[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
21ST CENTURY WATER PLANNING:
THE IMPORTANCE OF A
COORDINATED FEDERAL APPROACH
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-6
__________
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
47-553 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
March 4, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chair, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Adrian Smith, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Witnesses:
Dr. Henry Vaux, Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of
California, Berkeley; Associate Vice President Emeritus,
University of California System
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Biography.................................................... 18
Dr. Peter H. Gleick, Co-Founder and President, The Pacific
Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and
Security, Oakland, California
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Biography.................................................... 24
Mr. F. Mark Modzelewski, Executive Director, Water Innovations
Alliance
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 26
Biography.................................................... 28
Ms. Nancy K. Stoner, Co-Director, Water Program, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 30
Biography.................................................... 36
Ms. Christine Furstoss, General Manager of Technology, GE Water
and Process Technologies, General Electric Company
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Biography.................................................... 39
Discussion....................................................... 40
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Henry Vaux, Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of
California, Berkeley; Associate Vice President Emeritus,
University of California System................................ 56
Dr. Peter H. Gleick, Co-Founder and President, The Pacific
Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and
Security, Oakland, California.................................. 58
Mr. F. Mark Modzelewski, Executive Director, Water Innovations
Alliance....................................................... 61
Ms. Nancy K. Stoner, Co-Director, Water Program, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)............................... 65
Ms. Christine Furstoss, General Manager of Technology, GE Water
and Process Technologies, General Electric Company............. 70
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
H.R. 1145, To implement a National Water Research and Development
Initiative, and for other purposes ............................ 74
Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1145......................... 82
Statement of Martin A. Apple, President, Council of Scientific
Society Presidents (CSSP), dated March 3, 2009................. 83
Letter to Chair Bart Gordon from Gordon W. Day, IEEE-USA
President, dated March 25, 2009................................ 87
Letter to Representative Ralph M. Hall from Gordon W. Day, IEEE-
USA President, dated March 25, 2009............................ 88
Letter to Chair Bart Gordon from Richard McIntyre, Water Program
Director, Food & Water Watch, dated March 17, 2009............. 89
Letter to Chair Bart Gordon and Ranking Member Ralph M. Hall from
Dan Keppen, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance, dated
March 16, 2009................................................. 90
Letter to Chair Bart Gordon from Nancy Stoner, Co-Director, Water
Program, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), dated March
16, 2009....................................................... 97
Letter to Chair Bart Gordon from Glenn English, Chief Executive
Officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA), dated March 24, 2009.................................. 98
Statement from Glenn Reinhardt, Executive Director, Water
Environment Research Foundation (WERF), dated March 4, 2009.... 99
Letter to Chair Bart Gordon from F. Mark Modzelewski, Executive
Director, Water Innovations Alliance (WIA), dated March 10,
2009........................................................... 102
21ST CENTURY WATER PLANNING: THE IMPORTANCE OF A COORDINATED FEDERAL
APPROACH
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
21st Century Water Planning:
The Importance of a
Coordinated Federal Approach
wednesday, march 4, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Wednesday, March 4th, the Committee on Science and Technology
will hold a hearing entitled ``21st Century Water Planning: The
Importance of a Coordinated Federal Approach'' at 10:00 a.m. in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The purpose of the hearing
is to receive testimony on the National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act and examine the opportunities for the Federal Government
to better coordinate and support research and technological innovation.
The witnesses will provide testimony on the research needed to
address the challenges of managing water supplies to meet social,
economic and environmental needs in the United States to accommodate
population growth, climatic variation, and other factors. In addition,
they will discuss their views on the need for federal research and
development in the areas of water supply, water conservation, and water
management. The witnesses will offer their perspectives on the National
Water Research and Development Initiative Act and discuss its
relationship to other federal policies and legislative proposals.
WITNESSES
Dr. Henry Vaux, Jr., Professor Emeritus, University
of California, Berkeley. From 1994 to 2001, Dr. Vaux served as
Chair of the Committee of the Water Science and Technology
Board which prepared a report in 2004 on federal research and
development to address water resource issues. Dr. Vaux will
testify on his work chairing the Committee and how the National
Water Research and Development Initiative Act addresses the
recommendations of the 2004 NRC report.
Dr. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute
for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. The
Pacific Institute is a research institute dedicated to
addressing the connections between water and human health, the
hydrologic impacts of climate change, sustainable water use,
privatization and globalization, and international conflicts
over water resources. Dr. Gleick will discuss his research and
provide his perspective on the National Water Research and
Development Initiative Act and its relationship to other
federal programs and proposals.
Mr. Mark Modzelewski, Co-founder Water Innovations
Alliance. Created in 2008, the Alliance serves as an industry
association working towards increasing water research funding,
strengthening federal research and development, and improving
education and outreach for water industry professionals. Mr.
Modzelewski will offer an industry perspective to the need for
increased federal research and development related to water.
Ms. Nancy Stoner, Co-Director of the Water Program at
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a
national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and
environmental specialists with a long history of working to
protect the Nation's waters. Ms. Stoner will offer an
environmental perspective on the importance of additional
federal efforts to ensure clean water supplies, her
perspectives on the National Water Research and Development
Initiative, and the legislation's relationship to other federal
programs and proposals.
Ms. Christine Furstoss, General Manager of
Technology, General Electric (GE) Water and Process
Technologies. At GE, Ms. Furstoss leads approximately 350
technologists working on critical chemical, membrane, device
and processing technologies aimed at providing water treatment,
water re-use and efficient process system solutions. Ms.
Furstoss will testify about her work in water technology
development and the role of private industry in water science
research.
BACKGROUND
The Nation's water policy remains essentially unchanged despite a
myriad of reports recommending broad changes to address dwindling water
supplies. Multi-year droughts continue to plague regions and states
around the country, including the Southeast, Texas, and California. For
many municipalities, intense competition for water and diminished
supplies will force local water agencies to make tough decisions on
water allocations including implementation of restrictions to protect
essential ecosystem services.
Droughts, changing patterns of precipitation and snowmelt, and
increased water loss due to evaporation as a result of warmer air
temperatures are indicators that climate variability and climate change
have impacts that are being felt across the United States.\1\ The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report
projects that water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover will
decline in the course of the century, thus reducing water availability
in regions supplied by melt water from major mountain ranges.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Water Impacts of
Climate Change. Office of Water. EPA 800-R-08-001. www.epa.gov/water/
climatechange. Accessed February 26, 2009.
\2\ Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, Eds.,
2008: Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2009, the driest month in California history, has left
California's reservoirs and rivers operating at near record lows. On
February 20, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that a large
percentage of agricultural contractors in the State are expected to
receive no water deliveries this year due to California's extreme
drought and municipal contractors should count on receiving a 50
percent of their normal supply. The Bureau prepared two forecasts: a
conservative forecast with a 90 percent chance of having runoff greater
than forecasted and a median forecast with a 50 percent chance of
having runoff greater than forecasted.
Figure 1: California Water Allocation by Forecast\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mid-Pacific Region Office, 2009. Reclamation Announces Initial
2009 Central Valley Project Water Supply Allocation. U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/
detail.cfm?RecordID=26721. Accessed February 26, 2009.
Recommendations for the Obama Administration
Last fall, the Pacific Institute's Dr. Peter Gleick provided water
policy recommendations to the next Administration. Dr. Gleick's
priorities include developing a comprehensive national water policy,
spotlighting national security issues related to water, expanding the
role of the U.S. in addressing global water problems, and integrating
climate change into all federal water planning and activity.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Gleick, Peter, 2008: Water Threats and Opportunities:
Recommendations for the Next President, Peter Gleick. Pacific
Institute. 3 pp. http://www.pacinst.org/publications/
essays-and-opinion/
presidential-recommendations/background.pdf. Accessed
February 26, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United State's fresh water resources are used ineffectively
due, in part, to a lack of a national water policy. Dr. Gleick argues,
``If inefficient use and water contamination continue unabated, they
will impoverish this and future generations, destroy the limited
remaining aquatic ecosystems, and threaten our future food supply.''
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing a 21st Century National Water Policy, the Pacific
Institute recommends a reorganization of the diverse and uncoordinated
federal water responsibilities and expanding the collection of water-
use and water-quality data. In addition, the Institute calls for the
re-establishment of a new national, bipartisan Water Commission for the
21st Century to evaluate and recommend changes to national water
policy.
H.R. 1145: National Water Research and Development Initiative Act
The Committee held two hearings in the 110th Congress--on May 14,
2008 and July 23, 2008--on water supply research and development. At
the hearings, witnesses' discussed the need for better coordination of
federal efforts on water, increased funding for research on the effects
of climate change on groundwater, and improved consideration of
efficient water use in energy systems. They also recommended that
additional money be spent on public education programs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For more information on these hearings, visit the House Science
Committee website at http://science.house.gov/publications/
hearings-markups-details.aspx?NewsID=2187
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite an interagency research budget of approximately $700
million, an increase in the number of water shortages and emerging
conflicts over water supplies suggest that we are inadequately prepared
to address the Nation's water management issues. The 2004 report by the
National Research Council entitled Confronting the Nation's Water
Problems: The Role of Federal Research,\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Research Council. 2004. Confronting the Nation's Water
Problems: The Role of Research. Water Science and Technology Board.
Committee on Assessment of Water Resources Research. National Academies
Press, Washington, D.C., p. 324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Gordon introduced the National Water Research and
Development Initiative Act on September 23, 2008 following the
Committee hearings (H.R. 6997) and in response to the recommendations
in the Academy's 2004 report.
Chairman Gordon reintroduced the legislation on February 24, 2009.
H.R. 1145 coordinates federal research water efforts to ensure we have
the best tools and information to maintain adequate supplies of water
for Americans in the coming decades. The bill 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 Interagency Committee created in 2003, the
Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ) of the National
Science and Technology Council's Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources. SWAQ was created 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. H.R. 1145
incorporates suggestions in the National Academies' 2004 report that
are intended to strengthen the Committee. By strengthening the SWAQ and
providing it explicit Congressional authorization, the recommendations
of the 2007 SWAQ report\8\ will receive due consideration and form the
start of a national strategy to ensure we have a sustainable water
supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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, D.C., p. 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information and recommendations from witnesses obtained through the
two hearings in the 110th Congress and from other water experts were
incorporated into the bill introduced in the 111th Congress. Specific
recommendations that have been included in the current legislation
include: an expanded list of research outcomes, specific mechanisms to
increase public input and involvement in shaping and evaluating the
Initiative, and provisions to facilitate communication and outreach
opportunities with non-governmental organizations.
Additional Water Legislative Proposals
As Congress seeks to address future water supply challenges, it is
important to consider how the National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act relates to other federal policies and legislative
proposals. Two bills that also address federal water policy are: H.R.
135, the 21st Century Water Commission Act and S. 22, the Omnibus
Public Land Management Act of 2009.
H.R. 135: 21st Century Water Commission Act of 2009
H.R. 135 was introduced by Rep. John Linder (R-GA). This
legislation would establish a Commission to provide for water
assessments to project future water supply and demand, review current
water management programs at all levels of government, and develop
recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy. Modeled after the
1968 National Water Commission Act, H.R. 135 creates a commission
consisting of non-federal experts appointed by the President, the
Speaker of the House, and the Majority Leader of the Senate.
H.R. 135 requires the Commission to investigate a number of
solutions to avert future water shortages including: aqueducts and
pipelines, aquifer recharge, repairing aging infrastructure, building
dams and reservoirs, desalination, the capture and storage of
rainwater, recycled wastewater, conservation, and wetlands creation.
H.R. 135 complements the National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act. The Commission's recommendations would be carried out
by the 20-plus agencies overseeing federal water policy. In order to
effectively implement these recommendations, the Federal Government
must have a coordinated structure in place.
S. 22: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, authorizes
many programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Agriculture related to public lands.
Title IX, Subtitle F of this legislation directs the Secretary of
Interior to conduct a variety of activities related to water management
on federal lands. The Secretary is required to establish a climate
change adaptation program to address water management in watersheds
containing federally authorized reclamation projects. The bill also
directs the Secretary of Energy to conduct an assessment of potential
climate change impacts on hydropower projects under the authority of
the Federal Power Marketing Administration. In addition, S. 22 directs
the Secretary of Interior to establish an interagency committee on
water and climate change to review the impacts of climate change on
freshwater resources in the U.S., to develop strategies to improve
observations and expand data collection needed to assess climate
impacts. The bill also provides an increased authorization for the U.S.
Geological Service (USGS) for the National Streamflow Information
Program and for expanded monitoring of groundwater resources.
H.R. 1145 ensures coordination of the research, development and
demonstration activities of all federal agencies with expertise in
water that will be required to develop the required assessments and the
adaptive management strategies for water resources. Participation of
the key federal agencies with expertise and authorities over water
resources in the interagency committees authorized under these two
bills will facilitate a transfer of coordinated research into
coordinated water management policy.
Chair Gordon. This hearing will come to order, and good
morning, and welcome to today's hearing on the 21st Century
Water Planning. I thank our witnesses for accommodating our
change of schedule. I thank my partner, Mr. Hall, for, on short
notice, allowing us to change the schedule. The reason being
Prime Minister Gordon Browning will be speaking to a joint
session later today. We are not allowed, and we should not be
meeting during that time. We do not want to hold witnesses up
by having to wait for that uncertain time to be over with, and
it does mean that this is a little bit of sync, and so our
Members may be coming and going. I thank Ms. Johnson and Mr.
Rohrabacher for being here this morning. But the most important
thing is we are going to get your testimony on record, and that
will help us move forward with our legislation.
Now, the most recent outlook issued by NOAA's National
Center for the Environmental Prediction indicates that drought
conditions will continue to plague a number of states and
regions throughout the United States. California, the Central
Plains, Texas, and Oklahoma and the southeastern states of
Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida are all likely to
experience drought conditions in the coming months. We need to
take decisive action to ensure that the United States can meet
the water challenges of 2009, and beyond.
Last Congress this committee brought attention to the water
supply challenges by holding hearings and introducing
legislation to address technological and strategic deficiencies
at the federal level.
Economic recovery legislation recently signed by President
Obama included significant and long overdue funds for states
and localities to improve water infrastructure. Upgrading and
repair of the water delivery and treatment systems will
conserve water, improve public health, and create jobs.
This is a good start, but we must do more. We need new
tools to evaluate the status of our water infrastructure and
our water supplies. We need effective and efficient
technologies and management practices to improve water quality,
and we must learn to use water more efficiently.
We need a national water policy, and research and
development must be an integral part of that policy. Research
and development are key ingredients to sound water resource
management.
At the end of the last Congress I introduced legislation to
establish a National Water Research and Development Initiative,
and I reintroduced this legislation last week. H.R. 1145
incorporates recommendations from a 2004 report by the National
Academies of Science and from witnesses who appeared before our
committee in the last Congress. This legislation will ensure
that the 20 federal agencies, that is 20 federal agencies, that
are conducting and funding research and development activities
on water will coordinate their efforts to achieve the goal of
managing our water resources for the benefit of our nation.
I think one way that we get more money into research is by
using the money that we have more efficiently and through that
coordination.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us this
morning who will share their views on what we need to do as a
nation to manage our water resources effectively and
efficiently, and I want to thank you all for being with us. I
look forward to your suggestions for addressing the challenges
of water management through federal legislation and leadership.
[The prepared statement of Chair Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Bart Gordon
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on 21st Century Water
Planning.
The most recent outlook issued by NOAA's National Center for
Environmental Prediction indicates that drought conditions will
continue to plague a number of states and regions throughout the United
States. California, the central plains of Texas and Oklahoma, and the
southeastern states of Georgia, South Carolina and Florida are all
likely to experience drought conditions in the coming months.
Constraints on water supplies are taking a toll on society, our
economy, and the environment. Water is too valuable a resource for us
to manage in a crisis-by-crisis fashion.
Recent reports of California's water shortages carry dire
predictions. This year's drought is projected to be one of the most
severe in California's recorded history. On February 20th, the Bureau
of Reclamation announced further cut backs in water supplied to
municipalities and agriculture for the state.
Differing forecast scenarios predict a substantial impact to
California's agricultural economy and indicating that some areas will
receive no water this year. As a result, agriculture losses could reach
$3 billion in 2009 and water delivery reductions could result in a loss
of 80,000 jobs.
We need to take decisive action to ensure that the United States
can meet the water challenges of 2009 and beyond.
Last Congress, this committee brought attention to water supply
challenges by holding hearings and introducing legislation to address
technological and strategic deficiencies at the federal level.
Economic recovery legislation, recently signed by President Obama,
included significant and long-overdue funds for states and localities
to improve water infrastructure. Upgrading and repair of water delivery
and treatment systems will conserve water, improve public health, and
create jobs.
This is a good start, but we must do more. We need new tools to
evaluate the status of our water infrastructure and our water supplies.
We need efficient and effective technologies and management practices
to improve water quality. And we must learn to use water efficiently.
We need a national water policy, and research and development must be
an integral part of that policy. Research and development are key
ingredients to sound water resource management.
At the end of the last Congress I introduced legislation to
establish a National Water Research and Development Initiative. I
reintroduced this legislation last week.
H.R. 1145 incorporates recommendations from a 2004 report by the
National Academy of Sciences and from witnesses who appeared before our
committee in the last Congress.
This legislation will ensure that the 20 federal agencies that are
conducting and funding research and development activities on water
will coordinate their efforts to achieve the goal of managing our water
resources for the benefit of our nation.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses with us this morning who
will share their views on what we need to do as a nation to manage our
water resources effectively and efficiently. I thank you all for being
with us here today, and I look forward to your suggestions for
addressing the challenges of water management through federal
legislation and leadership.
Chair Gordon. I now recognize our distinguished Ranking
Member and my good friend, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and you are correct. As a
matter of fact, this is the fourth hearing we are holding on
water issues in the last year and a half, and I think it is the
second at the Full Committee level.
There is not one district I am aware of that has not had to
deal with a water problem in the last few years, whether it is
because there is too much of it or not enough, and I have had
both. You know, I introduced a bill several years ago, and you
helped pass it through to address the drought over in east
Texas and then south Tennessee. And as you could guess, at
Paris, Texas, an old man said after I had introduced it and
told him about it, he said, ``Congressman, can you make it
rain?'' I said, ``Yes, sir,'' and about two and a half years
later we had a five-inch rain. I called him, got him out of bed
about three o'clock in the morning, and I said, ``Mr. Roscoe,
you know, I keep my word.'' You have to remind them, you know.
But I am pleased that the Committee's taking such an
interest in such a very important topic, and I really commend
you for continuing the work started some time ago. Three years
ago we passed and the President signed a National Integrated
Drought Information System Act of 2006; legislation that we
introduced to help our constituents and many others deal with
the devastating effects of prolonged drought.
In the 110th Congress and again at the beginning of this
Congress this committee moved two water bills: my Produced
Water Utilization Act and Mr. Matheson's Water Use Efficiency
and Conservation Research Act, and the Full House agreed to
send these bills to the Senate on a voice vote last July.
Energy and Environment Subcommittee has received testimony on
draft legislative that is now the Chair's National Water
Research and Development Initiative Act, the bill we are here
to discuss today.
The amount of legislation, including this very important
legislation, that our committee has moved on water issues in
the past few years demonstrates our awareness of the need to
address the critical issues our Nation faces with regard to
water quality, supply, and availability. I have heard it said
that when one bottle of water like this costs as much as a good
bottle of beer, well, we got to get pretty doggone serious
about it.
The House is not alone in recognizing the problems we face
with water. Senate bill S. 22, the Omnibus Lands Bill, that
includes the Secure Water Act, another piece of legislation
that attempts to address shortcomings in our National Water
Research Strategy.
Considering the Chair's bill we are discussing here today,
I hope we have an opportunity to collaborate with the Senate to
create a truly comprehensive and rational approach to water
research. The testimony we will hear today from our very
qualified panelists will help us better understand what
opportunities exist for the coordinated federal research. It
may also be wise to hear from the agencies that are most
involved in federal water research. With the new Administration
in place I think we would benefit from learning how they intend
to approach water research and what kind of legislation would
help, best help them implement a coordinated federal strategy.
Comments from the Office of Science and Technology policy, as
well as the other agencies, might help in our authorization
process.
And I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the fourth hearing we are holding
on water issues in the last year and a half, the second at the Full
Committee level. There is not one district I am aware of that has not
had to deal with water problems in the last few years, whether it's
because there is too much of it or not enough of it. I am pleased that
the Committee is taking such an interest in such a vital and important
topic.
Three years ago, we passed, and the President signed, the National
Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006, legislation I
introduced to help my constituents and many others deal with the
devastating effects of prolonged drought. In the 110th Congress and
again at the beginning of this Congress, this committee moved two water
bills, my Produced Water Utilization Act and Mr. Matheson's Water Use
Efficiency and Conservation Research Act and the Full House agreed to
send these bills to the Senate on a voice vote. Last July, the Energy
and Environment Subcommittee received testimony on draft legislation
that is now the Chairman's National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act, the bill we are here to discuss today. The amount of
legislation our committee has moved on water issues in the last few
years demonstrates our awareness of the need to address the critical
issues our nation faces with regards to water quality, supply and
availability.
The House is not alone in recognizing the problems we face with
water. The Senate has sent S. 22, an omnibus lands bill that includes
the SECURE Water Act, a piece of legislation that attempts to address
shortcomings in our national water research strategy. Considering the
Chairman's bill we are discussing here today, I hope we have an
opportunity to collaborate with the Senate to create a truly
comprehensive and rational approach to water research.
The testimony we will hear today from our very qualified panelists
will help us better understand what opportunities exist for coordinated
federal research. It may also be wise to hear from the agencies that
are most involved in federal water research. With a new administration
in place, I think we would benefit from learning how they intend to
approach water research, and what kind of legislation would best help
them implement a coordinated federal strategy. Comments from the Office
of Science and Technology Policy as well as other agencies might help
in our authorization process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and you are absolutely
right. We do need to get information from those sources so we
can have the best bill possible.
Members may submit additional statements, and they will be
included in the record at this point.
[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.
We know from the droughts over the past years and the 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.
In the past, the Committee has held hearings on this issue during
which we have heard from private industry about steps which the
commercial sector is taking to conserve water resources. 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. I
hope that during this Congress we are able to pass H.R. 1145, the
National Water Research and Development Initiative Act, and enact some
of the reforms that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
report recommended. Thank you Mr. Chairman for your leadership of this
subcommittee; and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
As you know, the State of Texas has suffered a terrible drought in
recent years. It has had large impacts on agriculture and on ranching.
Our nation's water supply is an indispensable commodity. Access to
water has never been more important for our citizens, plants and
animals.
It is also important for so many other things, such as industry,
research, even leisure and sporting activities.
Scientists who serve on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's (IPCC) have reported that water supplies stored in glaciers
and snow cover will decline in the course of the century.
The result will be a reduction in water availability in regions
supplied by melting water from major mountain ranges.
Melting polar ice caps could also cause the rise in sea levels; the
impact on coastal states like Texas and Florida will be tremendous.
Never before has it been more important to establish a national
plan on water research and conservation.
The Science Committee has held hearings in 2008--in May and in
July--on water supply and development.
Witnesses recommended better coordination of federal efforts on
water.
They also recommended increased funding for research on the effects
of climate change on groundwater, and improved consideration of
efficient water use in energy systems.
In addition, they also recommended that additional money be spent
on public education programs.
