[Senate Hearing 109-738]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-738
AMENDMENTS TO THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND
FACILITIES ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 3638 S. 3639
H.R. 177 H.R. 2341
H.R. 3418
__________
JULY 27, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
31-809 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Bruce M. Evans, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Vice Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
subcommittee
Nate Gentry, Counsel
Mike Connor, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Atwater, Richard, Chief Executive Officer, Inland Empire
Utilities Agency, on behalf of the WateReuse Association....... 28
City of Austin, TX............................................... 48
Dreier, Hon. David, U.S. Representative From California.......... 2
Edwards, Hon. Chet, U.S. Representative From Texas............... 4
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator From California............. 6
Grindstaff, P. Joseph, Director, CALFED Bay-Delta Program,
Sacramento, CA................................................. 22
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 5
Lippe, Chris, Director, City of Austin Water Authority........... 33
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 1
Ray, J. Tom, Project Manager, Central Texas Water Recycling
Project, Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc....................... 38
Todd, Larry, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Administration and
Budget, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior...... 7
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 49
AMENDMENTS TO THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND
FACILITIES ACT
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I welcome you to the subcommittee's
legislative hearing. We've got five bills regarding the Bureau
of Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program.
The bills include S. 3638, which is sponsored by Senator
Feinstein, which authorizes several water projects in southern
California. We have S. 3639, which I have sponsored, to amend
the title XVI program. We have H.R. 177, sponsored by
Congressman Gary Miller. This authorizes several projects in
southern California. H.R. 2341, sponsored by Congressman
Doggett, to authorize a project in the city of Austin, TX. And
H.R. 3418, which is sponsored by Congressman Edwards, which
authorizes a project in Waco, TX.
We had an oversight hearing on the title XVI program, which
we held earlier in the year, and at that time, I raised several
questions about the program and what legislative changes, if
any, we might want to undertake. Since that time, working
together with Senator Feinstein, we have developed this
legislation. This is S. 3639 and I believe that it is a pretty
good starting point to address the concerns that have been
raised relative to the title XVI program.
I understand that the administration continues to question
certain aspects of the future of the program, but I think it is
fair to say that it is important that the United States have a
Federal role in developing new sources of municipal and
industrial water supply. The title XVI program has played, and
should continue to play, a role in municipal and industrial
water supply. It is my understanding that the administration is
continuing to develop a legislative proposal to reform the
title XVI program and I am pleased that they are taking a
proactive approach. Hopefully, we can incorporate some of these
ideas into S. 3639.
We've got a couple panels this afternoon that I will
introduce, but before we bring the panels on, I would like to
welcome to the subcommittee this afternoon Congressman Dreier
from the State of California. As a Congressman, you have been
very active and very involved in many of the water bills that
have come before us in the past and your involvement is greatly
appreciated. And with that, I would like to welcome you and ask
if you would like to make any comments before we proceed with
the hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Let me
just, at the outset, say that I really like water. That's the
reason that I'm here. And it is difficult for me to imagine a
greater, more thrilling bipartisan panel of Senators, and my
California colleague, Diane Feinstein, and you. I'm pleased to
see Senator Johnson joining us as well, with whom I was
privileged to serve in the House of Representatives. I'm here
to say that your opening remarks, Madam Chairman, I think, were
really right on target in talking about the commitment the
administration has shown to title XVI reform.
I am particularly proud of an effort that we have going
that Senator Feinstein and I have represented in southern
California. It is the Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative,
which has had tremendous success, and great leadership has been
shown on this. We have found, with this initiative, that has
twice passed the House of Representatives--we've authorized $30
million for the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the
Cucamonga Valley Water District to assist in constructing two
water-recycling projects there. The projects will produce
nearly 100,000 acre-feet of new water annually to the area's
water supply. The initiative has the support of all member
agencies of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, which
encompasses 240 square miles in southern California.
It also serves a number of the cities that I represent,
including the city I mentioned, Rancho Cucamonga, which happens
to be one of the very top of the fastest growing cities in the
entire country. When I first represented it many years ago, it
had a population of 30,000. And the mayor told me not long ago
that within the next 4 years--and I don't know if you are aware
of this, Diane--220,000 people in the city of Rancho Cucamonga,
there in the Inland Empire, by the end of this decade. It's one
of the fastest growing cities in our State and that is why this
whole notion of pursuing water recycling there is something
that I believe is very, very important.
As you said, Madam Chairman, the issue of pursuing title
XVI reform is a very high priority. I'd like to say that while
I'm here with a specific goal of introducing my friend, Rich
Atwater, I'm also very pleased that we have Joe Grindstaff
here. Senator Feinstein and I happen to claim among our friends
the Governor of California, and Mr. Grindstaff is here
representing the Governor, demonstrating his very strong
commitment to water recycling and dealing with the challenge of
water that have in our State today.
Joe has had a very distinguished career. He headed the Bay-
Delta Authority. He has an outstanding record of achievement as
the general manager of the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority, and the Monte Vista and Eastern Municipal Water
District prior to that. He has been on the real forefront of
dealing with these water issues in California and we all know
how important that is for our state.
So now I would like to just take a moment to mention Rich
Atwater, who you will be hearing from momentarily. He is the
only water agency manager, Madam Chairman, to receive the
prestigious Governor's Award for Environmental and Economic
Balance three times, from three different Governors. I don't
know if you've followed politics in California, but we've gone
through sort of a roller coaster in the past several years.
Governor Pete Wilson, in 1995, gave the Governor's Award for
Environmental and Economic Balance to Rich, and then Governor
Gray Davis, in 2002, gave it to him, and then, in 2003,
Governor Schwarzenegger provided him that award. So he has
obviously been able to cross party lines and there is broad
recognition of his stellar work. And I've had the privilege of
touring facilities with him and getting to know him. In 1994,
our friend, the former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce
Babbitt, awarded Rich the Conservation Service Award, which is
the highest citizen award for resources management. And he has
also served on a number of drought and water reuse commissions
for the State throughout the past decade. Most important, he is
also the CEO and general manager of the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency that I mentioned and is responsible for getting that
100,000 acre-feet of new water produced. So I'm very pleased to
be here and I think that the thoughts and proposals that he
will have, as you take on this challenge of dealing with title
XVI reform--he will be very, very helpful to you.
And I thank you. I know Senator Feinstein has our measure
included as part of her legislation. And as I've said, we've
twice been able to move this through the House. I'm looking
forward to coming to an agreement on it and I thank you and
congratulate you on all of your great work. And while water is
beautiful in California, it is no more beautiful than it is in
Alaska, from all the water that I've seen there.
Senator Murkowski. Sometimes it is a little colder up
there, though.
Mr. Dreier. Yes, I know. I like cold water, too. So thank
you all very, very much for including me and now you will get
some real brilliance.
[The prepared statements of Representatives Dreier and
Edwards follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Dreier, U.S. Representative
From California, on S. 3638
Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for your leadership on water reuse
and recycling issues. Having a legislative hearing like this helps to
highlight a number of important projects being undertaken by various
local water agencies that have the strong support of Members of
Congress.
For many years, I have been fortunate to partner with my good
friend, Senator Feinstein, on a number of issues. We have often
introduced companion legislation, and I am very pleased to be working
with her on Congressional support for water recycling in Southern
California. In this case, Senator Feinstein's bill, S. 3638, includes
the Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative, which I have sponsored in
the House.
The Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative authorizes $30 million
for the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water
District to assist in constructing two water recycling projects. The
projects will produce nearly 100,000 acre-feet of new water annually to
the area's water supply. This initiative has the support of all member
agencies of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, which encompasses 240
square miles in southern California. It also serves a number of cities
I represent, including the city of Rancho Cucamonga, one of the fastest
growing cities in the country.
These water agencies are using high quality recycled water in many
water intensive applications, like landscape and agricultural
irrigation, construction, and industrial cooling. This allows fresh
water to be conserved or used for drinking, which reduces our
dependence on expensive imported water. In addition, by recycling water
which would otherwise be wasted and unavailable, these agencies ensure
that we ring the last drop of use out of water before it is ultimately
returned to the environment.
It is imperative that we continue to approve measures preventing
water supply shortages in the Western United States. This recycling
initiative will help meet the water needs of the Inland Empire and
begin a strategic federal--local partnership to bring a significant
amount of new water supply to the region. In fact, the Bureau of
Reclamation has already recognized the Inland Empire Water Recycling
Initiative as one of the most cost effective water reuse projects.
The House has passed the Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative
twice--once last Congress and once this Congress. As you examine Title
XVI reform and evaluate these bills before you, I respectfully ask my
friends here to consider moving Senator Feinstein's bill forward so
these deserving projects are authorized. I have no doubt that you will
find that the Inland Empire Water Recycling Initiative is a model
project for federal investment.
Before I introduce Richard Atwater, I want to thank Joe Grindstaff
for traveling to Washington to testify today. His presence here
demonstrates the great importance that Governor Schwarzenegger has
placed on developing bold and innovative solutions to ensuring that we
possess the water resources to meet the needs of the growing economy
and population we are seeing in California today. Before Joe so ably
took over the direction of the Bay-Delta Authority, he established an
outstanding record of achievement as the general manager of the Santa
Ana Watershed Project Authority. While serving at SAWPA and in the
Monte Vista and Eastern Municipal Water Districts prior to that, Joe
has been at the forefront of tackling the complex water management
issues we face in California--particularly in Southern California--and
has tremendous experience in understanding and dealing with the issues
we are discussing today.
Now, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce to you
Richard Atwater, who will be testifying before you shortly. Rich is the
director of the WateReuse Association's National Legislative Committee.
He is the only water agency manager to receive the prestigious
Governor's Award for Environmental and Economic Balance three times: by
Governor Pete Wilson (1995); Governor Gray Davis (2002); and Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger (2003). Rich has over twenty-five years
experience in water resources management and development. He has
pioneered many award-winning water projects and implemented numerous
innovative water resource management programs that meet today's high
standards for quality, reliability and cost-effectiveness. In 1994,
former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt awarded Rich the
Conservation Service Award, the highest citizen award for resources
management. Rich has also served on a number of drought and water reuse
commissions for the state throughout the past decade.
Most important, Rich is also the CEO and General Manager of the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency. He is responsible for getting that
100,000 acre-feet of new water produced. So I am pleased he is here to
share his input on the proposed Title XVI reforms, and to answer any
questions you all may have on the Inland Empire Water Recycling
Initiative.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to join you all today.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chet Edwards, U.S. Representative
From Texas, on H.R. 3418
The Central Texas Water Recycling Act of 2006 supports efforts to
manage water resources efficiently in McLennan County by strategically
locating regional satellite treatment plants that will not only provide
for conservation of our community's water supply but will also reduce
cost to the taxpayers.
The initial projects under this legislation can provide up to 10
million gallons per day of reuse water; thereby, reducing the water
demand on Lake Waco. This is enough water supply to meet the needs of
over 20,000 households.
Central Texas is plagued with periodic drought and it is important
to promote water conservation measures that reduce our demand for
increased water supply.
Recycling of highly treated wastewater provides an additional
valuable resource for a large number of identified reuse applications,
including golf courses, landscape irrigation, industrial cooling water,
and other industrial applications.
As Central Texas continues to grow, this project will continue to
make reuse water available for the major construction project along
Interstate Highway 35. The reuse water would be an ideal source of
irrigation water for landscaping after construction and on an ongoing
basis
By locating Satellite Wastewater Plants in high growth areas, the
local mayors in Waco, Hewitt, Woodway, Robinson, Bellmead, Lacy-
Lakeview, and Lorena will all benefit from upgrades to their wastewater
treatment systems.
Waco City Manager Larry Groth testified at a hearing last year in
support of the bill, said ``This bill is a win-win because it is not
only the right thing to do for the environment; it's good for
businesses that buy the recycled water from us at a cheaper cost.''
In the future as water demands increase, additional reuse projects
will be identified and implemented. As the population and water demands
grow, uses of reclaimed water will increase, and our environment will
continue to be protected. Wastewater discharges to our streams and
rivers will be reduced and potential pollution problems avoided. Water
reuse projects like this will become more and more valuable to cities
and states.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. We appreciate you not only
taking a few minutes this afternoon to be here, but for all the
good work that you are doing on the House side, on not only
some of these water issues that we have before us today, but
the good work in other areas. Thank you.
Mr. Dreier. Please carry my greetings to the Governor as
well, will you?
Senator Murkowski. I will do that. Thank you.
As I mentioned, we do have a couple panels. Before we bring
the first panel up, I would ask either of you, Senator Johnson
or Senator Feinstein, if you would have any comments that you
might like to make about the respective legislation before we
proceed to the panels.
Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. I'll be very brief about this. Thank you,
Madam Chairman, for convening today's hearing. I also want to
thank Senator Feinstein for her extraordinary leadership on
California-related water issues in general. I would like to
extend a welcome to Deputy Commissioner Larry Todd and the
Bureau of Reclamation and to the other witnesses who traveled
here to provide us with their views on title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program.
While we have not yet made use of the title XVI programs in
South Dakota, I have no doubt that we will consider it in the
future, given the growing pressure on our finite water
resources. In South Dakota and across the West, increasing the
efficient use of water is a key part of meeting future water
demands, and with that in mind, I'm very interested in today's
testimony, which builds on the testimony we heard during the
title XVI oversight hearing in February.
At that time, we heard about the importance of a water
reuse program to many water-stressed communities in the West.
We also heard from the Congressional Research Service that the
administration has objected to most, if not all, of the title
XVI projects that members have proposed for authorization
during the 108th and 109th Congress. We also heard that the
administration continues to recommend cutting the funding for
title XVI projects by over 50 percent each year. Clearly, there
is a disconnect between water managers in the West and the
administration as to the value of this program, so I'm
especially appreciative that you, Madam Chairman, and Senator
Feinstein have teamed up to try to reform the program so that
it may better secure administration support and better serve
all people in the West. I look forward to working with you in
that effort. I thank you again for your leadership on the
subcommittee.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Feinstein, again, I want to thank you for all of
your work in this area and in working with us as we tried to
craft something that I think will make a difference. So again,
thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Madam Chairman, let me thank you,
because Alaska is not eligible for title XVI and you have been
just wonderful and gracious and I am very grateful. You have
earned a big chip in my book, so thank you very much. Senator
Johnson, thank you very much for your support. I'd also like to
welcome the two Californians that are here to testify: Joe
Grindstaff, the executive director of the CALFED water program
and Rick Atwater, who is here on behalf of WateReuse and also
chief executive officer of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency.
In preparation for this hearing, Madam Chairman, I re-read
the administration's testimony from our February 28 oversight
hearing on title XVI, and administration review found that
title XVI served the admirable goal of ``proactively addressing
water-related crises in the reclamation States,'' but faulted
title XVI because the programs, goals and timelines are
unclear. The title XVI bill that Madam Chairman and I have
introduced makes quite clear the programs, goals and
timetables.
Let me for a moment explain. There was a lot of discussion
at our February hearing about how we needed more substantive
criteria for evaluating which projects to authorize for Federal
funding. We have included those substantive criteria, including
the cost per acre-foot of water produced by the project,
whether it can demonstrate regional benefits, whether it has
environmental benefits, whether it demonstrates new
technologies and whether it addresses Federal interests, such
as helping to resolve endangered species issues. We thus ensure
that title XVI project proposals will be evaluated against
real, substantive criteria, which some projects will meet and
some will not. We also put clear timelines in the project
review process. The Secretary has 180 days to evaluate a
proposal and submit a recommendation to Congress. If the
Secretary doesn't act in the time period, Congress can move
forward with its own review, therefore there is no stalemate.
I want to emphasize the importance of the clear,
substantive criteria and the expeditious review process in this
bill. There is not a large amount of money in the title XVI
program and I, like you, want to spend it building new water
supplies, not just studying projects endlessly. There was just
$25 million appropriated for title XVI in 2006 and the
administration asked for just $10 million in 2007. So it makes
no sense, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, to spend most
of this limited funding on an elaborate review process of
expensive studies and ranking proposals.
You have evidence of the West-wide appeal of title XVI
before you today, with two Texas and two California projects.
Drought strikes all of us in the West and we all need new water
supplies. We need to spend our title XVI dollars, matching the
80-percent local contribution, to build projects on the ground.
The two California bills before us today will provide some
300,000 acre-feet of new water annually. Put in context, that
is nearly 40 percent of the 800,000 acre-foot annual reduction
that California needs to reduce its use of the Colorado River
from 5.2 million to 4.4 million acre-feet per year, for a
Federal cost share of only 20 percent. That is a lot of reduced
pressure on the Colorado River.
Not too long ago, in a speech delivered at a water reuse
conference, John Keys, the recently retired Commissioner of
Reclamation, called recycled water the last river to tap and I
believe he is right. So I look forward to working with you,
Madam Chairman, with my colleague, Senator Johnson, and with
other members of this subcommittee to pass out this title XVI
bill into law. I thank you so much for your excellent
cooperation and leadership. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
With that, we will call up our first panel, consisting of
Mr. Larry Todd, who is the Deputy Commissioner for Policy,
Administration and Budget at the Bureau of Reclamation within
the Department of the Interior. I might also add that we have
received some written testimony on several bills that are
before the subcommittee today and all that testimony will be
made part of the official record. So with that, welcome to the
subcommittee, Mr. Todd and if you would like to present your
comments, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF LARRY TODD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY,
ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGET, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Todd. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am Larry Todd, Deputy Commissioner for the
Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to present
the departmental views on the five bills before the
subcommittee today.
I would first like to address S. 3639, which deals with
reforms to the title XVI program and then address the various
bills regarding new authorizations for title XVI. We applaud
both you and Senator Feinstein for recognizing the need for
legislation that would reformulate Reclamation's title XVI
program.
The Department believes that this bill proposes
improvements that would enable Reclamation to better administer
the program. Because we believe that additional adjustments to
the legislation are necessary to ensure that project assessment
and authorization is prioritized to focus on areas of greatest
need, the administration cannot support S. 3639 at this time.
We appreciate the commitment you have made to this issue
and look forward to the opportunity to work with subcommittee
to improve the legislation and find common ground on the
necessary reforms to the title XVI program. We believe that the
administration and Congress are of like minds in the need to
reform this program and are confident that we can work out our
remaining differences to develop reform legislation that
addresses our mutual concerns.
Over the past several years, administration witnesses have
consistently testified against authorization of new title XVI
projects. This is not because we do not recognize the value of
water reuse and recycling to the local communities; rather,
this steadfast opposition has its origins in several issues
that any reform legislation must address for this to be a
viable, useful program that the administration can support.
