
flooding. But is it an effective way to use that, to recharge
our aquifers?
Dr. Hatch. I guess I can--if somebody else wants to jump
in. Groundwater recharge is an issue. If you don't recharge,
the land subsides, and there is subsistence occurring
everywhere around the world, and in the United States.
Singapore, by the way, has subsided almost 30 centimeters in 30
years from pumping out groundwater aquifers. Same thing with
Mexico City, and of course, New Orleans, we know about that,
and other places.
But you can recharge with rainwater, but typically, the
water needs to be really clean to get fast recharge rates. If
it is not clean enough, it is slow. If it is muddy water, it
doesn't recharge, and then, you have to get rid of it from
floods. So, there are, there is work going on to be able to
clean it up effectively, so that you can recharge aquifers more
effectively.
Mr. McNerney. Dr. Loftus.
Dr. Loftus. And to go back to your previous question, I
think there is an opportunity here to think a little more
holistically, thinking about agriculture and their needs for
water. You know, we have spent billions and billions of dollars
improving our wastewater treatment plants, and we really
produce some pretty high quality wastewater that can present no
health problems. But yet, it is nutrient-rich, and so, you
could apply treated wastewater to corn, for example, and
eliminate the farmer's need to buy urea or other forms of
nitrogen that they use at great expense, given the price of oil
these days, and actually, boost their productivity and
profitability, and at the same time, provide, you know, an
outlet for effluent that might otherwise cause a problem, if it
is being put into a sensitive stream and degrading water
quality, for example.
Mr. McNerney. My time is about expired, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lampson. Sounds to me that that would involve
actually planning the use of the land, as well, so that you
could have best use of the land nearest where, there is a lot
that has to go on.
Mr. Christenson. And we are seeing that happening now,
beginning to happen. In the beverage industry, certainly, we
are seeing beneficial reuse of their waste streams directly for
land application, things of that nature. So, those practices
are evolving. If I may make a quick comment.
Chairman Lampson. Please.
Mr. Christenson. Just to the, again, the agricultural
discussion. You know, I think the whole discussion really
speaks to the need for the various sectors to come together and
be looking for solutions in total. You know, we have got Pepsi
and Coca-Cola, and we all know the rivalry between those two
businesses, working together on a common problem, and a common
issue for their industry. And I think the same opportunity
exists here. I think the agriculture industry, the heavy and
the technical manufacturing industry, food and beverage
industry, need to come together and be looking at, and
collaborating, looking at their water uses and practices. There
is a lot of new technology that is being developed.
Agricultural industry should not be afraid of this. We all need
their products, as we need other products.
So, for us to take, have the sectors coming together, and
realizing that this current federal policy we are discussing
today works to coalesce and get collaboration across federal
agencies. Somewhere out there, we need to begin to create this
cross-industry sector collaboration and solution-solving forum.
So, I am just kind of hearing--what we are talking about here
today. These are the kind of things I think that we see need to
happen, and certainly trying to do within the beverage
industry.
Chairman Lampson. Ms. Biggert, you are recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. It has been very interesting. I was just
sitting here looking at this bottle of water, and thinking that
it wasn't too long ago that this bottle of water cost more than
a gallon of gasoline.
Now, it is no longer true, and unfortunately, it is not
that the price of water has gone, but the price of gasoline has
skyrocketed. So, we have a lot of challenges, I think, facing
us, and hopefully, that we are, we can come up with some
solutions quickly.
And I would like to welcome Dr. Loftus here from the CMAP.
I live in the metropolitan Chicago area, and so, certainly
appreciate all that you do to provide us with drinking water.
When I first moved to Hinsdale, we had well water, and it
smelled like rotten eggs, and finally we did go off the well
water and use Lake Michigan. That has been a wonderful
resource, but it, you know, there are challenges there, too, in
how much water we can use.
The Federal Government's Role
But I just wanted to ask everybody, and then come back to
another question, just so that we can be clear, do you envision
a bureau to control water usage, or merely to monitor and
predict it, and such as the bill that we are, the draft
legislation that we are looking at now? Should it be to control
water use, or to monitor and predict it? And start with you,
Dr. Shannon.