Mr. Chairman, I will be interested to hear stakeholder feedback on
H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act.
The bill would establish an Interagency Committee to coordinate
water research, development, data collection, education and tech
transfer. The Office of Science and Technology Policy will chair this
committee.
Today's panel of witnesses brings a variety of perspectives.
The breadth of experience will provide Committee Members with the
kind of feedback needed to devise and refine policy.
For years, I have been involved in this issue as a Member of the
Transportation Committee's Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment.
Because I chair that subcommittee, I am in a position to help guide
and facilitate this bill through the legislative process.
Chairman Gordon, I thank you for your interest in this issue and
look forward to working with you on it, going forward.
Thank you, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this important hearing on 21st
century water planning. Population growth, variation in our climate and
degradation of water quality all complicate current water supply
management and coordination in our nation.
As we see increasing competition for a limited water supply, the
importance of a coordinated federal approach can provide an effective
framework to address these water resource challenges. Through efficient
communication, duplicative and conflicting actions by different
agencies can be reduced, as well as ensuring the collection of
comprehensive data to make water management decisions.
Additionally, at the federal level, interagency action and
cooperation are essential for looking at comprehensive water concerns
rather than agencies just focusing on their core missions. States must
think of the larger watershed rather than just the part of the
watershed that touches each individual state, because the management of
a watershed in one state has an effect on the larger watershed.
I am encouraged by the proposed legislation before us today. This
is an important step at finally encouraging cooperation among federal
agencies with respect to water-related research and avoiding
duplication of efforts to ensure optimal use of resources and
expertise.
To the witnesses before us today, I want to thank you for taking
the time out of your busy schedules to appear before us. I look forward
to hearing your testimonies and of ways in which we might improve our
efforts on these matters.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will discuss the research need to address the challenges
of managing water supplies to meet social, economic, and environmental
needs in the United States to accommodate population growth, climatic
change, and other factors.
Arizona is no stranger to the pressures of rising population and
prolonged drought.
We are one of the fastest growing states, and many portions of our
state are still well into a second decade of drought.
I believe that it is absolutely critical that we address the
growing shortage of our nation's water supply and work to establish
progressive and cost-effective water resource management policies.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses on Chairman
Gordon's proposed legislation, the National Water Research and
Development Initiative Act, H.R. 1145.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Adrian Smith
As our country tackles issues related to water consumption and
conservation practices, research and development will continue to play
an important role in decisions made at all levels of government.
Increasing demands on water supplies have resulted in conflicts
throughout the Nation. Droughts, coupled with new laws and regulations
to protect endangered species, as well as reduce or eliminate
pollution, continue to add even more stress to our developed water and
power supplies.
Representing a predominantly rural, agricultural-based district in
which surface water and groundwater issues are at the forefront of many
decisions and debates, my principal goals are to create policies which
will strengthen rural America and provide long-term stability for our
nation's producers. Ensuring the sustainability of our country's water
supply through increased coordination, research, and development is of
utmost importance to the economic and social well-being of our nation
and its citizens.
Enhanced coordination at not only the federal level, but also State
and local levels, is necessary to ensure a sustainable future for one
of our most essential natural resources.
Chairman Gordon's legislation, H.R. 1145, the National Water
Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009, takes a positive step
in seeking to improve the Federal Government's efforts in water
research, development, and technology transfer. By adequately studying
and addressing water use, as well as supply and demand issues, we can
ensure our country's access to this important resource.
I appreciate the Committee holding this hearing to explore the
opportunities for the Federal Government to better coordinate and
support research and technological innovation. I look forward to
discussing and exploring this important issue further through the
Science and Technology Committee.
Chair Gordon. Our first panel and our only panel here
today, I will now introduce our witnesses. First, Dr. Henry
Vaux is Professor Emeritus at the University of California,
Berkley, Dr. Peter Gleick is President of the Pacific Institute
for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, and Dr.
Mark Modzelewski is the Co-founder of the Water Innovations
Alliance. And now for the ladies' side of the table. Ms. Nancy
Stoner is the Coordinator of the Water Program at the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and Ms. Christine Furstoss is the
General Manager of Technology at the General Electric Water and
Process Technologies.
As I pointed out earlier, this was not a planned effort to
segregate you, and we are glad you are here. As you know, we
try to limit our witnesses' oral statement to about five
minutes, and all your record--written statement will be a part
of the testimony. And when you complete your testimony, we will
begin the questions. So each Member will have five minutes to
question the panel.
And we will start with Dr. Vaux.
STATEMENT OF DR. HENRY VAUX, JR., PROFESSOR EMERITUS,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY; ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SYSTEM
Dr. Vaux. Thank you for introducing me, Mr. Chair, and
thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee
this morning.
At the outset I should state that I was the chair of the
two National Academy of Science committees whose reports are
referred to in Section 2 of the bill, and although I do not
formally speak for the National Academy of Sciences or the
National Research Council, my testimony is based upon the
analysis and recommendations contained in those reports.
We face many difficult challenges in this first decade or
at the end of this first decade of the 21st century, but the
challenge of husbanding and managing our water resources is a
longer-term challenge than many of the others and will remain
with us throughout the remainder of the century.
The ease or difficulty with which we adapt to this growing
and intensifying water scarcity will depend critically upon our
willingness to invest in additional science. The Federal Water
Research Portfolio today suffers from a variety of ills. Too
heavy an emphasis on short-term research and operationally-
oriented research, it is a portfolio that is out of balance
with current water realities, and the research across the board
suffers from the absence of any agreed-upon agenda and set of
priorities for water research.
The major explanation for the state of our water research
is as you said, Mr. Chair, not so much a lack of money as a
lack of coordination and a lack of communication. The proposed
legislation would, if enacted in its present form, create a
strong and appropriate basis for addressing the problems that
currently characterize our national water research efforts.
I have detailed the significant strengths of that
legislation in my written testimony. Let me turn in the time
that remains to four suggestions for ways in which the Act
might be further strengthened.
First of all, a funding suggestion. The provision or
authorization of additional funds both for research and to
defray the costs of implementing the Act, and so many agencies
I think it is more likely that we would get a productive
response to the Act if there were money involved and if that
money, the availability of it, was made contingent upon
progress in meeting the goals and objectives of the Act. So
additional funding is one suggestion.
Additional research outcome, Subsection 2C2 is reasonably
comprehensive, but a ninth category is needed, focusing on the
social sciences, research in the social sciences needed to
facilitate the development of innovative water management
institutions. And a tenth category is also needed. That
category focused on understanding the hydrologic and water use
implications of climate change.
Let me also urge that you add a subsection emphasizing
modern research themes in an effort to encourage the agencies
to depart from the reductionist approach to research that has
characterized the last century. Those modern research themes
require an inner-disciplinary approach to research, require a
research framework, which is cast in a broad-systems context,
requires the specific acknowledgement and characterization of
the uncertainty associated with the research results, and also
acknowledges the importance of being adaptive.
A final suggestion for improvement in the legislation is
based upon the need to involve academic researchers in the
efforts called for in the bill, because academic researchers
are well equipped to undertake the longer-term research. And
the most straightforward way in which this could be done would
be by including directly a role for the Water Resources
Research Institutes, which reach out to all institutions of
higher education, colleges and universities in all of the
states and trust territories. The Institutes were most recently
authorized, reauthorized in Public Law 109-471.
I urge also that you consider making one or more institute
directors a member of the interagency committee, either ex
officio or as regular members. This addition would be
especially important since it takes advantage of established
relationships between the Federal Government and the academic
water resources, research community.
Mr. Chair, thank you again for the opportunity to appear
before your committee.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Vaux follows:]
Prepared Statement of Henry Vaux, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Henry Vaux, Jr. and I am Professor
Emeritus of Resource Economics at the University of California,
Berkeley. I am also Associate Vice President, Emeritus of the
University of California System. I wish to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before your committee this morning at this
hearing on the proposed National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act.
At the outset, I should state that I was the Chair of the National
Academy Committees which created two of the reports referred to in
Section 2 of the proposed Act. These reports were entitled: Envisioning
the Agenda for Water Resources Research in the 21st Century and
Confronting the Nation's Water Problems: The Role of Research. Although
I do not formally speak for the National Research Council, most of my
testimony is based on those analyses and on the recommendations
contained in the second of these reports (hereinafter identified as
``NRC Committee Report'').
The Need for New Water Science
Although our nation faces many difficult challenges in this first
decade of the 21st century, the challenge of husbanding and managing
our water resources is a long-term challenge that will be with us over
the remainder of this century. Water scarcity will continue to
intensify. Our water supplies are basically finite although their
occurrence varies over time. Long-term observations of precipitation
and run-off suggest that hardly any year is an average year. The
extremes of flood and drought recur periodically and there is evidence
to suggest that these extremes will become more frequent. There is also
evidence to suggest that for many regions of the United States, the
advent of climate change may entail some general decline and changing
in the timing of precipitation and run-off. Continuing deterioration of
water quality will also mean less water available for many important
and valuable uses. Reversing the trends of water quality declines and
enhancing the aggregate level of water quality in the U.S. will be
necessary to avoid further erosion in the quantities of available
supply. The general water supply picture that emerges for the future
suggests water supplies will be less available then they were in the
past. There is less likelihood that they would remain stable and
virtually no possibility that they could be made to grow.
Arrayed against such declining (or static) future levels of water
supply are a number of factors which suggest that the demand for water
may grow. These include:
Population Growth--Some estimates suggest that U.S.
population may grow by as much as 50 percent between now and
2050. Taken alone, a population increase of such magnitude will
cause significant increases in the demand for water.
Expansion of Irrigated Agriculture--The need to feed
an increased domestic population as well as a global population
that is projected to be three billion larger by the end of the
century will be translated into growing demands for
agricultural water everywhere. Though rain fed agriculture will
play a very important role, there will be pressure to expand
irrigated agriculture because it is more productive. In the
U.S., for example, about one-third of the farm land is
irrigated and that one-third accounts for 45 percent of the
total production.
Protecting the Environment--Past water development
practices have entailed the transfer of water from
environmental uses to municipal, industrial and agricultural
uses. It is unlikely that this practice can continue for long
without incur major and highly costly damages in the form of
lost environmental services and reduced environmental
amenities. There is some evidence to suggest that we may have
to allocate more water to environmental purposes--not less--if
we are to protect environmental services and amenities.
The trends of growing demands and static or declining supplies of
water mean that water scarcity will intensify over the coming decades.
As a consequence, competition of limited supplies of water will
intensify and conflicts over the allocation of available supplies will
also increase. Professor William Jury and I have recently completed
work concluding that the ease or difficulty with which we adapt to this
intensifying water scarcity will depend critically upon our willingness
to invest in additional science. Properly focused, such an investment
will considerably help identify ways to ameliorate water scarcity and
reduce conflict over water allocation and use.
The State of Federally Funded Water Research
Today, the annual federal investment in water resources research is
approximately $700 million in constant 2000 dollars. This figure is the
same in real terms as the annual federal investment in water research
in FY 1975. Thus, we face an intensifying water scarcity in
circumstances in which there has been little change in the magnitude of
federal water research funding over the past 35 years. In other words,
support for water science has not kept pace with population growth,
growth in gross domestic product, or growth in federal budget outlays
for at least the last four decades. This has occurred despite the fact
that the productivity and value of water has increased even while the
challenges of managing limited waters effectively and efficiently have
grown.
The topical balance of the federal water research portfolio has
changed significantly since the period 1965-1975 in ways that make it
inconsistent with today's water research priorities. Specifically,
research on water demand, water law and other institutional topics and
research on water supply augmentation and conservation currently
receive a smaller proportion of total water research funding then they
did 30 years ago. The NRC Committee concluded that these topics
currently appear to be underfunded. In addition, the current water
portfolio is heavily weighted toward short-term research. Longer-term
research, necessary to help address the water problems of the future
and to help support the applied research that will need to be done a
decade hence, is significantly under-emphasized in agency water
research budgets. For all of these reasons the NRC Committee concluded
that we are obtaining less for the annual $700 million in federal water
research than we should.
The major explanation for this state of water research is not
necessarily that the funding is inadequate. The explanation lies more
importantly with the fact that federal research is largely
uncoordinated. This means that the President and Congress lack
information about:
The size and shape of the entire federal water
research portfolio;
Measures of magnitude and effectiveness of individual
elements in the portfolio;
Any sense of national priorities of water research;
Guidance about what might be an appropriate balance
among research elements.
The proposed legislation from the National Water Research and
Development Initiative would, if enacted in its present form, create a
strong and appropriate basis for addressing the problems that currently
characterize the Nation's water research efforts. It accurately
captures a number of important recommendations found in the report of
the NRC Committee. Thus, for example, the legislation would:
Require the establishment of a unified national water
research agenda;
Require coordination of water federal research,
development, data collection, and information dissemination
activities;
Encourage cooperation among federal agencies engaged
in water research and technology development;
Require technology transfer, communication and
information exchange with State and local governments, industry
and other stakeholders;
Establishes an appropriate institutional arrangement,
including a requirement for budget coordination in the
Executive branch, for accomplishing these four tasks.
A further strength of the proposed legislation, as written, lies
with the emphasis on the collection, management and exchange of data on
water resources. The last two decades have been characterized
significant disinvestment in the acquisition of water and water related
data. We have fewer stream gauges now than we did 20 years ago; our
monitoring and measuring of water quality is less adequate now than it
was 20 years ago even though the threats to water quality have grown;
and we are unable to measure water use adequately over time. There has
been a notable failure to take full advantage of modern remote sensing
technology to acquire water resources data. In addition, there has been
little coordination or standardization of existing data gathering
efforts with the result that we are getting less from those efforts
than we could be getting. Without more coordination and investment in
gathering, managing, and interpreting water resource data, both
management efforts and needed research will be less effective than they
might be.
Recommendations for Improvement
While the legislation as written has significant strengths, there
are a number of ways in which it might be further strengthened:
Additional Funding: First, there are a large number
of federal agencies that undertake water resources research.
Those agencies are more likely to behave productively in
pursuing the objectives of the legislation if additional
research funding were to be authorized and the availability of
that funding made contingent upon the various requirements
contained in the Act.
The concern here arises because the Interagency Committee
authorized by the Act is not dissimilar from the Water
Resources Council authorized by the Water Resources Planning
Act of 1965. As the record shows, the Water Resources Council
was largely ineffective as the member agencies focused on
protecting their own turf and on little else.
The NRC Committee suggested that existing levels of federal
investment in research might be adequate if the research
portfolio were altered to place more emphasis on topics such as
conservation, water supply augmentation and the development of
institutions for managing water resources. Alternatively, the
Committee suggested that additional funding on the order of $70
million might be made available for the purposes of rebalancing
the research portfolio. Those funds could also defray the
operational costs of the Interagency Committee and provide
incentives for productive interaction and coordination among
the agencies that conduct water resources research.
Additional Research Outcomes: The list of Water
Research Outcomes in Subsection 2(c)(2) is reasonably
comprehensive. However, a ninth category needs to be added that
emphasizes the need for research on the development of water
management institutions. This is critically important research
area that has the potential to develop institutions which will
facilitate the management of scarce water resources more
efficiently and effectively in the future. This area has been
identified as underfunded. Indeed, in recent years the level of
federal funding for the social sciences needed to aid in the
development of improved water institutions has not been
significantly different from zero. The legislation would be
considerably strengthened by acknowledging the importance of
social science and institutional research. A tenth category
focused on understanding the hydrologic and water use
implications of climate change should also be added.
Emphasize Modern Research Themes: Just as it is
important that all significant outcomes are included, it will
also be important to acknowledge in the body of the bill, the
importance of new modes of research. The report of the NRC
Committee on the role of research emphasized that future water
research should be carried out of necessity in modes different
from the traditional reductionist mode which typifies most
research over the last century. The Committee identified four
modern research themes: 1) an interdisciplinary approach; 2) a
broad systems perspective in the conduct of the research; 3)
acknowledging and characterizing uncertainty; and 4) the
importance of being adaptive. These should be acknowledged in
the bill.
Interdisciplinary: The need for interdisciplinary
research has been widely recognized in the scientific
literature. Indeed, it appears unlikely that an adequate
understanding of the environmental importance of water can be
developed in the absence of involvement of scientists from a
number of disciplines. Thus, for example, research on aquatic
ecosystems must be based on ecological and biological
principles as well as the science of hydrology and an
understanding of how human use transforms the quantity and
quality of water.
Broad Systems Context: A systems approach requires
not only that the variables which contribute to a problem be
identified and understood and that the linkages between these
variables must be understood as well. Indeed, understanding the
linkages between causal variables are now thought to be just as
important as understanding the variables themselves.
Uncertainty: Scientific information and the results
of scientific investigation can rarely be expressed with
complete certainty. Virtually every data point and virtually
every finding is characterized by some degree of uncertainty.
In the future, it will be incumbent upon researchers to
acknowledge the existence of uncertainty and, where possible,
characterize the extent of it quantitatively.
Adaptation: Adaptation can be conceived as a
combination of flexibility in solving problems and a
willingness to shift norms and standards in response to novel
circumstances and situations. Adaptation will be critical for
both water researchers and managers in the coming decades as we
confront water problems for which there has been no historical
experience.
The proposed legislation could be strengthened by acknowledging the
importance of these four themes in the framing and conduct of research.
Their use cannot be mandated but agencies will need every encouragement
to abandon traditional approaches to research and emphasize more modern
approaches that are likely to be more acceptable.
Involve the Academic Community
A final suggestion for improvement in the legislation is based upon
the need to involve academic researchers in the efforts called for in
the bill. The academic community has played a large role in water
research and will continue to do so in the future. Moreover, there is
need to expand the proportion of long-term and investigator-initiated
research in the national portfolio. The academic community is better
situated to perform longer-term research since it is not tied to the
operational missions of the agencies which tend to result in research
agendas focused on more immediate short-term problems. There are
several ways in which the academic community might be involved. Perhaps
the most straightforward way would be by including the broad array of
water resource research activities at the Nation's land grant
Universities directly by identifying a role for the Water Resources
Research Institutes, most recently reauthorized in the Water Resources
Research Act Amendments of 2006 (P.L. 109-471). One or more Water
Institute Director representatives should be authorized to serve on the
Interagency Committee created in Section 2(b) either ex officio or as
regular members. This addition would be especially important since it
takes advantage of established relationships between the Federal
Government and the academic water research community. In this way all
of the major actors in the water research community would be directly
involved in the activities of the Water Research and Development
Initiative Activities that would be authorized by this legislation.
In summary, then, I believe the proposed legislation to be a
significant step forward. It would address the need for new and
productive water research. It would provide a mechanism for
establishing priorities and ensuring the results and data are fully
shared and disseminated. The legislation could be strengthened by: 1)
authorizing new funding to support the coordination and agenda setting
activities as well as new research; 2) including the social sciences
and the development of institutions as well as climate change in the
research outcomes; 3) specifically acknowledging four modern water
research themes in the legislation; and 4) including academic
researchers and the academic community in the research and development
initiative.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you again for the opportunity to
appear this morning and to state my views on National Water Research
and Development legislation.
Biography for Henry Vaux, Jr.
Dr. Henry Vaux, Jr. is Professor Emeritus of Resource Economics at
the University of California, Berkeley and the University of
California, Riverside. Prior to his retirement in 2004, he served for
11 years as Associate Vice President for Agriculture and Natural
Resources of the University of California System. In this capacity he
was the chief operating officer for all University of California
programs in agriculture and natural resources. He had previously served
as Director of the UC Center for Water Resources. Dr. Vaux has authored
over 90 publications on the economics of water resources and is
considered an expert on the economics of irrigated agriculture and
water marketing. He was a member of the Water Science and Technology
Board of the National Research Council for seven years and served as
Chair of the Board for four years. He is also President, Emeritus, of
the California-based Water Education Foundation. In 2001, Dr. Vaux was
designated as a National Associate of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences and he is the recipient of the 2005 Warren A. Hall Medal,
given by the Universities Council on Water Research for significant
accomplishments in water resources research. He remains active in
international water affairs and has been an invited speaker and
participant in symposia and conferences around the world. He is also
Chair of the Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy. The Forum
promotes an ongoing global dialogue to enhance economic growth and the
maintenance of environmental amenities through the reduction of water
related conflicts and improvements in water policy. Prior to joining
the faculty of the University of California in 1970, he served on the
staff of the National Water Commission and as a water resources
specialist in the Office of Management and Budget. He received his
education at the University of California (B.A.) and the University of
Michigan (M.S.; M.A.; Ph.D.).
Chair Gordon. Thank you for those very good ideas. I am
glad you read the bill.
And Dr. Peter Gleick, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. PETER H. GLEICK, CO-FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, THE
PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT, AND
SECURITY, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
Dr. Gleick. Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you
for having me testify today. I hope at least those of us at the
table have read the bill. I would like to thank the Committee
for inviting me to offer comments on the bill. I also would
like to note at the outset I spent some of my early time doing
research at the Oakridge National Laboratory. I remember my
time in Tennessee very fondly.
The water crisis around the Nation is growing. The need for
better and more-coordinated responses is urgent, and I think we
all understand that. We have long known that more coordination
among federal agencies is going to be critical for dealing with
water issues, but that coordination remains an elusive goal.
And new challenges face us. Climate change, new pollutants
decaying infrastructure around the Nation. My written testimony
addresses these issues. I am not going to repeat it here this
morning. What I would like to do is highlight a few points.
In particular, let me start by saying that many of our
water problems are local and have to be addressed at the local
issue, at the local level. But we do have a responsibility to
develop appropriate national policies as well, and at the
moment these responsibilities as you note are split among at
least 25 separate federal agencies, and they don't speak well
to each other, they don't speak often to each other, and the
goal of this bill to improve that coordination, to develop a
consistent research agenda, to use our limited resources
efficiently is an excellent one.
As the bill notes, some effort in this area has been made
by the SWAQ Committee, the Subcommittee on Water Availability
and Quality under OSTP. I think the research results, the
research recommendations produced by SWAQ in September, 2007,
are an excellent step forward in setting a national agenda, and
I think they have been complemented by reports from the
National Research Council that Dr. Vaux talked about and from
the General Accountability Office. I think those altogether
provide a superb starting point for moving water research
forward.
It is not clear to me that a new subcommittee or new
interagency committee is necessary if the idea is to strengthen
SWAQ, and I think that might be an appropriate way to move
forward. But whatever approach is taken, I would urge that this
committee, this organizing group have a separate research
budget of its own, either to give out in a competitive grants
situation or to manage itself.
Second, I think this group should include outside experts
from either other federal agencies or from non-federal agencies
as well, something that SWAQ has not done at the moment. The
National Research Council previously concluded in its 2004,
report that such outside advice would be enormously valuable.
Third, the bill calls for an interagency committee to
``establish the priorities for federal water research.'' I
actually believe those priorities are fairly well established
already from SWAQ's previous work, from the NRC, from the
Government Accountability Office. We know what needs to be
done. What we need is the funding to go ahead and do it. And so
I don't think we necessarily need to call for a new assessment.
I think we should instead focus on the sections of this bill,
C2C in particular, that calls for, ``a strategy and timeline to
achieve the desired outcomes.''
Fourth, the explicit outcomes in the bill I would argue are
unnecessary if we adopt the recommendations of SWAQ and the
National Research Council. Conversely, if we are going to
include specific research outcomes in this bill, I would offer
four explicit recommendations for additions.