No. 1, water reuse and recycling is fundamentally a
responsibility for State and local interests. Federal
involvement should be used to facilitate these projects in high
priority areas where the Federal funds can have the greatest
impact on addressing our long-term water challenges. Two, the
program currently has inadequate controls on project
development to allow a reviewer to ascertain whether the
preferred alternative for a project is in the best interests of
the taxpayer. Three, a proliferation of authorized projects
without adequate criteria to judge them makes it difficult or
even impossible to assess how any one project can contribute to
meeting Reclamation's long-term goals. Four, the Department,
the Office of Management and Budget and Congress all need to
have a consistent, useful suite of performance-oriented metrics
to help prioritize projects for funding. And five, the project
development and review process must be workable for all
parties, meaning that: A, it must have clear standards,
criteria and processes for project sponsors; B, Reclamation and
the Department and the Office of Management and Budget must
have sufficient time and tools to evaluate proposed projects;
and C, Congress needs a clear----
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Todd, can you--I think your
microphone is on, but can you just move it a little bit closer?
Mr. Todd. Yes. Excuse me.
Senator Murkowski. It is difficult to hear you.
Mr. Todd. Is this better? There we go.
Senator Murkowski. It is a little bit better.
Mr. Todd. That Congress needs a clear assessment of the
merits and recommendations regarding each project. We have some
concerns with S. 3639 as written and we would like to work with
the committee further to reach common ground on these issues.
Specifically, we are concerned with the technically and
financially viable standard for review cited in the bill. While
we support the bill's sponsors' intention to have the
administration conduct a formal review and assessment of the
proposed project prior to acting on additional projects, we are
concerned that this standard weakens the level of review that
title XVI projects will go through prior to the Secretary
making a recommendation to Congress. Using this standard would
remove any requirement that the project be evaluated as to its
technical and economic feasibility. A feasibility analysis is
necessary in order to develop accurate and well-defined cost
estimates that demonstrate the degree to which the water
recycling project alternative is cost-effective, relative to
other water supply alternatives.
We also have other concerns that are outlined in my written
statement. We believe that the proposed legislation moves us in
a direction of satisfactorily addressing these issues
highlighted above, but that the changes proposed by S. 3639 are
not sufficient. However, we would be pleased to work with the
Committee to reach common ground to improve title XVI.
I will now turn to the new title XVI authorization bills
that are before the subcommittee today. In summary, with the
tremendous backlog of existing title XVI projects, and because
of the concerns I've just noted, we cannot support the addition
of new projects at this time. It would be our hope that we
could reach common ground on how to reform title XVI before
additional projects are authorized.
S. 3638 is a multi-part authorization for projects in
southern California. We would note that title II, which would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate with the
Western Municipal Water District in the design and construction
of a water supply project known as the Riverside Corona Feeder,
does not fit with the title XVI program. In addition,
feasibility level studies have not yet been completed.
Consequently, we cannot support this legislation.
H.R. 177 would authorize a series of additional title XVI
projects in California. The Department would note that under
sections 4 and 5, the legislation poses increases to the
Federal cost share for projects. The Department does not
believe there is justification to support assigning a cap
higher than the current $20 million for these projects and
strongly opposes this provision.
H.R. 2341 would authorize a water reuse project in Austin,
TX. A final feasibility report is scheduled to be completed by
the fall of 2006. We recommend completing this cooperative
feasibility study and evaluations of the project, including
NEPA compliance, prior to congressional authorization for
construction.
Finally, H.R. 3418 would authorize water reuse facilities
in McLennan County, TX. The city of Waco has developed
conceptual plans for this project but Reclamation has not
reviewed this proposal nor conducted any studies. Until we have
more information, we cannot comment on the merits of the
project nor upon H.R. 3418 itself and are unable to support
this legislation.
That concludes my testimony and I will be happy to answer
any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Todd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Todd, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
S. 3639
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Larry Todd,
Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be
here today to give the Department's views on S. 3639, a bill that makes
amendments to Title XVI of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992. We applaud both you and Senator Feinstein for
recognizing the need for legislation that would reformulate the Bureau
of Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program. The
Department believes that this bill proposes improvements that would
enable Reclamation to better administer the program. Because we believe
that additional adjustments to the legislation are necessary to ensure
that project assessment and authorization is prioritized to focus on
areas of greatest need, the Administration cannot support S. 3639 at
this time. We appreciate the commitment you have made to this issue and
look forward to the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee to
improve the legislation and find common ground on the necessary reforms
to the Title XVI program. We believe that the Administration and
Congress are of like minds in the need to reform this program, and are
confident that we can work out our remaining differences to develop
reform legislation that addresses our mutual concerns.
In 1992, Congress adopted, and the President signed, the
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act (Public Law 102-
575). Title XVI of this Act, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act, authorized the Secretary to participate in
the planning, design and construction of five water reclamation and
reuse projects. The Secretary was also authorized to undertake a
program to identify other water recycling opportunities throughout the
17 western states, and to conduct appraisal level and feasibility level
studies to determine if those opportunities are worthy of
implementation. The Bureau of Reclamation has been administering a
program to fund these Title XVI projects since 1994. The funds are
passed through from Reclamation to the project sponsor; Reclamation is
in essence providing a grant to the project sponsoring entities for
design and construction work.
In 1996, Public Law 104-266, the Reclamation Recycling and Water
Conservation Act, was enacted. This law amended Title XVI and
authorized the Secretary to participate in the planning, design and
construction of 18 additional projects, including two desalination
research and development projects. Since 1996, Title XVI has been
amended several times, and now there are 32 projects authorized for
construction in nine states.
With regard to the already existing authorizations, of the 32
specific projects authorized to date, 21 have received funding. Of
these, nine have been included in the President's budget request.
Including anticipated expenditures during FY 2006, approximately $325
million will have been expended by Reclamation on these authorized
projects by the end of the current fiscal year. It is estimated that as
much as $340 million could still be required in order to complete the
Federal funding for all 21 projects, and another $220 million in
Federal funding could be needed to complete the remaining 11 authorized
projects that have yet to receive funding.
As we stated in testimony before this Committee on February 28,
2006, Title XVI projects have demonstrated that water recycling can be
a viable water supply alternative in water short urban areas of the
West. However, we have also noted that we believe the Title XVI program
has outgrown its original purpose of demonstrating new technology, and
that fundamental reform is needed to ensure that the program produces
meaningful results for the current water needs of the West. We believe
that before projects are authorized for construction, their appraisal
and feasibility studies should be completed, reviewed, and approved by
the Department and the Office of Management and Budget and submitted to
Congress. We also believe that as projects progress through appraisal
and, if warranted, feasibility study phases, they should be rated
against ranking criteria that would help Reclamation, Congress and the
Administration prioritize projects. Such ranking criteria would address
whether the project actually alleviates significant water conflict or
shortage and whether it would add water supply in one of the likely
crisis areas that we have focused on in efforts like the Water 2025
program. Additionally, we believe there is a need to clarify the
research and demonstration project provisions of Title XVI. Given tight
budget constraints it is particularly important that the Administration
and the Congress have all the information necessary to identify the
projects most worthy of federal investment. We would welcome the
opportunity to work with the Committee to develop mutually acceptable
language.
S. 3639 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide a
technical and financial review of any water recycling project proposal
submitted for consideration by a non-Federal project proponent. The
purpose of the review would be to determine if the proposed project is
``technically and financially viable.'' If the Secretary finds that the
project is ``technically and financially viable,'' the Secretary would
then be required--with 180 days--to submit his findings to Congress
along with a recommendation as to whether the project should be
authorized for construction. We support the bill sponsors' intention to
have the Administration conduct a formal review and assessment of a
proposed project prior to acting on legislation to authorize additional
Title XVI projects. If project authorizations cease to precede the
formal review and assessment of a proposed project, this would be an
important improvement to the manner in which the Title XVI program has
been administered to date.
However, we are concerned that this bill weakens the level of
review that Title XVI projects will go through prior to the Secretary
making a recommendation to Congress. S. 3639 only requires that a
project proponent demonstrate that its project is ``technically and
financially viable.'' The bill defines a project as ``technically and
financially viable'' if it ``meets generally acceptable engineering,
public health, and environmental standards,'' can obtain all necessary
permits, and has a project sponsor that is capable of providing its
share of the costs. Using the viability standard contained in this bill
removes any requirement that the project be evaluated as to its
technical and economic feasibility. A feasibility analysis, as
described in Reclamation's ``Guidelines for Preparing, Reviewing, and
Processing Water Reclamation and Reuse Project Proposals Under Title
XVI of Public Law 102-575,'' is necessary in order to develop accurate
and well defined cost estimates. This level of cost definition is
required to demonstrate the degree to which the water recycling project
alternative is cost-effective relative to other water supply
alternatives that could be implemented by the local project sponsor. It
is also necessary to determine the economic benefits that are to be
realized after project implementation. The Department believes that it
would not be sustainable to make decisions on future project
authorizations that would commit limited Federal funds to construct
additional water recycling projects based on whether or not a project
is simply capable of being constructed.
The Department believes, as we think the sponsors of the bill do,
that a new model of reviewing project proposals is needed, provided
that a new model enhances the Administration and Congress's ability to
prioritize federal investment and does not exacerbate the problem of
project authorizations preceding proper review and analysis.
An important need that S. 3639 does not sufficiently address is in
the area of project eligibility criteria and funding prioritization. S.
3639 would require the Secretary to review any and all project
proposals that are received, rather than a select group of proposals
for projects that meet minimum standards. In the testimony we presented
during the February 28, 2006, hearing before this committee, we stated
that any restructuring of the Title XVI program should aim to create a
framework under which Title XVI projects will be screened to ensure
they complement Reclamation's mission, rather than diminishing
Reclamation's ongoing core programs. S. 3639 does not include such a
framework.
A meaningful reform bill must authorize Reclamation to use uniform
assessment criteria to identify the best projects for funding. The
practice of project authorization prior to the completion and approval
of a study demonstrating that a project is technically and economically
practical is a poor practice and has led to the backlog noted
previously.
The Department is also concerned about the provisions in S. 3639
that would eliminate the Secretary's authority to identify and
investigate new water recycling opportunities. Under the existing
planning authorities of Title XVI, Reclamation has provided financial
and technical assistance to local agencies to conduct over a dozen
appraisal or feasibility studies for projects not yet authorized for
construction. The cities of Austin and Brownsville, Texas, Santa Fe,
New Mexico, and Desert Hot Springs, California, are just a few of the
many communities that have benefited from the general planning
authorities afforded Reclamation under Title XVI. The elimination of
the Secretary's authority to conduct such studies effectively reduces
the Secretary's range of involvement to that of simple participation in
the project review process, and only if that participation is requested
by a non-Federal project sponsor.
Over the past several years, Administration witnesses have
consistently testified against authorization of new Title XVI projects.
This is not because we do not recognize the value of water reuse and
recycling to local communities. Rather, this steadfast opposition has
its origins in several issues that any reform legislation must address
for this to be a viable, useful program that the Administration can
support:
Water reuse and recycling is fundamentally a responsibility
of state and local interests. Federal involvement should be
used to facilitate these projects in high priority areas where
the federal funds can have the greatest impact on addressing
our long-term water challenges.
The program currently has inadequate controls on project
development to allow a reviewer to ascertain whether the
preferred alternative for a project is in the best interest of
the taxpayer.
A proliferation of authorized projects, without adequate
criteria to judge them, makes it difficult or even impossible
to assess how any one project can contribute to meeting
Reclamation's long-term goals.
The Department, the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Congress all need to have a consistent, useful suite of
performance-oriented metrics to help prioritize projects for
funding.
The project development and review process must be workable
for all parties--meaning that it must have clear standards,
criteria, and processes for project sponsors, that Reclamation,
the Department, and the Office of Management and Budget must
have sufficient time and tools to evaluate proposed projects,
and that Congress needs a clear assessment of the merits and
recommendations regarding each project.
Madam Chairwoman, the Department supports efforts to increase local
water supplies in the West through the implementation of water
recycling projects. However, the Department believes that Title XVI
needs to be a focused program that will produce results consistent with
Reclamation's mission of diversifying water supplies and proactively
addressing water-related crises in the Reclamation States. We believe
that the proposed legislation moves us in the direction of
satisfactorily addressing the five issues highlighted above, but that
the changes proposed by S. 3639 are not quite sufficient. However, we
would be pleased to work with the Committee to reach common ground to
improve Title XVI.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on S. 3639. I would be happy to answer any
questions at this time.
S. 3638
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Larry Todd,
Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am here today to
present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 3638, a bill
to authorize water supply, reclamation reuse and recycling and
desalination projects in Southern California. S. 3638 would amend Title
XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities
Act (P.L. 102-575) to include design, planning, and construction
authority for several regional projects. For reasons described below,
the Department does not support S. 3638.
S. 3638 as written would ``encourage'' the Secretary of the
Interior to participate in projects to plan, design, and construct
water supply projects, and amend Title XVI to authorize the design,
planning, and construction of projects to treat impaired surface water,
reclaim and reuse impaired groundwater, and provide brine disposal in
the State of California.
Title I of the bill would authorize the Inland Empire recycling
project with a Federal cost share not to exceed 25 percent, and a
funding authorization of $20 million. Title I of the bill would also
authorize the Cucamonga County Water District Pilot Satellite Recycling
Plant with a Federal cost share not to exceed 25 percent, and a funding
authorization of $10 million. With regard to the Inland Empire Regional
Water Recycling Initiative, Reclamation reviewed the project as part of
the CALFED/Title XVI review and found the project while close to
meeting the requirements still lacked 3 of the 9 requirements needed to
determine feasibility. Absent these items, Reclamation could not
determine the feasibility of the project. This does not mean the
project is not feasible, but rather that until the three remaining
items are completed, Reclamation cannot provide a feasibility
determination. It is expected that upon completion of the work covered
by a cooperative agreement between Inland Empire Utilities Agency and
Reclamation, funded in the FY 2006 appropriation, the missing items
will be addressed and Reclamation can make a final determination on the
project's feasibility. Until the feasibility study is completed, the
Department cannot support authorization of this project.
With regard to the Cucamonga Valley Water Recycling Project,
Reclamation also reviewed this project as part of the CALFED/Title XVI
review and found that the data provided did not meet 5 of the 9
requirements used to determine feasibility. Absent these items,
Reclamation could not determine the feasibility of the project. This
does not mean the project is not feasible, but rather that until the
five remaining items are completed, Reclamation cannot provide a
feasibility determination.
Title II, Section 202 of the bill would authorize the City of
Corona Water Utility, California Water Recycling and Reuse Project.
Reclamation also reviewed this project as part of the CALFED/Title XVI
review and found that the data provided did not meet 8 of the 9
requirements used to determine feasibility. Based on the technical
information provided, Reclamation could not determine the feasibility
of the project. This does not mean the project is not feasible, but
rather that until the remaining items are completed, Reclamation cannot
provide a feasibility determination.
Title II, Section 202 of the bill would also authorize the Yucaipa
Valley Regional Water Supply Renewal Project. Reclamation has not been
in consultation with the local district nor received any copies of a
feasibility study to support the authorization of this project. Without
a proper analysis to make sure this project meets appropriate federal
guidelines for consideration for construction authorization, we cannot
support Reclamation's participation in the planning, design and
construction activities.
With regards to all of the Title XVI projects proposed in S. 3638,
as the Department has consistently stated in prior testimony, it does
not believe it is prudent to authorize new Title XVI projects while a
major backlog of projects already exists. The Department also believes
enactment of this legislation authorizing new Title XVI construction
projects is likely to place an additional burden on Reclamation's
already tight budget, and could potentially delay the completion of
other currently authorized projects. With the tremendous backlog of
existing Title XVI projects, we cannot support the addition of new
projects at this time. We note that of the 32 specific projects
authorized under Title XVI to date, 21 have received funding. Three of
the projects have been funded to the full extent of their
authorization. Two more should be fully funded in 2006.
Title II would also authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate with the Western Municipal Water District in the design and
construction of a water supply project known as the Riverside-Corona
Feeder. This is not a project that fits within the Title XVI program.
This Title provides a new authorization for Federal funding for this
project of 35 percent of the total project cost or $50 million,
whichever is greater.
This project would withdraw water from San Bernardino Valley
groundwater aquifers that are replenished during wet years from local
runoff, regulated releases from Seven Oaks Reservoir, and water from
the State Water Project. It would consist of a number of wells and
connecting pipelines, which would deliver up to 40,000 acre-feet of
water annually to communities in western Riverside County. Project
benefits include local drought protection, better groundwater
management, and reduced dependence on imported water.
The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the
Department of Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water
supply, recycling and desalination efforts. Partnering with state and
local governments is in accord with the Secretary's Water 2025
framework for anticipating water supply crises and preventing them
through communication, consultation and cooperation, in service of
conservation.
Madam Chairwoman, the Department supports the type of resourceful
utilization of local water supplies this bill calls for and the
potential for reducing the use of imported supplies from the Colorado
River and Bay-Delta. However, we cannot support S. 3638 concerning the
Riverside-Corona Feeder. First, the language establishing the federal
share of the project costs needs to be clarified to clearly set a
maximum federal cost share. Second, we understand that feasibility
level studies have not yet been completed for this project. Without a
proper analysis that adheres to the ``Economic and Environmental
Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies,'' and which otherwise meets appropriate federal
guidelines for consideration of project authorization, we cannot
support Reclamation's participation in design and construction
activities.
Reclamation is currently in consultation with the Western Municipal
Water District on the project and providing them guidance on their
feasibility analysis and the appropriate level of NEPA compliance that
will be needed. Nevertheless, we remain concerned that this is neither
a Title XVI project nor is it a project with any nexus to an existing
Reclamation project.
Thank you for the opportunity to convey our concerns on this
legislation, and I am happy to take any questions.
H.R. 177
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Larry Todd,
Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be
here today to give the Department's views on H.R. 177, the Santa Ana
River Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2005. The Department does not
support this bill.
In 1992, Congress adopted, and the President signed, the
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act (Public Law 102-
575). Title XVI of this Act, the Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act, authorized the Secretary to participate in the
planning, design and construction of five water reclamation and reuse
projects. The Secretary was also authorized to undertake a program to
identify other water recycling opportunities throughout the 17 western
states, and to conduct appraisal level and feasibility level studies to
determine if those opportunities are worthy of implementation. The
Bureau of Reclamation has been administering a grant program to fund
these Title XVI projects since 1994.
In 1996, Public Law 104-266, the Reclamation Recycling and Water
Conservation Act, was enacted. This law amended Title XVI and
authorized the Secretary to participate in the planning, design and
construction of 18 additional projects, including two desalination
research and development projects. Since 1996, Title XVI has been
amended several times, and now there are 32 projects authorized for
construction in nine states.
