[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1598 and H.R. 1732
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
May 22, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
87-233 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member
George Radanovich, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Jay Inslee, Washington
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska George Miller, California
Rick Renzi, Arizona Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Joe Baca, California
Devin Nunes, California Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 22, 2003..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Carter, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 3
Cox, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Statement and letters submitted for
the record................................................. 6
Edwards, Hon. Chet, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 4
Napolitano, Hon. Grace, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Beal, Joseph J., General Manager, Lower Colorado River
Authority, Texas........................................... 24
Prepared statement on H.R. 1732.......................... 26
Brady, Brian, President, Board of Directors, Irvine Ranch
Water District, California................................. 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 1598.......................... 18
Heiligenstein, Hon. Mike, County Commissioner, Williamson
County, Texas.............................................. 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 1732.......................... 23
Limbaugh, Mark A., Director, External and Intergovernmental
Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 1598.......................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 1732.......................... 11
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 35
McKenney, Larry, Manager, Watershed and Coastal Resources,
County of Orange, California............................... 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 1598.......................... 14
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1598, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER
AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN PROJECTS WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO CREEK
WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1732, TO AMEND
THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE PROJECT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Thursday, May 22, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Calvert, Osborne, Pearce, Nunes,
Napolitano, Inslee, Grijalva and Cardoza.
Mr. Calvert. The oversight hearing by the Subcommittee on
Water and Power will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
1598, a bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to participate in projects within the San Diego
Creek Watershed, California, and other purposes, and H.R. 1732,
a bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of Interior
to participate in the Williamson County, Texas, Water
Reclamation and Reuse Project, and for other purposes.
Under Rule 4[g], the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member may have an opening statement. I will start with mine.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Recent drought conditions, critical water
shortages, and increasing water competition are requiring
communities to look beyond the traditional ways of developing
and maintaining dependable and safe water supplies. The
Subcommittee heard in previous testimony and hearings that
water recycling is one option that communities have
successfully utilized to become more ``drought resistant'' and
less dependent on imported and traditional water sources.
This is certainly the case in Southern California which is
faced with substantial Colorado River reductions and
inefficient conveyance from Northern California. Even while
some affected parties constantly try to move the goal post back
in attempting to find a solution on Colorado River reductions,
one thing remains clear: California communities will continue
to examine ways to develop water from their own backyards.
Although water recycling has played a major role in
developing and providing water security to California,
communities throughout the West have enjoyed the benefits of
water recycling. Today, we will focus on how two communities
plan to meet their water needs through water recycling in
water-deficient regions, such as South-Central Texas and
Southern California. Recycled water technologies are being
considered to a greater extent than ever before in response to
increasing demands on limited, high-quality water supplies.
H.R. 1598 and H.R. 1732 would allow the Secretary of
Interior to provide technical and Federal financial resources
through the use of the Title XVI Program. Today, we have the
privilege of hearing from several leaders who are very aware of
how water supplies are being stressed and how important it is
to look for innovative and nontraditional ways to meet our
future water demands.
I thank the panel for being here today and certainly look
forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Recent drought conditions, critical water shortages, and increasing
water competition are requiring communities to look beyond the
traditional ways of developing and maintaining dependable and safe
water supplies. The Subcommittee heard in previous hearings that water
recycling is one option that communities have successfully utilized to
become more ``drought resistant'' and less dependent on imported and
traditional water sources.
This is certainly the case in Southern California, which is faced
with substantial Colorado River reductions and inefficient conveyance
from northern California. Even while some affected parties constantly
try to move the goal post back in attempting to find a solution on
Colorado River reductions, one thing remains clear: California
communities will continue to examine ways to develop water from their
own backyards.
Although water recycling has played a major role in providing water
security to California, communities throughout the west have also
enjoyed the benefits of water recycling. Today, we will focus on how
two communities plan to meet their water needs through water recycling.