The first is that the call for a national water census is a
great idea, but it needs to include a census of water use
nationwide, not just the water resources of the Nation, but
actually how we use our water resources. That was recommended
by SWAQ. It didn't make it into this bill, and I think it would
be easy to add.
Second, the national census is urgently needed, but I would
recommend that it explicitly be called for as a census, that is
every 10 years or so, and an explicit budget be provided to do
the national census.
Third, missing from the water research outcomes but
included in every recent call for research around the Nation is
an assessment of the implications of climate change on the
Nation's water resources. And I think it would be easy to add
that outcome as well.
Fourth, Section D4 calls for development of innovative
technologies and tools to enhance water use efficiency. That is
a great idea but it should also call for an expansion of
existing tools in the water efficiency area.
Let me close by simply saying we also need, in addition to
better coordination on research, we need some things not
addressed by this legislation, such as a National Water
Commission. H.R. 135 has been submitted at various times in the
House. It has passed the House. I urge a National Water
Commission be resubmitted and redeveloped as a way to move
forward on things not going to be covered by the current
legislation.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gleick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter H. Gleick\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dr. Gleick is President and co-founder of the Pacific
Institute, Oakland, California and a member of the U.S. National
Academy of Science. His comments reflect his own opinion and the
recommended position of the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, Representatives: I would like to thank the Committee
for inviting me to offer comments on the critical issue of 21st century
water planning in the United States. The water crisis around the Nation
is growing and the need for better and more coordinated responses is
urgent. We have long known that we need coordinated federal planning
for water; but such coordination remains an elusive goal. And new water
challenges such as climate change, new pollutants, and decaying
infrastructure face the Nation.
My written testimony will address three issues:
1. The kinds of water challenges we face the national level
and the kinds of responses we need,
2. Some specific thoughts about the proposed legislation
sponsored by Congressman Gordon of Tennessee (H.R. 1145,
entitled the ``National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act of 2009.''), and
3. The need for additional federal policies and legislation
not directly addressed by this legislation.
Global and National Water Challenges
Globally, the realization is growing that the failure to meet basic
human and environmental needs for water is the greatest development
disaster of the 20th century. Millions of people, mostly young
children, still die annually--and unnecessarily--from preventable
water-related diseases. Climate change is increasingly threatening
water systems and water resources everywhere. Controversy is developing
over the proper role of expensive dams and infrastructure, private
corporations, and local communities in managing water. And
international and sub-national threats to security as a result of water
quality and quantity disputes have ramifications for U.S. military and
diplomatic policy.
Here at home, freshwater challenges in the United States are also
growing rapidly. These challenges include growing scarcity, disputes
over allocations and use of water, unresolved problems of contamination
from known sources and new pollutants, a clear and present danger
associated with the impacts of climate change, a decaying
infrastructure and data collection system, and threats to our own
security at the national and international level associated with these
problems in other countries.
Municipalities are faced with billions of dollars of infrastructure
needs and growing disputes over the role of public and private water
management. Arguments among western states over allocations of shared
rivers remain unresolved, and similar arguments have now appeared in
the southeastern U.S. and other regions previously thought to have
adequate water resources. Tensions between cities and farmers over
water rights are rising. The U.S. and Mexico have unresolved
disagreements over the Colorado and Rio Grande/Rio Bravo rivers, and
our Canadian neighbors remain worried about how best to jointly manage
the shared Great Lakes. Communities are facing new challenges in
meeting water-quality standards and ensuring that safe drinking water
is available for all.
Addressing our National Water Problems
Many of our water problems are local, and must be resolved at the
local and regional level. But we have a responsibility to develop and
implement appropriate national policies as well. These responsibilities
are not being adequately fulfilled by the diverse federal agencies
responsible for them. Part of the problem is confusion over authority.
Part of the problem is the failure of the Executive Branch in recent
years to request sufficient funds to protect and manage our water
resources, and of the legislative branch to appropriate and allocate
those funds. Part of the problem is old water legislation that has not
been updated to account for the realities of the 21st century and for
recent advances in our scientific and technical understanding of both
water problems and solutions.
Responsibility for water is spread out over many federal agencies
and departments, operating with little overall coordination. In order
to address this issue, the President's Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP), through the National Science and Technology Council's
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, reconstituted in 2003 a
Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ). Members of that
subcommittee come from the departments of Interior, Agricultural,
Defense, State, Energy, Health and Human Services, EPA, Commerce, NASA,
the National Science Foundation, the Tennessee Valley Authority--
altogether 25 federal agencies that are responsible for all aspects of
federal water research and/or water resource management.
In September 2007, that Subcommittee released a report with
detailed recommendations and priorities for improving coordination and
water research in the U.S. These recommendations, combined with
additional detailed suggestions from the 2004 report of the Committee
on Assessment of Water Resources Research of the National Research
Council (NRC) and reports on water from the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) offer a superb starting point for moving water research
forward.
I support the important ideas behind Congressman Gordon's newly
submitted bill, H.R. 1145, which clearly draws on these previous
recommendations, and I commend him for tackling the urgent challenges
of water. It is time to move from recommendation to action, and the
Nation needs some kind of group to define research, monitor action,
coordinate diverse federal efforts, and bring outside ideas to the
attention of agencies and policy-makers. I also support the idea of
putting (or keeping) that agency under the guidance of the President's
OSTP, because of the vital need for independent, high-quality science.
I would also like to offer some specific suggestions for
strengthening the proposed bill.
First, it is not clear to me that a completely new interagency
committee is necessary, as opposed to expanding and improving the
efforts of the existing Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality
within the National Science and Technology Council and other
collaborative efforts underway between different agencies. Whatever
approach is taken, however, a coordinating body for national water
research will need an explicit budget of its own, with new money.
Agency budgets are already grossly underfunded for water research and
they are likely to chafe at having to divert funds to a separate
independent body. This group should also include water experts from
outside of the federal agencies themselves--something SWAQ has not
done. The National Research Council previously concluded (in its 2004
report ``Confronting the Nation's Water Problems'') that:
``If the coordinating body is made up only of agency
representatives, the overarching national perspective will
likely devolve to the sum of agency wish lists. However,
independence from agency agendas needs to be balanced by close
interaction with agency leaders who have unique and valuable
perspectives on national needs.''
Second, the Bill calls for the interagency committee to ``establish
the priorities for federal water research.'' I believe that such
priorities are clearly, and comprehensively, laid out in the NRC, SWAQ,
and OMB reports already available. We know what we need to do; what is
needed is the funding and effort to do it. As a result, we should not
be calling for a new assessment of need, but should focus on the
activities in Section (c)(2)(C) to set forth ``a strategy and timeline
to achieve the'' desired outcomes.
Third, the explicit outcomes (Section (d) ) described in the
proposed Bill are unnecessary, if existing recommendations from the
SWAQ and NRC reports are to be adopted. Conversely, if this Bill is to
include specific Water Research Outcomes, I offer here some explicit
recommendations for modest changes: some key outcomes are missing and
should be added, others need to be strengthened. In particular, while I
strongly support the call for a National Water Census, that Census must
also include comprehensive information on water use--as recommended by
SWAQ--and a requirement that the Census be made easily available and
widely disseminated. Thus, section (d)(1) should read:
``(1) Implementation of a National Water Census, which shall
include the collection and dissemination of data on national
water resources and all forms of water use, to create a
comprehensive database that includes information on the
quantity, availability, quality, and use of ground water and
surface water resources.''
This National Census is urgently needed, and I further urge this
bill, or supplemental legislation, include a clear call for this work
to be done by the U.S. Geological Survey, which has the experience and
expertise to do the science properly, an explicit recommendation that
such as Census be done every 10 years, and a clear new budget of at
least $25 million for each Census. Spread over 10 years this is a tiny
sum of money with potentially vast returns for the Nation.
Also missing from the Water Research Outcomes, but included in
every recent call for water research, is the need to evaluate both the
implications of climate change for the Nation's water resources and
appropriate technologies and water management strategies for coping
with unavoidable impacts of climate change. An additional ``outcome''
should therefore be added to section (d) that reads:
``Improvement of the understanding of the impacts of climate
change for the Nation's water resources and appropriate
strategies for adapting to those climate impacts that may be
unavoidable.''
Section (d)(4) calls for development of innovative technologies and
tools to enhance water-use efficiency. I fully support this effort, but
this outcome should be expanded to include technologies and tools that
already exist but have yet to be widely implemented. Wording for this
section should be:
(4) Expansion of efforts to enhance the efficiency of water
use throughout the Nation using existing technologies and tools
and through the development and adoption of innovative new
technologies and tools.''
Let me also offer some comments and thoughts about funding,
supporting my conclusion that some new, independent funding is required
to make this effort work. Federal agency research budgets are typically
developed starting with a ``base'' of activities that change little
from year to year, and adding ``above base'' initiatives. In the
context of developing comprehensive and effective national water
research, agencies are unlikely to give up any of their base, even to
address higher water priorities. Furthermore, the congressional
appropriations process makes it difficult to shift funds from one
agency to another when these agencies are funded through different
spending bills. Table 1 shows just a sampling of the different
appropriations subcommittees that are responsible for some of the
federal agencies that fund water. This difficulty suggests that
separate funds must be appropriated for whatever body is set up to
coordinate federal water policy and research. I also urge that the
coordinating body's efforts be synchronized with the schedule of
federal budgeting and appropriations.
Additional Needs for Water Legislation, Policy, and Action
Finally, while implementing a new and better coordinated national
research agenda is critical, there are additional needs not addressed
by this legislation. The United States has not had a comprehensive
water commission in place for 30 years, since the 1968 National Water
Commission reported to the President and Congress in 1973. Moreover, we
have never had a water commission with the authority and responsibility
to review and recommend on the role of the U.S. in addressing
international water issues. Nor has such a commission ever addressed
the new challenges of climate change. Such a commission, perhaps in the
form of a ``National Water Board'' could be very valuable. A version of
such a Board for water-related research was proposed by the National
Research Council in their 2004 report ``Confronting the Nation's Water
Problems.'' Indeed, it may be possible and appropriate to combine the
idea of an ``interagency committee'' in this bill with a broader Board.
The Pacific Institute has long supported such an idea. A National
Water Commission or Board would be authorized by Congress, be composed
of both federal agency representatives and non-governmental water
experts from across the many disciplines affected, including the
sciences, economics, public policy, law, governments, public interest
groups, and appropriate private sectors, would have a fixed term and
specific mandate, and would serve as a neutral third party to:
1. Provide guidance and direction on the appropriate role of
the United States in addressing both national and international
water issues.
2. Prepare a regular survey of water research activities and
priorities.
3. Advise Congress and OMB on the recommended focus of a long-
term research agenda and on key water budget decisions.
4. Report to OMB, OSTP, and the Congress in a timely manner
compatible with the budget and appropriations process.
The NRC concluded that such a Board could offer both Congress and
OMB credible advice on improving the efficiency with which federal
agencies fund and conduct water research and priorities.
Moreover such a Board could re-assess:
Efforts to expand supply with new thinking on water
re-use, desalination, conjunctive use, and other non-
traditional supply options. In most regions, even regions with
growing scarcity, increasing supplies through traditional
infrastructure does not appear to be the most efficient, cost-
effective, and timely response. In contrast, non-traditional
sources of supply appear to offer enormous potential.
Efforts to improve the efficiency of water use in
both the urban and agricultural sectors. One of the greatest
opportunities for addressing water scarcity and quality
problems is by increasing the efficiency of water use and
reducing waste. Great advances have been made, and total water
use in the United States has actually decreased in the past 20
years, reducing pressure on overall supply. Much more can be
done.
National water science and policy and offer guidance
on integrating efforts now scattered among disparate and
uncoordinated federal agencies and departments. National budget
priorities should also be re-evaluated and re-structured to
ensure that the national objectives are more clearly supported.
Revisions or better enforcement of national laws
related to water, including laws governing water quality (the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act), the
protection of aquatic ecosystems, the financing of water
infrastructure, and national standards for improving water-use
efficiency and conservation.
Recommendations for flood and drought management,
including implementing overdue changes proposed by previous
reviews.
The physical security of the Nation's water, by
highlighting necessary steps that could be taken to reduce
overlap and streamline responsibilities of the multiple federal
agencies working on water issues.
Recommendations for the U.S. role in identifying and
addressing global water problems, including how to
significantly accelerate efforts to meet the large and
devastating unmet basic human needs for water in poorer
countries. These recommendations should address how best to
apply the vast financial, educational, technological, and
institutional expertise of the United States to these problems.
How to prepare the Nation's water resources systems
for the risks of climatic changes.
Recommendations for reducing the risks of
international tensions over shared water resources, including
how to resolve concerns with our own neighbors, Mexico and
Canada, over shared water systems. These recommendations would
be valuable in other international river basins where our
experience, international stature, and expertise can be
effective.
The Need for U.S. Leadership
The time is ripe for an integrated and comprehensive national water
strategy. While many water issues will remain local, to be resolved by
community efforts, our national government can no longer ignore the
positive and effective role it can play both here and abroad. The
United States is well positioned to be a world leader in addressing
water problems, yet the U.S. regularly fails to present the world
community with a comprehensive, integrated, and informed set of
positions necessary to play a leadership role.
I congratulate you for considering this vital issue and for helping
to raise national attention on the need to re-evaluate and re-focus
efforts on sustainably managing the Nation's precious freshwater
resources.
Thank you for your attention.
Biography for Peter H. Gleick
Dr. Peter H. Gleick is co-founder and President of the Pacific
Institute in Oakland, California. The Institute is one of the world's
leading non-partisan policy research groups addressing global
environment and development problems, especially in the area of
freshwater resources. Dr. Gleick was described by the San Francisco
Chronicle in 2009 as ``arguably the world's leading expert on water.''
His research and writing address the hydrologic impacts of climate
change, sustainable water use, water privatization, and international
conflicts over water resources. His work on sustainable management and
use of water led to him being named by the BBC as a ``visionary on the
environment'' in its Essential Guide to the 21st Century. In 2008,
Wired Magazine called him ``one of 15 People the Next President Should
Listen To.''
Dr. Peter H. Gleick produced some of the first research on the
implications of climate change for water resources. He has also played
a leading role in highlighting the risks to national and international
security from conflicts over shared water resources. He produced some
of the earliest assessments of the connections between water and
political disputes and has briefed major international policy-makers
ranging from the Vice President and Secretary of State of the United
States to the Prime Minister of Jordan on these issues. He also has
testified regularly for the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and
State legislatures, and briefed international governments and policy-
makers.
Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and
Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. In 2003 he received
a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship for his work on global freshwater
issues. In 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C. and his public service includes work with a
wide range of science advisory boards, editorial boards, and other
organizations. Gleick is the author of more than 80 peer-reviewed
papers and book chapters, and seven books, including the biennial water
report The World's Water published by Island Press (Washington, D.C.).
Chair Gordon. Thank you. And Mr. Modzelewski, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. F. MARK MODZELEWSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WATER
INNOVATIONS ALLIANCE
Mr. Modzelewski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and again,
I thank Mr. Chair and the Members of the Committee. I am
honored to have this opportunity to appear before you today as
Executive Director of the Water Innovations Alliance. The
alliance is the policy voice of the world's water researchers,
technologists, and innovators, and our members are looking to
move forward to address many of the problems that we have here
today.
I would like to actually skip over the statistics which I
think we all know so well and really get to the point that in
order to advocate and address the problems that exist in the
developing world and our significant infrastructure needs and
needs with water, we must either spend hundreds of billions of
dollars, some people putting the number at trillions of
dollars, in order to fix it and modernize the system, or for a
fraction of that we can invest in funding that will advance
water technology and innovations and spend the money smartly,
which is something we all need to focus on.
Unfortunately, despite many of these maxims that water is
the next oil, that water equals life, nobody ever seems to put
their money where their mouth is in the water sector and
actually spend the funding along these lines. Corporate and
government R&D spending in water compared to other industries
is quite low, and I could speak to one area that I am very
familiar with for formerly running the Nano-Business Alliance.
In nanotechnology every year the Federal Government spends
in excess of a billion and a half dollars, corporations putting
significant amounts along those lines. If you look at that in
water, you really don't see those kind of funding levels hit,
and you also see the funding, again, speaking with what Dr.
Vaux said earlier, really puts near-term problems. You don't
see a lot of mid and long-term research developed along those
lines.
And in fact, we are still really treating water not that
differently than we could have a couple hundred years ago where
we actually put chemicals or poisons in the water, or we tried
to force things through small holes. And we really haven't
looked to address water in a more modern way, with more modern
techniques. And the lack of funding and the lack of a funding
portfolio that is spread and diverse in this effect has surely
caused that and is clearly a hindrance to us being able to deal
with things along those lines.
We strongly agree with the Chair's call for interagency
collaboration and coordination as well as increased evaluation
and funding. We strongly support the proposals here under
consideration, but we do have actually a few areas that we
would like to make suggestions for development in the bill and
some potential changes in the bill.
One of which would be assessment. To date there have been
several efforts to evaluate the state of water infrastructure
and research spending in America, including the work of the
National Academies and several private organizations. None has
been thorough enough to create a clear picture and to develop a
comprehensive response. At this time the essence we believe
that it is necessary to get the tests done quickly, thoroughly,
and accurately.
We suggest a natural water census which Dr. Gleick had
touched upon earlier, but we would certainly agree with him
that usage and regularity should be a point of development as
far as that census goes. We should look at the availability of
quantity, quality, consumption, recharge capacity, and threats
to ground water and surface water resources as well.
Another area which we think is deeply in need of
investigation is the information technology area of water. One
key area where there has been a lack of innovation of water is
information technology. Little has been done to create a common
system in measurement, evaluation, and reporting. Common
standards do not exist. Even with the current infrastructure
filtration and treatment technology, overlaying an effective IT
infrastructure and management system whereby we could actually
evaluate what is being done and what is being used and have a
common language of reporting and sharing that information by
some estimates could lead to savings of 30 to 50 percent, even
with the current infrastructure issues that we have.
A national smart water grid, if you will, would be an
incredible way of better developing water, understanding our
water use, and being able to understand what is working and
what is not working as far as our new innovations and
technologies that are applied.
Another area I would like to point to is NSF Centers. This
is something that has been touched on before as far as research
centers, and these certainly could be done in conjuncture with
the current university centers or a build-out of the centers,
but right now we have one at the University of Illinois, which
I believe sunsets in the next three years. Having nationally-
backed, long-term funding structures for the research and
innovations of water would be an incredible development that we
could move forward on.
The government in Switzerland, for instance, a country that
is actually quite water rich and much smaller than ours, spends
100 million a year in these type of government centers and
would be a model to look at for developing out our own system.
And lastly, a national water pilot testing facility. One
issue that we seem to have right now is that regulation gets in
the way of a lot of innovation being out there, and too often
the innovation is occurring at the bench top in laboratories,
rather than understanding how it would work in a larger system.
So the development of such a water pilot testing facility would
be integral to actually getting new innovation available and in
the market.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Modzelewski follows:]
Prepared Statement of F. Mark Modzelewski
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee,
I am pleased and honored to have this opportunity to appear before you
today as the Executive Director of the Water Innovations Alliance. The
Alliance is the public policy voice of the world's water researchers,
technologists and innovators. Our role is to advocate policies that
promote the aggressive development of water technologies and
innovations across all sectors and users of water by creating new
market opportunities, increasing funding, strengthening research and
development programs, removing regulatory and market barriers, and
improving education, communication and outreach efforts.
Our membership, which includes a broad spectrum of business,
academic institutions, health and development activists, believes
strongly in the tremendous importance of securing safe and affordable
access to water resources as a cornerstone of our nation's physical
health, economic prosperity, and general welfare. We share this
committee's belief that federal investment in water technology R&D is
essential for our nation's future--and the world's.
We are all familiar with the statistics: in 2002, 1.1 billion
people lacked access to a reliable water supply, and 2.6 billion people
lacked access to adequate sanitation. By 2025, over half the world's
population will live in water-stressed or water-scarce countries.
Twenty-five percent of global freshwater use exceeds local long-term
accessible supplies. Agricultural uses are the biggest concern, with an
estimated 15 to 35 percent of irrigation withdrawals in excess of
sustainable limits. Industrial withdrawals of water are expected to
rise by 55 percent out to the year 2025. In addition, within the U.S.,
population has been migrating from the water-rich North to the water-
depleted sunbelt. Crumbling infrastructure means that cities such as
Chicago lose upwards of 60 percent of their water in transit from
treatment facilities to faucets. Over the past five years, municipal
water rates have increased 27 percent throughout the United States.
In order to address the problems of access in the developing world
and our own significant infrastructure needs, we must either spend
hundreds of billions of dollars on current technology or invest a
fraction of that funding in advancing water technology. Unfortunately,
despite the maxims that ``water is the next oil,'' and that ``water
equals life,'' nobody ever seems to put their money where their mouth
is in the water sector--corporate and government R&D investment has
historically been far below the level we see in less important
industries. The proposed legislation is a major step toward reversing
this trend. It will help develop and bring to market new technologies
that allow for greater efficiencies, the ability to re-use this
precious resource, and new capabilities to tap new water sources.
We strongly agree with the Chairman's calls for interagency
collaboration and coordination, as well as increased evaluation and
funding for water technology. Before founding the Water Innovations
Alliance, I founded the NanoBusiness Alliance, where I worked
extensively on the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act. I believe that it can serve as a great model for interagency
coordination and public-private collaboration on key issues surrounding
water technology.
General Comments on the Proposal
While the Water Innovations Alliance strongly supports the
Chairman's proposal, we do have a few suggestion for the Committee's
consideration. In general, we would encourage the Committee to take an
aggressive approach to water innovation that ensures speed, quality and
accountability. We also urge that the Committee encourage new voices to
come to the table and create opportunities for interdisciplinary
research. We still deal with water technology with brute force methods
that use hazardous chemicals, heat and pressure. Nearly all research
has been focused on little tweaks to make these processes marginally
cleaner or more energy efficient, rather than exploring game-changing
new approaches. Finding and implementing these new approaches will
require outside-the-box thinking and longer-term vision. In addition,
we need to find ways to spur innovation among small businesses in the
water sector, where innovation has the greatest chance of taking root.
Specific Suggestions for the Proposal
Assessment: To date, there have been several efforts to evaluate the
state of water infrastructure and research spending in America,
including work at the National Academies and several private
organizations. None has been thorough enough to create a clear picture
and a develop a comprehensive response. As time is of the essence, we
believe it is necessary to get the task done quickly, thoroughly, and
accurately. We suggest a National Water Census, the collection of water
data to create a comprehensive database of information on available
quantity, quality, consumption, recharge capacity and threats to ground
water and surface water resources. To maintain this information
resource, we recommend the development of a new generation of water
monitoring techniques and technologies.
Information Technology (IT): One key area where there is a lack of
innovation in water is in information technologies. Little has been
done to create a common system for measurement, evaluation and
reporting. Common standards do not exist. Even with current
infrastructure, filtration, and treatment technology, the overlaying of
an effective IT management system could result in annual savings of 30-
50 percent. It is vital that an effort be made to create and fund a
water information technology initiative through partnership with the IT
industry to develop and deploy a common platform--a national ``smart
water grid,'' if you will--within the water sector. A coordinated
effort could result in a system being in place in just a few years that
would save money and provide data to support bolder moves to conserve
and manage water.