Dr. Shannon. I was envisioning this as a way to monitor and
provide new ways of providing new waters, not as a control, but
as a, providing opportunities to improve water management.
Ms. Biggert. Mr. Christenson.
Mr. Christenson. Same answer. I view this as a means of
collecting some of the information and data, and technology
development that will allow us to make the decisions we need to
make, or have the impact, and put the controls in place. So,
without some of the foundational research and technology
development that this policy would create, we are not really in
a position yet to make the appropriate decisions of control.
Ms. Biggert. Dr. Loftus.
Dr. Loftus. I don't see a present need for control. I think
we have an opportunity to better orchestrate a lot of good
pieces that are already in place.
Ms. Biggert. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. I think I would agree that the need for
control is certainly not there, and I think it would be a very,
very difficult undertaking, and if we put that same level of
energy into coordinating the research that is currently
available, and the prospective research, and I think pulling
together some of the NGOs along with the Federal Government, to
make those things happen, then we see ourselves in a very
different environment, and causing people to think differently
about resources that we are utilizing.
Ms. Biggert. And Mr. Johnson, I would like to thank you for
tearing up the street in front of my house here in Washington,
and getting rid of the lead pipes.
Mr. Johnson. I have never seen a new street that I didn't
want to cut.
Ms. Biggert. Well, it is a very nice street now. And Mr.
Spooner.
Mr. Spooner. I agree with the other panel members. The
research and information needs to precede any control
mechanisms.
Ms. Biggert. Okay, and Dr. Hatch.
Dr. Hatch. I think we are all unanimous. It is a more a
coordination, management, research, information, those areas.
It is not control.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you. Then, Dr. Loftus, you said in your
testimony that overall, as elsewhere in the United States, our
challenge in the Chicago region is not so much water scarcity,
but water waste. Do you mean the treatment of water, or
wasting, you know, or not conserving it?
Dr. Loftus. The latter. More, you know, I hesitate to say
this, but I kind of say that we are sort of spoiled in the
Chicago region, and we have had abundant, you know, very
generous supplies. We haven't really needed to conserve water.
It has been priced quite low. So, naturally, it is hard to
conserve something that is nearly free, or priced I
inexpensively. So, I think there is just an opportunity to
value water much more highly, and as a result, just simply
become more efficient with its use without causing pain.
Ms. Biggert. Do you think that, then, going to a national
level, as far as, you know, the coordination with, on a
national level with all of the states and the local
governments, that this, that we can get a message out to people
to conserve more? Is this----
Dr. Loftus. Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. I think it is critical
that the Federal Government become an active voice, and show
leadership, and provide guidance to states who have programs
that, like our own State of Illinois program, is interested in
evolving, and becoming better at managing State supplies. But
you know, again, guidance, incentives, direction from the
Federal Government would be, and maybe I am an idealist, but I
think it would be really useful.
Ms. Biggert. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you. And I recognize Ms. Giffords
for five minutes.
Groundwater Research
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Inglis. This is a terrific hearing, and I am very
pleased that so many of you could be here today to talk about
an issue that is really going to drive our economy, and
certainly, national security into the future.
I think that wars of the future will be fought over water,
not necessarily oil, and I don't think the American people
really understand what we have got headed down the road towards
us. I come from Southern Arizona. We have an interesting
situation, where we have had delivery of the Central Arizona
Project for many years. I come from a part of Arizona, though,
that has been heavily reliant on groundwater for most of those
years, where our larger city, Phoenix, has been reliant on
surface water for most of its growth.
So, there is an interesting relationship that we have.
Southern Arizona conserves much, much more than Phoenix. When
you go to Southern Arizona, you rarely see a lawn, rare to see
larger swimming pools. I mean, you will see a lot more of that
up in the Phoenix area.