The Department recently testified to this Committee regarding the
need for reforms to the Title XVI program. As noted in our testimony,
the Department continues to believe that fundamental reform is needed
to ensure that the program produces results for the current needs of
the West.
With respect to H.R. 177, this bill would amend Title XVI, the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Prado
Basin Natural Treatment System Project, to authorize the Secretary to
carry out a program to assist agencies in projects to construct
regional brine lines in California, to authorize the Secretary to
participate in the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination demonstration
and reclamation project, and for other purposes.
Section 2 of the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in
cooperation with the Orange County Water District, to participate in
the planning, design, and construction of the natural treatment systems
and wetlands for the flows of the Santa Ana River, California, and its
tributaries into the Prado Basin. Section 2 of the bill authorizes an
appropriation of $20,000 to carry out this function.
Section 3 of the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior,
under Federal reclamation law and in cooperation with units of local
government, to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine
lines to export the salinity imported from the Colorado River to the
Pacific Ocean.
Section 4 of the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in
cooperation with the Chino Basin Watermaster, the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, acting
under Federal Reclamation laws, to participate in the design, planning,
and construction of the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination
demonstration and reclamation project.
With regards to sections 2, 3 and 4, as the Department has
consistently stated in previous testimony, it does not believe it is
prudent to authorize new Title XVI projects while there is a major
backlog of projects that already exist. We note that of the 32 specific
projects authorized under Title XVI to date, 21 have received funding.
Three of the projects have been funded to the full extent of their
authorization. Two more should be fully funded in 2006.
The Department also believes enactment of this legislation
authorizing new construction projects is likely to place an additional
burden on Reclamation's already tight budget.
In addition to the proposed three projects, the Department is also
concerned that under section 4, the legislation proposes a cost sharing
of 25 per cent not to exceed $50.0 million. The Department does not
believe there is justification to support assigning a cap higher than
the current $20.0 million for this project, and strongly opposes this
provision.
Section 5 of the bill amends Section 1631(d) of Title XVI by adding
a new paragraph (3) that would amend section 1624 by increasing the
Federal share of the costs of the project authorized by Section 1624,
Phase 1 of the Orange County Regional Water Reclamation Project.
Section 5 proposes deviation from the existing Title XVI Section
1631(d)(1) statute capping the federal cost share at $20.0 million. If
enacted, the new section would increase the federal cost share to
approximately $52.0 million. The Department does not believe there is
justification to support raising the cap for this project. Increasing
the funding for this project would reduce the ability of the Federal
government to provide funds for other Title XVI projects.
Section 6 of the bill authorizes a Center for Technological
Advancement of Membrane Technology and Education to be established at
the Orange County Water District located in Orange County, California.
Section 6 of the bill authorizes an appropriation of $2 million for
each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011 for this purpose.
Reclamation currently supports several research efforts that are
assisting in the development and advancement of membrane technologies.
These efforts include; the Water Quality Improvement Center, located in
Yuma, Arizona, the Tularosa National Center for Groundwater
Desalination located in Tularosa, New Mexico, and as directed by
Congress, funding assistance is provided to the Water Reuse Foundation
to award research grants to support advanced water treatment research
and technology transfer. Reclamation also provides research funding for
the development and advancement of membrane technologies through our
Desalination Water Purification Research and Development Program.
The Bureau of Reclamation and other Federal agencies are currently
working to determine the appropriate role, involvement and level of
federal funding for additional advanced water treatment systems
research. Madam Chairwoman, the Department is not familiar with the
specific research that would be supported by this Center and the
specific activities to which the funding would be applied. The
Department is therefore not able to determine at this time if the
Center as proposed will add value to those activities already being
supported through Federal funds.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 177. I would be happy to answer any
questions at this time.
H.R. 2341
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Larry Todd,
Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am here to present
the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2341, concerning
the City of Austin water reclamation project in the State of Texas.
While the Department encourages local water recycling efforts, we must
oppose authorizing this additional water recycling project for the
reasons described below.
H.R. 2341 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the design, planning, construction of, and land
acquisition for, the City of Austin water reclamation project in the
State of Texas. The authority proposed in H.R. 2341 is an amendment to
the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act, (Public Law
102-575), which limits the Federal share of project costs to 25 percent
of the total project costs and restricts the Secretary from providing
funding for the operation and maintenance of this project.
In 1992, the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act
(Public Law 102-575) became law. Title XVI of this Act, the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, authorized the
construction of five water reclamation and reuse projects. In addition,
the Secretary was authorized to conduct research and to construct,
operate, and maintain demonstration projects. The Bureau of Reclamation
has been administering a cost share program to fund these Title XVI
activities since FY 1994.
In 1996, Public Law 104-266, the Reclamation Recycling and Water
Conservation Act, was enacted. This Act amended Title XVI and
authorized the Secretary to participate in the planning, design, and
construction of 18 additional projects, including two desalination
research and development projects. Since 1996, Title XVI has been
amended several times and other specific pieces of legislation have
been enacted such that there now are 32 projects authorized for
construction in nine states, not including newly authorized projects in
the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005.
The Department opposes authorizing additional construction projects
prior to completion of feasibility studies to determine whether these
particular projects warrant Federal funding. In general, Reclamation
places priority on funding new projects that: (1) are economically
justified and environmentally acceptable in a watershed context; (2)
are not eligible for funding under another Federal program; and (3)
directly address Administration priorities for the Reclamation program,
such as reducing the demand on existing Federal water supply
facilities.
It should be noted that the Department, through the Bureau of
Reclamation, has completed an appraisal study of this proposed project
in cooperation with the City of Austin. As a result of the appraisal
investigation, a draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment
was prepared by the City and reviewed by Reclamation in December 2005.
The drafts are currently being revised based on extensive agency
comments and in accordance with Reclamation's Title XVI criteria. The
final planning reports are scheduled to be completed by the fall of
2006. H.R. 2341 would authorize construction of the initial phases of
this 27 year, $158 million project to convey recycled water to
customers. This planning work would afford the opportunity for
Reclamation to determine if the proposed actions match Title XVI
authority and objectives. This feasibility study is authorized under
the existing provisions of P.L. 102-575, Title XVI. We recommend
completing this cooperative feasibility study to prepare the necessary
analyses and evaluations of the project, including National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, prior to congressional
consideration of authorization for construction.
The Department also opposes enactment of this legislation because
authorizing new construction projects is likely to further burden
Reclamation's already strained budget. At current funding levels, it
will take Reclamation more than 10 years to complete funding of the
currently authorized Title XVI projects.
We would bring the attention of the Committee to the fact that this
project goes beyond the original purpose of Title XVI, which was to
support development of projects that demonstrated the feasibility of
water reuse and recycling. Since the viability of this technology has
been demonstrated, additional water reuse and recycling infrastructure
most clearly falls within the purview of state and local governments
which have already taken the lead in project development.
Finally, the Department opposes enactment of the provision in H.R.
2341 authorizing land acquisition prior to completion of the
feasibility study. Federal authorization for land acquisition should
await the outcome of the feasibility study and the determination that
such lands are legitimate project components and necessary for project
implementation.
In summary, the Department encourages local water recycling
efforts, and is engaged in numerous water reuse and recycling projects
throughout the West. However, for the reasons provided above, the
Department cannot support authorizing this new construction request.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 2341. This
concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.
H.R. 3418
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Larry Todd,
Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 3418,
concerning the Central Texas Water Recycling and Reuse Project in the
State of Texas. The Administration cannot support this bill.
H.R. 3418 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575), to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the City of Waco and
other participating communities, to participate in the design,
planning, and construction of permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse
water in McLennan County, Texas.
In 1992, the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act
(Public Law 102-575) became law. Title XVI of this Act, the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, authorized the
construction of five water reclamation and reuse projects. In addition,
the Secretary was authorized to conduct research and to construct,
operate, and maintain demonstration projects. The Bureau of Reclamation
has been administering a cost-share program to fund these Title XVI
activities since FY 1994.
In 1996, Public Law 104-266, the Reclamation Recycling and Water
Conservation Act, was enacted. This Act amended Title XVI and
authorized the Secretary to participate in the planning, design, and
construction of 18 additional projects, including two desalination
research and development projects. Since 1996, Title XVI has been
amended several times and other specific pieces of legislation have
been enacted such that there now are 32 projects authorized for
construction in nine states.
While the Department strongly encourages local water recycling
efforts, we oppose authorizing this additional water recycling project
for the reasons described below.
The Department opposes authorizing additional construction projects
prior to completion of feasibility studies to determine whether these
particular projects warrant Federal funding. In general, Reclamation
places priority on funding new projects that: (1) are economically
justified and environmentally acceptable in a watershed context; (2)
are not eligible for funding under another Federal program; and (3)
directly address Administration priorities for the Reclamation program,
such as reducing the demand on existing Federal water supply
facilities.
The City of Waco has developed conceptual plans for this project.
However, Reclamation has not reviewed this proposal, nor conducted an
appraisal study. An appraisal study will be needed to determine if the
preliminary work initiated by the city meets Reclamation's requirements
and to evaluate the potential for a feasibility study according to
Title XVI criteria. In that respect, until we have more information, we
cannot comment on the merits of the project itself and therefore cannot
support H.R. 3418.
The Department also opposes enactment of this legislation because
authorizing new construction projects is likely to further burden on
Reclamation's already strained budget. At current funding levels, it
will take Reclamation more than 10 years to complete funding of the
currently Title XVI authorized projects.
We would bring the attention of the Committee to the fact that this
project goes beyond the original purpose of Title XVI, which was to
support development of projects that demonstrated the feasibility of
water reuse and recycling. Since the viability of this technology has
been demonstrated, additional water reuse and recycling infrastructure
most clearly falls within the purview of state and local governments
which have already taken the lead in project development.
In summary, the Department encourages local water recycling
efforts. However, for the reasons provided above, the Department cannot
support authorizing this new construction request.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 3418. This
concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Todd. I think your
comments about the four additional water projects that we have
up before us, your statement that the Bureau can't support them
until we reform title XVI, goes to the importance of the
legislation that Senator Feinstein and I have been working on.
I appreciate your statements that you intend to continue to
work with us on the remaining differences that relate to S.
3639.
In listening to your comments and also in reading your
testimony that was submitted, I have to wonder if perhaps it is
just that we are not necessarily defining, but choosing the
terminology. In our legislation, we speak to the technical and
financial viability. In the past, we've called it feasibility.
Whichever wording you choose, ultimately you'd like to think
you're getting to the same place in terms of determination as
to whether or not you've got a project that works. So I would
like to think that we can work through the issues and perhaps
some of the semantics that might be bogging us down because, as
you indicate, and we would certainly agree, this is too
important to not move forward.
I guess I would ask for your support as well as knowing
that you will be in a position to provide to us the people
within your Department that we can be working with, in the very
immediate future, to see if we can't work out some of these
differences.
Mr. Todd. I believe that the terminology has been a problem
and we're very willing to work with you on that and provide
individuals to work with your staff.
Senator Feinstein. I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
Senator Murkowski. Just move that right up close.
Mr. Todd. I do believe that the terminology is a problem,
but I think that we can work those definitions out. And
certainly, we would be willing to provide the necessary staff
to work with your committee staff to work out these issues.
Senator Murkowski. We would like to do that in a relatively
expedited timeframe here, if we can. Earlier this year, the
Bureau had given us a copy of the findings of the CALFED title
XVI review. The Committee had asked for this report and as part
of that document, the Bureau made a determination on whether a
project is feasible by evaluating the title XVI projects
relative to nine specific criteria that had been laid out. Is
it the position of the Bureau, I guess, to conclude that the
project is feasible if it meets these nine criteria that are
set out?
Mr. Todd. Yes, I believe that is our position. We have
these guidelines for preparing, reviewing and processing water
reclamation and reuse project proposals under title XVI and
that is on our Web site. The nine steps are right here in the
feasibility section. And certainly, if those are met, we
believe that it would meet the criteria for being feasible.
Senator Murkowski. So we ought to be able to take these
nine criteria and as long as they are part of the technical
viability and the financial capability, we ought to be able to
get from where you are with your nine criteria to where we are
with our language and get to the same point, which is a
recommendation that could be made to the Secretary as to the
viability, feasibility--whatever you want to call it--of the
project; is that correct?
Mr. Todd. We believe so. As a matter of fact, one of the
steps in here, one of the criteria is the financial capability
and it is the same as, I think, in your bill.
Senator Murkowski. So it sounds like we should be able to
work through these issues. I look forward to doing that with
you and your staff as well.
Mr. Todd. I believe so.
Senator Murkowski. OK. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Todd, your testimony on S. 3639 states
that before projects are authorized for construction, their
appraisal and feasibility studies should be completed,
reviewed, and approved by the Department and OMB and then
submitted to Congress. Now it is my understanding that
Reclamation is not actively supporting a significant number of
appraisal and feasibility studies. How much of the Department's
2007 budget request of $10.1 million for title XVI projects is
committed to reviewing and completing appraisal and feasibility
studies for potential project authorizations?
Mr. Todd. Well, I don't have that figure on me. We can get
that to you. I believe, though, that most of the funding level
is going directly to fund construction of projects.
Senator Johnson. All right. But if you could get that
dollar number back----
Mr. Todd. We will get that for you.
Senator Johnson [continuing]. That would be useful.
Because, obviously, if we are not going to do the appraisal and
feasibility studies, then things become more difficult. Your
testimony on the specific project authorizations sets forth an
administrative position that the title XVI program was intended
to be a demonstration program and that it has fulfilled its
purposes. You then go on to state that additional water reuse
and recycling infrastructure most clearly falls within the
purview of State and local governments that have already taken
the lead in project development. That position seems to convey
that the administration does not support continuing the title
XVI program. How do you reconcile that with your other
statements that you, in fact, want to work with the committee
on title XVI reform?
Mr. Todd. I think the statement that the water supply for
local communities is a local responsibility--now, where the
Federal Government can fit in is helping and assisting in areas
where we have critical water areas, and in particular, those
that are particular water challenges for the Reclamation
projects themselves. So, I don't think at all that we do not
believe that these water reuse projects are bad projects at
all. I think they are all good. But in fact, it is when does
the Federal Government step in and actually assist in these. I
believe that issue--and we have to have the right criteria in
order to figure that out and be able to recommend when those
taxpayer dollars are helping fund those projects.
Senator Johnson. But you see it then, that so long as we
can come together on criteria--and I appreciate your nine
criteria that your Department has worked up, working with this
committee, but so long as we can come together on criteria, you
see--and the Department's view is that title XVI ought to be an
ongoing program?
Mr. Todd. Yes.
Senator Johnson. And not simply a one-time-only
demonstration project, but, in fact, a continuing program of a
Federal, State, and local partnership kind of project?
Mr. Todd. That's correct. Now, it has evolved and largely--
a lot of the techniques have been developed, that's true and
demonstrated. But as long as we can get to the right criteria
and get management of the program, then yes, that's where we
would be. We would see it as a program.
Senator Johnson. Very good. I yield back.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Todd. I've just read your statement where you take on a
number of California projects, specifically the Inland Empire
Recycling Project, the Cucamonga Valley Water Recycling
project, the City of Corona Water Utility, the Yucaipa Valley
Regional Water Supply, and the Riverside Corona Feeder, all of
which you say have shortfalls in meeting some of the
requirements; right?
Mr. Todd. That's true.
Senator Feinstein. Now, my question is this: What process
do you recommend to reconcile this to be able to get a clear
understanding of what you are asking for, so that these
projects can get approved?
Mr. Todd. Well, the current nine points that we are using,
we believe, are very useful for really what is out there right
now and what we measure projects against. For instance, on
Inland Empire, I'm told that we are very close to assembling
the information or that they are close to assembling the
information into a feasibility report and we have a cooperative
agreement with them to do that.
Senator Feinstein. Then it is likely that they will be
approved?
Mr. Todd. Pardon?
Senator Feinstein. It is likely that that project will be
approved?
Mr. Todd. Well, I won't know until we get the report in
front of us, but I believe there is a lot of information out
there and we do believe that they are close. We believe it is
in assembly, putting together the information that is there.
Cucamonga is similar, although there were a few more things
that they needed to do. So I think the feasibility nine points
is right now the place where we need to start. And I don't
necessarily----
Senator Feinstein. Well, is there a misunderstanding from
these projects, as to what the nine points are?
Mr. Todd. There could be some communication problems. I
wouldn't necessarily deny that. But as I have referred to
this----
Senator Feinstein. I'd be very happy to convene a meeting
between you and the representatives of these projects and go
over the nine points and see that there is no misunderstanding.
Mr. Todd. We'd definitely do that. Certainly.
Senator Feinstein. All right. I'd offer to do that then.
I'll set it up, hopefully as soon as possible, and see if we
can't sort of clear the decks. Now let me ask you a couple of
questions about the national bill. Would you be willing to sit
down with Senator Murkowski's staff, and my staff, and other
key staff to work through your concerns on the national bill
during the month of August?
Mr. Todd. Oh, I think so, yes. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. So that we have it done by the end of
the month? Would that be agreeable with you, Madam Chairman and
Senator Johnson, so that we might take a look at that?
Senator Murkowski. Absolutely.
Mr. Todd. We'd make every effort to do that.
Senator Feinstein. Because we thought our criteria for
reviewing these projects is pretty good: the cost per acre-
foot, the regional benefits, the environmental benefits, the
new technologies, the cost-effectiveness compared to other
alternatives, and the Federal interest quotient. If there are
other substantive criteria that you think ought to be there, as
long as they are not unduly cumbersome, I think it would be a
good idea to know what that is. So those meetings might be able
to turn that up.
Let me say very clearly, one of my concerns about an
elaborate, convoluted review process that goes on and on is
that the dollars are so limited and if we can spend them on
projects that deliver more water bang for the buck, we're all
better off than we are on endless review. Would you agree with
that?
Mr. Todd. Yes, I would agree.
Senator Feinstein. Well, then we ought to be able to get
there. That's my hope. The two California bills before us today
create 300,000 acre-feet of new water. Can you suggest a more
cost-effective way to come up with 300,000 acre-feet of new
water for the growing cities in the West?
Mr. Todd. Well, I certainly have not read any of the
background material and studies. No, I don't have any kind of
information like that.
Senator Feinstein. See, I think this is the most cost-
effective way we can go. And the Federal investment is so low,
in the main, the communities are doing 80 percent of it and I
think it is so important--I'm puzzled by the fact that
Reclamation doesn't want any new projects, because the new
projects may very well be more cost-effective and deliver more
water than some of the older projects.