In water-deficient regions such as south-central Texas and southern
California, recycled water technologies are being considered to a
greater extent than ever before in response to increasing demands on
limited high quality water supplies.
H.R. 1598 and H.R. 1732 would allow the Secretary of the Interior
to provide technical and Federal financial resources through the use of
the Title 16 Program. Today, we have the privilege of hearing from
several leaders who are very aware of how water supplies are being
stressed and how important it is to look for innovative and non-
traditional ways to meet future water demands. I thank the panel for
being here today and look forward to your testimony.
______
Mr. Calvert. I am happy now to recognize Ms. Napolitano,
the Ranking Member, for any statements she may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I join you this morning in welcoming the witnesses from
Southern California, and from the great State of Texas, and
also the Bureau of Reclamation, and our colleagues who are here
in support of our projects.
Mr. Chairman, you and I very strongly support our
communities in the West as they apply innovative technologies
to their water supply problems, and it is very unfortunate that
this administration finds it so difficult to support these
projects. So I look forward to discussing these bills with our
witnesses this morning, and I am particularly interested to
learn more about how the Irvine Ranch projects are related to
other recycling projects and groundwater projects that are
planned to run the construction in the Santa Ana Watershed.
And we trust that our witnesses from Williamson County,
Texas, and the Lower Colorado River Authority can provide
details on how they can better use water through water
recycling to help drought proof their service areas. Knowing
that a lot of the border area is facing critical drought, we
hope that we will continue to have those communities come to
this Committee and request assistance in making sure that they
become more drought proof in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your continued support in
these critical issues and look forward to the testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
I would like to recognize our first panel of witnesses,
which includes our distinguished colleagues from Texas and our
good friends: Representative John Carter, Texas, 31st District,
and Representative Chet Edwards, Texas, 11th District, my old
neighbor here in Washington, D.C. Glad you are both here, and
we would like to recognize Mr. Carter first.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT, STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I
wish good morning to you and all the members of the Committee.
Unfortunately, this morning, time is a precious commodity in
Congress, and I have got great things I have got to look after
this morning, but I want to stop and personally thank this
Committee for holding this hearing on H.R. 1732, the Williamson
County Water Recycling Act of 2003. It is important. I am proud
to represent Williamson County, one of the fastest-growing
counties in America, and I can assure you that we have two very
fine gentlemen and good friends of mine who are appearing
before you today to offer testimony about this gentleman.
Joe Beal, the general manager and chief executive officer
of the Lower Colorado River Authority, has the responsibility
of running an organization that provides electricity for over
one million people and also provides water resources, resource
management, flood protection, drought management, agricultural
irrigation and water and wastewater utility services throughout
58 county service territories in Texas. Joe is an outstanding
leader, and the great reputation of the LCRA that it enjoys
throughout the State of Texas is, in no small part, part of his
efforts.
I am also pleased to introduce to you a long-time friend of
mine, Mike Heiligenstein. Mike has been active in Williamson
County for over 20 years; first, as a Round Rock City Council
member, as a member of numerous task forces and steering
committees, and now as a Williamson County Commissioner. Mike
has truly made a positive difference in the Williamson County
community. He has been especially active in the areas of water
resources and has been instrumental in regional water planning
efforts.
Again, I want to apologize for not being able to stay for
the remainder of this hearing, but I am in full support of this
legislation and look forward to working with the members of
this Committee to ensure this bill's success.
I thank you for your time and yield back my time.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Edwards?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHET EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE 11TH DISTRICT, STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, what oil and gas were to Texas
in the 20th century, water will be to our State in the 21st
century, and that is specifically why I want to thank you
specifically for your leadership, in terms of water recycling,
water conservation in this Congress. You have been a tremendous
leader in that area, and that is going to have long-term
positive impact on families all across our country, both in
California, and Texas, and elsewhere.
Mrs. Napolitano, thank you for your leadership as Ranking
Member of this Committee on these important issues of water
conservation and water use.