So, my first question is for Dr. Shannon, because you talk
a lot about groundwater. I just had a town hall hearing a
couple weeks ago in Sahuarita. It is a booming part of Southern
Arizona, a lot of retirees, near Green Valley, just north of
Nogales. And there is a shortage of about 35,000 to 40,000 acre
feet per year that we are seeing in this area of drawdown, and
I am concerned, because this area is going to continue to boom,
and we are the second fastest growing state in the Nation, and
this area is also sandwiched between large agricultural
interests and mining interests as well. We all know that we
have record drought in the West, and certainly, we see that
with that record drought, that we are going to have more and
more users on the Colorado, but less and less water supply.
I was also surprised to read your testimony about how
little actually is known about groundwater, how, we don't have
a lot of information out there. So, could you specifically talk
about some of the necessary research that we are going to need
in the future towards groundwater?
Dr. Shannon. Thank you very much for this question, because
it is actually a crucial question, where I think the Federal
Government can make a huge impact.
Understanding groundwater is, we understand it fairly well,
if you can actually drill wells, and you can actually look at
how it flows. But water flows, if you draw down one, it
actually will pull from another area, and will impact another
area. Also, the depths at which you go to the water. Typically,
as you go down deeper and deeper, it gets saltier, because
heavier water drops, and when you are down in the oil regions,
it is all very, very salty, typically, and the salts are
different. There are some mostly hard salts, and so, as you are
looking at how the water moves from the surface to the ground,
and from the ground to the ground, it is a very difficult thing
to be able to do, and there is certainly, USGS and others have,
and oil companies have certainly looked a lot at this issue,
but more research really needs to be done to understand this
movement.
And as you draw down, it actually changes the amount of
water that is at the surface, and I was at a meeting at the
Joint Services, because the Department of Defense is very
interested in this issue, and they were talking about a base in
Arizona, and I am trying to remember the name of the base.
Ms. Giffords. Huachuca.
Dr. Shannon. Yes. And they were--thank you. And they were
looking at the water, and they have done most of the research
there on the way it is flowing, and as they have drawn down the
aquifer more, literally the river that flows on top of it gets
pulled down, and so, there becomes less surface water, because
it is starting to recharge that aquifer.
So, understanding the whole water balance is absolutely
crucial, and it is not, it needs a lot more research to be able
to know what to do. Right now, we kind of guess, and a lot of
it is just guessing, and if you sit there watching it drop, and
you say well, maybe we should draw less, but it is not fully
understood yet.
And I know that sounds strange after all these hundreds of
years of looking at it, but it still needs more research, and
this is something where the Federal Government can really have
an impact.
Ms. Giffords. Well, I appreciate you mentioning Fort
Huachuca. There is an interesting relationship between the San
Pedro River----
Dr. Shannon. Right.
Ms. Giffords.--which is the second most diverse ecological
area outside of Costa Rica in all of North America. It is a
small river. It is known as the last free flowing river of the
West. It is not very wide. Obviously, it is through the desert,
but the amount of species that are there are fabulous. I mean,
very incredible migratory area, of course, for birds, but
because of the Endangered Species law, the Fort was required to
reduce its water consumption.
Public Education
So, I guess my next question is really aimed at Dr. Hatch
but following up on Representative Biggert. What the Fort did
in less than a couple of years, is the garrison commander came
into Fort Huachuca knowing that it had to reduce the water
consumption. Essentially, they put in low flow toilets, and
they put in low flow water, you know, shower heads on the taps,
and went through all those lawns. He said you know what, we
can't have lawns here anymore. We are in the desert. We have
got a drought. And, I mean, that is pretty heavily monitored.
So, they cut their water consumption by about 50 percent, which
is extraordinary.
Now, he can do that because he is a garrison commander, and
he can go around to all of these different houses, and tell
people what they have to do. But you know Dr. Hatch, this whole
concept of public education is phenomenal, but I want to know
where it actually works. Because I think that we, as humans, we
really like our creature comforts. We like having our nice hot
showers. We like being able to turn on the tap and know that we
are going to have direct delivery of water, and that is very
much the quality and the standard of life we are accustomed to.
But starting with Dr. Hatch, and the others can join in.