Mr. Todd. Let me speak to the support. It is a matter of
backlog. We've got a tremendous backlog right now of projects
that we are funding. We have about 21 of them, I believe, and
in order to finish those projects, it's going to be over
$300,000 million. At the current rate, it's just a tremendous
backlog in order to get to finishing any of these that we
already have on the books. That's not counting the 11 or so
projects that are already authorized that haven't received any
funding.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this. We have a specific
sunset provision in our national bill and it would sunset a
specific project authorization if they received no funding for
10 years. Is that helpful in addressing your concerns?
Mr. Todd. I believe a sunset provision would be helpful.
Senator Feinstein. How many projects would sunset if that
were the provision?
Mr. Todd. Well, I'd have to get you that information. I
don't--I didn't bring that kind of analysis with me, but we
would certainly give that to you.
Senator Feinstein. OK, because it seems to me----
Mr. Todd. Right now, for instance----
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. There has to be some way of
moving this process.
Mr. Todd. We would definitely work with the committee staff
in order to do that.
Senator Feinstein. We have California jurisdictions, you
know, clamoring for attention in the Reclamation area and it
seems to be the one area where local jurisdictions really
believe they can make some headway.
Mr. Todd. We believe so, too. We believe that these are
good projects. That's not the sticking point. The sticking
point is about criteria and about the backlog and the funding
levels and how we deal with that, management of that issue,
those two issues.
Senator Feinstein. OK, then what I would like to do is, on
the five California projects that you mention in your written
remarks, I'd like to convene a meeting next week and get the
representatives from those projects, the key people back here
and let's all sit down together and go over them, see where we
are and we'll all be in the same room and hear the same thing.
Does that make sense?
Mr. Todd. We would commit to that.
Senator Feinstein. OK, we'll set it up then, for next week.
I thank you very much.
Mr. Todd. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. We will be working with you
then.
I think, Senator Feinstein, your point of making it happen
during the August recess so that we can get it done, so that we
can have something to move on when we come back after the
recess is important. You mentioned the backlog and how we deal
with that, and the reality of where we are is when you have
these projects that keep getting authorized but no funding,
it's almost, ``Where do you start first?'' And as you've
mentioned, you may have new projects coming on that might have
a higher benefit to a higher number of people, with better
technology, but you're put down at the bottom of a list that is
seemingly endless, and because it looks that bad, nobody can
even get started with it, so you're doomed before you even get
going. It seems that we've got to have a process where you can
kind of clear out some of the stuff that just doesn't have that
viability and figure out a way to move forward.
Mr. Todd. We agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
Absolutely.
Senator Murkowski. Are there any other questions of Mr.
Todd?
Senator Johnson. Let me only comment that the underlying
problem here has been the allocation of funding to the BLR for
these projects. We've got several in my home State that have
been stretched out. In fact, we've had to come back and re-
authorize a later completion date because the funding has been
so deficient, compared to what their construction capability
is, that the projects are costing more and more money and it
stretches out a great deal of time to the disadvantaged people
who need the water and to the taxpayers both. So if we're going
to have these water project programs, we're going to have to do
a far better job of creating a funding stream that is adequate
to what it is we're attempting to do; otherwise, we're going to
wind up with very worthy projects getting nothing. We're going
to wind up with projects that are stuck in a very slow walk
toward their completion, which is immensely costly to the
taxpayers at both the State and Federal level. So we're going
to have to do a much better job working with our friends at OMB
to get a much more adequate level of funding so that the BLR
isn't stuck with this world of backlogged projects that grow
costlier by the day and then an inability to address new
projects that may be even more worthy than the ones that are
under construction, for all we know. But it is going to come
down to a question of budget priority, and so far, this
Congress hasn't done a very good job in that regard, nor has
the White House.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Todd, thank you.
Mr. Todd. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Let's call forward the second panel. We
have Mr. Joe Grindstaff, the director of the California Bay-
Delta Authority out of Sacramento. We've got Chris Lippe, the
director of the city of Austin Water Utility out of Austin, TX,
along with Mr. Richard Atwater, who is chair of the National
Legislative Committee for the WateReuse Association, and Mr.
Tom Ray, an engineering consultant from the city of Waco in
Texas. Gentlemen, good afternoon. Do we have Mr. Ray? OK. All
right.
Since Mr. Ray is the last one to get here, we'll start with
you, Mr. Grindstaff. Why don't we start with you then and just
proceed to the right. Welcome to the committee. Thank you for
traveling the distances that you have to be with us to provide
your comments.
STATEMENT OF P. JOSEPH GRINDSTAFF, DIRECTOR, CALFED BAY-DELTA
PROGRAM, SACRAMENTO, CA
Mr. Grindstaff. Thank you very much. I will assume that my
written remarks are included. Thank you very much for being
here, Senator Feinstein. We have worked together quite a bit on
CALFED. I wanted to talk today specifically about water use
efficiency and recycling, because that is really key to the
future of water in California and indeed, for all the West,
probably for the entire world.
As we think about water, the projects that are before you
today in California have ties both to CALFED, because water
supplies go from northern California down to the Inland Empire
and to the Colorado River. There are links to the Federal nexus
that are incredibly important. As I listened to arguments about
money, I also think, to some extent, there is a false economy
here, because if we have a drought and we have major economic
impacts, who is going to step up? USDA and the Federal
Government are going to be called to come help subsidize the
impacts of a drought. It seems to me that this is one of the
best ways to proactively avert the problem.
Just a couple of years ago, we were forced as a State to
decrease our take, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, from the
Colorado River. We decreased it by 800,000 acre-feet a year. We
did that all at one time. We would not have been able to do
that had we not had a CALFED program, had we not had projects
like this in place. In fact, last year, Metropolitan Water
District had a right to take water from behind Hoover Dam and
decided not to take that water and benefited all of the other
basin States, I think partly because we had implemented these
kinds of programs. They had a right, under the interim surplus
criteria, to take more water than they took, but were able to
make the choice to benefit everyone in all seven basin States
by not taking that water because we had made these kinds of
investments. I think making these kind of investments is the
right thing to do. I think that in the big picture, they really
do save money for the Federal Government and for the economy of
the Nation, and so I encourage you to proceed with the bill in
terms of figuring out criteria.
I do want to point out, I was the general manager of Santa
Ana Watershed Project Authority, a regional agency that co-
sponsored a study with the Bureau of Reclamation that looked at
a number of these projects, starting in the 1990's, that was
completed 4 or 5 years ago, that actually came out listing what
the projects were, what the benefits were, what the cost per
acre-foot was. Many of those projects remain unauthorized, and
so my concern, also, is that the bureaucracy not take over, but
that we actually be able to move ahead and get the projects on
the ground and that we don't change the standards along the way
as a way of really preventing the projects from moving. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grindstaff follows:]
Prepared Statement of P. Joseph Grindstaff, Director,
CALFED Bay-Delta Program
Chairman Murkowski and members of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss ways the federal government could or should partner with state
and local governments to increase the supply and improve the quality of
water resources. I have been intimately familiar with these issues both
as a manager for local and regional water agencies in Southern
California, then as Chief Deputy Director for the California Department
of Water Resources, and now as the Director of the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program.
Today I will provide an overview of the California Water Plan as it
relates to recycled wastewater and conjunctive groundwater management.
I will also provide you with some examples of how this works across
California and discuss some of the major challenges facing us. Finally,
I will conclude with recommendations from the State of California's
perspective about how these vital forms of water management can be
improved.
In particular, the kinds of projects envisioned by S. 3638 and H.R.
177--treating impaired surface and groundwater, wastewater reclamation
and brine disposal--fit well with goals of the California Water Plan
and the policy of multi-level governmental partnerships.
The recently updated California Water Plan recognizes the need for
a comprehensive approach and the need to work cooperatively--with local
and regional agencies and with the state and federal governments--in
order to succeed in managing the state's water resources. The Plan
looks at water as a resource whose management involves many
responsibilities and raises many issues.
I am a firm believer that the water supply reliability and water
quality issues facing California and many other parts of the nation and
the world cannot be solved by any one management strategy implemented
by any one level of government or private sector enterprise. Only by
using all of the management options available, and through
collaboration and cooperation at all levels of government and the
private sector, will we be able to meet the demands of a growing
population, maintain economic growth and prosperity, and do all this in
a way that preserves and protects the natural environment.
WASTEWATER RECYCLING
Californians have used recycled water since the late 1800s and
public health protections have been in effect since the early part of
the 1900s. Recycled water use has dramatically increased in the past
several decades as water agencies needed to supplement their water
supplies. Today, California's water agencies recycle about 500,000
acre-feet of wastewater annually. In fact, this increase in water
recycling and the addition of 1 million acre-feet of new groundwater
storage are success stories for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program's efforts
to increase water supply reliability.
In 2001, the state Legislature established a 40-member Recycled
Water Task Force to identify opportunities for, and constraints and
impediments to, increasing the use of recycled water in California.
Over the course of nearly 14 months, the Task Force conducted intensive
study in collaboration with many other experts and the public to
develop recommendations for actions at many levels.
Many of the Task Force recommendations are in the process of being
implemented and will significantly improve both the way projects are
planned and the regulatory frameworks within which they must operate. A
key issue remains: increasing state and federal financial support for
research and project construction.
Recycled Water Use Affordability
The cost of recycled water, relative to other water sources, will
influence how much recycled water is produced for each region. Costs
are dependent on the availability of treatable water, demand for
treated water, the quality of the source as well as the product water,
the type of the intended beneficial use, and the proximity of recycled
water facilities to the end users. In addition, the need for disposal
brine lines is considered a major issue for some inland agencies.
The lack of adequate local funding to plan feasible recycled water
projects can slow the construction of new projects. Public funding as
well as incentive measures can help advance water recycling for
irrigation, making more potable water supply available. In California,
we estimate there is a potential of about 0.9 million to 1.4 million
acre-feet annually of additional water supply from recycled water by
the year 2030.
When looking at California's overall water supply, recycling
provides new water for the state only in areas where wastewater is
discharged to the ocean or to salt sink. Recycling in other areas may
provide new water for the water agency, but does not necessarily add to
the state's water supplies. In these locations, discharged wastewater
in interior California mixes with other water and becomes source water
for downstream water users.
For many communities, an investment in recycled water could also
provide other benefits, including:
1. More reliable and drought-proof local sources of water,
including nutrients, and organic matter for agricultural soil
conditioning and a reduction in fertilizer use
2. Reduction of pollutants discharged into water bodies
beyond levels prescribed by regulations with the ability to
increase natural treatment by land application
3. Improved groundwater and surface water quality that
contribute to wetland and marsh enhancement
4. Energy savings because the use of recycled water as a
local source offsets the need for even-more energy-intensive
imported water
Potential Costs of Recycled Water
The estimated capital cost for the range of potential recycling in
California by 2030 is approximately $6 billion to $9 billion. The
actual cost will depend on the quality of the wastewater, the treatment
level to meet recycled water intended use, and the availability of a
distribution network. Uses, such as irrigation near the treatment
plant, will benefit from lower treatment and distribution costs.
Irrigation of a wide array of agriculture and landscape crops can
even benefit from the nutrients present in the recycled water by
lowering the need for applied fertilizer. However, the use of recycled
water for irrigation without adequate soil and water management may
cause accumulation of salts or specific ions in soil and groundwater.
Some uses, such as an industrial recycled water user farther away from
the treatment plant, may need to pay higher costs for treatment and
distribution. Given the wide range of local conditions that can affect
costs, the majority of applications would cost between $300 and $1,300
per acre-foot of recycled water. Costs outside this range are plausible
depending on local conditions. Uses that require higher water quality
and have higher public health concerns will have higher costs.
Affordability
The cost of recycled water, relative to other water sources, will
influence how much recycled water is produced for each region. The
costs are dependent on the availability of treatable water, demand for
treated water, the quality of the source as well as the product water,
the type of the intended beneficial use, and the proximity of recycled
water facilities to the end users. In addition, the need for disposal
brine lines is considered a major issue for some inland agencies. The
lack of adequate local funding to plan feasible recycled water projects
can slow the construction of new projects. Public funding as well as
incentive measures can help advance water recycling projects that
provide local, regional and statewide benefits.
Water Quality
The quality of the recycled water will affect its usage. Public
acceptance of recycled water use depends on confidence in the safety of
its use. Four water quality factors are of particular concern: 1)
microbiological quality; 2) salinity; 3) presence of heavy metals, and
4) the concentration of stable organic and inorganic substances or
emerging contaminants originating from various pharmaceuticals and
personal care products, household chemicals and detergents,
agricultural fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, animal growth
hormones, and many other sources.
Public Acceptance
Public perception and acceptance of some recycled water uses
currently limits its application. In some areas, public concerns about
potential health issues have limited the use of recycled water for
indirect potable purposes, such as groundwater recharge and
replenishment of surface storage, and even for irrigation of parks and
school yards.
Potential Impacts
Areas in interior California that discharge their wastewater to
streams, rivers, or the groundwater contribute to downstream flows.
Recycling water would remove this source of water and potentially
affect downstream water users, including the environment. In some
instances, recycling is discouraged when dischargers are required to
maintain a certain flow in the stream for downstream users.
CONJUNCTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT
During the last three years, the Conjunctive Water Management
Branch of the California Department of Water Resources has implemented
several integrated programs to improve the management of groundwater
resources in California. These improvements cover many facets of
groundwater management. They include developing a basic understanding
of individual groundwater basins, identifying basin management
strategies or objectives, planning and conducting groundwater studies,
and designing and constructing conjunctive use projects. The goal is to
increase water supply reliability statewide through the planned,
coordinated management and use of groundwater and surface water
resources.
When the Conjunctive Water Management Program was formed five years
ago, local agencies had little trust in the overall objectives of the
program and minimal interest in participating. Since that time, the
Program has been able to establish strong relationships with many local
agencies and has made commitments to assist efforts to plan and
implement conjunctive water use projects pursuant to the program goal
while, at the same time, providing both local management opportunities
and water supply system reliability measures.
There is no comprehensive statewide data on the planning and
implementation of conjunctive water management at the local agency
level, but Department of Water Resources' Conjunctive Water Management
Program data provides an indication of the types and magnitude of
projects that water agencies are pursuing. In fiscal years 2001 and
2002, the Program awarded more than $130 million in grants and loans to
leverage local and regional investment in projects throughout
California with total costs of about $550 million.
Examples of Conjunctive Management
Some examples illustrate the types of conjunctive management under
way on a regional and local scale. In Southern California, including
Kern County, conjunctive management has increased average-year water
deliveries by more than 2 million acre-feet. Over a period of years,
artificial recharge in these areas has increased the water now in
groundwater storage by about 7 million acre-feet.
In Northern California, Santa Clara Valley Water District releases
local supplies and imported water into more than 20 local creeks for
artificial in-stream recharge and into more than 70 recharge ponds with
an average annual recharge capacity of 138,000 acre-feet. Conjunctive
management has virtually stopped land subsidence caused by heavy
groundwater use and has allowed groundwater levels to recover to those
of the early 1900s.
In Southern California, the Groundwater Replenishment System is a
groundwater management and water supply project jointly sponsored by
the Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District.
The project will take highly treated urban wastewater and treat it to
better-than drinking water standards using advanced membrane
purification technology. The water will be used to expand an existing
underground seawater intrusion barrier as well as augment water
supplies for municipal and industrial uses. Phase 1 of the project is
expected to produce up to 72,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water
for groundwater recharge beginning in 2007.
Major Issues
Lack of Data--There is rarely a complete regional network to
monitor groundwater levels, water quality, land subsidence, or the
interaction of groundwater with surface water and the environment. Data
is needed to evaluate conditions and trends on three planes: laterally
over an area, vertically at different depths, and over time. Also,
there is often a reluctance of individuals who own groundwater
monitoring or supply wells to provide information or allow access to
collect additional information. The result is that decisions are often
made with only approximate knowledge of the system.
This uncertainty can make any change in groundwater use
controversial. Additional investment in a monitoring network and data
collection can help reduce this uncertainty, but must be done in
accordance with a groundwater management plan that is acceptable to
stakeholders in the basin.
Infrastructure and Operational Constraints--Physical capacities of
existing storage and conveyance facilities are often not large enough
to capture surface water when it is available in wet years. Operational
constraints may also limit the ability to use the full physical
capacity of facilities. For example, permitted export capacity and
efforts to protect fisheries and water quality in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta often limit the ability to move water to groundwater
banks south of the Delta. Facilities that are operated for both
temporary storage of flood water and groundwater recharge require more
frequent maintenance to clean out excessive sediment that often is
present in flood water.
Surface Water and Groundwater Management--In California, water
management practices and the water rights system treat surface water
and groundwater as two unconnected resources. In reality, there is
often a high degree of hydrologic connection between the two and a
separation of management authority.
Authority is separated among local, state and federal agencies for
managing different aspects of California's groundwater and surface
water resources. Several examples highlight this issue:
First, the State Water Resources Control Board regulates
surface water rights dating from 1914, but not rights dating
before 1914;
If that's not confusing enough, SWRCB also regulates
groundwater quality, but not the rights to use groundwater;
On a local level, county groundwater ordinances and local
agency groundwater management plans often only apply to a
portion of the groundwater basin, and those with overlapping
boundaries of responsibility do not necessarily have consistent
management objectives; and finally,
Except in adjudicated basins, individuals have few
restrictions on how much groundwater they can use, provided the
water is put to beneficial use on the overlying property.
Failure to integrate water management across jurisdictions makes it
difficult to manage water for multiple benefits and provide for
sustainable use, including the ability to identify and protect or
mitigate potential impacts to third parties, ensure protection of legal
rights of water users, establish rights to use vacant aquifer space and
banked water, protect the environment, recognize and protect
groundwater recharge and discharge areas, and protect public trust
resources.
Water Quality--Groundwater quality can be degraded by naturally
occurring or human-introduced chemical constituents, low quality
recharge water, or chemical reactions caused by mixing water of
differing qualities. Protection of human health, the environment, and
groundwater quality are all concerns for programs that recharge urban
runoff or reclaimed/recycled water. The intended end use of the water
can also influence the implementation of conjunctive management
projects. For example, agriculture can generally use water of lower
quality than needed for urban use, but certain crops can be sensitive
to some constituents like boron.
New and changing water quality standards and emerging contaminants
add uncertainty to implementing conjunctive management projects. A
water source may, at the time it is used for recharge, meet all
drinking water quality standards. Over time, however, detection
capabilities improve and new or changed water quality standards become
applicable. As a result, contaminants that were not previously
identified or detected may become future water quality problems
creating potential liability uncertainties. In some cases, conjunctive
water management activities may need to be coordinated with groundwater
clean up activities to achieve multiple benefits to both water supply
and groundwater quality.