NSF Centers: The lack of water R&D progress indicates a need for
federal research centers for water technology and innovation. There are
15 NSF nanotechnology centers as well as additional ones from other
federal agencies including centers at a number of the DOE labs. Yet
only one center exists for water R&D. That center, at the University of
Illinois, is set to sunset in three years. To create new national
research centers, additional long-term funding will be needed. Other
nations establishing such centers commit funding for ten years at a
time, with similar investments by the private sector. Switzerland, a
country that is water rich and a fraction of our size, is spending
approximately $100 million per year to develop new technologies to
reduce domestic water usage, particularly in its energy sector. It is
likely that a greater level of funding will be needed in the U.S. to
solve the larger problems the we face over several major sectors and
across disparate geographic regions. The Alliance strongly urges the
creation of a minimum of five new NSF water centers, each tasked with a
specific focus area (e.g., IT, desalination, purification) to begin to
address the multitude of pressing needs in the water technology field.
National Water Pilot Testing Facility: In water R&D, one of the largest
hurdles beyond funding has been the gap between bench-top research and
real-world conditions. There are few opportunities for researchers to
test their new developments under real-world conditions due to
regulatory hurdles that deter experimentation and the absence of a
pilot testing facility for water. The Alliance strongly encourages the
Committee to consider creating a national water pilot testing facility
to be housed at a national laboratory or a university. In addition, we
encourage the Committee to examine the regulatory barriers that hinder
innovation and testing of new beneficial solutions for the water
industry.
Thank you, Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the
Committee for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for F. Mark Modzelewski
F. Mark Modzelewski is a technology entrepreneur, investor and
pundit born in Naugatuck, Connecticut. He recently founded the Water
Innovations Alliance, an industry association focused on developing new
funding, reducing regulatory barriers, increasing collaboration and
raising awareness for cutting-edge water technologies and the problems
they solve. The Alliance serves the entire spectrum of the water
sector: corporations, investors, engineering firms, startups, NGOs,
research centers, municipalities, and others in the field. The Alliance
is located in Washington, DC and Cambridge, MA.
Modzelewski is involved in co-founding and developing new
technology companies. He recently launched 349Q Water Solutions, a
post-industrial water purification company; and helped to found a
microbial fuel cell company, Trophos Energy, a Harvard University spin-
out. He is the former Managing Director and Co-Founder of Bang
Ventures, an investment firm based in New York with offices in
Cambridge focused on technology investments including Web 2.0, new
energy innovations and medical devices. The firm was best known for
launching the ``You Be the VC'' entrepreneurial competition.
Modzelewski co-founded New Europe Ventures, a Polish-based venture
capital firm, as well as the Benet Group, Leonardo BioSystems, Lux
Research (developed water technology division concept)and the
NanoBusiness Alliance. He has served as a senior executive at
NanoDynamics (where he launched a joint venture firm with Shell and
headed water technology efforts), Opion, GolinHarris and NRW. In
addition, he has consulted for companies including NanoSys, Engelhard,
MasterCard, Yahoo!, eSpeed, Vivendi Water, Pixar, and DaimlerChrysler.
He also taught Technology Entrepreneurship at RPI's Lally School of
Business.
Before entering the private sector, Modzelewski was an appointee in
the Clinton Administration developing policy, legal and communication
strategy efforts on a range of issues including rural water and
utilities and economic development as Special Assistant to Secretary
Henry Cisneros of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and Secretary Daniel Glickman of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
Modzelewski earned an B.F.A. from Boston University and a J.D. from
University of Denver College of Law where he concentrated on water law.
Chair Gordon. Thank you. And now Ms. Stoner, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. NANCY K. STONER, CO-DIRECTOR, WATER PROGRAM,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC)
Ms. Stoner. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Ranking
Member Hall, and Members----
Chair Gordon. I believe you need to put your microphone on
there. There we go.
Ms. Stoner. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Natural
Resources Defense Council to discuss the changes facing U.S.
water resources today and the role of scientific research in
addressing those challenges. I will provide a brief summary of
the issues presented in more depth in my written statement.
First, water resources in the U.S. are stressed. Population
growth, urbanization, and agricultural runoff continue to
pollute rivers, lakes, and coastal waters and deplete surface
and ground water resources that provide safe, sufficient water
for human and ecosystem needs.
There are also new stressors as my colleagues have
mentioned such as climate change, which affects water first and
foremost among all natural resources with increasing droughts,
sea level rise, extreme storm events, and increased stream
temperatures. We can't continue to use the strategies of the
past and hope to overcome these and other emerging challenges.
New strategies, new technologies, and even new ways of thinking
are needed. That is what scientific research is all about.
Second, water is valuable. It is essential to life, to our
very existence, and the foundation of every civilization. It is
easily worth billions, if not trillions of dollars each year to
the U.S. economy. One study by a team of economists estimates
the economic value of the decline in water quality in the U.S.
from 1994, to 2000, is $20 billion. With the economic crisis
that the U.S. is facing, we can't afford to throw away valuable
natural resources like clean water.
Third, research and development creates jobs, jobs for
scientists, lab technicians, manufacturing jobs, labor jobs,
jobs that feed families and contribute to the long-term health
and well-being of the Nation.
The global water and waste water infrastructure market is
estimated at $3 trillion. The U.S. needs to invest in research
and development, not only to protect our own natural resources
but also to bolster that sector of our economy. We are
currently losing jobs to companies overseas because we are not
developing and marketing state-of-the-art water and waste water
infrastructure technologies. This is a market in which the U.S.
can and should lead the world.
With respect to the legislation, H.R. 1145, the National
Water Research and Development Initiative Act, it would step up
and coordinate science-based research in water. It would ensure
that federal dollars are spent more effectively and would
identify specific water research outcomes.
I want to add to those voices of my colleagues in
suggesting a couple of additional outcomes. Several have
mentioned already climate change water interactions. I think
that is very important for a research outcome. Another that
hasn't been mentioned this morning I think is advanced
treatment technologies and pollution prevention strategies.
Treatment may be old-school, but sometimes it is helpful, and
we need new treatment technologies, particularly ones that use
less energy and produce better results. That is a good area for
the research agenda as well. I think it is an excellent start,
though, on a holistic cross-cutting water research agenda.
I also want to second the comment made by my colleague, Dr.
Gleick, about having the census address water use. Often in the
U.S. we don't have information about how much ground water in
particular is being used. That information is necessary in
order to ensure that we have sustainable water resources for
the future.
So I commend you, Mr. Chair, on this legislation, and I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stoner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy K. Stoner
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
challenges facing U.S. water resources today and the role of scientific
research in addressing those challenges. I will also specifically
address the legislative proposals under consideration by this committee
to enhance water research in the U.S.
Water Resource Challenges in the U.S. in the 21st Century
Earlier this year, EPA released its 2004 National Water Quality
Inventory Report to Congress. Unfortunately, it demonstrates that very
high percentage of our nation's surface waters continue to be unsafe
for swimming, drinking, fishing, or other human uses.
In 2006, U.S. EPA released its first Wadeable Streams Assessment of
the biological integrity of 1,392 perennial streams across the U.S.
using direct measures of aquatic life. It found 41.9 percent of streams
in poor condition, 24.9 percent in fair condition, and only 28.2
percent in good condition.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/
These reports focus primarily on water quality. However, our
natural water systems and services are also deteriorating. Signs of
stress are seen in falling groundwater levels and decreasing stream
flows, degradation of aquifer water quality, disappearance of wetlands,
dead zones in coastal areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, and other
changes in hydrologic function.
Many of these negative changes are a result of ill-conceived
agricultural, land development, and energy practices--and are symptoms
of man's overuse and contamination of water. Destruction of natural
ecosystems such as wetlands, forests, and prairies to make way for
sprawling cities that pave over the landscape destroying natural
hydrology, and monoculture farming that requires excessive quantities
of water and fertilizer have led to drying land masses and reduced
evapotranspiration, as well as increases in polluted runoff. In order
to assure secure and clean water supplies and healthy ecosystems, it
will be necessary to redesign the Nation's infrastructure around
significantly more efficient and sustainable practices.
Climate change is exacerbating stresses on water resources. From
urban and agricultural water supplies to flood management and
protecting aquatic ecosystems, all aspects of water resource management
are being affected by climate change. Rising temperatures, loss of
snowpack, escalating size and frequency of flood events, increasingly
frequent droughts, and sea level rise are just some of the impacts of
climate change that have broad implications to the management of water
resources. Many water supply sources (rivers, lakes, groundwater
basins, etc.) are already over-allocated, suffer from degraded water
quality and are often not in sufficient condition to support endangered
species. The past is no longer a tool for predicting future
precipitation patterns. While droughts are nothing new, climate change
is not only predicted to increase the frequency and intensity of
droughts but will also effectively create ongoing drought-like
conditions in parts of the U.S.\3\ In response to a U.S. General
Accounting Office survey in 2003, 36 states indicated that they
anticipate local, regional, or statewide water shortages by 2013.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NRDC 2008. Hotter and Drier: The West's Changed Climate; http:/
/www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/west/contents.asp
\4\ http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03514.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By elevating temperatures, increasing evaporation rates and
extending dry seasons, even existing rainfall patterns will yield less
in terms of real water supplies. Ironically, global warming is also
predicted to increase the frequency and intensity of storm events,
which will in some cases provide more overall rainfall. However,
intense rain events often deliver too much water at once causing it to
runoff instead of soaking into the ground, making it harder to store in
reservoirs. Some areas, particularly in the West and Southeast, are
predicted to get less precipitation. These climate change related
effects, likely in combination, will decrease water supplies both
locally and regionally throughout the country.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Climate Change Science Program, http://
www.climatescience.gov/
There is also emerging research suggesting that the drying out of
land and air may also have a direct effect on the rate of climate
change.\6\ Additional research on this topic could revolutionize the
drivers for water resource management internationally. Reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is essential, and the water sector can be part
of any solution by reducing energy use through water conservation and
efficiency, rainwater harvesting, and groundwater recharge through
practices such as low impact development. Greenhouse gas emissions can
also be used through practices, such as reduced fertilizer use, that
also reduce nutrient pollution. However, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions will take time and there is a need to address today's
challenges. Implementing actions now to improve water quality and
supplies, protect aquatic ecosystems and improve flood management not
only make sense, but early action will also help reduce future impacts
related to climate change.\7\ Adaptation is not a solution to climate
change but given the importance of our water resources, immediate
action is needed to avert significant societal impacts. Research into
the tools that communities need to anticipate impacts of climate change
to their water resources and the best set of adaptation strategies to
prepare for those impacts is an immediate need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.ludiaavoda.sk/dokumenty/
WATER-INTOLERANCY-KRAVCIK-DEF-
FEB2007.pdf
\7\ http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/hotwater/contents.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our nation's water infrastructure was built around the goal of
public health protection through long-distance transport of clean water
into cities and of wastewater away from cities. These systems were
extremely successful in improving public health in the U.S.,
particularly during the first half of the 20th century. Now, however,
these same systems are increasingly seen as out-of-date and
insufficient to meet water resource and public health goals. Scarce
water resources are wasted through designs that transport water and
wastewater long distances for filtration and treatment and by once-and-
done treatment processes that discharge treated waters into streams to
be carried out to sea instead of using it for landscape irrigation,
toilet flushing, cooling water, and other non-potable needs.
The National Academy of Engineering has recently listed three of
the new Century's ``Grand Challenges for Engineering'' as related to
water: restoring and improving urban infrastructure; providing access
to clean water; and managing the nitrogen cycle (including nitrogen in
wastewater).\8\ The Academy recognized that an integrated approach
combining energy, water, and wastes (liquid and solid) into
``neighborhood systems'' needs consideration. These systems will rely
on telemetry and information networks, and will incorporate aesthetic
designs. As the Academy suggests, ``proper engineering approaches can
achieve multiple goals, such as better storm drainage and cleaner
water, while also enhancing the appearance of the landscape, improving
the habitat for wildlife, and offering recreational spaces for
people.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/8996/9221.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value of designing buildings and subdivisions with both energy
and water considerations in mind is becoming more clear among green
building practitioners. Water management, for example, is included in
the recent Net Zero Energy Building report prepared by an interagency
task force called the National Science and Technology Council.\9\
Wastewater has heat that can be captured, and biogas can be generated
at a local scale from sewage, along with food waste and landscaping
materials. Energy costs for water line and sewer pumping stations can
be avoided if water is captured, recycled and re-used within its
natural or originating basin. It only makes sense, then, to provide tax
incentives, public building retrofit requirements, and loan guarantees
for both energy and water technology advancements within a single
program. Other ``market transformational'' approaches, such as labeling
and standards development for energy-efficient appliances and for solar
and wind technologies, could also be adopted. EPA's WaterSense program
provides data for consumers to choose water-efficient appliances and
landscape irrigation services.\10\ The success of this program suggests
that some similar guidelines for water and wastewater re-use and
stormwater management should also be developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/buildingtechnology/documents/
FederalRDAgendaforNetZeroEnergyHighPerformanceGreenBuildings.pdf
\10\ http://www.epa.gov/watersense/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment approaches typically used are also insufficient to
address the broad range of contaminants found in sewage, including
excessive nutrients, microbials, such as cryptosporidium and giardia,
and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) that are
contaminating our waterways and have the potential to threaten public
health. The problem of unintended movement of toxic and endocrine-
disrupting chemicals and compounds from pharmaceuticals and personal
care products to wastewater effluents and drinking water sources is
neither new nor unique to the U.S. It is an international problem that
has been documented and publicly reported by government experts and
academic researchers for over two decades.\11\ It is complicated by the
fact that the contaminants come from many sources (medical waste,
consumer waste, agriculture and industrial uses, etc.), have diverse
toxicology profiles and biological activity, may be present in low or
trace amounts (parts per trillion), and are likely to have complex and
poorly understood toxic interactions (antagonistic, synergistic,
additive, etc.). However, these contaminants share one very disturbing
characteristic: in general, they are not effectively controlled under
U.S. environmental statutes, and are usually not even subject to
monitoring. Research into green chemistry, wastestream minimization,
and other ways to minimize the risk to people and ecosystems from these
substances must become a priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Kolpin, D.W.; Furlong, E.T.; Meyer, M.T.; Thurman, E.M.;
Zaugg, S.D.; Barber, L.B.; Buston, H.T. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and
other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: A
national reconnaissance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 1202-1211.
Economic benefits of clean, safe water resources
Abundant, safe water resources are essential to a healthy U.S.
economy as well as to human and ecosystem health. For example, a new
report by scientists working with Restore America's Estuaries found
that beach going in the U.S. contributes up to $30 billion annually to
the U.S. economy and recreational fishing contributes between $10 and
$26 billion.\12\ On the flipside, economists from Vanderbilt and Duke
Universities estimate the annual economic value of the decline in
inland U.S. water quality from 1994 to 2000 to be more than $20
billion.\13\ With the economic crisis that the U.S. is facing, we
cannot afford to be throwing away valuable natural resources like clean
water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://www.estuaries.org
\13\ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract-id=1084077
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directing federal research funding towards addressing the
challenges facing U.S. water resources will make the U.S. stronger, our
families healthier, our wildlife more abundant, and our communities
safer and more resilient to future water and climate disturbances.
Those research dollars will also provide immediate employment to
scientists, technicians, equipment manufacturers, laborers, and other a
whole host of other Americans who can feed their families today and
contribute to the long-term health and well being of the Nation.
Investment in research and development and demonstration projects in
21st Century water infrastructure
The U.S. has experienced a dramatic reduction in water-related
research funding in the Federal Government, as has been noted by both
the National Academy of Sciences and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. The 1972 Clean Water Act authorized $100 million in
research, which would be worth over $500 million per year in current
dollars. However, starting in the 1980s, water infrastructure-related
research budgets were systematically reduced, and private sector
research spending declined as well.
Because of these continuing reductions in water-related research in
the U.S., academic institutions, research institutes, and consulting
firms have been reducing employment as well. Dramatic signs of this
under-employment include the relocation of Massachusetts Institute of
Technology water researchers to Singapore, where $300 million is being
invested by that government in innovative technology development in
water infrastructure, which will allow them to take a leadership role
in capturing the estimated $3 trillion dollar water and wastewater
infrastructure market.\14\ Graduate students, for lack of funding in
the U.S., are accepting fellowships overseas. Science departments are
being shut down, hiring freezes and layoffs are occurring at campuses
across the U.S. Consulting research firms have also shed numerous
workers in recent months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://web.mit.edu/smart/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By a host of measures, it would be appropriate to build research
and development (R&D) funding in the water infrastructure field over a
period of years to a $500 million per year level. Any healthy
industrial sector should be reinvesting one to two percent in science
and new product development. One percent of the Nation's current
estimated $50 billion water and wastewater sector expenditures would be
$500 million per year, while one percent of the approximately $100
billion per year that the water and wastewater sectors should be
spending on traditional and green infrastructure approaches to meet
current needs would be $1 billion per year.
To begin returning water infrastructure-related research to an
appropriate level of funding, at least $100 million should be
appropriated for EPA to stimulate both R&D and demonstration projects
in 21st Century approaches, including water conservation, rainwater
harvesting, green infrastructure, groundwater remediation, graywater
re-use, optimizing energy use and water quality, monitoring for and
treating emerging contaminants, and decentralized wastewater treatment
and re-use. A second $100 million should be employed for innovative
water management research in the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Interior, and Transportation to look at a host of water-
related issues such as ensuring safe water supply, protection of
aquatic habitat, sustainable water and wastewater infrastructure in the
built environment, protection of U.S. fisheries, protection of and
stewardship of America's farmlands, pasturelands, and forests,
protection of endangered species, and, of course, monitoring our
progress in achieving water resource goals. A commitment to rigorous
long-term monitoring of our nation's water ways is absolutely essential
for identifying contaminants, characterizing and localizing
contamination patterns, identifying sources of contamination where
possible, and measuring the effectiveness of mitigation measures. In
summary, high quality monitoring programs are required for Congress and
regulatory agencies to allocate resources wisely and effectively.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is responsible for the two main
water-quality monitoring programs for the Nation's waterways. These are
the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) and the Toxic
Substances Hydrology Program. These two programs are crucial to
understand water quality. Without a long-term commitment to monitoring,
the Nation will lose its ability to assess tends in water quality,
impacts of climate change, impacts of new and under-studied
contaminants, and efficacy of policy-decisions that impact water
quality. The NAWQA is the larger of the two USGS water-quality
monitoring programs, and looks at environmental contaminants using
established measurement methodologies for measuring (pesticides, VOCs,
metals, etc.). Budget constraints over the last eight years has forced
the program to cut back from 496 surface-water fixed station water-
quality monitoring sites in 2000, to only 113 sites in 2008.\15\ NRDC
supports reinvestment in that program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ USGS fact sheet: Impacts of proposed FY09 budget cuts on
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. Provided by Judy
Campbell Bird. April, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Toxic Substances Hydrology (aka Toxics Program) is the smaller
of the two programs. It is a water quality research and methods
development program that looks at new and understudied environmental
contaminants, like new pesticides, hormones, pharmaceuticals, personal
care products, etc. The program develops new capabilities, new
methodologies, and new information that enable the cooperative water
quality programs across states and the NAWQA address new issues in an
effective manner.\16\ A new water research initiative should invest in
both of these programs, which have been devastated by budget cuts in
recent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Data provided to J. Sass as personal communication with Donna
N. Myers, U.S. Geological Survey, Chief, National Water-Quality
Assessment Program. April, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to governmental funding, cooperative efforts with
utilities, research associations, and other non-governmental entities
should be part of the research agenda, including such programs as the
National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project at
the Water Environment Research Foundation, the National Environmental
Services Center at West Virginia University, and academic workshop and
conference funding.
The National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009
The National Water Research and Development Initiative Act (NWRDIA)
of 2009 would coordinate such a research initiative and develop a plan
for identifying and prioritizing future research needs. Efforts to
define research needs and projects related to 21st Century water
infrastructure are already being conducted at the federal level. The
U.S. EPA has directed a wide-ranging series of working groups to
identify critical research needs in water infrastructure, and topics
for priority research projects have been identified. Research agendas
have been developed for ``sustainable infrastructure,'' water and
climate change, and green building and green infrastructure related to
water systems. EPA has initiatives in related Smart Growth, source
water protection, and ecological services program areas. This committee
has identified research areas for water-efficiency and conservation
measures in H.R. 3957. The Office of Science and Technology Policy has
identified key research areas which would be developed in a revitalized
water research program. The NWRDIA would be helpful in coordinating
these and other agenda-setting exercises into a cross-agency, cross-
media, cross-sectorial strategy that gets past the historic siloed and
disintegrated approaches that are currently failing to provide holistic
solutions to our water and integrated resource needs.
It is vital for the U.S. to return to earlier patterns of
investment in water infrastructure-related research. Our nation is
clearly falling behind in the efficiency and effectiveness of its
approaches relative to those of other countries. Research investments
will be paid back in many ways, including reductions in costs of safe
and clean water systems, revitalized local economies and community
development, and in new economic opportunities for American businesses
in designing and manufacturing solutions for emerging markets in Asia
and elsewhere.
Conclusion
Throughout the second half of the 20th century the U.S. led the
world in developing and implementing revolutionary water management
systems. This occurred because of national need but was enabled by
consistent federal funding for research that built the strongest
network of researchers and educators in the world. Observing the
success of this approach, other countries such as Japan, the UK, and
France emulated this approach in the latter portion of the 20th
century, with great success. This approach continues today, especially
in a variety of Asian countries which have the same compelling national
need as us and who see that federal investments in water R&D are a
great public investment which returns itself many times over by both
meeting critical national needs but also be creating profitable
national and export businesses.
The question before is us whether the U.S. is going to give up its
leadership in this critical area and fail to live up to its potential
to dramatically improve the quality of life in the U.S. and around the
world. This is the path that we are on, but it can be reversed with a
fairly modest set of actions by the Federal Government, including a
substantial investment in R&D, that would be facilitated by this
legislation.
Biography for Nancy K. Stoner
Nancy K. Stoner is a senior attorney and the Co-Director of the
Natural Resources Defense Council's Water Program. She has more than
twenty years of experience using the Clean Water Act to protect rivers,
lakes, and coastal waters from contaminated stormwater, sewer
overflows, factory farms, and other sources of water pollution. Nancy
is a national expert in U.S. water resource issues and is also working
to clean up the Anacostia River in Washington, D.C.
Ms. Stoner has been with NRDC since October 1999. From 1997-99,
Nancy was the Director of the Office of Planning and Policy Analysis in
U.S. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. She was a
trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment &
Natural Resources Division before that.
She earned her J.D. from Yale University Law School in 1986 and her
B.A. in 1982 from the University of Virginia. She is admitted to the
bars of the District of Columbia and Maryland.
Chair Gordon. Thank you very much, and Ms. Furstoss, you
are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. CHRISTINE FURSTOSS, GENERAL MANAGER OF
TECHNOLOGY, GE WATER AND PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES, GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY
Ms. Furstoss. Thank you. Chair Gordon, Mr. Hall, Members of
the Committee, it is a privilege to share with you GE's
thoughts on the National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act of 2009. I feel that this Act would represent a
very positive step forward in strengthening the planning and
implementation of water research and development across the
Nation. The Federal Government's role in providing structure
and oversight will help accelerate new developments in a more
coordinated way.
If we truly want to change how our nation thinks about
water, Chair Gordon, as you so eloquently put it, sound
resource water management, it is going to take a community.