Can we talk about how we are going to educate the public and
get them to change some of their behaviors so that we don't
just continue to think that just water comes out of bottles,
that it is very inexpensive and ready to use, because we really
do have some challenges ahead.
Dr. Hatch. I guess there are several problems, that is a
big question. One of the things I am working on is the
effectiveness of conservation measures, and immediately, you
hit up against the problem that the pricing, I mean, as I said
earlier, it is so inexpensive, I joke that if I could get my
son to stop text messaging, I would probably save more money
than I would not drinking, not using water at all in my house.
Obviously, there is, you can go to certain states, and I
think this was mentioned earlier by the person from Chicago,
that you can learn a lot from other states. I think Florida,
for the Eastern states, Florida has done quite a bit with low
flow showers, various types of appliances and this kind of
thing. There is other places that are giving rebates for using
water-conserving appliances. But once again, I think it is as
much the issue of attitude. Just because it is inexpensive, it
is just not on a lot of people's radar screens.
And I think the, it seems like it takes a drought to get
people's attention, and it has definitely gotten people's
attention in Atlanta, North Carolina, Georgia area, with the
recent drought, but you are always concerned that after a few
years of adequate rainfall, maybe people are just going to
become less interested. So, I think some research into the
effectiveness of these management measures or methods would be
very useful.
Municipal Water Utilities: DCWASA
Chairman Lampson. Thank you. This has been fascinating. I
do want to ask Mr. Johnson a quick question about your
testimony. You discussed how DCWASA is different from most
other U.S. municipal water utilities. What can you teach us,
what can you tell us about better coordination, based on your
experiences at DCWASA?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think that based on our experiences
here, one, we are, I think, the District of Columbia and the
State of Wyoming, I believe, are the only two entities that are
not regulated by State organization, where primacy resides with
the states. So, our interactions are primarily with the U.S.
EPA, out of Region 3. That is one of the unique
characteristics, and the fact that we are established as, both
by local and federal law.
I think that that kind of regulatory regime puts us a
little closer to where a number of things are happening with,
across the country, in terms of some of the research and other
things that are occurring, certainly much closer to a stricter
regulatory regime. And what we are finding here in the District
that is kind of unique is that when we start talking about
sharing these water bodies, and my view is that we have
probably outlived the usefulness of the Clean Water Act in its
present form, and need to start looking at things like
watershed-based utilization of resources and water, because we
can have, something to occur in the District of Columbia, and
across Southern Avenue, and Prince George's County, with regard
to water supply will be totally different, in terms of what we
have to do for restrictions and other kinds of things.
So, we ought to be managing these pieces on the worst-
problem-first basis, as opposed to those things that are first
legislated for us to do. And I think that would give us a very
different outcome, an experience both in the clean water side
as well as the wastewater side.
Chairman Lampson. Clean water versus wastewater.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think that they are, the two are tied
very closely together. As an example, if we talk about
pharmaceuticals, do you control the source and keep them from
ever getting into the water body? Do you control it through
treating the water on the, at the water purification plant? Or
do you treat it at the wastewater plant, where it is coming out
and being discharged into the waterway, which is probably the
most expensive approach?
So, that is why I say that we have to couple these things
together, and look at them, look at this research kind of as
one, both on wastewater and water, in order to get an effective
approach for looking at how we manage water resources in
totality. The use of graywater is an example. The reuse of
water is something that people have been experimenting with on
a very limited basis here in this country, but it has been very
widely used in other countries.
So, I think that those two things have to come together in
order for us to have an effective and well coordinated plan. We
have a situation now wherein some agencies of the Federal
Government, the permit writers don't talk to the people who are
the regulators, who don't talk to the people across the hall,
who are the permit writers. And that is all dealing in one
area, so I think if we started to cross pollinate all of those,
and begin to pull them together, we see ourselves making some
sense of a resource that is rapidly becoming a limited resource
in this country. Things will change, with climate change and
other factors, and will not always remain the same. We will not
always be a water-rich community, as we currently are today,
and we need to plan for that.