Environmental Concerns--Environmental concerns related to
conjunctive management projects include potential impacts on habitat,
water quality, and wildlife caused by shifting or increasing patterns
of groundwater and surface water use. For example, floodwaters are
typically considered ``available'' for recharge. However, flood flows
serve an important function in the ecosystem. Removing or reducing
these peak flows can negatively impact the ecosystem. A key challenge
is to balance the in-stream flow and other environmental needs with the
water supply aspects of conjunctive management projects. There may also
be impacts from construction and operation of groundwater recharge
basins and new conveyance facilities.
Funding--There is generally limited funding to develop the
infrastructure and monitoring capability for conjunctive management
projects. This includes funding to develop and implement groundwater
management plans, study and construct conjunctive management projects,
and to track--statewide and regionally--changes in groundwater levels,
groundwater flows and groundwater quality.
Grant applications from DWR's fiscal year 2001-2002 Conjunctive
Water Management Program show project costs of increasing average
annual delivery ranging from $10 to $600 per acre-foot. This wide range
of costs is due to many factors, including project complexity, regional
differences in construction and land costs, availability and quality of
recharge supply, availability of infrastructure to capture, convey,
recharge, and extract water, intended use of water, and treatment
requirements. In general, urban uses can support higher project costs
than agricultural uses. The average project cost of all applications
received by DWR is $110 per acre-foot of increase in average annual
delivery. This average unit cost translates to approximately $1.5
billion in statewide implementation costs of for the conservative level
of implementation, and $5 billion for the aggressive implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
California Water Plan Update 2005 is the product of a collaborative
process that brought together the Department of Water Resources; a 65-
member advisory committee representing urban, agricultural, and
environmental interests; a 350-member extended review forum; and 2,000
interested members of the public. The result is a plan that includes
the very best ideas for meeting our water challenges, and the following
recommendations about conjunctive water management and wastewater
recycling:
Wastewater Recycling
1. Federal, state and local funding should be increased
beyond Proposition 50 and other existing sources toward
sustainable technical assistance and outreach, advanced
research on recycled water issues, and adequate water reuse/
recycling infrastructure and facilities.
2. The state, with assistance from the federal government,
should encourage an academic program on one or more campuses
for water reuse research and education; develop education
curricula for public schools; and encourage institutions of
higher education to incorporate recycled water education into
their curricula.
3. Federal, state and local agencies should engage the public
in an active dialogue and participation using a community
value-based decision-making model (determining what a community
values, then making decisions based on that information) in
planning water recycling projects.
Conjunctive Management
4. Local water management agencies should coordinate with
other agencies that are involved in activities that might
affect long term sustainability of water supply and water
quality within or adjacent to a basin situation. Regional
groundwater management plans should be developed with
assistance from an advisory committee of stakeholders to help
guide the development, educational outreach, and implementation
of the plans.
5. Continue funding for local groundwater monitoring and
management activities and feasibility studies that enhance the
coordinated use of groundwater and surface water. Additional
monitoring and analysis is needed to track, both statewide and
regionally, changes in groundwater levels, groundwater flows,
groundwater quality (including the location and spreading of
contaminant plumes) land subsidence, changes in surface water
flow, surface water quality, and the interaction and
interrelated nature of surface water and groundwater. There is
a need to develop comprehensive data and data management
systems to track existing, proposed, and potential conjunctive
management projects throughout the state and identify and
evaluate regional and statewide implementation constraints,
including availability of water to recharge, ability to convey
water from source to destination, water quality issues,
environmental issues, and costs and benefits.
6. Give priority for funding and technical assistance to
conjunctive management projects that are conducted in
accordance with a groundwater management plan, increase water
supplies, and have other benefits including the sustainable use
of groundwater, maintaining or improving water quality, and
enhancing the environment be given priority. Additional
preference should be given for projects conducted in accordance
with a regional groundwater management plan. In addition, allow
funding for projects that make use of wet-season/dry-season
supply variability, not just wet-year/dry-year variability.
7. Assess groundwater management to provide an understanding
of how local agencies are implementing actions to use and
protect groundwater, an understanding of which actions are
working at the local level and which are not working, and how
state and federal programs can be improved to help agencies
prepare effective groundwater management plans.
8. Improve coordination and cooperation among local, state,
and federal agencies with differing responsibilities for
groundwater and surface water management and monitoring to
facilitate conjunctive management, to ensure efficient use of
resources, to provide timely regulatory approvals, to prevent
conflicting rules or guidelines, and to promote easy access to
information by the public.
9. Encourage local groundwater management authorities to
manage the use of vacant aquifer space for artificial recharge
and to develop multi-benefit projects that generate source
water for groundwater storage by capturing water that would
otherwise not be used by other water users or the environment.
For example, through reservoir re-operation, water recycling
and reuse, and water conservation.
10. Include wildlife agencies in the loop to streamline the
environmental permitting process for the development of
conjunctive management facilities, like recharge basins, when
they are designed with pre-defined benefits or mitigation to
wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Grindstaff. And your full
written testimony will be included as part of the record, as it
will with everyone testifying today.
Mr. Atwater, welcome.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD ATWATER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INLAND
EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE WATEREUSE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Atwater. Thank you again for inviting me to testify,
Chairman Murkowski, Senator Feinstein, Senator Johnson. Of
course, I was here with you on February 28, when we did the
oversight hearing, and we've worked closely with your staff and
on behalf of the WateReuse Association. We strongly support the
introduction to the bill and we've been working with your
staff. Based upon your conversation today, we are more than
happy to work during the month of August to fine-tune the
language and work with your staff and the Bureau of
Reclamation. We've also had many meetings with the Bureau and
the Department of the Interior staff over the last couple of
months and I am also optimistic that we ought to be able to get
through the definitions and terminology of what is financially
viable and technically feasible and all that. And certainly as
a person who has worked on the program since its inception in
1992 and worked with Senator Feinstein to fund the first
project that replaced the lost supply for the city of Los
Angeles from Mono Lake and helped recover Santa Monica Bay and
such, it is clear that these projects, as Joe just outlined,
have many Federal benefits.
And when you consider that Lake Mead and Lake Powell and
the Colorado River are half full and this year--last year was
about normal, but this year is 75 percent under normal, it
means we are still in this 7 to 8 year drought on the Colorado
River and we all realize the economic problems that will happen
from Denver to Salt Lake City to Albuquerque to Phoenix and
certainly southern California and Las Vegas. It is clear that
the time to act and to work together to fund these very cost-
effective projects, not only given our California perspective
and certainly Joe--his testimony does a very nice job of
pointing out that for the last 4 or 5 years, through the CALFED
process, the State of California and the Governor's Task Force
in 2003 did a thorough review and identified the cost-effective
projects.
In fact, the Department, which is too bad--not to be
critical, but in the deputy commissioner's submittal, in his
testimony, in 2002, they did submit to this committee and to
the House the report that Joe referred to and it did rank--and
it took 10 years of feasibility studies. And for context, the
projects that you asked about, they were included in that
report. They've been thoroughly evaluated. It is unfortunate
because we have spent a lot of time and effort and just to
remind you, the State of California, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Army Corps of Engineers have granted permits, have
thoroughly reviewed those projects and we don't need to be
redundant about reviews on top of reviews.
Let me just speak a little bit about as S. 3639 and the re-
authorization. The last time the program was re-authorized was
in 1996 and Congress, at that time, reduced the cost share of
this program to 25 percent. Now we are proposing--which we
endorsed in February and you've put in the draft bill--reducing
the cost share to 20 percent. As Senator Feinstein said--and I
would heartily agree, and you asked Deputy Commissioner Larry
Todd about it--this is the most cost-effective Federal water
program in the United States and we're reducing it even
further, to a 20 percent cost share. When you look at it from a
dollars per acre-foot perspective and strategically developing
new water supplies, water recycling, reclamation,
desalinization, recovering poor quality groundwater, which is
critically important in New Mexico and throughout the arid West
and developing new technologies to use water and recover it so
that we can beneficially use it, it is clearly the highest
priority in the 21st century, not only in the United States,
but as Joe said, it is an international problem.
But clearly, it is an opportunity for us to develop new
technology and solve problems very cost effectively. So we look
forward to working with you. In our written testimony, we have
provided some details and we have already communicated that
with your staff and we look forward to working with you. I
guess I'll be back here next week and through the month of
August. The only thing I can say is in southern California,
since July 1, we have been over 100 degrees every day, so the
weather is no different back home than it is here. So we'll be
happy to work with you and get this done over the next month.
Thank you, again, very much for inviting the WateReuse
Association to work with you on this very, very important
legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Atwater follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Atwater, Chief Executive Officer,
Inland Empire Utilities Agency, on Behalf of the WateReuse Association,
on S. 3639
INTRODUCTION
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the WateReuse
Association is pleased to have the opportunity to present this
testimony on S. 3639 to reauthorize the Bureau of Reclamation's Reuse
and Recycling Program (Title XVI) in ensuring an adequate water supply
for the nation in the 21st century. I am Richard Atwater, Chairman of
the WateReuse Association's National Legislative Committee, and I am
representing the Association today.
I want to thank the Chairman and Senator Feinstein for introducing
S. 3639 to streamline the review criteria and enhance the cost-
effectiveness of the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reuse and
Recycling Program.
As a way of introduction, the WateReuse Association (WateReuse) is
a non-profit organization whose mission is to advance the beneficial
and efficient use of water resources through education, sound science,
and technology using reclamation, recycling, reuse, and desalination
for the benefit of our members, the public, and the environment. Across
the United States and the world, communities are facing water supply
challenges due to increasing demand, drought, and dependence on a
single source of supply. WateReuse address these challenges by working
with local agencies to implement water reuse and desalination projects
that resolve water resource issues and create value for communities.
The vision of WateReuse is to be the leading voice for reclamation,
recycling, reuse, and desalination in the development and utilization
of new sources of high quality water.
I am also Chief Executive Officer of Inland Empire Utilities Agency
(IEUA), located in Chino, California. By implementing aggressive
conservation programs and using innovative recycling and desalting
technologies to reuse our water supplies, we have reduced our potable
water demand by 20% over the past five years. IEUA is a municipal water
district that distributes imported water from the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and provides municipal/industrial
wastewater collection and treatment services to more than 800,000
people within a 242 square mile area in the western portion of San
Bernardino County. The Inland Empire region is the ``economic engine''
of California and among the top 10 job creating regions in the US.
The IEUA service area population is expected to double during the
next 20 years. About 7,000 new homes each year are being built in the
IEUA service area. Inland Empire is not depending on new imported
supplies from the Colorado River or Northern California through the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program to meet our future water supply needs.
Instead, we have developed an integrated water resources plan that will
develop 95,000 acre-feet of new recycled water, desalinate over 50,000
acre-feet of brackish groundwater supplies, and, with the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, develop 150,000 acre-feet of
conjunctive use in the Chino groundwater basin. These will be the
primary new water supplies to meet the rapidly growing needs of the
Inland Empire region of Southern California.
A critical partner in making these new local water supplies
available in our region is the Federal government. Pending in Congress
are Title XVI bills that would authorize a $20 million grant to provide
a 10% Federal cost-share for the IEUA regional water recycling project
of 95,000 acre-feet (total cost is $200 million). Without a doubt this
cost-sharing arrangement to develop a critical new supply for a rapidly
growing region without asking for more supplies from the Colorado River
or Northern California (CALFED) is incredibly cost-effective when
compared to the other supply options available in the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program.
On behalf of the Association's Board of Directors, I want to
commend you, Madam Chairman, for convening this hearing regarding S.
3639. The hearing is especially timely, given the increasing number of
challenges facing local agencies in their continuing quest to ensure
adequate water supplies in the future.
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S TITLE XVI REUSE AND RECYCLING PROGRAM
Today, the West faces two daunting challenges simultaneously. The
first is drought and the impacts of continued climate gyration--wild
swings in previously established weather patterns. The second is the
unprecedented growth throughout the Western States. Population
continues to not just grow, but accelerate throughout the West! The
Title XVI Water Recycling Program enables water users in the West to
stretch existing supplies through the application of reclamation,
reuse, recycling and desalination technologies. Title XVI was initially
authorized in 1992, following a severe multi-year drought in California
and other Western States. A drought of equal severity reduced the
mighty Colorado River to record lows only a few years ago. We must find
ways to expand the nation's water supplies, and do so without
generating regional or environmental conflicts. Reusing our existing
supplies and stretching those supplies is a significant part of the
solution. The Title XVI program provides the authority and framework to
accomplish these water resource development objectives to meet the
needs of our cities and urban areas, our farms and ranches, and our
diverse environment.
This legislation clarifies and makes permanent the U.S. Department
of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI water reuse/
reclamation/recycling grant authority for the development of new
sources of water. In so doing, this proposed legislation will help
state and local governments and water departments and agencies develop
new water and reliable water supplies.
The bill amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (1992) to provide new standards and procedures
for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects by the Interior
Department's Bureau of Reclamation. Additionally, the legislation sets
forth specific criteria to assist Congress in the evaluation and
selection of projects for Federal grant funding and sets the Federal
cost share at 20%. This is lower than the cost sharing requirement
specified in the 1996 amendments to Title XVI, and represents the most
cost-effective leveraging of Federal funds for any current Federal
water resources investment!
We believe that S. 3639 addresses the important question of how to
establish funding priorities. For the first time, a program is being
established that provides a road map for the Secretary to determine if
a project should be recommended for construction authorization. This
would allow Subcommittees such as yours, Madam Chairman, to consider
the value of a project to ameliorate a water supply shortage. Clearly,
the ability to define priorities is critical to an enhanced Title XVI
program and S. 3639 provides this framework.
Experiences with the Title XVI Program and Program Benefits
The Association and its members have a long-standing and productive
working relationship with the USBR and its Title XVI program. The Title
XVI program has benefited many communities in the West by providing
grant funds that made these projects more affordable. The Federal cost
share--although a relatively small portion of the overall project
cost--often makes the difference in determining whether a project
qualifies for financing. In addition, the Federal funding and the
imprimatur of the United States government typically results in a
reduced cost of capital.
The Association believes, first and foremost, that the Title XVI
program serves a Federal interest as discussed below. Although the
level of funding that the program has received over the past decade has
been limited, it is still an unqualified success. Simply stated, this
is one program that represents a sound investment in the future of the
West by the Federal government. It delivers multiple benefits to
stakeholders throughout the West, ranging from municipal and industrial
to agricultural needs. Through FY 2004, the Federal investment of
$272.5 million has been leveraged by a factor of approximately 5:1.
According to a recently completed study by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), the non-Federal investment to date during this same
period amounted to $1.085 billion.
In enumerating specific project benefits, we must not forget the
intangible benefits that exist when this critical new water supply is
brought on line in addition to the financial value of such projects.
These benefits include the following:
Environmental benefits realized through the conversion of
treated wastewater into a valuable new water supply;
Reduction of the quantity of treated wastewater discharged
to sensitive or impaired surface waters;
Alleviating the need to develop new costly water supply
development projects unless they are a last resort (e.g., new
dams and other expensive importation aqueducts);
Reduced dependence on the Colorado River and on the CALFED
Bay-Delta System, especially during drought years when
conflicts on both of these water systems are particularly
intense;
Creation of a dependable and controllable local source of
supply for cities in arid and semi-arid climates such as El
Paso, Phoenix, and Las Vegas;
Reduced demand on existing potable supplies; and
Energy benefits, including reduced energy demand and
transmission line constraints during peak use periods, realized
by the replacement of more energy-intensive water supplies such
as pumped imported water with less energy-intensive water
sources such as recycled water.
A fundamental question is ``why would we want to use valuable, high
quality water from the Bureau of Reclamation's Shasta Reservoir in
Northern California or Lake Powell in Utah and pump and transport it
over 500 miles to irrigate a park or golf course in the Los Angeles or
San Diego metropolitan areas?'' Also remember that the replacement of
that imported water with local recycled water will save enough energy
and related greenhouse gas impacts from reduced pumping equivalent to a
500 megawatt power plant! Obviously the energy and water policy issues
facing the arid West clearly justify a ``strategically'' small grant
program to use recycled water as a means to continue to support the
economic vitality of the major metropolitan areas throughout the
Colorado and Rio Grande River basins.
GENERAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR S. 3639
Overall S. 3639 provides a solid redirection of the Title XVI
program. It ensures that locally developed and supported projects have
a clear process to secure Federal construction authorization. As we
have discussed, most recently during the Subcommittee on Water and
Power's oversight hearing on February 28, one of the most vexing
challenges of the existing Title XVI program is the uncertainty that
USBR will provide timely reviews of a proposed project. The ability to
invest responsibility with a local community should remedy this
deficiency. We are also encouraged that the Secretary has clear
deadlines to act on any proposal that is submitted. This is vital to a
successful program. We also believe that the decision to limit federal
support to 20% of a project's costs is reasonable and will allow local
communities to commit expeditiously their share of a project's cost.
There are a limited number of issues contained in the draft
legislation that we would like to highlight as critical to a successful
Title XVI program. These are outlined below.
SPECIFIC ISSUES OF CONCERN
1. The bill provisions dealing with ``financially capable'' and
``technically viable'' project sponsors should be clarified through
report language to ensure an understanding that the Secretary is to
provide a project sponsor with a determination that the project is
viable within 30 days or the project is deemed to be viable. We believe
that the success of Title XVI reforms hinge on compliance with this key
deadline.
2. The checklist to determine viability provides clear direction
for how sponsors are required to submit project data to the Bureau of
Reclamation for review.
3. The bill appears to limit demonstrations activities to the
Western States by virtue of the language in Section 1602 (Purposes;
Definitions). We recommend that the Secretary be provided authority to
conduct research and demonstration activities in any geographic area
where technology demonstrations may prove most effective, provided they
have direct application and benefit to the Western States.
4. We endorse the bill's provisions to require a project's value to
be considered within the context of how it may contribute to improving
a number of circumstances, including the environment. This clearly
illustrates that any project priority will deliver multiple benefits.
5. The 10-year sunset provision for projects is an important
element to ensure timely review and recommendations of a project.
6. The bill's transition process may inadvertently create
unnecessary burdens. The requirement to make existing projects submit
new information pursuant to the new mandates would effectively change
the rules, creating new costs and delays to the project sponsor. We
strongly recommend that feasibility proposals that have already been
submitted not be required to comply with new rules. If a concern exists
over limiting the universe of proposals that would be grandfathered
into the program under the old rules, we recommend establishing a date
from which the new rules would apply.
CONCLUSION
Once again, the WateReuse Association wants to thank you, Madam
Chairman, for convening this hearing. We would be pleased to work with
you in addressing critical issues related to water reuse and recycling,
desalination, and water use efficiency. We are strongly supportive of
the Subcommittee's efforts to ensure adequate and safe supplies of
water in the future for the entire country.