This is a community of government, National labs, academia,
institutes, and industry working together in unison with
prioritization, with common goals, with the ability to
determine which technologies will be able to be implemented,
what will be supported, and if can we work together.
Companies like GE are investing in technology development
for water re-use, water conservation, and water purification.
But when you have a community that is both strong in
cultivating and developing new ideas, and equally effective in
achieving the end result, success is sure, is bound to be a
sure thing.
Giving industry the opportunity to work with academia, to
work with institutes in a coordinated way will surely further
this initiative. I was very excited when I read in the bill
some of the prioritization areas, including the water census,
including very importantly standards and methods of measuring
water purification, an area which I feel has been ignored as we
continue to legislate, as we continue to drive more and more
companies, rightfully so, to re-use water, to cleanse water. It
is very important that we understand how to measure, how to
achieve the levels that we are asking for.
GE is currently working on a number of different areas. For
examples, our scientists and engineers are partnered with the
Department of Energy to develop new technology for the
treatment of impaired waters for industrial cooling
applications, thus being able to use more waters in a sound
way. The goal is to minimize water discharge and enhance water
re-use.
We are also working with the Department of Energy to
optimize a system for waste water treatment, which would help
to reduce the cost of energy for systems run by municipalities
and industries.
Ultimately, it is going to come down to how these
technologies are deployed. Are they meeting the proper
regulatory requirements? Do they measure impurities in a way
that ensures water is safe? Are they minimizing energy usage so
that industry can deploy these technologies in a cost-
effective, environmentally-friendly way?
This last question is especially important. One of the
biggest impediments to deploying new clean water technologies
is the high cost of energy. This bill will go a tremendous way
in helping to focus the community on those sorts of questions
and answers.
In closing, it makes sense to have a fully-coordinated
strategy for addressing our nation's clean water needs, and
this will require more direct involvement from the government
as well as industries such as GE and our competitors. There are
robust R&D pipelines, but there can be more. There is not a
lack of ideas for cleaning water. It is helping to prioritize
them and determine how can we help the universities, the small
companies, or the large companies like mine to get them into
the marketplace in a way that is reliable and sustainable.
Working together with the government and other key
stakeholders we will have the community we need to successfully
carry out a National Clean Water Research and Development
Initiative.
Chair Gordon, Mr. Hall, Members of the Committee, thank you
for the time and the opportunity to provide our comments.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Furstoss follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christine Furstoss
Introduction
Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and Members of the
Committee, it is privilege to share with you GE's thoughts on the
``National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009.''
Background
GE is a diversified global infrastructure, finance and media
company that provides a wide array of products to meet the world's
essential needs. From energy, water, and transportation to health care
and security, we deliver advanced technology solutions through a broad
business portfolio to promote cleaner, more efficient energy
alternatives, increase the availability of clean, safe water, improve
access to quality health care and enhance the safety and security of
the public at-large.
As General Manager of Technology for GE Water & Process
Technologies in Trevose, Pennsylvania, and as a former senior
technology leader at GE's Global Research Center in Upstate New York, I
know first-hand the considerable stake and investment that GE has in
clean water research and development.
GE Water and Process Technologies is a leading global supplier of
water treatment, wastewater treatment and process systems solutions.
Our treatment systems provide clean, safe drinking water to millions of
people in water-scarce regions around the world. They also are a
critical resource for helping industries minimize water usage in
support of their operations.
GE's Global Research Center, located outside of Albany, is one of
the world's largest and most diversified industrial research labs and
the first to be established in the U.S.
From the light bulb, medical x-ray and the first U.S. jet engine to
more recent product breakthroughs such as digital x-ray, the GE-90 and
GEnx aircraft engines and the best in-class Evolution Locomotive, the
Center has a long and proud heritage of developing the breakthrough
technologies that enabled these revolutionary products to be introduced
into the marketplace.
Today, the Center has a world-class team of scientists and
engineers working on the next generation of technology solutions to
make water more accessible and more affordable. From reducing the cost
of desalinated water to tap abundant saltwater resources to maximizing
our ability to treat and re-use wastewater, we believe that technology
holds the key to successfully addressing an increasing water scarcity
epidemic.
Congressman Gordon, we applaud your efforts to establish a national
initiative focused on clean water and research development. It could
not come at a more critical time for our nation and for the world.
According the United Nations, 2.8 billion people around the world
already live in water stressed regions. By 2025, this number is
expected to nearly double to 5.3 billion--more than two-thirds of what
the forecasted population will be at that time.
With shifts in population and our existing water resources being
constrained, the U.S. is feeling this impact as well. In the southwest
U.S., freshwater aquifers have been depleting at a time when population
in the region has been growing. In New England, groundwater
contamination is a growing issue. At the Colorado River Basin,
competition for water access has become a real source of political and
economic tensions. Also, Washington D.C.'s drinking water supplies
continue to be threatened by lead and other contaminants.
Comments and Recommendations
``The National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of
2009'' would represent a positive step forward to strengthen the
planning and implementation of water research and development across
the Nation. The Federal Government's role in providing structure and
oversight will help accelerate new developments in a more coordinated
way. But beyond structure, we believe the bill should be more inclusive
to ensure that industry has an equal seat at the table with the other
key stakeholders.
If we want to truly change how our nation thinks about water, it is
going to take a community of government, the National labs, academia
and industry working together in unison.
Companies like GE are on the front lines of the water scarcity
epidemic. We have a keen understanding of where the water stressed
areas are located and the unique challenges each faces. Most
importantly, we have product solutions in the market today and advanced
technologies in the pipeline for tomorrow to address our nation's water
problems.
We understand how to industrialize research. It's part of our
livelihood to take new technologies and find ways to commercialize them
in the marketplace where they can add value and solve problems for our
customers.
When you have a community that is both strong in cultivating and
developing new ideas and equally effective in achieving an end-result,
success will be a sure thing. Giving industry an equal seat at the
table will ensure that promising ideas translate into real commercial
product solutions.
GE knows first-hand the value that can be added when you have a
community of government, industry, academia and other stakeholders all
working together. It is a key foundation of our ecomagination
initiative. Ecomagination, first launched in May of 2005, represents
GE's commitment to drive the development of green products and
technologies to solve the world's toughest environmental challenges.
As part of this commitment, GE is doubling its level of investment
in clean research and development from $700 million in 2005 to more
than $1.5 billion by the year 2010. Since ecomagination was first
launched, we have increased the number of green products from 17 to
more than 60 products today. GE's success has been due, in large part,
in our ability to coordinate with government, with our customers and
with other industry partners to promote key technology developments.
Included within our portfolio of ecomagination products are a dozen
products related to water treatment and purification. And we have new
technologies in desalination, wastewater treatment, water re-use and
advanced membranes at GE's Global Research Center to promote new clean
water developments for the future.
In fact, we are currently working with the Federal Government and
other partners on various clean water projects. For example, scientists
and engineers at GE Global Research are partnering with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) on a project to develop new technologies for
the treatment of impaired water for industrial cooling applications.
The goal is minimize water discharge and enhance water re-use. We also
are working with the DOE to optimize a system for wastewater treatment,
which would help reduce the cost of energy for systems run by
municipalities and various industries.
Encouraging more water re-use through the treatment of impaired
water and improvements to wastewater treatment systems are great
examples of how we are developing new and better ways to clean water.
Beyond what industries like GE are doing, we also are seeing innovative
technology being developed by our universities and National labs to
maximize the use of our precious water resources.
Ultimately, it will come down to how these technologies get
deployed. Are they meeting the proper regulatory requirements? Do they
measure for impurities in a way that ensures water is safe? Are they
minimizing energy usage, so that industry can deploy these technologies
in a cost-effective, environmentally friendly way? This last question
is especially important. One of the biggest impediments to deploying
new clean water technologies is the high cost of energy. With GE's
experience in designing systems, developing technologies and optimizing
systems for minimized energy usage, this last goal is well within our
reach. Again, that is why it will take a community.
In closing, it makes sense that having a fully coordinated strategy
for addressing our nation's clean water needs will require more direct
involvement from private industries like GE. We have a robust R&D
pipeline and a direct path to market for new solutions. Working
together with Federal Government and the other key stakeholders, we
will have the community we need to successfully carry out a national
clean water research and development initiative.
Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee, thank you for your
time and the opportunity to provide our comments and recommendations on
this bill.
Biography for Christine Furstoss
As General Manager of Technology for GE Water and Process
Technologies, Christine leads approximately 350 technologists working
on critical chemical, membrane, device and processing technologies
aimed at providing water treatment, water re-use and efficient process
system solutions. Her team is located across North America, Europe, and
Asia.
Prior to being named to this position in January 2008, Christine
held a variety of positions in the technology organizations of GE,
including materials engineer, product program manager, manager of
development groups, business program manager, and global technology
leader. She also was in a leadership position in GE's Six Sigma quality
initiative. In addition to Water and Process Technologies, Christine
has worked at GE Energy and GE's Corporate Global Research businesses.
Christine likes to bring high energy, technical breadth and strong
customer relationships to her roles to motivate and mentor others,
build strong, integrated teams, and develop great technology!
Christine joined GE in 1989 in the Materials and Processes
Engineering Department of GE Energy. She received her B.S. and M.S.
degrees in Materials Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
(RPI). Christine is married and has one son.
Discussion
Chair Gordon. Thank you and for all our panelists for being
here.
Now, at this point we will open our first round of
questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Dr. Vaux, in your testimony you indicated that the
importance of obtaining and managing and exchanging data on
water resources, in addition to my bill H.R. 1145, there is
legislation pending in the House, S. 22, that authorizes
additional funds for the USGS Stream Flow Network and for
expanded monitoring of ground water resources. It seems to me
that the coordination of agencies' efforts directed by H.R.
1145 and the expansion of these two key data resources and S.
22 are complimentary.
Would you like to make a comment on that by virtue of the
research you have already done?
Dr. Vaux. Well, I would agree that they are complimentary,
and I would agree that they ought to go forward in a fashion
that is coordinated again and not independently so. The U.S.
Geological Survey is the agency with the most experience in
terms of data collection, data management, and making the data
available to users.
And one regrettable characteristic of our data acquisition
program is that there has been a significant disinvestment in
it over the last two decades. These bills with appropriate
authorizations and follow-on funding would go some ways toward
rectifying that disinvestment by investing further. My only
concern is that it does not proceed independently of what you
are trying to do, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Vaux. Mr. Baird or Dr. Baird
will be very happy to know that you wanted to include the
social sciences and the various categories.
And you had also mentioned additional funding for the
coordinating agency. What are you envisioning there?
Dr. Vaux. An off-the-wall estimate would be simply $2 or $3
million annually to support the efforts of the coordination
effort. My experience has been or my observation has been when
you ask the agencies to take the costs of these kinds of
coordination efforts out of existing funds, they lack
enthusiasm, and I think by providing a little money one would
generate more enthusiasm to achieve the goals and objectives of
the bill. And also there may be a need to provide some
additional research money along the lines that Dr. Gleick
suggested.
Chair Gordon. Thank you. That is very good advice.
And Mr. Modzelewski, you had mentioned that 30 to 50
percent savings could be made in water consumption by using IT.
That is a pretty extraordinary number. Can you go through that
a little bit more with us?
Mr. Modzelewski. Sure.
Chair Gordon. Some examples.
Mr. Modzelewski. Sure. And some said it is more, some
certainly said it is less, but that tends to be the range.
Really right now there is not really a common understanding of
how to communicate water, communicate about water. Having a
sensors' network that would be able to give us far more in-
depth understanding of the usage, matched against something
like a census would allow us to know how much we are using, how
much we are wasting, and to be able to address those problems
quickly.
You have the issues right now with say, a city like
Chicago, where some of the estimates are that Chicago is losing
as much as 60 percent of its water before it gets to the
faucet. If you look at a situation like that where you had a
smart network and smart grid in place, you would be able to
assess where you are losing it, what the cost benefit analysis
is of doing that, and address it. Not to mention usage that is
going through streams as it is being used in finding beneficial
uses along those lines.
Right now from an IT perspective we don't, again, have
common standards. Often where we are doing readings we have
different systems doing different readings but yet in the exact
same place. You can find a box in a stream that maybe five
communities have put together various water monitoring and
analysis systems instead of sharing that data. And the ability
to potentially overlay a smart system where we know where it
is, be able to speak to each other about it, and be able to
assess how much damage is being done, how much we are losing,
and to be able to address those at a pinpoint fashion would
come from an IT system or, again, using a term that has become
fanciful right now, a smart-water grid, that overlays.
Chair Gordon. All right. So are you talking about
implementing existing technology, or haven't you developed new
technology?
Mr. Modzelewski. It wouldn't really need a huge jump from
technology we currently have available. It would certainly be a
need to be adapted to a water system, and everyone would have
to agree upon the measurements and what all the wording means
and what all the reporting would mean within it. But there is
nothing about the actual code, if you will, the actual writing
of this that would be new. The only other thing that would be
new is actually probably a far more intensive sensor network to
be, actually take readings far more aggressively throughout a
system.
Chair Gordon. Ms. Furstoss, since you have come out of this
division, do you have a comment on that?
Ms. Furstoss. The idea of a smart water grid, the idea of
being able to implement I think is a wonderful idea. It does
provide challenges as was mentioned in the sensor technology
and being able to have reliable data. I think the data
management techniques, the ability to measure for water usage
is there. The ability to easily implement it, I think, will
take a much more-coordinated effort.
Again, as was mentioned, how is it measured, how often, the
standards, but I do think that the ability to measure water
usage, the technologies do exist.
Chair Gordon. My time has expired.
Mr. Hall, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Modzelewski, I
appreciate your concern for amounts of money because that is
something we have to take into consideration and would pass any
bill. And it is kind of extraordinary for folks like you to
come here that are that considerate of our problems.
You know, we have a present President that is throwing
money like mad, the stimulus, and the President and my friend
that just left us is back in Dallas right now with his
bailouts, you know, bailed $700 or $800 billion and $350
billion of it just went completely quickly, and where it went
we don't know or what happened to it, and all they said was uh-
oh, and we don't know, you know, about that.
So I thank you for being that considerate. I wanted to just
say that.
But my question is to Mrs. Furstoss. Legislation was
introduced and passed in the House, this Congress and last
Congress, to explore ways to utilize and maybe treat the water
produced from drilling for oil. That is a big problem for us,
and we have some legislation. The Chair and this entire
committee helped us pass those bills, knowing the importance of
them.
Has GE done any research in this area?
Ms. Furstoss. Yes. We have done research and are continuing
at the moment to do research looking at produced waters from
the oil industry. We are working with, in addition to our
research and development center, we are working very closely
with some of the oil-producing companies to understand how we
can purify the waters that are being drawn, the oily waters.
Very difficult technology because of the temperatures that the
waters are at, because of the consistency when the oil comes
out of the ground with the water or the water that is used to
help promote the drilling and really bringing up the oil.
These waters are very oily. They have a significant amount
of solids, they have a significant amount of contamination.
Anything that could be in the ground is going to come up with
the waters.
Mr. Hall. Would you feel like they are worth the cleansing
process?
Ms. Furstoss. I think that for sustainability we need to.
We need to figure out how can we clean these waters to be able
to reduce the water usage, to be able to re-use them, but
currently with the oil content it is very difficult. It is one
of our main area of research right now within GE water and
process technology.
Mr. Hall. None of these waters have been cleaned enough to
get to the faucet.
Ms. Furstoss. Not to get to the----
Mr. Hall. One of the----
Ms. Furstoss. Yes. Not to get to the faucet to my
knowledge. Perhaps in some isolated areas they are. Again, we
are focusing also on being able to re-use these waters, again,
so these operations require much less water usage.
Mr. Hall. So they are generally relegated to re-use in the
oil patch?
Ms. Furstoss. Yes.
Mr. Hall. I thank you. I yield back.
Chair Gordon. Mr. Miller, I don't see you. Oh. Okay. I
didn't see--okay. All right. Okay. Ms. Fudge is recognized for
five minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am from Cleveland, Ohio, so I live on one of the Great
Lakes, Lake Erie. We don't have a problem with access to water.
What I would like to know, and any of the panelists might
answer the question for me or a number of you, but as you talk
about the need to, for the Federal Government to provide more
money towards water research and you talk about the smart grids
and how we determine how much water we actually use, if we
provide these resources and do this research, how do we then
keep the cost of water usage down? Because in our area where we
really don't have any problem with access to water, our water
rates are going up significantly. I don't know if it is the
technology to read meters. I am not sure about that, but could
you just give me your thoughts on what we could do over time
with the research to reduce the cost of providing clean water?
Dr. Vaux. I will take a first cut at that. I am an
economist, and the pricing of water is near and dear to my
heart, and I think that the bad news from the point of view of
your constituents is that the price of water is likely to rise
in the coming decades, and there is virtually nothing that can
be done to make it go down. What can be done is research that
will attenuate the rate of increase.
Water is now and has historically been under-priced, and
one of the things that is going to happen as scarcity
intensifies is that the price will rise. The price will also
rise because the cost of securing a clean water supply that is
safe and healthful will also rise. And I think the fact of the
matter is that the citizens of the United States have enjoyed a
healthful water supply for over 200 years at less than full
cost, and that the reasonable expectation ought to be on the
part of citizens that costs more nearly approaching the true
cost of water are going to have to be paid in the future.
I am sorry I can't be more optimistic.
Dr. Gleick. If I could add two points to that. One is the
costs are likely to go up in addition because we expect we are
going to have to spend more money to provide clean water. That
is a question of reliability, it is a question of availability,
and it is a question of quality. There are new contaminants
that we don't regulate for. There are new contaminants that we
don't remove, and we are going to have to develop technology
and apply technology to remove them. And that is going to cost
more.
On the other side, though, and some of the other speakers
have mentioned this, there is a lot of effort going into
figuring out how to use water more efficiency. We actually use
less water in the United States today for everything than we
used 20 years ago. We are becoming more efficient, and as we
become more efficient, either in the home, through better
appliances, or in industries with better processes, the cost of
water can do down, the total cost of water can go down.
So we have to match this growing cost for improved
reliability of supply and improved quality with the potential
to improve the efficiency and reduce our overall demand for
water.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Fudge, and Mr. Rohrabacher,
you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and
appreciate you holding this hearing. I come from southern
California, and we know how important water is. I am very proud
to say that my own county, Orange County, is on the cutting
edge of technological development, especially in reclamation of
water and conservation of water, and I have been very
supportive of those efforts with earmarks for my district. I
just wanted to make sure people got that.
And we also have supported, I have also supported efforts
there to make sure that we have the reporting of the purity of
the--or not the purity but the safety of the water which the
surfers surf in and people have their children swimming in. So
I am very proud of our local area.
Let me note, however, just a little slight disagreement. We
have not had 200 years of water safety in our country. Water
was really in bad condition up until about 50 years ago. I
remember when I was young they wouldn't let me put my finger in
the Potomac because my fingernails would fall out, and I
remember that song back when I was younger, maybe some of my
colleagues remember this song. My fellow--or colleague from
Cleveland may be too young to remember this, but it was, ``burn
on big river, burn on.'' And so we have a lot to be proud of in
terms of what we have accomplished for water, and I would
support the idea of a water census to make sure that we
understand the overall goals that we should have as a country,
as well as standards for purity.
I would like to ask a little bit about some of these other
things. We do have limited resources, and I think
Mr.--and I am--how do you pronounce your name?
Mr. Modzelewski. Modzelewski.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Modzelewski. Did make a point that maybe
perhaps investment in technology might be better than just
putting more money into research. And if you could do new
technologies, for example, if we could make water
desalinization a little more efficient. We do have problems in
the, in our area with water desalinization being opposed by
environmentalists because the little fishes might be trapped
and then the pelican might not be able to eat the meal that day
or something like that. We have to balance those considerations
off; pure water versus the pelican getting his meal.
But with that observation could you give me a little bit
about this? Where would you put, rather than just research into
water, where would you put the money that would actually start
making things better? What technologies would you focus on?
Mr. Modzelewski. Well, rather than necessarily getting
highly specific on that, what we tend to be doing right now if
you look at it is the technology portfolio as we tend to figure
out tweaks. We tend to figure out how to make a little bit
better membrane, a little bit better type of filtration.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Modzelewski. A chemical that might not be as hazardous
or a means of cutting out something in the system, and it is
very bizarre compared to other areas of technology where you
look at a wide range of things. Look at energy, for instance,
where it is everything from improving how we handle oil to
doing something like focusing solar cells to work better and
that kind of thing. And we really don't have that in water.
There are very few research efforts that are being done on
mid to long-range, and that ranges from more efficient
desalinization, which right now there is actually a new
research effort at Yale on something called forward osmosis,
which would be less energy intensive than reverse osmosis.
There is a researcher out of Duke University who is actually
using biotech techniques for purifying water so you don't have
to use chemicals, and she is actually using RNAI to actually
turn off the bacteria and pathogens in water rather than having
to put chemical treatments in it that would harm, be harmful
and need other treatments and other energy and other usages to
get them out.
A lot of the times what we are doing in water is we are
actually putting bad things in. It is sort of like
chemotherapy. You are using something horrible to try and kill
the disease quicker than the treatment kills you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me note we also not only have to
develop the technology, we have to provide our businesses with
the incentive to actually utilize that. I visited a plant just
two days ago in southern California where the owner of this
very small company, you know, it was a medium-sized company,
had invested $800,000 in a piece of equipment that purified the
water before it went into the, you know, from the plant before
it went into the system. That was $800,000, but the
depreciation schedule on that was the same for anything else.
And we have a depreciation schedule in our country that puts us
at a disadvantage compared to the Japanese and others.
Perhaps, Mr. Chair, we could support legislation that would
say that for water or other environmental technologies that we
can agree upon, that the depreciation schedule for the actual
putting of that technology into practice at businesses, that we
would have an advanced or a shorter depreciation schedule than
just for other technologies. That might work very well, and
thank you very much for this hearing.
And if I could maybe ask on last question, maybe our last
witness would like to answer the question about what
technologies we should most focus on.
Ms. Furstoss. Thank you for the opportunity. I think that
there are a number of technologies if we step back and per your
last comment, look at the system level and understand the total
cost to treat of water. There is amazing work going on at
institutes, National labs, universities. I am very aware of
some of the work in forward osmosis and so forth.
But I think also we need to step back and say how can we
drive down the total energy need for water purification. There
has been very minimal investment in energy recovery devices, in
devices to look at how can we get more water through with less
energy, whether it be pumps, whether it be devices that can
take the pressure differential and turn that into energy, or
whether it be totally new materials that allow the membranes to
work in a totally different way.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and let me note,
again, with an earmark I provided funds for Long Beach Water
District to develop a new system that is 25 percent more energy
efficient.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. You can be on our
next panel.
And Ms. Edwards is recognized.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the
panelists. It is really good to see Peter Gleick. I have read
every one of your bi-annual water reports, so I appreciate
meeting you.
About 25 years ago I spent some time at the World Bank,
really working on tracking the big infrastructure, you know,
projects, the dam projects, et cetera, that the bank was
funding at the time, purportedly to make sure that we had a
world that had a clean water supply. And I don't think we are
any closer to a clean water supply now with the expenditure of
billions and billions of dollars across the country.
One of the questions that I have for you and perhaps from
Ms. Stoner as well, is to, is about what we might do in our own
research assessment here in the United States that takes into
consideration what the impact in the world's water supply is
and strategies for addressing the world's water supply.