Chairman Lampson. And I hope we, I certainly hope we do.
And we were talking about a few minutes ago about this small
quantity of water in this bottle, and the bottle itself took
about three times the amount of water to make the bottle than
what is contained with it.
Is that pretty accurate, Mr. Christenson, and how much of
that is recycled?
Mr. Christenson. I am not in a position to comment or give
you exact figures, and go on any kind of record with those
numbers, but yeah, certainly, you have to, any product, there
is the packaging component does consume water, as does the
product itself. Food is the same way. So, you know, this is 100
percent water inside the bottle. There is, obviously, a water
consumption. To say it is three times, I am certainly not in
any position to say that that is a fact.
Mr. Johnson. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can certainly speak to
the cost of delivering water. In this city, I can deliver water
to you, to your tap, for 0.7 cents a gallon. That is less than
a penny a gallon for water that has been tested, that meets all
the federal regulations and standards that are established for
water supplies.
The Draft Legislation's Potential
Chairman Lampson. We had that conversation up here a few
minutes ago as well. And we may be talking about some more of
that. All of these things have been fascinating, and many of
our colleagues have mentioned some things, the Ranking Member
and I, Mr. Inglis, were talking, a couple of the things that
have come up. One, the--refer to it as injection, but the--
restoring water, putting water back into aquifers. We talked
about how, in so many of our areas along the coast--we have
storms, and storm, we have significant quantities of rain that
come, at times. We are spending huge amounts of money to
channelize water routes, to get rid of that water. We are
buying up houses, in places, so that we can stop having to pay
so much money to rebuild those houses every time they flood.
The list of the things that we have been doing seems to go
on and on and on, and are we going to, this question, are we
going to find ourselves at a point where we are wanting to go
back and undo all those things that we have done? And I am not
so sure that that is not something that we shouldn't be
considering, and the sooner, the better.
And I guess my question, if there is a question, is will,
what our proposal is, create a committee to address these
issues, assist in getting us to a point where we can address
some of these kinds of things? Anybody have a thought on it?
Are we going in the right direction?
Mr. Christenson. We believe you are, because it is not just
about conservation. It is not just about changing our habits.
It is about looking at reuse applications. It is about
recycling water. It is about directing water to beneficial
reuse. It is about all of these things, and many of the
outcomes that you laid out in this policy take us down that
path, and again, starting with inventory of what we have, and
beginning to look at needs, and beginning to, starting the
process of cross-agency collaboration.
And hopefully, we can build similar models, as we have in
the beverage group, get cross sector collaborations going and
exchange. And we are seeing that beginning to happen, but
certainly not at the rate it may be necessary. But yes, you are
going in the right direction.
Chairman Lampson. Mr. Inglis.
Dr. Loftus. Oh. If I may, I just wanted to say yes. I think
the draft legislation holds a lot of promise. You can't expect
one piece of legislation to be all things for all people, but
this is a definite step in the right direction. I would just
urge you to think hard about extending that coordination, so
that it just isn't horizontal at the federal level, but
somehow, makes tangible connections with states and the private
sector, so that we can really make progress together.
The other thing I would urge you to consider is to have
that National Water Census address the issue of water use
reporting. Again, we can't manage what we don't measure, so
there is potential, in that census, to take a meaningful step
in that direction.
Chairman Lampson. Thank you.
Dr. Shannon. If I could just say real quickly. The points
that were being made here, I can sort of say it is stovepiping.
Right now, everything is stovepiped, and we call it the
stovepipe, but you know, we have drinking water, we have
wastewater, we have storm sewer water. Everything gets divided
up. Each agency divides everything up, and we really have to
break down these stovepipes, and I think this type of
legislation can go a huge way towards that. That is why I am
very excited about it.
Retention Ponds
Chairman Lampson. Now, Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you. The Chairman and I were just talking
about these retention ponds, and can somebody tell me whether
those, do those replenish groundwater, or do they ultimately
make their way into replenishing aquifers, or--does anybody
know?