Senator Murkowski. And we do appreciate all the work that
you have contributed to date, Mr. Atwater. Thank you.
Mr. Lippe, your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS LIPPE, DIRECTOR, CITY OF AUSTIN WATER
UTILITY, AUSTIN, TX
Mr. Lippe. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Murkowski,
Ranking Member Johnson, and Senator Feinstein. I really want to
thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
2341. I would also like to thank Representative Doggett for
introducing this bill and our entire congressional delegation
for all the hard work on Austin's behalf.
Austin Water Utility has a history of innovation and, with
your assistance, we hope to pursue more pioneering work in the
development of a phased, large-scale, water reclamation and
reuse project. First, let me provide some background
information on Austin and its water needs, its efforts to meet
those needs and the role we envision for the Bureau of
Reclamation's title XVI program. The city of Austin owns and
operates the Austin Water Utility, which has more than 180,000
residential multi-family, commercial, industrial and wholesale
connections, serving a total population of roughly 770,000
persons. The utility service area covers 450 square miles and
features three major drinking water treatment plants with a
combined capacity of 260 million gallons per day. On the
wastewater side, Austin is served by three large and eight
small wastewater treatment plants that have a combined capacity
of over 150 million gallons per day.
We have operated a reclaimed water program since 1974 that
provides, on average, more than two million gallons per day and
growing. Austin is located in a rapidly growing region where
long-range water supply planning and management is critical. As
one of the several measures to assist us in meeting our water
needs, Austin is relying on water reclamation. The expansion of
our water reclamation system will provide a number of benefits.
First, it alleviates the potential for water shortages in near-
and long-term. Second, it delays and reduces annual payments
under our raw water contract by millions of dollars. And
finally, it reduces infrastructure costs by reducing and
postponing water treatment plant and transmission mains.
The city faces two major challenges in meeting the needs of
its customers. First, there is a projected water need. The
city's current water rights and water contracts are expected to
meet demand until approximately 2042. By 2050, however, there
will be an anticipated water shortage of 42,000 acre-feet per
year, which is enough water to serve 63,000 residences or
220,000 people, in contrast to our currently served population
of 770,000. Water conservation measures are expected to provide
half of this shortfall, leaving the other half to be provided
by some alternative measure, such as our reclaimed water
program.
The second need is financial in nature and relates to
funding constraints under our capital improvements plan. The
city has identified almost $1 billion in infrastructure needs
in the next 5 years, through its capital improvement planning.
Much of that is devoted to water and wastewater treatment plant
expansions, and rehabilitation of our aging wastewater
collection system to meet the needs of the growing community.
This, of course, also includes funding for expanding the
reclaimed water program.
The Bureau of Reclamation operates a well-respected cost
share program to improve efficiency in the use of water
resources. Section 1602 of P.L. 102-575 establishes those broad
goals for the Bureau of Reclamation in administering title XVI
programs, including identifying opportunities for reclamation
and reuse of municipal waste water, investigating those
opportunities and providing a 25 percent cost share for the
design and construction of infrastructure. I am happy to say
that an appraisal report prepared jointly by the city and the
Bureau confirmed that the city of Austin's reclaimed project
fits well within these broad goals.
The city continues to collaborate with the Bureau of
Reclamation on investigating the potential for reclaimed water
in Austin through a feasibility report. We submitted our
feasibility report on December 5, 2005. Reclamation provided
written comments on March 22, 2006 and we are currently
addressing those comments. In addition to conforming to the
general goals of the title XVI program, the city of Austin's
Reclamation project meets title XVI program requirements in the
areas of applicability, eligibility, financial capability,
ownership, regionalism, postponed expanded water supplies,
reduced diversions from water courses and improved surface
water quality.
In summary, H.R. 2341 provides Federal authorization for
the city of Austin to formally enter the Bureau of
Reclamation's title XVI program and we are proactively working
to address an anticipated water need and have developed a
large-scale, phased project for the reclamation and reuse of
municipal wastewater in the Austin area that fits within the
goals and objectives of title XVI. We appreciate your time and
support and respectfully request that the subcommittee approve
H.R. 2341 and seeks its final passage. We thank you very much
for your time today. This concludes my presentation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lippe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Lippe, Director, City of Austin Water
Utility, on H.R. 2341
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to testify in favor of H.R. 2341. I would also like to thank
Representative Doggett, for introducing this bill and our entire
Congressional delegation for all of their hard work on Austin's behalf.
My name is Chris Lippe, P.E., and I am the Director of the City of
Austin's Water Utility. We provide water, reclaimed water, and
wastewater service in Austin, the capital of Texas. With a population
of approximately 770,000 Austin offers the best of big city and small
town life. Austin is recognized as a leader in sustainable growth that
enhances communities, enables economic development and supports the
environment. Our Reclaimed Water Program is a component of that effort.
In my testimony, I will provide information on H.R. 2341, Austin
and its water needs, our efforts to meet those needs, and the role that
we envision for the Bureau of Reclamation's Title 16 Program in helping
to meet those needs.
H.R. 2341
H.R. 2341 amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study
and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to
reclaim and reuse wastewater within the service area of the Austin
Water Utility.
ABOUT THE CITY OF AUSTIN
Austin, Texas is a vibrant community of approximately 770,000
citizens located in Central Texas and serves as the State Capital. The
City owns and operates the Austin Water Utility, which has more than
180,000 residential, multifamily, commercial, industrial, and wholesale
connections and draws its water supply from the Colorado River.
The City faces two major challenges in meeting the needs of its
customers. First, there is a projected water need. The City's current
water rights and water contracts are expected to meet demand until
approximately 2042. By 2050, however there will be an anticipated water
shortage of 42,096 af/yr. That is enough water to serve 63,000
residences, or an equivalent population of 221,000 in contrast to our
served population of 770,000. Water conservation measures are expected
to provide half of the shortfall, leaving the other half to be provided
by some alternative measure, such as reclaimed water.
The second need is financial in nature and relates to funding
constraints under our capital improvement plan. The City, through its
current capital improvement plan has identified almost $1 billion in
infrastructure needs in the next five years. Much of that is devoted to
water treatment plant expansion, wastewater treatment plant expansion,
and rehabilitation of the wastewater collection system to meet the
needs of a growing community. This of course does include some funding
for a growing reclaimed water program.
The expansion of our water, reclamation system will provide a
number of benefits. It alleviates the potential for water shortages. It
defers millions of dollars in annual payments under our raw water
contract. Finally, it can help defer the need for the construction of
additional water treatment plants.
THE RECLAIMED WATER PROGRAM
Based on the quality of the reclaimed water, the major uses for it
in Austin are for irrigation, cooling towers, and manufacturing. During
peak summer demands, reclaimed water use is more than three million
gallons per day, predominantly for irrigation. The Sand Hill Energy
Center recently connected to the system. The Combined Transportation
and Emergency Communication Center is in the process of connecting and
will use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. In the next few
years, we anticipate numerous additional customers as a result of
redevelopment of the City's former airport. Other potential customers,
such as the University of Texas and the Austin-Bergstrom International
Airport, are interested in using reclaimed water if distribution lines
can be extended to their property. Major Austin employers such as
Samsung are interested in using reclaimed water. The University of
Texas, is making plans to connect to our reclaimed water system.
RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT--CENTRAL SYSTEM
The central reclaimed system provides water from the Walnut Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). In 2005, the most recent full year
of data, customers used almost 60 million gallons of reclaimed water.
Piping in the central reclaimed system consists of 4 miles of
transmission main. Pumping equipment consists of two low-service pumps,
a one million gallon ground storage tank, and three high-service pumps
at the Walnut Creek WWTP. The central reclaimed system has one project
in the preliminary engineering design stage a two million gallon
elevated storage tank and an additional mile of transmission main.
RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT--SOUTH SYSTEM
The south reclaimed system consists of a pump station, a booster
pump station, a 0.5 million gallon elevated storage tank, and 15 miles
of piping carrying treated wastewater effluent from the South Austin
Regional WWTP. Customers include the award winning Hornsby Bend
Biosolids Management Facility, the Sand Hill Energy Center, and two
golf courses. In 2005 these customers used 587 million gallons of
reclaimed water.
RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT--SATELLITE SYSTEM DETAILS
The Austin Water Utility operates three satellite systems that are
located on the fringes of its service area. With a satellite system,
wastewater flows are geographically matched with potential customers
and a water reclamation plant is built in the immediate vicinity. In
2005, the Davenport WWTP provided 81 million gallons of reclaimed water
for golf course irrigation. The Onion Creek WWTP produced 58 million
gallons of reclaimed water for golf course irrigation. Finally, the
Balcones and Pickfair WWTPs provided 79 million gallons of reclaimed
water, again for golf course irrigation.
RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT--SYSTEM GROWTH
As mentioned above, the City has approximately 19 miles of existing
transmission main in the southern and central part of its service area
as well as pump stations and storage tanks at the Walnut Creek and
South Austin Regional WWTPs. This existing infrastructure serves as the
backbone for the growth of the reclaimed water system. Eventually, the
central and south systems will connect. A schematic showing the
existing and proposed reclaimed water system is attached.
With Federal assistance, the reclaimed water system can grow
dramatically. The miles of transmission mains will expand to from 19 to
137, an increase of more than 700%. Storage tanks in the distribution
system will grow from zero to seven with a combined storage capacity of
14.3 million gallons. Pump stations in the distribution system will
increase from one to a total of five. The number of pressure zones will
increase from two to five. Plant storage tanks will increase from two
to three and their capacity will increase from 2.5 million gallons to
3.5 million gallons. The magnitude of system growth requires that
improvements be built over a period of years. Construction is projected
to ramp up in 2008 and concludes in 2035, with the system reaching full
capacity in 2039.
Table 1.--EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED RECLAIMED WATER DEMAND
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclaimed 2050
Water Supplied Reclaimed\1\
Source Major 2050 Uses in 2005 (af/ Water Supplied
yr) (af/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walnut Creek WWTP (Central System)............ Irrigation (47%), cooling towers 104 19,231
(29%), process water (24%).
SAR WWTP (South System)....................... Irrigation (63%), cooling towers 1,307 6,433
(11%), process water (26%).
Balcones/Pickfair WWTPs....................... Irrigation (100%)............... 239 239
Davenport WWTP................................ Not in service.................. 249 0
Onion Creek WWTP.............................. Irrigation (100%)............... 209 209
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... .............................. 2,108 26,112
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exceeds 21,096 goal.
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS FACING AUSTIN'S WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM
A significant constraint to implementing our Reclaimed Water
Program is funding. The Environmental Protection Agency, the American
Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies have all documented the enormous infrastructure needs of water
and wastewater utilities. Austin's infrastructure needs reflect this
national phenomena. Our recently approved 5-year Capital Improvement
Plan contains nearly $1 billion worth of projects. This includes
funding to alleviate sanitary sewer overflows, the construction of
water treatment plants, the upgrading of wastewater treatment plants,
and the rehabilitation of water and sewer mains. Construction of
reclaimed water projects is part of this and promotes prudent financial
management by offering the potential to defer some of the water
treatment plant projects.
We acknowledge that under the Title 16 Program, federal funding is
capped and that the City will have to cover the bulk of the costs under
Title 16. We estimate the City's portion as being 87% of the total cost
and the City is prepared and committed to fully fund its portion.
However given the importance of addressing water needs and water
quality, federal assistance with this project is appropriate and
welcome.
Table 2.--MAJOR RECLAIMED WATER COMPONENT COSTS
[In millions of $]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Total
Service Area Completed Future Project Funding
or Funded Projects Cost Shortfall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early System Improvements.... 4.0 4.0
Central/South................ 19.0 158.4 177.4 158.4
Satellite.................... 4.3 4.3
------------------------------------------
Total.................... 27.3 158.4 185.7 158.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S TITLE 16 PROGRAM
The Bureau of Reclamation operates a well-respected water
reclamation program, referred to as the Title 16 Program. It is
designed to improve efficiency in the use of water resources in the
western states. Section 1602 of Public Law 102-575 establishes broad
goals for Reclamation in administering the Title 16 Program. These
goals include:
Identifying opportunities for reclamation and reuse of
municipal wastewater,
Investigating those opportunities and,
Providing a cost-share opportunity for an appraisal and
feasibility study and for the design and construction of
permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse municipal wastewater.
The City of Austin's Reclaimed Water Program fits well within these
broad goals. An Appraisal Report prepared jointly by the City and the
Bureau of Reclamation that was completed in April 2004 confirmed this.
The Appraisal Report concluded that there was a Federal interest in
pursuing water reclamation and reuse investigations in Austin and
recommended that a Feasibility Report be done.
The City continues to collaborate with the Bureau of Reclamation on
investigating the potential for reclaimed water in Austin.
Specifically, we signed a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of
Reclamation in September 2003 to jointly prepare a Feasibility Report.
Austin submitted its Feasibility Report to Reclamation on December 5,
2005. Comments were received from the Bureau on March 22, 2006. We are
currently addressing those comments and will resubmit the Feasibility
Report soon. While the Feasibility Report is not final, we are
confident that it will support Austin's entry into the Bureau of
Reclamation's Title 16 Program.
In addition to conforming to the general goals of the Title 16
Program, the City of Austin's Reclamation project meets the following
specifics for the Title 16 Program:
Applicability--Austin is located in Texas, which is one of
the seventeen western states under the Bureau of Reclamation's
jurisdiction.
Eligibility--Austin is a municipality and therefore capable
of entering into a cost-sharing agreement with the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Financial capability--Austin has dedicated revenue sources
through water and wastewater user fees and has demonstrated
financial capabilities as evidenced by the investment grade
rating of its outstanding bonds.
Ownership--Austin will hold title to the facilities and be
responsible for their operation and maintenance.
Regional perspective--Austin's Reclamation Project is
consistent with state authorized regional water supply plans
for the Colorado River.
Postpones new or expanded water supplies--Austin's
Reclamation Project has the potential to postpone the expansion
of water treatment plants through more efficient use of
existing water resources.
Reduces diversions from existing watercourses--Austin's
Reclamation Project will reduce existing diversions from the
Colorado River through more efficient use of existing water
resources.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the expansion of our water reclamation system provides
a number of benefits. It alleviates the potential for water shortages
in the near-and long-term. It delays and reduces annual payments under
our raw water contract by millions of dollars. Finally, it reduces
infrastructure costs by reducing and water plant sizing.
H.R. 2341 will authorize federal participation in the City of
Austin's Reclaimed Water project under the Bureau of Reclamation's
Title 16 Program. I believe that the project fits within the goals and
objectives of the Title 16 program and respectfully request that the
Subcommittee approve H.R. 2341 and seek its final passage. We
appreciate your time and support. Thank you again for this opportunity
to testify.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Lippe.
Mr. Ray, welcome.
STATEMENT OF J. TOM RAY, PROJECT MANAGER, CENTRAL TEXAS WATER
RECYCLING PROJECT, LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWNAM, INC.
Mr. Ray. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Senator
Feinstein. It is a privilege. My name is Tom Ray. I am the
project manager for the Central Texas Water Recycling Project.
I am also an engineer and a program manager with the firm of
Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, a long-time Texas firm.
You have my written comments, so I just want to highlight a
few points out of that testimony. First of all, I do want to
extend my appreciation to Senator Hutchison and certainly my
sincere gratitude to Congressman Chet Edwards for introducing
this legislation, and Congressman John Carter for co-sponsoring
the measure. Senator Hutchison, Congressman Edwards and
Congressman Carter have been very supportive of water measures
in central Texas, and certainly central Texans appreciate all
of those efforts and I wanted to note that. Also, I certainly
appreciate the efforts of this subcommittee in moving forward
with modifications, including H.R. 3418, in consideration
today.
I think it is appropriate with the hot weather that is
occurring in Texas and California that these measures be
considered on a timely basis. Certainly, in Texas, we have been
faced with record drought conditions. In fact, the drought that
we are in today has exceeded, in many part of our State, the
historical record drought. So we are looking for every means
possible to preserve and conserve our water resources.
The association that I represent, the Texas Water
Conservation Association, has recognized water reuse and
recycling as an important step throughout the State to augment
our water supplies. The recent statewide planning process that
has been done in 16 different areas of the State--each of those
areas has recognized water reuse and water recycling as an
important component of the strategies to meet the long-term
future water shortages in the State of Texas.
The long drought conditions are one thing; we also are
having additional stress on our water supplies by additional
growth that is taking place. The area of McLennan County is
located along the Interstate Highway 35 corridor that is
between Austin to the south and the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex
to the north. Rapid growth is occurring along that corridor and
increasing water demands result from that. So the citizens of
Central Texas are taking steps to meet that growth and to deal
also with the drought conditions that have happened recently in
Central Texas.
The local cost for water supply, for augmenting our water
supply, has been very high of late. They have included water
quality protection measures for both our surface water and
ground water supplies. They've included water treatment,
expansion and advanced treatment processes to meet Federal and
State requirements, as well as to remove taste and odor
components from our drinking water supply. As a result, the
drinking water itself is very expensive. So reuse is a means of
avoiding the use of this very expensive water and to be able to
use recycled water for such applications as irrigation, cooling
water and other industrial processes.
To do that, the citizens of Central Texas have looked to
move the location of wastewater treatment in McLennan County
from a downstream remote area to the area where growth is
taking place in central Texas. What that means is the treatment
plants are available to provide recycled, highly-treated
effluent to this growing area along the IH-35 corridor. Also,
our industrial users are located in that area, as well, so the
central Texans are looking at ways to maximize the potential
for use and reuse.
Reuse, I would also mention to you, helps us to meet peak
demands. And, again, on days and summers like this where we
have extremely hot conditions, our peak use increases very,
very high, very much. And today, treated water is being used to
apply for irrigation and industrial cooling water and other
uses. Tomorrow, we hope to be able to use reuse water for those
purposes during these types of days and be able to reduce the
stress on our surface water supplies and our water treatment
plants.
I would mention, Madam Chairman, I think you've done this
in the right order. The Waco and McLennan County project is
somewhat modest, but I think it does typify the importance of
title XVI to Texas. We would generate about 10,000 to 11,000
acre-feet of additional water for our area, which is very
important to us in these drought conditions.
In summary, let me say that we certainly support H.R. 3418.
We think that this particular project could provide enough
water that 10,000 to 11,000 acre-feet would be equivalent to
the use of about 20,000 households and we think it is
significant, and again, we appreciate your consideration and we
strongly support H.R. 3418. It is what can make the difference
in whether this reuse component of this overall project is done
or not. The local cost to our taxpayers and rate payers is very
high, so if we have that additional partnership from the
Federal Government, it could make the difference between
whether we do this environmentally-sound and water-conserving
measure or not, and I think that is the importance of H.R.