And I think Dr. Gleick, as you pointed out a number of
times, you know, the connection between security and water
supply is really, it is deep. We are seeing that right here in
our own hemisphere, and so I wonder if you might address ways
that we can make investments in research that look at things
like global, like climate change and its impact on water and
the relationship between neighboring states, and our use of
water, and if there may be things that we could explore in
terms of strategies here in the United States that could have a
positive impact on the world's water supply.
Dr. Gleick. Congresswoman, thank you very much for that
question. It is a huge question. I don't expect to be able to
answer it fully.
It is long past time that the U.S. reevaluated not just our
own national water policy but our national water policy in the
context of international water issues. We have enormous
resources here, intellectual resources, technological
resources, financial resources, even given the current
financial crisis, to help address the billion people worldwide
that don't have access to safe drinking water. I think there is
a lot that can be done.
In my written testimony I recommended expanding perhaps not
this particular bill but certainly bills in Congress to address
how the U.S. spends its money and its resources and its efforts
at the international level as well. I think it is time for, it
is past time for reassessment, and the good will that we could
generate internationally with those resources is enormous.
I am not sure it necessarily requires new technology as
much as it may require doing more of what we do here in the
United States in other places; rethinking how we give foreign
aid. Instead of spending $1 billion at the World Bank on a
water project, the World Bank and other agencies need to think
about how to spend $1,000 in a million places. In many parts of
the world $1,000 can be enormously effective at bringing clean
water to schools, bringing hygiene education programs, a whole
set of things that we really know how to do in order to solve
world water problems but just haven't done yet.
I would be happy to--I could go on and on about this but
perhaps another time.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, and Ms. Stoner, I am curious as
well if you could both address this and the relationship
between what we are doing here on climate change and how that
impacts what is happening with our water and water supply and
particularly the management of it.
Ms. Stoner. I appreciate the opportunity to do that. With
respect to your first question, one thing that occurs to me is
the development of decentralized waste water treatment
technologies. In lots of places, other countries, they don't
have centralized sewer systems and many, that is why many of
the people don't have adequate sanitation, and that is, you
know, why so many people die from drinking polluted water
overseas.
And we also about a third of the new buildings, new homes
built in the United States actually use decentralized waste
water treatment technologies, and there are lots of benefits to
doing that in terms of hydrology and so forth, but often those
technologies are not sufficiently advanced to address the full
range of water quality issues. For example, nutrient pollution.
And so if we were to develop those technologies better in
the United States, we would have markets overseas that we could
use those for. So we could sort of take advantage of the fact
that they are looking at those technologies as a resource for
them as well. So that would be one idea and an area that I
would like to see research into advanced decentralized waste
water treatment technologies in the U.S.
As far as climate change goes, I think that we have a lot
of good information on impacts of climate change on water
resources that I referenced in my technology, in my testimony,
but a lot of it is at a global level. The models are not
particularly precise as they bring it down to the community
level where decisions need to be made about infrastructure
investments and so forth. So that is one area.
A second area would be in how to adapt to those changes,
how to have more resilient water resources in the face of
climate change. That is a new area of research that I would
urge us to invest in.
Chair Gordon. Ms. Stoner, if you don't mind, we will let
you provide the rest of that for the record, because we have a
lot of folks here, and we would like to try to get them through
their questions today, too.
Ms. Stoner. I would be glad to do so.
Chair Gordon. I will be neutrally discourteous to everybody
as we try to move a little bit faster.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm from Nebraska
certainly water is important and the economics of water,
irrigation, municipal and otherwise.
I know that there is huge costs with many things, but Dr.
Vaux, if you could elaborate when you say that the price of
water has not been accurate regarding the cost. What do you
think has been left out?
Dr. Vaux. We talk about both urban users and agricultural
users who typically pay the cost of capturing, transporting,
and treating the water but not the scarcity value of the water.
In other words, typically in the United States the scarcity
value of water is assigned at zero, and the mistake that that
entails is that it signals to consumers that water is
plentifully available when all of us know that it isn't.
So it is the failure of our water pricing structure to
reflect the scarcity value which is what is missing.
Mr. Smith. What value would you add to that?
Dr. Vaux. What would the scarcity value be? It would be
very location specific. Generally speaking what our studies
show is that the scarcity value of water, of urban quality,
would be higher than the scarcity value of water for
agriculture because it has to be treated to such a high degree,
and it is, therefore, scarcer, therefore, the price is higher.
Mr. Smith. But is there a percentage that you would offer?
Dr. Vaux. No. I am very reluctant to generalize about it
because it is going to differ as between Orange County and New
Jersey or Orange County and New York City. I am very reluctant
to generalize because I think it is going to be a different
value depending upon where you are.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Would you agree that many advancements
have been made, for example, in irrigation techniques, no-till
farming, and other efforts?
Dr. Vaux. Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, agriculture is as
a generalization a more efficient user of water today than it
was a decade ago or two decades ago, and I anticipate that it
will become an even more efficient user of water in the future
as the competition increases and as farmers figure out ways to
be more innovative managers of water.
Mr. Smith. I appreciate that. I concur with that. Just the
observations, rather anecdotal on my part, I am very impressed
with the advancements that have been made just with irrigation
practices alone, not to mention other crop rotation and what
have you.
So I appreciate that. I am encouraged and inspired by what
we can still accomplish, and I appreciate your efforts. Thank
you. I yield back.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Tonko, I am not picking on you, but if there is no
objections, I would like for folks to try to maybe keep it to
four minutes rather than five minutes so that we can, again,
try to let everybody have a chance. So, Mr. Tonko, you are
recognized.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sorry. My question is
to Ms. Furstoss.
As one who represents Schenectady and a lot of GE activity,
I am interested in the fact that you mentioned being a leader,
GE being a leading supplier for water treatment, waste water
treatment, process system solutions. Where are these deliveries
being made? What countries are we reaching? Is it spread across
the globe? Is there a concentration in a certain region?
Ms. Furstoss. It truly is global. We have a significant
portion of our sales, and I apologize, I don't know the exact
number but can provide that, in North America, in the United
States, specifically in the central region, where there is a
majority of heavy industry, and we look to help them on water
usage, to minimize their water usage, to purify the waters that
are used in everything from steel melting to plastic injection
molding, to help them to purify those waters so they can be
safety discharged. We do have a large presence also in the
Canadian areas, and we are global.
So I believe that the majority is in North America, but I
would have to be able to get you that exact figure.
Mr. Tonko. And also I would ask like I believe that the
President and Congress recently with the passage of the
Investment and Recovery Act showed great wisdom in investing in
pure R&D, clean R&D.
Ms. Furstoss. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. Can you share with you, you doubled, I believe,
more than doubled in the last five years at GE----
Ms. Furstoss. We have more than----
Mr. Tonko.--investment.
Ms. Furstoss. Yeah. We have more than doubled our
investment in what we use as the phrase, eco-imagination. So
clean technologies, technologies that are focused at energy
efficiency, at cleaner water. We have doubled that investment
too, as a company to over 1.5 billion, and we currently have
over a dozen products in that portfolio that are directly aimed
at clean water.
Mr. Tonko. So in terms of the investment in R&D what
percentage would water be? How--can you guess of the 1.5?
Ms. Furstoss. It is a very small percentage at this point.
I, again, don't know the exact number, but it is more on the
order of about 50 million.
Mr. Tonko. Would you happen to know how much of all of the
clean R&D is done here in the United States?
Ms. Furstoss. The technology development, the R&D done by
General Electric is done, the vast majority in the United
States. Well over three quarters.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I will yield back my time.
Chair Gordon. Thank you. And Mr. Inglis is recognized.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We in South Carolina are
becoming more and more acquainted with water shortages with a
drought and before that we had been, especially in the lower
part of the state, starting to experience some salt water
intrusion into the aquifers that we were gathering a lot of
water for places like Hilton Head's development. And so now in
the upstate of South Carolina we are becoming more and more
aware of just how precious the resource is, in part because
Georgia wants water out of the Chattooga, and so they had a
little problem down in Atlanta, and I guess that is why they
want more water out of the Chattooga.
So the folks at the Strom Thurmond Institute at Clemson are
looking at preparing a water budget for the state, and I wonder
if you might comment on whether this bill would, that we are
discussing here today, would be helpful in that regard, or is
it, is that a local matter, or is this something that may be
assisted through this bill?
Maybe I should ask the Chair about that, but it is a panel.
The Chair might have an answer. He will yield himself some time
maybe to answer the question, but anybody on the panel want to
address local water budgets and whether those might be assisted
by this bill?
Dr. Gleick. I will be happy to answer quickly. In general
water is often a very local issue. If the local expertise is
available to evaluate the hydrology, to look at the resources
that are there, to look at water use, do it locally.
But we need a national assessment everywhere. You don't,
you are not the only ones with these kinds of problems. These
kinds of problems are coming up everywhere, even places we
thought water was plentiful, we realized it no longer is. And
so we need a comprehensive assessment of water use and water
availability nationwide, which is what the census calls for.
The other problem is the political boundaries we have
rarely match the hydrologic boundaries we have. We have
watersheds that permit conflicts to arise between Georgia,
Alabama, and Florida, or Georgia and South Carolina, or Georgia
and--I am not picking on Georgia. But the hydrologic boundaries
we have and the political boundaries don't match. And that is
another reason why it might be useful to get away from local
assessments to national assessments that really do these kinds
of things at the watershed boundary so we understand the
hydrology and then perhaps we combine it with the politics.
Mr. Inglis. Anyone else want to comment on that?
Mr. Modzelewski. Actually I will just pick up on that. It
is, one, it is the actual bodies of water, for instance, in the
sense of a watershed that you have to look at something like an
aquifer system in the southwest. It tends to go over many
states with a level of covenance between them, but they tend to
have very different laws on how that is operated on. You have a
riparian system, you have hybrid systems, et cetera, and what
that really gets down to is each state that is drawing from the
water has a very different idea of what appropriate use is and
how to assign that use to people.
And so the water, as the water moves through that watershed
you have very different usage levels, very different sense of
security in the sense of health issues and things along those
lines. Until a lot of that is understood or codified or
standardized, you are going to continue to have conflict as
well.
Mr. Inglis. Yeah. I suppose one of the outcomes of
developing a budget or a comprehensive kind of approach like we
are talking about here would be mostly, well, one of the key
outcomes would be valuing water highly, and that means not
wasting it. Right? Which is probably what all of us do a lot.
So that will be one of the outcomes of this.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. And there has been a
couple of members of the panel that have suggested universities
should be a part of this, and we will look at that if we could
do it in some way.
Ms. Kosmas is recognized for five minutes or less.
Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it will be less.
I want to say that I appreciate the panel's being here today
and also appreciate this bill that you are moving forward.
I wanted to ask this question of Ms. Stoner. You stated in
your testimony that the 1972 Clean Water Act authorized $100
million in research and that in the '80s, research and
development was systematically reduced as it was argued that
the private sector would pick up the slack. In fact, in '84,
President Reagan stated that it was time for the states and
private industry to take over the job.
So my question would be, how has the private sector fared
in shouldering this burden without significant federal
assistance?
Ms. Stoner. Thank you. I noticed that my colleagues had
some different estimates in terms of the R&D spending over the
timeframe, so I don't know if we had looked at different types
of investments or not, but I did notice that they indicated
that they also thought additional investment was needed, but
that they didn't think that the absolute number had decreased.
So I call that to your attention.
You know, I think that if we had the right markets and
could help particularly bridge the gaps through a federal
investment between the development of the technologies and
their implementation, I think that would help a lot to trigger
private investment. So the social science research that we
mentioned earlier identifying how to make the investment
smarter on a watershed basis so that every dollar is expended
better and that public support is developed by showing what the
value of the investments are.
I think that the needs are out there, so what we need to do
is to link up the needs with the development of the new
technologies and bridge those two.
Ms. Kosmas. Okay. Thank you. And so I guess the bottom-line
question is do you think that additional federal funding needs
to be placed in research and development, or do you think then
that the private sector is doing its share to bridge the gaps
that you have just described?
Ms. Stoner. Well, I agree with my colleague, Dr. Gleick,
that there are things that are done better at the federal
level.
Ms. Kosmas. Yes.
Ms. Stoner. Even though everyone is interested in their own
local water body, if you don't assess how things can be done on
a watershed basis and look at a broad, from a broader scope, I
think you miss synergies also, looking at the energy water
nexus, other ways of evaluating investments in water that can
also help with energy, climate change, even air pollution. I
think those are often things that we miss that can help save
money in the long run, provide better environmental benefits,
and provide markets for industry.
Ms. Kosmas. Thank you very much. I yield back my time, Mr.
Chair.
Chair Gordon. Thank you. Since Mr. Rohrabacher double-
dipped last time I am sure he would like to yield to Ms.
Dahlkemper.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would be very happy to, and I apologize
for hogging that extra minute, knowing we are under a schedule
problem.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Rohrabacher. I appreciate this hearing very timely. I, like Ms.
Fudge, live also on Lake Erie. I am just a little bit further
to the east in Pennsylvania. Abundance of water. Waste of water
I would say for many, many years. My neighbors sometimes clean
their driveways with the hose for over half an hour, and they
will leave their sprinklers on all night long. So, yeah, we see
a Great Lake out there, and people don't think about the impact
that their use is having.
And so I guess what my question is when it comes to water
use, you know, what segments of water do you see cause the most
concern in terms of water use? How would population growth and
migration impact such water use over time?
Of course, we think we will become the place where everyone
wants to live eventually because we have water. But--and also I
guess tied into that, what portion of the present use or the
present water waste could be resolved by reasonable household
conservation?
And so I guess I just open this up to whoever would like to
answer.
Dr. Gleick. Let me take a first crack at that. I would note
that of all the people who are most concerned about your
neighbors' use of water and looking out over the Great Lakes
are probably the Canadians----
Ms. Dahlkemper. Yes.
Dr. Gleick.--who worry quite a bit about that, and I know
there is a new agreement between the U.S. and the Canadians on
the Great Lakes.
At the Pacific Institute we have done a lot of work at, on
this question, specifically on water use efficiency. The quick
answer is our estimate is that current urban use of water could
easily be reduced by 30 or 35 percent from today's level with
existing technology cost effectively. Better toilets, better
washing machines, better dishwashers, more effective and
efficient outdoor watering. In many parts of the country
outdoor watering is the majority of residential use. Better
industrial use. Thirty to 35 percent.
In the agricultural sector as we have already heard
enormous progress has been made, but enormous progress remains
to be made. We did an estimate for California looking at the
potential of a five to fifteen percent improvement in
agricultural water use efficiency, permitting us to grow the
same amount of food with less water.
And because agriculture consumes 80 percent of the water
that is consumed in the U.S., that small percentage of
improvement is a lot of water. So the potential for efficiency
improvements is enormous.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Would anyone else like to comment?
Dr. Vaux. Let me make one comment about the water quality
and the preservation of water quality. There has been a lot of
discussion here about the role of technology and about the
importance of technology. The missing point has been this one.
Virtually every economic study shows that it is cheaper to
prevent water contamination in the first place than it is to
clean it up once it has occurred.
And in seeking a balanced approach to our water quality
problems, which will be important in terms of determining how
much water supply is available, it will be critical to
recognize that prevention must play an important role.
Dr. Gleick. And one thing on the technology front as far as
that goes is we have to start looking at just our use of water
differently. I mean, the driveway analogy is a great one. You
didn't need the top-quality water from the house that was all
clean and went through all the systems to treat that. If we
started looking at how we develop technologies where we can re-
use and create gray water within our own homes or within
neighborhoods or within cities and use another quality of water
to handle things like watering lawns and cleaning cars and
things along those lines, we would make a great jump in being
able to preserve water. And there are other countries who have
been very aggressive at that; the Israelis, the Swiss,
Singaporeans have all moved very aggressively on water re-use.
Ms. Dahlkemper. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Dahlkemper. Okay. Mr. Hall
passes so Mr. Lujan, you are recognized for five minutes or for
four minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't take much time.
Thank you to each of you who are here today. I know that there
are at least a few of you who have a lot of familiarity with
New Mexico and some of the work that has been happening out
there, and so I would like to, you know, pose my question
specifically to you.
With the creation of the Water Resource Research Institutes
in each of our states and territories across the country,
specifically the work that is being done in New Mexico or in
different regions of the country, the importance of supporting
those institutes, if you could explain that.
But as well is there coordination that is taking place with
our universities, our local governments, with those that
oversee, you know, state engineers that oversee small public
water utilities as an example, coordination with the League of
Cities and the National Association of Counties? What
specifically is working there, and is this a good place to
target some of the support when we are talking about the
importance of looking at how we can maximize and localize the
research and to be able to get the data that we need to be able
to make good decisions?
Dr. Vaux. I have been associated with that program in one
way or another since 1965, and I think the program does not get
very substantial level of funding, about $6 million annually.
What it is doing most effectively right now is the
communications task and keeping the water resources expertise
at all the colleges and universities in each state knit
together in ways that I think the Chair envisions for his bill
here in the Federal Government.
The research budget is, of course, starved, so that the
communications task is the primary one that the institutes are
executing effectively. Not only within the states as I just
described but among the states because there isn't a national
association. An institute needs State and the trust territories
and those people communicate with each other, and there is now
an annual three-year review of those programs which generates a
lot of information about what they are contributing.
So I and my testimony indicates that I think the institute
program is a useful way to fold in the academic community to
this initiative and ensure that the portfolio which is out of
balance with respect to short-term and long-term research gets
rebalanced, because the academic community is really in a
better position to do the long-term research.
Chair Gordon. Mr. Lujan, would you yield to Ms. Giffords
for our last question, and then we, by House rules, are going
to have to end this hearing.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming to
testify. I just said earlier this morning in a speech that I
think the future wars will be fought not over oil but over
water, and this is a very serious topic, and I am glad that the
Chair is addressing this.
Generally, like Mr. Lujan, I come from the west, the State
of Arizona. We have a booming population. In terms of a
national water policy, we are, I am not interested in moving to
Ms. Dahlkemper's district. Those of us that want to stay in the
west, that like the southwest, realize that we are going to
have to have different policies that affect us compared to
different states.
So, you know, could members of the panel talk about how we
implement a national water policy when the west is going to be
disproportionally affected because of climate change?.
Dr. Gleick. There are things that we have to do at the
national level, and there are things we have to do at the local
or regional level. Certainly better management of water in the
west when you talk about an Integrated Colorado River System,
for example, which affects Arizona enormously, is a regional
issue with national pieces to it. But we don't want 50 state
standards for water quality. We don't want 50 state standards
for the efficiency of appliances. So the important thing to do
here, and I think one of the important things this bill tries
to address, is to decide what needs to be done at the national
level and to do it as efficiently as possible, to integrate the
research across the 25 or so federal agencies that do research
in an appropriate way, and to leave the rest of the stuff for
the local level and the State level.
There are things that the western U.S. is going to have to
do on its own. There are things that the U.S. Government ought
to do differently in the west as well. It depends on the issue,
depends on the region. But I think that separation is critical.
Chair Gordon. Thank you very much. The joint session is
just about to begin, so I want to thank our witnesses for
appearing before the Committee this morning. The record will
remain open for two weeks for additional statements from the
Members and for answers to all the follow-up questions the
Committee may ask of the witnesses. You can see this is an
issue of interest.
And this committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Henry Vaux, Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of
California, Berkeley; Associate Vice President Emeritus,
University of California System
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Dr. Vaux, you contend that the problems associated with the
current state of federal water research are NOT due to funding, but
rather a lack of coordination and strategy. If such coordination and
strategies were instituted, could we get the water research information
for less than the $700 million we currently spend?
A1. Current levels of spending--$700 million in constant 2000 dollars--
is identical to what the Nation spent on water research in the early
1970s. Given that the magnitude of our water problems is much greater
now than it was then, it is hard to argue that we should spend less
than $700 million. The point that I was trying to make is that the need
for coordination and a strategic approach is greater than the need for
additional dollars. Elsewhere in my testimony I suggested that perhaps
an additional $70 million for water research be authorized to provide
appropriate incentives for the coordinating and strategic actions that
are envisioned in the bill.
Q2. If the interagency committee authorized in the Act is so similar
to the Water Resources Council authorized by the 1965 Act, how do we
prevent the same ineffective outcomes and turf battles between agencies
as we saw in the Council?
A2. As I suggested in my testimony, it might make sense to authorize an
additional $70 million in appropriations to support additional research
under the coordinating and strategic activities promoted by the bill.
This would give the agencies an incentive to improve coordination and
strategic planning rather than to continue bickering and turf
protecting.
Q3. You made several suggestions on the section of the legislation
that outlines the National Water Availability Research and Assessment
Plan Outcomes. Given your suggestions, should these outcomes be
determined by the interagency committee instead of being explicitly
outlined in the legislation?
A3. The two additional outcomes identified in my testimony should be
included in the legislative language (or as a last resort, in the
Committee Report). Research in the social sciences related to water
have been neglected for the last two decades, Such neglect is likely to
continue in the absence of Congressional prodding. Research on the
implications of climate change is simply so important that it needs to
be mentioned.
Q4. Are the four broad themes you list in your testimony the only
modern themes appropriate for federal water research? Can traditional
research approaches be used in addition to these frameworks? Are there
likely to be any more themes identified in the future?
A4. Traditional approaches can be used but they should explicitly
acknowledge and consider modern themes, including the four identified
in my testimony. It is possible, of course, that new themes will emerge
with time.
Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis
Q1. Witnesses in our previous hearing state that the improved
horizontal cooperation among federal agencies should also be coupled
with vertical coordination at the State, regional and local levels.
Q1a. Would you recommend that this vertical integration be a part of
the research strategy? Or would you be concerned that this could bog
down the effort?
A1a. Vertical integration should be included and acknowledged. It is
clear, however, that the states, regions and localities are unable to
support much water research financially. Therefore, they should be
included in strategic discussions and research agenda setting
activities as stakeholders. Ultimately, the financial decisions should
be made by those who pay.
Q1b. Should the coordination of local and State resources be underway
before the federal agency coordination in order to better determine the
structure that responds to the needs of the State and local resources?
A1b. State and local activities are never going to be very well
coordinated in the absence of leadership at the federal level.
Leadership at the federal level should acknowledge the importance of
State and local contributions and incorporate State and local views in
strategic research planning.
Q2. You state in your written testimony that Water Resources Research
Institutes are uniquely situated to assist in the National Water
Initiative. Do you think that these Institutes should continue under
their existing mandate as authorized in the Water Resources Research
Act? Or should their role be expanded under this Initiative due to your
national reach and State focus?
A2. The significant potential of the Water Resources Research
Institutes has not been realized in nearly three decades. The
Institutes are uniquely situated to bring the views and priorities of
states, regions and localities to bear on an integrated national
initiative to identify a strategic research agenda. The Institutes are
also well-situated to bring the considerable research capability of the
Nation's universities and colleges to bear on the research itself. I
would suggest that the role of the Institutes be expanded to involve
them in national agenda setting and in the execution of long-term water
research and whatever applied research might be appropriately assigned
to the academic community.