Mr. Christenson. Excuse me, are you talking about the
retention ponds next to new construction building? It is likely
they are not having a great impact on our source aquifers.
Shallow aquifers, yes, but it is probably feeding some of the
surface water bodies, and much more shallow aquifers, which in
the more immediate area, probably manifests itself into some
surface discharge.
Dr. Shannon. To actually do direct recharge of a deep water
aquifer, you actually have to drill a pipe, and pump it up, and
actually pressurize it, which costs money and energy. Or you
can get the water very clean, and then, it can actually flow
more readily. And it depends on the ground, but the typical
retention pond is not a percolation pond. It may do something,
it will affect it somewhat, but you know, you need a lot of
pressure to really get it to go down. So, I mean, you may need
a lot of area, and that costs land, or a smaller area and
higher pressure, typically.
Mr. Inglis. So, a retention pond is not a percolation pond,
you are saying?
Dr. Shannon. Not typically, no. Actually, many of them are
lined with clay and the like, so that you don't cause
contamination of shallow aquifers from a retention pond that is
capturing runoff, because runoff has all sorts of things in it,
distillates and oils, and all sorts of things from storm water.
So, storm water retention ponds typically are not, they are to
prevent flooding, but not for recharge. If one wants to use it,
you can do it, and there are places that do do that, and--not
as many in this country, but there are a lot of places that
absolutely depend and rely on this runoff for their sources of
water. But you have to do some cleaning to do it, typically.
Mr. Inglis. A percolation pond, it does clean as it goes
through, or----
Dr. Shannon. Yeah, it is, usually, it is graded gravel, so
you will start with, you know, some sands and gravel, and as
you go down, the engineers will grade it so that it does some
filtering as the water seeps down, and makes a more direct
route to the aquifer.
Mr. Johnson. I believe what the gentleman is saying is
correct. One good example of where that has been utilized for
recharging and for drinking water is Austin, Texas, which has
done a tremendous job, but they have had to do several
different things in order to make it work.
One is change people's habits with regard to fertilizers
and use of other pollutants that go into those retention ponds,
and--but they attempt to recapture all of the water that comes
across the land, and reuse it there. Very effective project.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you.
Chairman Lampson. I am curious to know where a project is
where there is actual recharging or injecting water that has
been held back, and trying to replenish. Any place in the
United States where that is being done? Does anyone know?
Dr. Loftus. Well, I think kind of what we are talking about
here is conjunctive use, conjunctive management of water, and I
think California, Colorado, and Arizona might be leaders in the
complementarity that is available in managing surface and
groundwater supplies, which in some cases, includes artificial
recharge of aquifers during flood events, for example, where we
are capturing that extra flow that would otherwise just make
its way to the ocean, capture it to recharge an aquifer. Using
the aquifers during dry times, rather than really wet times,
when there is access to a surface water source.
It is not available everywhere. It really does depend on,
you know, the, yeah, the geology, the lithology of that
particular spot on Earth, whether or not it is amenable to
accommodating infiltration or not.
Chairman Lampson. This has been fascinating. I could stay
here for a long time, and could think of questions, just to try
to learn this stuff. I think that we have got an awful lot of
teaching to do across the country. How we build our
communities, what we are going to be doing with land and water.
We are starting to see planned communities come up, and
particularly in our area, which is so low, along the coastline,
and there has been so much flooding, now we are doing much
better use of those retention ponds. Always too easy, it seemed
like, to dredge a channel to get rid of the water that we know
is going to ultimately flood, so we could go build some more
houses over here in this pasture.
And now, we are, you know, starting to realize the benefit
of retention, and now, if we can figure out how to use the
water that we capture, all that much better.
Well, thank you all very much. We appreciate you appearing
before the Committee this afternoon. Dr. Hatch, I apologize. I
didn't look up as often as I looked at this level, and so, I
hope we didn't exclude you from that.
Dr. Hatch. No problem.
Chairman Lampson. We appreciate you joining us in the
manner in which you did.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record will be held
open for two weeks for Members to submit additional statements,
and any additional questions that they might have for the
witnesses.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record