3418. And I appreciate your being here today and being able to
testify on the bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ray follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Tom Ray, Project Manager, Central Texas Water
Recycling Project, Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc., on H.R. 3418
Good afternoon, Senator Murkowski and Senators. My name is Tom Ray.
I am project manager for the Central Texas Water Recycling project and
an engineer and program manager with the engineering firm of Lockwood,
Andrews & Newnam, Inc.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of including
H.R. 3418, the Central Texas Water Recycling Act of 2005 and for the
leadership of this subcommittee in scheduling this hearing. The
incredibly hot summer that we are having in Texas and that our friends
are having in California is a reminder of how our water resources can
be stretched to the limit by forces of nature and the demands of
rapidly increasing populations. It is also a reminder of the importance
of the projects that are being considered today before this
subcommittee. I also want to express my sincere gratitude to
Congressman Chet Edwards for introducing this legislation and to
Congressman John Carter for cosponsoring this measure. Both Congressman
Edwards and Congressman Carter have been very supportive of initiatives
to support water resources throughout Central Texas, and Central Texans
certainly appreciate their work on this legislation.
Much of Texas is in the grips of an extreme drought. It is
recognized that every existing water resource that has the potential to
augment our water supplies must be conserved and used efficiently. This
is recognized on a statewide basis by the Texas Water
Conservation.Association that has emphasized the value of water reuse
throughout the State. Recently adopted Statewide water plans, under the
direction of the Texas Water Development Board, have identified water
reuse as a critical component of future strategies to meet water
shortages in each of the 16 planning areas of the State. In Central
Texas, and particularly among the cities located in McLennan County,
reuse is a major component of our current plans. Reuse of treated
wastewater effluent is included in the current expansion of the area's
regional wastewater treatment system.
In addition to prolonged drought conditions that stress our
existing surface and groundwater supplies in Central Texas, demands on
our water supplies continue to increase due rapid population growth
that is occurring, particularly along the IH-35 corridor. As a result
of these two factors, increasing demands due to population growth and
continuing drought conditions, cities in Central Texas have invested
significant local funds in a number of supply enhancement and water
treatment projects in recent years. These costly efforts include water
quality protection programs for our major surface water and groundwater
resources, enlargement of the conservation pool of Lake Waco, and
investments in advanced water treatment processes to meet and exceed
federal and state standards as well as to remove taste and odor. All of
these investments are substantial for the citizens of McLennan County
and Central Texas. As a result, the cities are actively pursuing means
to maximize those investments and to conserve our valuable water
resources. Water recycling and reuse of reclaimed wastewater effluent
is therefore a key component of this effort. H.R. 3418 will help us to
succeed in this effort to replace the use of costly, treated water
supplies for uses such as irrigation, cooling water and other
industrial uses.
Reuse supplies will help us cope with seasonable demands and peak
water use. With temperature repeatedly reaching well over 100 degrees
this month, it emphasizes the seasonal effects on water use and water
demands. To help address the spikes in demand due to seasonal water
use, the community of cities in McLennan County is incorporating reuse
into the current plans to expand the regional wastewater treatment
system. As opposed to expanding the central wastewater treatment
located in a remote, downstream area, the expansion will be
accomplished with ``satellite'' wastewater treatment plants that will
be located in areas near the high growth corridors. This growing areas
that include industrial, commercial, and residential as well as park
lands and gold courses owned by the cities, will have the opportunity
to reduce dependence on the use of costly treated water by having high
quality, wastewater effluent available for irrigation and industrial
uses. The ``McLennan County Regional Satellite and Reuse Project'' will
provide a unique combination of reuse benefits at an outlying treatment
facilities located in the major growth corridor.
The Central Texas Water Recycling Act will help support these
efforts to provide sustainable water supplies in this area of Texas.
With this background, let me summarize the specific need for and
benefits of the reclamation and water recycling project. Today, the
growth areas of the regional wastewater collection facilities are
hydraulically overloaded. In addition, the Central Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which currently treats all wastewater generated by the serves
all of the six cities that comprise the regional wastewater system. is
nearing its permitted discharge capacity. The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality is requiring plans for the expansion of the
existing wastewater treatment capacity.
A comprehensive engineering solution to this wastewater challenge
is the construction of a satellite wastewater reclamation plants and
facilities to in part provide benefits from the reuse of the reclaimed
effluent. The benefits of satellite plants are significant, in addition
to avoiding expensive relocation of infrastructure and downstream
conveyance improvements (estimated at $2.1 million), the plants will
provide capacity for future growth in the ``high growth'' corridor, and
significantly, the reclaimed water produced at the proposed reclamation
plant can be readily delivered to dozens of end users within the nearby
vicinity. Not only would this reclaimed water be a revenue generator,
it would also help reduce the summertime peak water demands at the
regional-water treatment plant.
In summary, this legislation will not only provide for conservation
of our community's water supply but will also reduce cost to the
taxpayers and provide benefits to the environment as treated effluent
is not dumped into river but is used to sustain habitat in our parks
and recreational areas. Recycling of highly treated wastewater provides
an additional valuable resource for a large number of identified reuse
applications, including golf courses, landscape irrigation, industrial
cooling water, and other industrial applications. The initial projects
eligible for funding under this legislation can provide up to 10
million gallons per day of reuse water; thereby, reducing the water
demand on Lake Waco. This is enough water supply to meet the needs of
over 20,000 households.
Senator Murkowski and members of this subcommittee, we strongly
support H.R. 3418, and the assistance it will provide for the McLennan
County Regional Satellite and Reuse Project. The community of cities in
McLennan County has committed significant funding to support the
development of this project.
We welcome the opportunity to partner with the Bureau of
Reclamation to design, plan and construct a consolidated system to
improve the efficient use of water resources in McLennan County.
Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. It is important for us to
hear the reminders of the specific application to these water
projects in their areas and the significance of why we need to
reform this title so we can make these happen. I appreciate
your comments.
Mr. Atwater, I've got some questions for you, and these are
all in context as they relate to S. 3639. As you know, we've
got a series of deadlines that have been incorporated into our
proposed legislation, deadlines where the Secretary has to
comply, and it has been suggested to us that perhaps some of
our deadlines are a little bit too tight. Can you speak to the
issue of the deadlines, whether we are giving enough time for
the appropriate proposal to be reviewed? Just give me your
sense as to where we are with these deadlines.
Mr. Atwater. Thank you. That's an excellent question.
Working with your staff, the WateReuse Association thinks
generally--we've reviewed it among our membership--that those
deadlines are reasonable. We've had some discussions with the
Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation and
they would like a little bit more flexibility. And that is
certainly a dialog we ought to have, but on the face of it, I
think those deadlines are very workable. And as we all know,
without deadlines, reviews don't get done, so having a deadline
is a good thing. And we ought to, as we discussed, have that
conversation during the month of August, and if there needs to
be a little bit of fine tuning, we are certainly willing to
participate in that discussion.
Senator Murkowski. Good. We will put that on our list of
to-do's then for August. It was suggested by Mr. Todd that
really what we needed to be focusing on was to create this
priority ranking system to guide the projects that are funded,
and he spoke about defining the criteria and getting the
management right and we're going to be OK. In terms of creating
a priority ranking system, do you think that this is the
appropriate approach to take?
Mr. Atwater. We certainly welcome a competitive ranking
system. At the last hearing on February 28, I think we
discussed this. And I pointed out that certainly in California,
the State of California has a process and Joe's organization,
the CALFED Bay-Delta, in fact, had a task force report and was
working with the State Water Board that funds water recycling
projects by the State, with EPA funding. They rank projects.
And this is a good example where the Bureau doesn't have to
do a new set of rankings. We have existing processes. And, in
fact, since 1992, they've done a Bay Area study and they've
done the southern California one, and I can say that because
our project in Inland Empire was ranked No. 1. We've gone
through that process and we've already spent many millions of
dollars and I know that's why Senator Feinstein keeps pointing
out that we don't need to reinvent the wheel here and do a new
procedure.
I think there are ample reviews already developed and
certainly we may need to have maybe a little bit of a history
lesson for the Bureau that we don't need to redo that process.
I think that is something that we ought to discuss with them in
August, that there are existing detailed studies that have
looked at both, in isolation, individual projects within a
watershed, within the region and within the State and within
the context of the Colorado River problems. I think Joe
mentioned that quite clearly, that we've already done that kind
of analysis.
Senator Murkowski. And if we move forward with our
provision, that provides for a sunset after 10 years.
Mr. Atwater. Absolutely.
Senator Murkowski. This, in fact, also helps to establish a
priority, does it not?
Mr. Atwater. Yes, it does, and both the House--in the
passage of bills, they've already put in individual
authorizations--and with your S. 3639 making that a generic
sunset provision, I think that really addresses the backlog
issue.
Senator Murkowski. We, in our legislation, lay out a number
of criteria and Senator Feinstein has mentioned what those
specific criteria are. These are the criteria that the
Secretary would be looking to. They are not exactly identical
to what came out, the criteria that I referenced with Mr. Todd.
In terms of establishing a set of criteria that are workable
from all perspectives, are you satisfied with the set of
criteria that we have laid out with in S. 3639?
Mr. Atwater. Yes, we are. The Association thinks the
criteria is an improvement over the existing Bureau of
Reclamation's 1998 guidelines that they haven't updated since
then. It will work well in being clear what project sponsors
are expected to document to meet the congressional and
administration goals for the program.
Senator Murkowski. I think this is where we want to get to.
We don't want to have to have a Member of Congress call a
meeting between those that are putting together the specific
water projects and the Bureau so that we all can agree that we
are in alignment on the criteria. They need to be out there,
transparent and understandable. Everybody has to know that this
is what we are dealing with, it can't be subject to
interpretation, if you are trying to put together the proposal,
as opposed to what the agency might be looking at. So I'm
hopeful that we're able to really give some parameters to this
criteria so that the expectations are well understood.
Mr. Atwater. Yes. And the only thing we would suggest is
when you move this bill, the Committee report language, you can
provide further, if you will, administrative details, so that
there is no ambiguity and clarify, so we avoid, in the future,
unfortunately having hearings where maybe there is some clarity
that needs to be explained to the Bureau of Reclamation as to
how they apply your criteria.
Senator Murkowski. It has been pointed out a couple of
times this afternoon that we deal with a series of reviews, and
the analysis process that is 10 years in the making, that
oftentimes what we're doing is just spending all of our time
reviewing something and we are not actually getting to the
water, we are not making the project happen. Does this
legislation, as we currently have it now, does it get us away
from that continual review by use of the financial and
technical viability, moving it away from the approach that we
have had in the past. Do you think we're getting there?
Mr. Atwater. I think it is a major step forward and I think
at this point in time, obviously we have to apply it, but I
think it will be a significant improvement over the current
practice.
Senator Murkowski. We know that we can improve the current
practice. We, in the legislation, authorize funding to the
Secretary to allow for planning assistance to the interested
communities; how do you think this is going to help?
Mr. Atwater. I think it does help. There are some cases,
the city of Austin is a good example, where they are working
very closely and they've completed an appraisal report and now
they are working with the Bureau of Reclamation on a detailed
feasibility report. As we discussed at the February 28 hearing,
at the Association, there are many agencies who are willing to
be very proactive and fund all of the feasibility report,
complete all their studies, technical work, financial, all of
the pre-construction activities, submit to the Bureau and have
them review it, and that works well, too.
I think your criteria allow for both approaches, which I
think is an excellent example where, again, it highlights the
cost effectiveness of the program where the local sponsors are
really investing and actively developing their project and the
Bureau's partnership role can be just a review and
certification that has been completed, meeting your criteria.
Senator Murkowski. We have talked about some of the
research and the technology development that goes into many of
the projects as they relate to water recycling, and this
committee has certainly supported that. The legislation
encourages a strong, vibrant research program. Is that
necessarily where we should be going with the research or
should we be focused more on making these projects that are
happening on the ground right now? Just give your opinion on
that.
Mr. Atwater. We strongly support that at the Association.
We have an excellent partnership between our WateReuse
Association Research Foundation and the Bureau of Reclamation.
And, of course, Chairman Domenici's legislation and the work
that he has sponsored with Sandia Labs, with the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Research Foundation and other research
entities has really been cutting edge over the last half a
dozen years and it continues to grow. So we would say that the
research component is a significant part of expanding the use
and recovery of poor-quality water, whether it is reclamation
of wastewater, cleaning up contaminated groundwater, recovering
water, or improving water use efficiency throughout the United
States. And obviously it has international implications.
New technology is an important part of what we want to
promote, but in the overall scheme of things, I would say that
if we had $100 million, we would want to spend $90 million on
constructing new projects and developing new water supplies,
spend maybe another $5 million on the technical planning, all
of that, and then the remaining $5 million per year would be on
the R&D. Just to throw out numbers and have my constituents,
who will probably change the numbers. But in round numbers,
that kind of conceptually--we ought to continue that level of--
there is always a research cutting edge to try new technology
and we think that ought to continue to be a key part of the
Bureau of Reclamation's title XVI program.
Senator Murkowski. I think that is important. I may have an
extra question for you, but Senator Feinstein, if you want to
go ahead.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Mr.
Atwater, really for my own benefit, I was looking at the Inland
Empire Utilities project in this and the process that you have
to go through, and because you are associated with that
project, it is my understanding it meets six out of the nine
requirements and it doesn't meet three, one being NEPA
compliance, one being specific financial capability
information, and one being research needs. Let me ask you this.
I don't even understand why research needs is a requirement.
Mr. Atwater. That is a very good question. We did submit
the paperwork and complied with that in January 2006. On the
financial capabilities, of course, that's been reviewed and
approved by the State of California. And last year, we gave the
Bureau of Reclamation our detailed 10-year, $200 million
capital improvement program and our adopted financial plan.
Senator Feinstein. So they have a 10-year capital
improvement program?
Mr. Atwater. We submitted all of that paperwork and they
have it. So going back to your new criteria of financial
viability, we have adopted rates, approved financial plans, and
all that has been submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation. We
met that criteria and we have submitted all of the NEPA
documentation. Just as a footnote, we completed our
Comprehensive California Environmental Act EIR in 2002, which
has been reviewed and approved by both EPA and the Corps of
Engineers. We sent all the paperwork to the Bureau of
Reclamation, they have just not finished. And it really is--
it's not even a public review, it's just a minor administrative
review of the NEPA document. So we've completed all the
paperwork.
Senator Feinstein. Now, NEPA compliance is not one of our
requirements in this bill.
Mr. Atwater. Nor should it be. We had a meeting with--and I
don't know if Ted Bolin is here, but the Council of
Environmental Quality, which reviewed the title XVI program.
Working with your staff, we've had discussions with him. We
really do think that the NEPA review, from a Federal
standpoint, ought to be earlier, and I just pointed that out
and we talked about this briefly.
Senator Feinstein. You mean before it is even submitted?
Mr. Atwater. Well, yes. When you are doing the planning is
when you ought to do the NEPA review, not at the time of
construction. The truth is, in the title XVI program--let's be
real clear, in the history of the program, not one of the
projects has ever risen to a full environmental impact
statement. And, in fact, they are not controversial, they
really are an administrative paperwork issue. So it suggests
that NEPA review is a critical element for project feasibility
review, when it really is ``Check the box, did you complete the
paperwork?''
Senator Feinstein. So would you suggest that we have
something in the bill that deals with that?
Mr. Atwater. I don't think it is necessary, because under
the existing Federal requirements with CAQ and each Federal
agency, if the Department of Commerce or the USDA gives a
cooperative--any type of grant, they always do NEPA compliance,
but it always is that level of review. I don't know if you need
any new statutory language to have them comply with NEPA, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and the CAQ guidelines. Each
Federal agency's department already has adequate requirements
on that. It is pretty routine.
Senator Feinstein. I don't know if you've looked through
these. It is sort of interesting to look through the actual
projects and then the requirements. I mean you have to--you're
required to study other alternatives. I mean, I don't know a
better alternative than recycling. So if you have to--coming
from local government, if I would look at this, I'd say, hmmm.
It's all bureaucracy.
Mr. Atwater. Well, we do. And as Joe will tell you, at the
CALFED level, they've done extensive stakeholder discussions
and an evaluation of water recycling, water use efficiency, the
whole comprehensive strategy to solve the State-wide problems.
And, of course, the Department of Water Resources adopted the
State water plan and they do that every 5 years. And they
comprehensively evaluate and that's, of course, your point.
They recommend that water recycling, ground water management,
water conservation, were all, as you stated quite clearly, the
key measures to solve water supply problems in California and
at the local level. When they say alternatives, we do things
like, ``Do we run the pipe down this street versus another
street?'' We do that level of engineering, but it is certainly
not to do with the basic question, ``Should you do more water
recycling in Rancho Cucamonga?'' As Congressman Dave Dreier
pointed out, it's clear that we ought to do it.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask this question of all of you.
Let me quickly run through, once again, the requirements that
we would have: the cost per acre-foot of water produced,
whether it can demonstrate regional benefits, what the
environmental benefits are, whether it demonstrates new
technologies, the cost-effectiveness of the project compared to
others and whether it addresses certain Federal interests. Now
I candidly think we have to be more specific about what we mean
by each of these or they're going to get in the same conundrum
they were in before, because these are pretty non-specific. If
I put on my local government hat and look at this: ``Well, what
Federal interests are they talking about? Is it just endangered
species? Is it something else?'' I think we have to have very
specific requirements. So I would respectfully submit that this
needs more work and if the four of you have any input right
now, I'd certainly love to hear it. Let's hear from the great
State of Texas.
Mr. Lippe. I had one thought on the new technology and the
research question and that is that it seems a natural outcome
of developing an operating system, an operating program. For
example, in Austin, there are a number of chip makers, chip
manufacturers for computer chips, and they are very interested
in using reclaimed water for--huge amounts of water that that
industry uses and so there is some--but it is very important to
them that it work, that it not interfere in any way with their
processes, so there is some research that those companies would
be interested in doing. But the water needs to be----
Senator Feinstein. Very pure, very high quality.
Mr. Lippe. We would need to be able to deliver the water at
a high quality to those locations in the first place. Second,
the next phase of our project is to deliver the reclaimed water
to the University of Texas campus. They have a number of
cooling towers and a lot of landscaped irrigation. It is a very
large campus, so I just connect that with a research university
being able to take one further step once they have the water
around their campus. They are actually putting pipes in the
ground, in advance, in anticipation of this reclaimed water
arriving to their campus. But, obviously, a university could
grab that as an opportunity to do some research as well. So,
not necessarily an either/or, do we do the projects, do we do
the research, but to me, it is going to be a natural outcome.