I would emphasize that the Institutes have a strong record in
education and public communication about water resources. The fact that
the Institutes are situated in the U.S. Geologic Survey adds additional
strength inasmuch as the Survey as extensive education and
communication programs itself in all of the States and trust
territories. As one of the two largest water research agencies
programmatically and in terms of funding makes the combined education
and communication activities of the Institutes and the Geological
Survey the strongest available nationally.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. Would a top-down research agenda meet the needs of local water
demands? Or, would any research agenda need to be an amalgamation of a
bottom-up and top-down approach? How would that work?
A1. The research agenda setting would need to be an amalgamation of
both approaches. One way to ensure that such a approach will work is to
give states, regions and localities as will as the academic research
community places as significant stakeholders in the agenda setting
process. All water problems are inherently local or regional so it
would be very important to do this.
Questions submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
Q1. Dr. Vaux, in your testimony you state that there is virtually no
possibility that water supplies in the future can be made to grow. What
about technological advancements that allow for previously unusable
water to be cleaned up and available for new use? Isn't the purpose of
treating ocean water or brackish water to make it available for some
future use?
A1. Virtually all of our water supplies are already allocated as among
municipal, industrial, agricultural and environmental uses. This means
that there is virtually no surplus that can be allocated to new and
growing uses. It means that we need to look to reallocation mechanisms
to ensure that new and growing uses can be served. It is true, as you
suggest, that wastewater treatment technologies and desalination
technologies can make additional supplies available. The former do this
by recycling water that has already been allocated and used while the
latter truly do bring new water supplies to the scene. The difficulties
with ocean water desalination have been detailed in a recent report
from the National Research Council. The two most important potential
difficulties are the environmental implications of brine water disposal
and the fact that the technologies are very expenses in comparison with
the costs of most existing supplies. The fact that desalination and
wastewater treatment technologies are energy intensive is also cause
for concern, given that energy prices are likely to rise in the future.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Peter H. Gleick, Co-Founder and President, The Pacific
Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and
Security, Oakland, California
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Dr. Gleick, as you may be aware, Dr. Vaux has commented that the
problems arising from the current state of federal water research are
due to coordination and strategy issues, and that the level of funding
is not inadequate. How do you reconcile his position with your
statement that the federal priorities have already been outlined and
all we need is the funding and the effort to do the research?
A1. I believe that the lack of coordination among federal agencies on
water research is well documented and I strongly support improving that
coordination. I also believe that several very valuable federal
assessments have been done on federal priorities, including the SWAQ,
GAO, and National Academy studies. This in no way contradicts Dr.
Vaux's position, but rather supplements it. Moreover, there is no
federal funding, or inadequate federal funding, to support all of the
recommendations in these studies, which suggests the need for
additional financial support, or at a minimum, a re-allocation among
priorities.
Q2. Witnesses in our previous hearing states that the improved
horizontal cooperation among federal agencies should also be coupled
with vertical coordination at the State, regional and local levels.
Q2a. Would you recommend that this vertical integration be a part of
the research strategy? Or would you be concerned that this could bog
down the effort?
A2a. I believe this could be a valuable effort, but it must be
carefully done to avoid duplication of effort and the appropriate
allocation of cost and responsibility to the appropriate agencies.
Q2b. Should the coordination of local and State resources be underway
before the federal agency coordination in order to better determine the
structure that responds to the needs of the State and local resources?
A2b. I have no strong opinion about how such coordination would be most
effectively accomplished.
Q3. Please share any concerns you might have about the advisory board
that the legislation includes. Would this serve the purpose you
mentioned in your testimony about bringing outside water experts to the
table? Why or why not?
A3. I would prefer to see outside water experts directly involved,
rather than just as an ``advisory board.'' My experience is that such
boards are often either never consulted, or ignored.
Q4. One of the recommendations in your testimony is that if there is
to be a National Water Census it should include comprehensive
information on water use. Why do you feel such information is vital? Do
you think such information might lead to restrictions on uses of water?
A4. This is indeed vital: without good information on how we use water
and what we do with it, it is impossible to formulate good water
policy. In fact, I believe such information would help reduce the risk
that there will be inappropriate ``restrictions on water use.'' The
more we know about how we use water, the more likely it is that we will
properly prioritize in times of shortage.
Q5. With the recent passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 along with the Omnibus and the President's budget, do you
still fill that new money is necessary for the establishment of a
coordinating body for national water research? Do you still believe
that agency budgets remain underfunded and therefore agencies will be
against diverting funds to a separate interagency committee?
A5. The ARRA of 2009 will only help this problem if (a) agencies choose
to divert funds committed for other purposes or (b) separate funds are
specified by Congress. I do not know whether agencies will divert funds
to the purpose of coordinating national water programs.
Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis
Q1. Your testimony calls for any research on the implications of
climate change to include ``appropriate strategies for adapting to
those climate impacts that may be unavoidable.'' Is there currently
research being done in this area? Which agency would you task with such
research and how much funding would you dedicate to such research?
A1. In a memo I prepared for the Administration's transition team, I
recommended an annual budget of only $1 million to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of climate impact and adaptation, but this must
be a regular budget for an ongoing program. Such as assessment could be
done, or at least coordinated, by OSTP or CEQ.
Q2. Dr. Gleick, you mentioned in your testimony that ``many of our
water problems are local, and must be resolved at the local and
regional level.'' Back in my home State of South Carolina, the Strom
Thurmond Institute is prepared to launch a complete water budget
analysis of the Upstate of South Carolina. The goal of their efforts is
to create an analysis prediction tool that will assist people like us
in understanding the availability of water currently and in the future
so that local, regional, and federal officials can make better planning
decisions.
Q2a. Will H.R. 1145 support these types of regional and local efforts?
A2a. I do not know; I believe that local assessments should be
conducted locally, perhaps with some federal funds to permit diverse
local assessments to contribute to a national assessment, such as
recommended in the Census provisions of H.R. 1145.
Q2b. Are there changes we could make to improve the bill in this area?
A2b. No answer given.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. In your testimony you include several suggestions for improving
H.R. 1145 as introduced. You indicate that you do not endorse the idea
of a new interagency committee but instead would rather see an
expansion of the Subcommittee on Water Quality and Availability, which
would include outside agency experts.
Q1a. Why do you believe a new committee is unnecessary?
A1a. I believe SWAQ has excellent representation of diverse federal
agencies; their work has been valuable. Why reinvent the wheel, so to
speak. The flaw of SWAQ is the lack of outside (non-federal agency)
representation.
Q1b. Which outside water experts would you include and how would you
ensure against conflicts of interest?
A1b. A range of other interests, from research groups, to academics, to
business groups, to consumer groups, to environmental groups all have
interests in national water challenges. Standard methods are available
to prevent conflict of interest.
Q2. Why do you feel that establishment of a National Water Board is
more effective at addressing water issues than the entity proposed in
the bill?
A2. I do not know if it would be more effective. I am arguing, however,
that the entity proposed in the bill would not address as broad a set
of problem as a National Commission/Board might be.
Questions submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
Q1. In your testimony, you state that we do not need a new committee
to lay out the priorities because the priorities have already been
established by several other reports.
Q1a. Do all the reports share the same opinion about what goals need
to be accomplished and how to best achieve those goals? If not, where
do they differ and how would you choose which priorities and methods
were correct?
A1a. There has been remarkably unanimity about the major goals that
should be tackled. Where there are differences, the Committee can
choose how to move forward.
Q1b. Is the technology readily available to accomplish these goals or
will that require additional research?
A1b. I believe our problem is not lack of technology, for the most
part. Even with desalination, the National Academy concluded that
improvements in environmental protection and economics were more
critical to the success of desalination than improvements in
technology.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by F. Mark Modzelewski, Executive Director, Water Innovations
Alliance
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. You reference in your testimony utilizing the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act as a model for interagency
coordination and public private collaboration on key water technology
issues. Which elements of the Act do you see as particularly useful in
addressing key water technology issues?
A1. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and its enabling
legislation positioned the United States as the leader in
nanotechnology research and development, and kicked off a global
nanotechnology race. The NNI has been emulated both within the Federal
Government and in foreign countries that wish to compete with the
United States. The most useful elements of the bill included the
following:
The establishment of the National Nanotechnology
Coordination Office, with a director and full-time staff, to
ensure that the NNI ran smoothly;
The active involvement of the business and academic
sectors;
The focus on translational research and applications
(including outreach to start-up companies);
A broad advisory panel that could provide insightful
real-world feedback;
External review;
The creation of nanotechnology centers throughout the
Nation; and
Adequate funding.
Finally, although it may seem like a small matter, the symbolism
involved in a bill that called for ``ensuring United States global
leadership in the development and application of nanotechnology'' was
vital. In addition, a large part of the success of the NNI has been due
to dynamic leadership, something that can't easily be initiated via
legislative language.
Q2. Do you regard the investment made by GE in water R&D and
technological development in the same light as your testimony generally
states about corporate investment in R&D? Would you consider GE to be a
leader, the average, or one of those who don't ``put their money where
their mouth is'' corporations compared with other companies you are
familiar with?
A2. While I cannot speak definitively about internal GE programs, as an
outside observer it appears that GE is indeed spending a great deal on
clean-tech research. However, very little of this appears to be for the
water category. This is likely due to a few factors. First, GE is new
to water. They only developed GE Water within the past decade, and that
division of the company is made up of many recently acquired assets.
Hence creating a business and culture around these new pieces has
clearly been--and should be--``Job One.'' I would expect GE's
investment in water innovation to increase significantly over the
coming years. Second, the water field as a whole is not very
innovative, as was repeatedly noted during the hearing. It is focused
on incremental improvements to pipes, pumps, filters and chemicals,
rather than large-scale, game-changing innovations. There are
individual professors at UT, MIT and elsewhere with more patents than
the world's largest water company, Suez. While there are innovative
start-ups, mid-sized firms, and even municipal water departments, out
of the large industry players only Siemens has put a premium on
developing innovation. Ultimately it would be difficult to point to any
company as a great role model for innovation and technology development
in the water industry.
Q3. In your testimony you stress that nearly all research has been
focused on little tweaks to make current water processes and
technologies marginally cleaner and more energy efficient without
exploring game-changing approaches. Could you please provide us with
some examples of potential game changing approaches and what elements
including funding would permit them to develop into common practice?
A3. My vocation in life is as an entrepreneur and investor. I spent the
past three years looking for a water technology worth developing and
investing in at university and government labs across America and
across the world for that matter. I can honestly say I was horrified by
the utter lack of innovation in this critical field. This finding was a
key factor that led a group of us to form the Water Innovations
Alliance.
I can say without hesitation that Australia, Israel, and Singapore
are attacking water technology at a rate far surpassing the U.S., as
are others. The reason is that the U.S. not only lacks research funding
at the corporate and government level, but also that to date it has
found other ways of addressing any disasters when they happen. Other
nations have felt the impact of global water issues sooner. In
addition, water research in the U.S. is still done by environmental
engineers and materials scientists working independently, rather than
as part of cross-disciplinary efforts with biologists, physicists, and
others.
That point made, the following are examples of potentially game-
changing innovation:
Forward Osmosis: FO is an osmotic process that, like reverse osmosis,
uses a semi-permeable membrane to effect separation of water from
dissolved solutes. The driving force for this separation is an osmotic
pressure gradient, such that a ``draw'' solution of high concentration
(relative to that of the feed solution), is used to induce a net flow
of water through the membrane into the draw solution, thus effectively
separating the feed water from its solutes. In contrast, the reverse
osmosis process uses hydraulic pressure as the driving force for
separation, which serves to counteract the osmotic pressure gradient
that would otherwise favor water flux from the permeate to the feed.
The creation of hydraulic pressure for RO requires a lot of energy and
accounts for about 50 percent of the cost of RO desalination.
RNAi Water Purification: Disclosure, I am assisting the researcher of
this technology in her efforts to further develop and commercialize it
some day. Dr. Claudia Gunsch at Duke University is truly one of our
nation's brightest young researchers. She has little experience setting
up a company and getting funding or executives in place so I am working
with her to make this happen as I find her discovery to be nothing
short of extraordinary. What Dr. Gunsch has done is use RNAi, a biotech
technique that won the Nobel Prize a few years back, to silence the
genes in bacteria, viruses and algae in water. What she has effectively
done is create a ``green'' biocide--no chemicals or extensive energy
usage.
The issue with both of these innovative technologies is difficulty
getting funding to advance them from lab to marketplace. For instance,
the RNAi research falls between the gaps of biotechnology research and
environmental engineering. Because grants are awarded through a peer
review system of leading specialists, and because neither
biotechnologists nor environmental engineers understand the effort
enough, the technology has difficulty attracting grant funding. The
technology is early, so its difficult to get the private sector
(especially in this economy) involved. These factors could in fact doom
research in what many people believe to be the most ground-breaking
discovery in the field in more than 50 years.
Q4. Is there any movement in the industry to create common IT
standards? Many of these types of standards have, in the past, come
from industry collaboration or cooperation; however you suggest that it
be coordinated by the government? Does the fact that this effort is not
currently being driven by industry suggest that information technology
as a tool to monitor and manage is still a nascent concept to those in
water management?
A4. There was been an organizing effort over the past year lead by IBM,
SAP, several NGOs and municipal water organizations. It is at a very
early stage and the Water Innovations Alliance is taking over managing
this effort this quarter.
Unlike many other areas in IT, water is closely tied to government.
From quality standards to municipal waste management, to public lands
and waterways, government is in charge of the sector. In addition, such
oversight cuts across Federal, State and local government regimes as
well as different agencies--even foreign treaties come into play.
Because of this, while I would note that the government does not
necessarily have the expertise to develop the standards, government
needs to be involved front and center. Government also can provide
incentives to cooperate, which are needed here--as is the government's
ability to bring people to the table.
It is my recommendation that the federal water initiative group
that this legislation develops quickly convenes a working group on
water IT and that it bring to the table IT leaders, as well as
traditional water industry players, municipalities, NGOs and of course
State, federal and government leaders. The group needs to develop a
scope, measurable goals and timelines for the creation of a common
standards, measures and reporting using existing infrastructure
capabilities and lay out a plan for developing out new measurement and
monitoring systems and linking them together to essentially create a
national water smart grid.
Q5. The concept of a national ``smart water grid'' is mentioned in
your testimony. Could you be more specific about just what such a
``grid'' would encompass?
A5. I will note that while many people in the water field agree on the
need to create a water IT system for better management, there are many
different ideas as to what it means to have a smart grid in place, and
my vision is merely one of many. In general, everyone agrees that an
enterprise IT system can help to manage the water supply & demand
equation (on a local level) because the smart grid sees the whole
picture of water availability and water demand--including how it
relates to energy (NOTE: approximately 35 percent of a typical
municipality's energy budget is allocated to municipal water use and
treatment--and many times more than this in a place like Los Angeles).
This implies the need to be able to prioritize and optimize the
multiple demands (and even to potentially automate some of the
decisions related to demand). It also implies that information about a
water system is available, is shared openly and can be analyzed to look
for patterns. Once we see patterns, we can use the data to look for
similar trends and create some predictive capability, which means
potential problems can be anticipated, and maybe even eliminated in
some cases.
A smart water grid should have the ability to understand and manage
an entire water system. At a micro level it would enable managers to
know the quality, usage levels, breaches, and discharges in clean and
wastewater running through pipes in a city. At a macro level it would
allow for modeling against the weather, or for better energy savings in
processing waste water, or how drought in a watershed two states away
is affecting river water and what that will ultimately mean for a
city's water quality, use and even energy production.
We already have all the technology in place to create a smart water
grid. What we don't have is a common standard of evaluation or
reporting. Nor do we have the data-collecting nodes in all the places
we need them to feed data into systems (EX: a sensor system through out
a municipal system of pipes). Additional research would be needed to do
justice to any fiscal estimates.
Questions submitted by Representative Bob Inglis
Q1. You suggest that a new generation of water monitoring techniques
and technologies be developed to assist with the creation of a National
Water Census database. Are you aware of any techniques or technologies
being developed in other countries that could be readily adopted in the
U.S. to speed up such an assessment?
A1. Singapore, Israel and Switzerland all have superior systems in
place when it comes to monitoring, regulating and managing water. None
of them has a cohesive smart water grid, but they are moving towards
it.
For instance Singapore requires the re-use of wastewater. This
obviously is a tricky business where by constant and accurate quality
monitoring is needed through a greater system, not just at the plant
level. In addition Singapore ``imports'' water from Malaysia and that
effort also requires very specific monitoring to manage cost
effectively and ensure treaty compliance and ensure human health. To
make this effort more robust and increase management capabilities,
Singapore has contracted with MIT for a bold new international research
program led by MIT's Professor Andrew Whittle that involves several
dozen researchers from MIT and two Singaporean universities. These
researchers are developing pervasive environmental sensor networks to
collect data on water quality from many sources, and use these data to
provide accurate, real-time monitoring, modeling and control of the
environment.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. How does the Water Innovations Alliance work with large scale
industrial and agricultural users of water? For example, does the Water
Innovations Alliance work with energy producers, goods manufacturers,
farmers and ranchers to develop water use and efficiency strategies?
A1. The Water Innovations Alliance is a young organization having
formed in Q3 2008. We are continuing to refine our mission all the time
in order to bring real change and innovation to the water sector via
education, creative partnerships, information gathering, working to
reduce regulatory barriers to innovation, increasing collaboration and
raising awareness for cutting-edge water technologies and the problems
they solve.
The Alliance serves the entire spectrum of the water sector:
corporations, investors, engineering firms, start-ups, NGOs, research
centers, municipalities, and others in the field. Our first big
initiatives are pushing awareness around the importance of water IT,
ensuring that research efforts increase around energy efficient
desalination, and gathering data on where cutting edge water research
is being done, by whom and linking it to where it is most needed.
We are looking to tie together working groups and consortiums
around these issues that will indeed bring together all key
stakeholders from industrial and agriculture interests, to technology
providers, invests, NGOs and government as well as users.
Questions submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
Q1. How would the research centers you advocate in your testimony
differ from the Water Resources Research Institutes that exist in every
state and territories? Would the work be so different that we couldn't
just use the current institutional infrastructure to conduct this
research? Why should NSF be the agency in charge of these centers as
opposed to another agency?
A1. The Water Resources Research Institutes program has been a fine
program. The issue is they tackle a narrow set of tasks much to the
mission of USGS, such as the environmental monitoring of rivers,
streams and coastal systems. These Centers have not been places for
developing technologies for consumer, municipal, agricultural and
industrial systems--the engineering and management issues if you will.
For instance they don't work on water filtration systems, the
membranes, the engineering, or the energy usage methods. For those
efforts you have just a few water technology research centers, such as
UC-Irvine, UCLA, CO School of Mines, and the NSF center at U. IL. These
technology centers are frankly not very well funded when compared to
other scientific research efforts--especially given the stakes and the
impact. The NSF Center, in addition, will be sunsetting in just a
couple of years.
Q2. I am intrigued by your concept of a National Water Pilot Testing
Facility.
Q2a. Do you believe a facility like this would have encouraged faster
adoption of water technologies than was achieved through local
ordinances?
Q2b. Could you provide the Committee with examples of the regulatory
barriers that hinder innovation and testing of new solutions for the
water industry?
A2a,b. Yes, mainly because there are so many overlapping jurisdictions
in water. For example, San Francisco Bay has water regulations from all
the towns on the Bay, those affected by its waters, a dozen federal and
State agencies, and special water districts, not to mention issues
where activists involve the courts. Any attempt to try a new
purification system technology in say Oakland would lead to years (a
decade is a reasonable estimate) of paperwork and untold costs with no
budget to speak of to tackle these burdens. It puts systems in a
position to always use old ways that are ``good enough.'' And is a big
reason while a huge number are out of compliance with current federal
standards.
Because water has so many human safety impacts, a new technology
essentially has to be proven before being tested--a paradox that nearly
eradicates the ability to try any game-changing technologies. Instead,
municipalities and the companies they contract with make only minor
tweaks or face the impossible task of getting permission to try the new
innovation.
A pilot facility would allow for the testing of drinking and
wastewater systems that used new methodologies as well as ones that
allowed for energy savings. It would also allow for simulation of
multiple conditions and factors so as to ensure human health and
compliance with federal and State/local regulations.
In addition, if managed properly, such a facility could indeed
become self-sustaining financially by charging reasonable fees to
corporate users.
Q2c. Could you provide the Committee with examples of the regulatory
barriers that hinder innovation and testing of new solutions for the
water industry?
A2c. It is not a case of a single regulation as much as the number of
regulatory bodies and the different standards for evaluation,
reporting, compliance and permitting procedures that each jurisdiction
requires. Some jurisdictions have rules for stormwater, septic tanks,
nutrients, fertilizer, pet waste, and so on. Others do not. So it's the
bureaucracy more than this regulatory verbiage versus the next one.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Nancy K. Stoner, Co-Director, Water Program, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Ms. Stoner, you mention in your testimony that many of the
negative changes to our water are a result of ill-conceived
agricultural, land development, and energy practices. Is the move
towards biofuels contributing to these negative impacts to water?
A1. In part to help combat dangerous global warming, policy-makers in
recent years have become more interested in increasing the degree to
which U.S. consumers rely upon renewable fuels for their motor
vehicles. However, policies that simply encourage the use of more
biofuels such as ethanol from corn could result in an increase in the
size of the dead zone, because corn cultivation typically involves
larger amounts of fertilizer than other crops. Experts expect rapid
growth in grain-based ethanol production in the coming years; this
potentially will have major implications for the dead zone, unless
there is a significantly greater focus on conservation practices in
agriculture in general and the performance of biofuels production
specifically.
Corn prices have increased dramatically, driven by energy prices,
growing international demand, and increasing demand for ethanol. Not
surprisingly, as prices have gone up, so has the number of acres in
corn production: ``Corn acreage in the United States rose to nearly 93
million acres in 2007 (a 17 percent increase), a level not seen since
1944.'' According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the trade group
for the ethanol industry, ``ethanol soared to 6.5 billion gallons in
2007, a 32 percent increase from the 4.9 billion gallons produced in
2006.'' Looking forward, the Association estimates that the industry's
production capacity will rise from 7.8 billion gallons in 2007 to 13
billion gallons once the biorefineries currently being constructed or
expanded come online. The vast majority of this new ethanol production
is likely to come from corn.
Legislation also drives increased corn ethanol production. The
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will greatly expand
biofuels production; it sets a target of at least 36 billion gallons of
biofuels per year by 2022. Although the law states that a minimum of 21
billion gallons must be ``advanced'' (derived from plants' cellulosic
material rather than corn grain, for instance), it still leaves room
for at least 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol that year. This
law does include important minimum global warming pollution standards
and land use safeguards, but it does not explicitly require better
fertilizer management or overall water quality or quantity performance
improvements.
Last October the National Research Council issued a report titled
``Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States.''
This review makes it clear that, without additional safeguards,
increased biofuels production can be expected to increase water
pollution from agriculture and intensify many regional and local water
shortages. It reaffirms that ``[e]xpansion of ethanol production . . .
will drive increased corn production until marketable future
alternatives are developed.'' The report even addressed the particular
concern of the dead zone:
All else being equal, the conversion of other crops or non-
crop plants to corn will likely lead to much higher application
rates of nitrogen. Given the correlation of nitrogen
application rates to stream concentrations of total nitrogen,
and of the latter to the increase in hypoxia in the Nation's
water bodies, the potential for additional corn-based ethanol
production to increase the extent of these hypoxic regions is
considerable.
A recent scientific review reached a similar conclusion. To roughly
estimate the scale of increased nutrient loading associated with
ethanol production, the EPA Science Advisory Board used predicted corn
acreage increases in the next several years and estimated that the
cultivation of the corn could lead to the increased runoff of 238
million pounds of nitrogen per year in the Mississippi River Basin.
These outcomes are not inevitable. Addressing water pollution and
consumption should be integrated into policies and programs that
promote biofuels production, such as tax credits and other incentives.
In particular, management practices that help reduce nutrient pollution
should be part of a suite of minimum standards applicable to energy
crop producers. (For NRDC's roadmap to responsible biofuels production,
see Getting Biofuels Right: Eight Steps for Reaping Real Environmental
Benefits From Biofuels, available online at www.nrdc.org/air/
transportation/biofuels/right.pdf.) More generally, as pressure builds
on farmers and foresters to increase output and cut costs, farm bill
programs to promote soil, water, and wildlife conservation need to grow
dramatically larger and more effective.
Q2. Ms. Stoner, in your testimony, you suggest that EPA should be
appropriated $100 million at a minimum to stimulate both R&D and
demonstration projects and that another $100 million be appropriated to
be split among the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior and Transportation for innovative water
management research.
a. Why do you believe that this funding approach will assist
the U.S. in tackling its many water problems?
b. Do you believe that EPA is the most qualified to conduct
R&D and demonstration projects?
c. How does this compare with other issues in which EPA
participates in a multi-agency research effort?
A2. My recommendation is that EPA should be funded to do R&D and
demonstration projects for water, stormwater, and wastewater
infrastructure, including the integration of these types of
infrastructure, because EPA has ultimate authority for those systems
under the Clean Water Act and would best be able to integrate the
results of such demonstration projects into existing programs. There is
a tremendous need for innovation in water-related services delivery.
Most treatment technologies current in use in the U.S. were developed
in the early 20th century and are no longer adequate for today's
population or for the stressors affecting water resources today,
including climate change. The systems themselves are also based on
antiquated once-through treatment notions and are inconsistent with
current thinking about maintaining and restoring hydrology. There
should be funding for other agencies' research as well, however, to
focus on the particular ways in which the activities they regulate
affect and are affected by water resources. I know that EPA
participates in other multi-agency research efforts, but am not
familiar with the structure of those efforts myself.
Q3. Your testimony did not include a separate recommendation for
funding for USGS to conduct the two main water-quality monitoring
programs it is responsible for. What would be an appropriate funding
level for those programs?
A3. The most recent information I have been able to find suggests a
need for a $70 million budget for NAWQA and a $30 million budget for
the USGS toxics program. The $70 million is essential to restore long-
term trend monitoring at river and stream sites. A letter that NRDC
recently sent to Congress on the NAWQA budget is attached. This is one
of the most important projects of NAWQA since most monitoring is not
long-term and is not systematic enough to provide trend data.
Similarly, $30 million are needed for the Toxics program to regain the
strength that it reached in the 1990s. The program investigates
emerging issues and develops the methods and protocols for sampling and
analysis for chemicals as they come into use. The program is essential
to developing the data to investigate new issues and problems that are
uncovered. I urge you to provide sufficient funding that NAWQA can
continue both surface and groundwater trend data for as many monitoring
stations as it has.
Q4. You mention intense rain events not being of help but rather
delivering too much water at once. How can we adapt and manage intense
rain events so as to capture the water for a beneficial purpose? What
technologies and tools could be developed to farther such a goal?
A4. I recently testified in House Transportation and Infrastructure's
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment concerning ``Efforts to
Address Urban Stormwater Runoff.'' I have attached excerpts from my
testimony, which provide a detailed response to your question about
strategies for managing rainfall.
Background
Many communities, ranging from highly developed cities to newly
developing towns, are looking for ways to assure that their rivers,
streams, lakes, and estuaries are protected from the impacts of
urbanization and climate change. Traditional development practices
cover large areas of the ground with impervious surfaces such as roads,
driveways, and buildings. Once such development occurs, rainwater
cannot infiltrate into the ground, but rather runs off site at levels
that are much higher than would naturally occur. The collective force
of all such rainwater scours streams, erodes stream banks, and causes
large quantities of sediment and other pollutants to enter the
waterbody each time it rains.
The last few decades of wet weather management have resulted in the
current convention of control and treatment, strategies that are
largely hard infrastructure engineered, end-of-pipe, and site-focused
practices concerned primarily with peak flow rate and suspended solids
concentrations and other pollutant control. Conventional practices,
however, fail to address the widespread and cumulative hydrologic
modifications within the watershed, including increased stormwater
volumes and runoff rates, excessive erosion and stream channel
degradation, and decreased groundwater recharge.
While this approach works to drain each site, continued expansion
of dispersed, low-density developments over the past years means that
too much water, carrying too much pollution, is flowing into waterways.
The results are poor water quality, especially at drain outlets, and a
dramatic drop in the refill rate of aquifers and streams. The 20
regions in the country that developed the most land over the period
1982 to 1997 now lose between 300 and 690 billion gallons of water
annually that would otherwise have filtered through the Earth and been
captured as groundwater.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Rivers, NRDC, and Smart Growth America, Paving Our Way
to Water Shortages: How Sprawl Aggravates The Effects of Drought (Smart
Growth America: 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the problems caused by stormwater and non-point
source runoff, many older cities (including many of the largest cities
in the United States), have combined sewage and stormwater pipes which
periodically and in some cases frequently overflow due to precipitation
events. In the late 20th century, most cities that attempted to reduce
sewer overflows did so by separating combined sewers, expanding
treatment capacity or storage within the sewer system, or by replacing
broken or decaying pipes. However, these traditional practices can be
enormously expensive and take decades to implement. Moreover, piped
stormwater and combined sewer overflows (``CSOs'') may also in some
cases have the adverse effects of upsetting the hydrological balance by
moving water out of the watershed, thus bypassing local streams and
groundwater. Many of these events also have adverse impacts and costs
on source water for municipal drinking water utilities.
Climate change is already stressing aquatic ecosystems,
infrastructure, and water supplies. While impacts vary regionally, in
much of the U.S., more frequent heavy rainfall events overload the
capacity of sewer systems and water and wastewater treatment plants, as
well as result in more stormwater runoff, exacerbating water pollution
from sediments, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and other pollutants.
In addition, decreased summer precipitation and other changes to the
volume and timing of flows reduce stored water in reservoirs and reduce
groundwater levels. Sea-level rise will adversely affect groundwater by
causing an increase in the intrusion of salt water into coastal
aquifers. All of these impacts will make less freshwater available for
human use.
To ameliorate these problems, a set of techniques, approaches and
practices can be used to eliminate or reduce the amount of water and
pollutants that run off a site and ultimately are discharged into
adjacent waterbodies. We refer to these collectively as ``green
infrastructure.'' As cities move towards sustainable infrastructure,
green infrastructure can be a valuable approach.
``Green infrastructure'' is a relatively new and flexible term, and
it has been used differently in different contexts. Thus, to date,
there is no universally established definition of the term. For
example, some writers have defined it broadly as ``an interconnected
system of natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural
ecosystem values and functions, sustains clean air and water, and
provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife.'' \2\ The
Green Infrastructure Statement of Intent signed by U.S. EPA, NRDC, the
Low Impact Development Center, the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies (NACWA) and the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators (ASWIPCA) uses the term ``green
infrastructure'' to generally refer to systems and practices that use
or mimic natural processes to infiltrate, evapotranspirate (the return
of water to the atmosphere either through evaporation or by plants), or
re-use stormwater or runoff on the site where it is generated.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Benedict and McMahon, Green Infrastructure (2006).
\3\ http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/gisupport.cfm
What Is Green Infrastructure?
Green infrastructure involves management approaches and
technologies that utilize, enhance and/or mimic the natural hydrologic
cycle processes of infiltration, evapotranspiration and re-use. Green
infrastructure is the use of soil, trees, vegetation, and wetlands and
open space (either preserved or created) in urban areas to capture rain
while enhancing wastewater and stormwater treatment. Green
infrastructure approaches currently in use include green roofs, trees
and tree boxes, rain gardens, vegetated swales, pocket wetlands,
infiltration planters, porous and permeable pavements, vegetated median
strips, reforestation/revegetation, and protection and enhancement of
riparian buffers and floodplains. Green infrastructure can be used
almost anywhere soil and vegetation can be harnessed or worked into the
urban or suburban landscape. Green infrastructure also includes
decentralized rainwater harvesting approaches, such as the use of rain
barrels and cisterns to capture and re-use rainfall for watering plants
or flushing toilets. These approaches can be used to keep rainwater out
of the sewer system so that it does not contribute to a sewer overflow
and also to reduce the amount of untreated runoff discharging to
surface waters. Green infrastructure also allows stormwater to be
absorbed and cleansed by soil and vegetation and either re-used or
allowed to flow back into groundwater or surface water resources.
Green Infrastructure Benefits\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftops/contents.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green infrastructure has a number of environmental and economic
benefits in addition to reducing sewer overflows and stormwater
discharges, including:
Cleaner Water--Vegetation, green space and water re-
use reduce the volumes of stormwater runoff and, in combined
systems, the volume of combined sewer overflows, as well as
reduce concentrations of pollutants in those discharges.
Enhanced Water Supplies--Most green infiltration
approaches involve allowing stormwater to percolate through the
soil where it recharges the groundwater and the base flow for
streams, thus ensuring adequate water supplies for humans and
more stable aquatic ecosystems. In addition, capturing and
using stormwater conserves water supplies.
Reduced fooding--Green infrastructure both controls
surface flooding and stabilizes the hydrology so that peak
stream flows are reduced.
Cleaner Air--Trees and vegetation improve air quality
by filtering many airborne pollutants and can help reduce the
amount of respiratory illness. Green infrastructure approaches
that facilitate shorter commute distances and the ability to
walk to destinations also reduce vehicle emissions.
Reduced Urban Temperatures--Summer city temperatures
can average 10+F higher than nearby suburban
temperatures. High temperatures are also linked to higher
ground level ozone concentrations. Vegetation creates shade,
reduces the amount of heat absorbing materials and emits water
vapor--all of which cool hot air. Limiting impervious surface,
using light colored impervious surfaces (e.g., porous
concrete), and vegetating roofs also mitigate urban
temperatures.
Moderated Impacts of Climate Change--Climate change
impacts and effects vary regionally, but green infrastructure
techniques provide adaptation benefits for a wide array of
circumstances, by conserving and re-using water, promoting
groundwater recharge, reducing surface water discharges that
could contribute to flooding. In addition, there are mitigation
benefits such as reduced energy demands and carbon
sequestration by vegetation.
Increased Energy Efficiency--Green space helps lower
ambient temperatures and, when incorporated on and around
buildings, helps shade and insulate buildings from wide
temperature swings, decreasing the energy needed for heating
and cooling. Also energy use associated with pumping and
treating is reduced as stormwater is diverted from wastewater
collection, conveyance and treatment systems. Energy efficiency
not only reduces costs, but also reduces generation of
greenhouse gases.
Source Water Protection--Green infrastructure
practices provide pollutant removal benefits, thereby providing
some protection for both ground water and surface water sources
of drinking water. In addition, green infrastructure provides
groundwater recharge benefits by putting stormwater back into
the ground and enhances surface water quality by redirecting
the high volume and velocity flows that scour streams and muddy
drinking water sources.
Wildlife Habitat--Stream buffers, wetlands, parks,
meadows, green roofs, and rain gardens increase biodiversity
within the urban environment.
Community Benefits--Trees and plants improve urban
aesthetics and community livability by providing recreational
and wildlife areas. Studies show that property values are
higher, homes, sells faster, and crime is reduced when trees
and other vegetation are present.
Health Benefits--Studies show that people who have
access to green infrastructure in their communities get more
exercise, live longer, and report better health in general.
Exposure to green infrastructure (even through a window)
improves mental functioning, reduces stress, and reduces
recovery time from surgery.
Green Jobs--Designing, installing, and maintaining
green infrastructure creates new jobs for architects,
designers, engineers, construction workers, maintenance
workers, plumbers, landscapers, nurseries, etc.
Cost Savings--Green infrastructure saves capital
costs associated with paving, curb and gutter, building large
collection and conveyance systems, and digging big tunnels and
centralized stormwater ponds; operations and maintenance
expenses for treatment plants, pumping stations, pipes, and
other hard infrastructure; energy costs for pumping water
around; cost of treatment during wet weather; and costs of
repairing the damage caused by stormwater, such as streambank
restoration.
In terms of the technologies and tools that need to be developed,
there are several very important areas for federal investment in my
view. First, I'd suggest funding watershed, sub-watershed, or sewershed
level investment in green infrastructure with monitoring to evaluate
results. Most of the performance data is at the site level, not
aggregated at the watershed or sewershed level. There are models
available to predict results in an aggregated fashion, but those models
need both refinement and validation with actual monitoring results.
Second, we need investment in alternative ways to use water. All water
is valuable. None of it is really ``wastewater,'' as it has been called
in the past, but waters of differing qualities are needed for different
uses. More research is needed into the alternative methods of
delivering water for beneficial use/re-use. and the associated risks
and environmental and economic benefits (hydrology, cost savings,
energy, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.) that can be achieved.
Questions by Representative Bob Inglis
Q1. Based on our experiences in the last l0 years or so, there is a
growing concern about the effectiveness of interagency collaborative
efforts. Although some have been successful situations such as the one
we have been witnessing in the multi-agency satellite programs with
NOAA, Air Force and NASA had made us a little wary of such endeavors.
Does the NRDC have any recommendations that would help us strengthen
this legislation such that the National Water Research initiative does
not devolve into another turf war?
A1. Legislating culture is very difficult as your question suggests. I
would urge you to consider structures that enable agencies to advocate
for good research topics and specific projects irrespective of whether
they are housed in that agency. My understanding is that DOD and the VA
have a Joint Incentive Fund that follows this approach. Each agency
contributes a specified amount of funding to the joint fund each year,
then a committee consisting of members of both agencies select the
projects to be funded. While nothing is perfect, a similar structure
would be beneficial in providing agency representatives with incentives
to think big picture about what research is really needed. Another
possibility would be to have a standing Federal Advisory Committee to
provide recommendations to the Federal Government about research needs.
Q2. Do you believe that the Office of Science and Technology Policy is
best suited to lead this interagency effort or would another agency,
such as EPA, be better situated based on their past work in water
research?
A2. It is preferable to have the White House chair an interagency
effort such as this one to provide oversight and management. Either CEQ
or OST could provide such oversight, and I am not sure which would be
better in thisinstance.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Christine Furstoss, General Manager of Technology, GE
Water and Process Technologies, General Electric Company
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Ms. Furstoss, we have heard in previous hearings that water-
related R&D can lead to new opportunities for U.S. companies instead of
foreign ones.
Q1a. Would you regard this as an accurate statement?
A1a. Yes.
Q1b. Would foreign companies' access to U.S. research through
databases such as RADIUS negate this advantage?
A1b. My personal opinion is that there can be many levels of databases.
While a community of global innovators should have access to
fundamental information to promote sharing and collaboration, access to
databases containing detailed information on U.S. research and
development priorities and results does have the potential to reduce
domestic competitiveness. By knowing specifics behind what is being
worked, and, very importantly, what areas may not be competitive and/or
what major issues are in approaches, then an open database containing
that information would allow any company to know where they can focus
and who the major players are.
Q1c. Do you gain new opportunities by research conducted in other
countries, such as Israel?
A1c. GE believes, that when appropriate, partnering with organizations
that are leaders in technology is beneficial to both sides. When
countries, either through initiatives, incentives, or priorities,
encourages research of its companies, research institutes and
universities to be focused in a particular area, then it is natural
that the likelihood of increased innovation and breakthrough technology
is increased. We have seen such an example in Israel, where many small
companies have made large strides in thinking about water treatment and
re-use in new ways. Interactions with such companies have been
beneficial, not only from a potential partnership opportunity, but also
in making us think differently about approaches.
Q1d. In GE's experience, how would you define the efforts of other
industrialized countries in the area of water research?
A1d. In my experience and knowledge, efforts of other industrialized
countries in water research is by-and-large in its infancy relative to
other technical fields. While some countries such as Singapore, Israel,
western Canada and various entities across the Middle East have made
water research a priority, others are still looking to universities,
research organizations and private industry to lead the charge. I have
not encountered any entities that have discouraged this area of
research; it is more a matter of priority and focus to drive rapid
advancement. That is why I am encouraged by this bill, and the
discussion of including multiple types of organizations to participate
as part of it. In that way, a community with shared goals and
priorities, as well as increased sharing and speed of discovery will
emerge.
Q1e. Does GE participate in collaborative efforts with either foreign
companies or other governments in order to develop the appropriate or
necessary water research? How about for development of technologies?
A1e. GE has participated in efforts ranging from advisory discussions
on broad councils sponsored by governments, to partnering with
government agencies and country university systems on water treatment
research and technology development. GE Water is also working with
several large multinational companies to help address water issues and
reduce their water footprint; one example is GE's relationship with
ConocoPhillips in developing a Water Sustainability Center in Doha,
Qatar. Similarly, we have relationships with major corporate multi-
nationals in the food processing area, and large power companies where
we are working to reduce their water consumption and help re-use their
waste water.
Q2. How would you address the assertion by Mr. Modzelewski that
corporate R&D investment is low despite the importance of water to
life?
A2. I would agree with that statement, but have been encouraged over
the past year in the attention being paid in this area. There are many
small companies and start-up companies that have good ideas to help
reduce the cost of water treatment, and treat more water problems.
Q3. The legislation before us today calls for an establishment of an
interagency committee as well as an advisory board to such committee to
work on water resource issues including technology and research. What
role would you envision for the private sector in working with these
entities? How would an Interagency Committee use the knowledge and
expertise residing in American industry groups and non-governmental
organizations?
A3. These groups should be smaller and focused on the task at-hand. If
the panels become too large, they can have difficulty rapidly
developing and deploying technology. Industry focuses on the ``voice of
the customer'' every day, understanding how to bring technology to the
market effectively and efficiently.
Q4. The legislation includes an advisory board for the interagency
committee on water resources. Who would you recommend be included on
such a board?
A4. In addition to government officials, industry groups and academia,
I would recommend a Chief Technology Officer from industry, as well as
industry representatives who are used to rapidly developing and
deploying technology.
Q5. There has been a great deal of discussion in the past few years
regarding effects of climate change on water supplies. Is GE exploring
any adaptation strategies to address these effects?
A5. GE is investing in technologies that will assist in water-stressed
areas, such as brackish water treatment/desalination and advanced
technologies to enable significant increases in water re-use and
recycling.
Q6. What improvements could be made to this legislation to ensure it
results in the research and development necessary for technology
development? What areas of water R&D are most in need of further
attention that would allow industry to develop new types of
technologies? Are there any technology pathways right now that are
closed off due to the lack of basic R&D?
A6. In my opinion, there are several companies with good viable
products that can help reduce the cost of water treatment. These
companies can make impact on energy costs, operational costs, and
capital costs. The risk and cost to bring a technology from lab to
industrial application can be very prohibitive. I feel that government
support or center(s) that focused on scale-up of technologies and field
testing with representative water chemistries, flows and variability
would greatly enhance the state of the industry development. While
difficult to single out any one technology area most in need or closed
off, the difficulty in taking innovations from lab to application is
currently a bottleneck in fast-tracking the application of novel
technologies.
Q7. Has GE done any comprehensive mapping of available water resources
in the U.S. or other countries?
A7. GE has contributed to, and utilized, water availability and quality
maps that have been produced and published by global research and
consulting entities. We have not done exhaustive mapping on our own.
Questions submitted by Representative Adrian Smith
Q1. How much interaction does GE have with local and regional managers
and decision-makers? Has this type of interaction driven technology
development to address particular concerns?
A1. I believe that we have a great deal of interaction; we have been
working with local and regional decision-makers at the State level on a
state-by-state basis, as well as regional water authorities. GE
believes that this type of engagement is essential to understanding the
types of challenges that communities are facing across the Nation. GE
is also open to working with communities to collaboratively develop
solutions that meet both their treatment and cost needs. Collaborations
that we have with entities such as New Mexico State University, which
is intimately tied to many decision-makers, are key to both our
understanding of not only the needs, but how communities need to make
decisions (their drivers, priorities, and critically, their
``boundaries''--what they can and can't do and afford). This greatly
helps us prioritize and more fully understand technology needs.
Questions submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher
Q1. In your testimony, you indicate that GE scientists and researchers
have been at the forefront of developing many new technologies in the
areas of water conservation and use as well as a number of other areas.
What incentives exist for GE to continue to explore these areas? Are
there any additional incentives you believe would encourage companies
to explore these areas?
A1. As regulations on water quality, discharge and re-use emerge, GE
feels that being able to provide a portfolio of solutions for customers
to choose from to meet their complex needs is a sound strategy. To my
knowledge, there are no direct incentives directly related to
technology investment. There are multiple funding agencies with water
programs, and GE is participating in a few of them. These programs
greatly help us accelerate our activities, as well as explore more
approaches and areas. Going forward, in my opinion, having a more
unified set of priorities across agencies with larger programs
available for participation, will allow more companies to participate,
or participate at an enhanced level, for they will understand how these
activities fit into policy and future directions. I also personally
feel that having more focus on industry standards on measurements for
regulatory requirements on water quality is a wise investment--many
contaminants and discharge limits can be measured in a variety of ways
(or not measured reliably today). Clarity in this area will help all.
Q2. GE is a global company and as such must be aware of global trends
in research and development. Which countries do you believe are ahead
of the US in this area? What steps have these countries taken to
improve water quality or be more efficient in their use of water? Can
any of these strategies be adapted for use in the United States?
A2. I feel that Israel has encouraged companies to invest in water
technologies, and that has led to some unique innovation. Singapore
encourages water research to be conducted there, and initiatives to
develop fundamental technologies to reduce energy consumption in water
treatment and also reduce the cost of water treatment. Various entities
in the Middle East are encouraging companies to work with them on
systems and pilots that are novel in their approach to working with
impaired waters. Finally, the Alberta government, due to their water
challenges, is sponsoring joint industry-university-agency research
that includes pilot testing. These entities have clearly identified
their priorities and participated in forming relationships to help
drive technology in focused areas. I personally feel that a prioritized
agenda that all parties can work toward, as well as support of scale-
up/piloting facilities would be beneficial for the water community.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Section-by-Section Analysis of
H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and
Development Initiative Act
Title: National Water Research and Development Initiative Act
Purpose: To improve the Federal Government's role in water research,
development, demonstration, data collection, 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 2009
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, data collection
and dissemination, 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 that include research, development, demonstration,
data collection and dissemination, education, and technology transfer,
and promoting cooperation among agencies with respect to water
research. The Committee is also responsible for facilitating technology
transfer, communication, and opportunities for exchange with non-
governmental organizations.
The President is directed to create a National Water Initiative
Coordination 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.
The National Water Research and Assessment 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) and recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences. This
section also identifies required elements of the Plan. The Plan lists a
number of water research outcomes to be achieved by the agencies
participating in the Initiative.
The Plan will be subject to a 90-day public comment period and must
be submitted to Congress within one year of enactment.
Section 2 also requires the President to establish or designate an
advisory committee including non-governmental experts to provide
guidance and recommendations to the interagency committee governing 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 budget
request. The President is required to describe and list the items in
the request that are intended 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.