And I guess I was--well, this is a separate question, but
something that was on my mind was, as we enter into this
process or the new criteria, is there a--I guess you would call
it a grandfathering of programs like ours that are hopefully 1
month away from finishing feasibility or having a final one
accepted?
Senator Feinstein. Good question. What do we do? I'm told
there are transition procedures in the bill. Well, let me go
on. Mr. Grindstaff, Mr. Atwater, do you have any concerns about
these requirements or beefing them up or changing them, making
them more specific?
Mr. Grindstaff. I'll answer. We run a lot of grant programs
at the State level and have had a lot of experience, and to a
large extent, what we are talking about here today is
transitioning the Bureau of Reclamation from an agency that
really helped build the West. I mean, we have to give them
credit for a lot of what is in the western United States, but
transitioning them from what they have always done, which is
design things and build them themselves, to a grant-making
agency, I think the more policy direction you give them, having
received policy direction from the State legislature, from
Congress myself, I think that is very helpful in their efforts
to set up this new program, because this will become then kind
of something that I would expect, over time, will expand within
their budget. People will recognize this.
Senator Feinstein. Joe, let me ask you this. Would you put
on your grant hat and then go back and look at the bill
language for these sections?
Mr. Grindstaff. I will commit to do that. And beyond just
me, I'll have staff look at it that are smarter than I am.
Senator Feinstein. OK. And give us some recommendations,
because I think the requirements ought to be crisp, and not
vague, but specific, so that even somebody like me reading them
would know exactly what I have to do to satisfy them.
Mr. Grindstaff. Agreed. I will do that.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate
it.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Atwater?
Mr. Atwater. There are good examples of it. All the States
work with either a--am I on?
Senator Murkowski. There should be a little light in the
button.
Mr. Atwater. I know. I'm going to have to practice this.
But what I was going to say is a good example is EPA with its
Clean Water program, with all the States. They have guidelines
and that has worked well over the years and that is an example
of where their grants and SRF low-interest loans--they have
specific statutory guidelines in the State of California. All
the States administer that in a like manner. As Joe pointed
out, in the CALFED program, they have administered a wide range
of grant programs with both the Federal agencies and the State.
I think the Senator is right. We ought to be able to work
together with the Bureau and make sure there is no ambiguity
when we get done in the month of August.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. If I were looking at this, I
would have a criteria bang for the buck. I mean, I know exactly
what that means.
Mr. Grindstaff. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. I think that is the kind of thing that
we have to get down to--in other words, the number of acre-feet
per dollar spent--so that you really know whether you've got a
cost-effective project before you.
Mr. Grindstaff. And that really adds incentives for
agencies to really cut down their requests for money because
they know they are going to be judged by how many dollars per
acre-foot it costs the Federal Government to get this project
done. So they may reduce the amount of the request in order to
be more competitive. So I agree 100 percent.
Senator Murkowski. It seems that so many of the problems
that we have had, historically, as we try to move forward with
any of these programs, has been a competition. Everybody has
their project that they are trying to advance. Senator Johnson
mentioned the funding aspect of it and that is a reality that
we must deal with. But we also have to deal with the reality
that definable, concrete--not vague, not ambiguous--criteria
need to be set so that those of you who are working to advance
these projects, coming to Congress, seeking the authorization
and, ultimately, the funding. Know what you can count on and
what you cannot count on and what you are up against.
I think it is our job to help you in that effort. As I look
at projects that we have had before the subcommittee this
afternoon and roll them in with all the others that we have had
an opportunity to hear since I've been chairing this
subcommittee, I don't think we've had one project where the
Bureau has been able to give their support, because we don't
have the criteria, the management and the funding all pulled
together so that we can move forward with it. You either fix
and reform the title XVI program or you have to deal with the
reality that we're just offering legislative carrots out there
that have nothing inside of them.
The programs are far too important to do that. I would like
to think that if we are successful with good legislation--and I
will ask all of you that are at the table here today and those
that are listening from the audience's perspective, because you
have an interest in this, we are looking for assistance in
making sure that we've got good legislation moving forward that
will accomplish what we have set out to do. I'd like to think
that if we can get the reform right, that we can actually see
some of these projects checked off this list and this backlog
that you have been living with for far too long can be made to
disappear, that we move forward with it. We will look forward
to seeing many of you in August and I appreciate your
contribution, your hard work. And Senator Feinstein, thank you
for all of yours. I appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record:]
Statement of the City of Austin, on S. 3639
The City has reviewed S. 3639 and came up with the comments pasted
below. If you would like to talk about these issues in more detail, I
can arrange put you in touch with the person in the City who is working
on its Title XVI project. Please let us know if you have any questions
or need more information. I hope your August recess is going well.
Thanks.
The good news is that S. 3639's grandfathering provisions are
flexible and we can easily work within them. The bill also streamlines
the Title XVI process, which is needed. We did however notice two
things that will improve the bill if changed:
1) Section 1604(c)(2)(B) requires that within 30 days of the
submission of a project, the Secretary issues written notice on
whether or not their is sufficient information to evaluate the
project. The checklist for this includes ``engineering plans''.
Our experience is that engineering plans can be a significant
component (up to 15%) of project costs and, ideally, are
finalized immediately prior to construction. A Title XVI
Program participant would want to know whether or not federal
matching grants are available well in advance of expending
funds for engineering plans. A preliminary engineering report
is done to scope a project. It is conducted earlier and at much
less expense. It also contains enough information to determine
whether or not a project is technically viable. We recommend
that ``engineering plans'' be replaced with ``preliminary
engineering report'' in Section 1604 (c)(2)(B).
2) In Section 1604(c)(2)(D) there is a requirement for a
``financial plan'' for a project. We feel this is vague,
especially since many of our current difficulties with the
Title XVI Feasibility Study review relate to financing. Does
this mean an engineering cost study, does this mean a schedule
for the expenditure of funds, does this mean a life cycle cost
study, does this mean an analysis on the impact of rates? We
recommend that ``financial plan'' be changed to ``evidence of
financial capability, such as a bond rating or prospectus/
underwriter's report for a planned bond issuance''.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of P. Joseph Grindstaff to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1a. Reclamation's testimony indicates that under
the CALFED Program, it has reviewed at least three of the Title
XVI projects that would be authorized by S. 3638.
Does the CALFED Program share Reclamation's view that the
feasibility of those projects cannot be determined? Is the
State of California providing financial assistance for the
projects included in S. 3638?
Answer. S. 3638 includes four projects for funding under
Title XVI of Public Law 102-575 and one project that may not be
related to Title XVI.
For the Cucamonga Valley Water District Recycling Project,
a feasibility study is currently underway. The feasibility
study is funded through a plan of study grant that the State
Water Resources Control Board (Board) has awarded to the
District. Because the study has not been completed, the Board
has not determined that the project is feasible.
Some phases of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency Regional
Water Recycling Project (Phases 1 and 2), Yucaipa Valley Water
Supply Renewal Project, and City of Corona Water Recycling and
Reuse Project have been approved and/or received funding from
the Board. Feasibility of these projects has been determined
based on state and federal requirements and provisions of state
bond funding requirements (see discussion below on selection
criteria).
The Riverside-Corona Feeder Project, and other phases of
the three projects listed above, is included in an Integrated
Regional Water Management Implementation proposal that has been
submitted to the Board for funding consideration. This proposal
is currently under review as part of a competitive ranking and
selection process according to state bond law.
Question 1b. What Funding Criteria does the state use in
deciding on whether or not to provide financial assistance?
Answer. The Board provides funding to local agencies for
water reclamation projects from a variety of funding sources.
The State Revolving Fund Loan Program (SRF) is a low interest
revolving loan program that was initially capitalized through
federal grants and state bond sales. The other primary source
of funds for water reclamation projects has been general
obligation bonds approved by the voters. The Board provides
construction grants and loans as well as planning grants to
assist local agencies to conduct feasibility studies for water
reclamation projects before they are implemented.
Federal provisions applicable to the SRF and state bond
legal requirements are incorporated into the funding criteria
for each of the funding programs. For the SRF and water
recycling program, applications are reviewed 1) based on
readiness to proceed, 2) for determination of engineering,
institutional, and financial feasibility, 3) based on
assessment and assurances of there being a recycled water
market, 4) for compliance with California Environmental Quality
Act, and 5) for cost-effectiveness. Projects funded through
other grant programs are selected for funding through a
competitive process as required by the state bond law. The
review and selection criteria are established in the bond
funding program guidelines that are adopted through a public
review process. The review criteria include scientific merit
and project effectiveness evaluation.
Because some water reclamation projects benefit the
Sacramento-San Joaquin-San Francisco Bay-Delta region by
reducing water diversions from the bay and delta, CALFED has a
role in the administration of state funds. Proposition 50,
passed in 2002, requires that Proposition 50 funds for water
reclamation provide benefits to the Delta. The California Bay
Delta Authority, which administers CALFED, reviewed and
concurred with the Board Water Recycling Funding Program
Guidelines and approved the projects eventually recommended for
funding.
Question 2. During your testimony at the subcommittee
hearing, you indicated that during the last year, California
entities had not taken Colorado River water that they were
otherwise entitled to because of projects such as those
authorized under Title XVI. Could you please elaborate on that
situation and how much water was retained for use or carry-over
in the Colorado River system (thereby benefiting other states)?
Answer. The U.S. Department of the Interior adopted a
Record of Decision for Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria
(ISC) in 2001 and California's Colorado River water contractors
executed the Quantification Settlement Agreement and other
related agreements in 2003. Together, these documents establish
a framework under which California local agencies holding
federal water delivery agreements may receive surplus Colorado
River water. The ISC allows contractors serving municipal and
industrial uses, namely Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWD) in California's case, to take surplus water
based on specified hydrologic/reservoir storage criteria. Based
on hydrologic conditions, surplus water was available to MWD in
2003 and 2004, but not in 2005. Surplus water is again
available in 2006. However, MWD has not taken any of the ISC
surplus water to which it was entitled. Annual maximum amounts
of that surplus water: 2003--107 TAF; 2004--70 TAF; 2005--0;
2005--272 TAF (projected).
For comparison purposes, MWD's 2005 Urban Water Management
Plan shows that, in 2004, MWD member agencies produced the
following amounts of water in their service areas: Water
recycling--75 TAF (with MWD financial support), 134 TAF
(without MWD financial support); Groundwater recovery--43 TAF
(with MWD financial support), 21 TAF (without MWD financial
support).
MWD is not planning to take surplus Colorado River water in
2006 because this year was very wet in Northern California and,
hence, MWD received a full allocation from the California State
Water Project. Colorado River water not taken by MWD will
remain in storage in Lake Mead. Following the recent five year
drought in the Colorado River system, overall reservoir storage
remains low. Current reservoir system storage is at only 58% of
capacity.
------
Responses of Richard Atwater to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. As noted in the February oversight hearing, the
Administration has opposed most, if not all the Title XVI
projects that members of Congress have proposed for
authorization in the last 2 Congresses. Has the lack of
Administration support stymied the progress in developing and
implementing water reuse projects in the West?
Answer. Yes. Federal support can often make the difference
in the financibility of a project. If a local government agency
can demonstrate to the capital markets that even a small
Federal subsidy is available, this can make the difference in
whether a proposed financing package is accepted. General
Eugene Habiger, former General Manager of the San Antonio Water
System (SAWS), emphasized the value of Title XVI grants in
testimony before the House Subcommittee on Water and Power on
March 27, 2003. Habiger noted that ``in terms of Title XVI, we
received $200,000 about six years ago, which proved to be
invaluable with [SAWS'] recycled water program.'' Habiger
continued by noting that these Federal programs are viable and
shouldn't be considered as ``cash cows,'' but as leveraging
mechanisms.
Douglas Scott, Director of U.S. Water/Sewer Group for Fitch
Ratings, testifying at the same hearing, made the following
statement. ``Opportunities exist for the Federal government to
participate in types of projects or in individual projects with
direct grants which would leverage local dollars and possibly
decrease the need for Federal involvement on a larger scale in
the future.'' The WateReuse Association agrees strongly with
Scott's statement.
The Federal imprimatur can also result in a lower cost of
capital (i.e., a lower interest rate) which can save the local
agency and its ratepayers substantial dollars over the life of
a bond. In sum, many more beneficial water reuse projects might
have been initiated over the past five years had the current
Administration been more supportive of Title XVI.
At the February 28 hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on
Water and Power, Virginia Grebbien (General Manager, OCWD) and
Richard Atwater (Chairman of the WateReuse Association's
National Legislative Committee), both indicated that based on
their experiences, that Federal grants under Title XVI do
provide a significant financial boost and ``Federal stamp of
approval'' that provide the incentives to implement a water
recycling project.
Question 2. Reclamation opposes the authorization of any
new Title XVI projects prior to Administration review and
approval of appraisal and feasibility studies. Do you agree
that Congress should not authorize any projects that have not
had the benefit of an in-depth feasibility analysis? What are
the primary issues that exist with having Reclamation being the
entity with responsibility for assessing the feasibility of a
project?
If the Bureau would adhere to its own guidelines and
provide timely responses to local government agencies which are
applying for Title XVI projects, the current process would be
workable. The Bureau appears to be saying that, due to lack of
funds and the existing sizeable backlog of projects, they are
reluctant to approve any new projects. The Bureau needs to set
forth a clear set of rules and guidelines and then be
responsive to local agencies that are spending large sums of
money on the preparation of feasibility studies.
With respect to whether Congress should or should not
authorize projects that have not had the benefit of an in-depth
feasibility analysis, S. 3639 provides a mechanism for Congress
to authorize projects if the Bureau does not respond to a local
agency within 180 days after completion of a feasibility study.
The Association strongly supports this ``trigger,'' which would
allow the Congress to authorize a project in the absence of a
timely response by the Bureau.
The primary issues that exist with having Reclamation being
the entity with responsibility for assessing the feasibility of
a project are as follows: 1) the Bureau appears reluctant to
approve any project, regardless of the degree of diligence and
the appropriateness of a local water reuse project; 2) the
Bureau does not appear to be applying its own guidelines in an
even handed, equitable manner; 3) the Bureau does not provide
timely responses; and 4) the Bureau, through its actions during
the current Administration, appears to have relegated the Title
XVI program to the ``back burner'' and has focused most of its
attention on its Water 2025 program.
Through its Water 2025 program, the Department of the
Interior has recognized that there are critical water shortages
facing the Western U.S. and it is clear that water recycling is
one of the most cost-effective solutions for alleviating these
problems. As retired Commissioner John Keys has stated many
times, recycled water is the ``last river'' that can be tapped
to solve the water problems in the West. Therefore, the
Association strongly recommends increased funding for Title XVI
given that the benefits of water recycling are significantly
higher than the modest 10-20 Federal share of the capital
costs!
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press.]
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Washington, DC, August 3, 2006.
Mr. Larry Todd,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Administration, and Budget Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Todd: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
for appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, July 27, 2006 to
give testimony on S. 3638, S. 3639, H.R. 177, H.R. 2341, and H.R. 3418.
Enclosed herewith please find a list of questions which have been
submitted for the record. If possible, I would like to have your
response to these questions by Thursday, August 17, 2006.
Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Your testimony on S. 3639 states that ``before projects
are authorized for construction, their appraisal and feasibility
studies should be completed, reviewed, and approved by the Department
and 0MB and submitted to Congress.'' It's my understanding that
Reclamation is not actively supporting a significant number of
appraisal and feasibility studies.How much of the Departments' 2007
budget request of $10.1 million for Title XVI projects is committed to
reviewing and completing appraisal and feasibility studies for
potential project authorizations?
Question 2. The Administration's position promotes the use of
``ranking criteria'' to help identify the projects most worthy of
federal investment. Has Reclamation developed such ranking criteria?
Given the very limited amount of funding for Title XVI projects in the
President's budget, there must be some objective assessment being used
to determine which projects should be funded. How does Reclamation
develop its annual budget request for Title XVI projects?
Question 3. Please identify with specificity the factors that
Reclamation believes that must be met in order for a Title XVI project
to demonstrate ``feasibility''.
Question 4. In Reclamation's view, would any of the projects within
S.3638 help alleviate significant water conflicts or shortages or add
to the water supply in a crisis area? What is the nexus between the
projects in S. 3638 and other Reclamation projects or interests?
Question 5. With respect to H.R. 177, have feasibility studies and
cost estimates been provided for the projects that would be authorized
under sections 2, 3, & 4? If so, are the projects ``feasible'',
applying Reclamation's criteria?
Question 6. With respect to H.R. 2341, the Administration testimony
raises 2 issues: (1) that the feasibility studies and NEPA analysis
need to be completed; and (2) that there will still be a need to an
evaluation of whether the project meets Title XVI authority and
objectives. When do you expect to both the feasibility studies and the
NEPA analysis to be complete? Please state with specificity and
completeness, what Reclamation's views are with respect to ``Title XVI
authority and objectives''.
Question 7. The Administration testimony continues to reference the
backlog of Title XVI projects already authorized. Yet the
Administration's budget proposals continue to suggest budget cuts in
excess of 50% for this program. Why does the Administration continue to
recommend slashing the funding for Title XVI projects? If you believe
that some projects that are currently authorized do not merit funding,
please identify those projects.
______
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Washington, DC, August 3, 2006.
Mr. Chris Lippe,
Director, City of Austin Water Utility, Austin, TX.
Dear Mr. Lippe: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
for appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, July 27, 2006 to
give testimony on H.R. 2341.
Enclosed herewith please find a list of questions which have been
submitted for the record. If possible, I would like to have your
response to these questions by Thursday, August 17, 2006.
Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Your testimony makes clear that Austin has already
implemented some reclaimed water projects.
Question 2. Is federal assistance necessary to continue with
expansion of Austin's reclaimed water system? With respect to the
additional facilities contemplated in H.R. 2341, how long would it take
to initiate construction upon enactment of H.R. 3418? What additional
activities would need to occur prior to construction?
______
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Washington, DC, August 3, 2006.
Mr. Tom Ray,
Engineering Consultant, Waco, TX.
Dear Mr. Ray: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
for appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, July 27, 2006 to
give testimony on H.R. 3418.
Enclosed herewith please find a list of questions which have been
submitted for the record. If possible, I would like to have your
response to these questions by Thursday, August 17, 2006.
Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman.
[Enclosure.]
Question From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Has a detailed study been completed for the McLennan
County Regional Satellite and Reuse Project? If so, what is the overall
cost of the project? How long would it take to proceed to construction
upon enactment of H.R. 3418? What additional activities would need to
occur prior to construction?