I am primarily here to salute my colleague, Congressman
John Carter, for his vision and leadership in putting together
this legislation. He has been a distinguished selected official
from Williamson County, which I now share with my
representation of the county seat, but Mr. Carter is known as
``Mr. Williamson County.'' He has lived in and represented that
county ably for well over two decades.
As he said, this is one of the fastest-increasing
population counties in the country, and we have not been
sitting back idly waiting for Federal resources to come in. We
have worked at the local, State, Federal level together in
partnership building pipelines to Stillhouse Hollow Lake in my
congressional district, working on a study right now, through
my Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water in the House
to figure out if at Lake Georgetown in Williamson County we can
find a better way to conserve water and use water there.
This bill is simply asking for a Federal partnership in
helping the local communities and Mr. Carter's leadership to
provide water for Williamson County for many, many years to
come.
I salute him, I salute Mr. Joe Beal, with the Lower
Colorado River Authority, and Commissioner Mike Heiligenstein,
who has been a leader on this issue for many, many years.
I understand that some of the folks from the Bureau of
Reclamation take a standard policy of opposing these bills,
saying we have got a lot of them backed up. Well, perhaps we
need to work more closely with our Appropriations Committee. If
we haven't done our job in funding these projects, Mr.
Chairman, like you have done your job in authorizing them, then
maybe we need to get to work.
I don't find in our Committee the Bureau of Reclamation
suggesting a lot of new dams being built across the country,
and it seems to me that recycling of water, so you are not
pumping drinking water on the golf courses and parks for grass,
would be a lot cheaper way to go than building dozens of new
major lakes and dams across the country.
So I salute Congressman Carter for his leadership and
vision on this bill, and I am just honored to be here to
support him in that effort.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank you for your testimony, and I agree
with both of you. We need to concentrate with our colleagues on
making sure that we fund these reclamation projects throughout
the United States, and especially the arid parts of the United
States, such as Texas, California, New Mexico, and Nebraska,
wherever we may have these problems because you are right, we
are not going to be building a lot of dams in the country, and
we need to look at new and innovative ways to meet our
problems.
I don't have any questions for you because I know you have
to run off, but I would be happy to recognize Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, it is great that you are here on behalf of your
constituency, and I look forward to working with both of you
because these issues affect California and affect every other
State in the Nation. And if we don't work together, if we don't
shed some light and--how would I say it gently--get the
Administration off their ``duff'' to fund it so we can have
those projects moving forward, it is that important, and
hopefully you will be able to get the message that they need to
increase the budgeting in those areas that are critical to be
able to fight the drought, to be able to have liberal
communities again.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
The only thing I would add to that, that is not just the
Administration, but the Appropriations Committees.
Mr. Edwards. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. So we have a responsibility in the governance
process, too.
So thank you gentlemen for coming out today. You are
excused.
Mr. Calvert. We will now hear testimony from our second
panel, which includes testimony on H.R. 1598 and H.R. 1732.
While the gentlemen are coming up, the author of 1598, Chris
Cox, is unable to be with us today because there is a hearing
on homeland security, which he chairs, and obviously he could
not forfeit that responsibility, but we will submit his written
testimony for the record, if there is no objection.
[No response.]
Mr. Calvert. Hearing none, his testimony is submitted.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Christopher Cox, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on H.R.
1598, the Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act. I am
proud to have sponsored this legislation as it will be tremendously
beneficial for both water quality and water availability in Southern
California, particularly in Orange County. I'd also like to thank Mr.
Brian Brady, President of the Board of Directors for the Irvine Ranch
Water District and Mr. Larry McKenney, Manager of Watershed and Coastal
Resources for the County of Orange, for agreeing to testify today.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the San Diego
Creek and the Upper Newport Bay to be ``limited'' in water quality,
meaning that drinking or swimming in the water is hazardous. This
designation is due to drainage from urban surfaces that flows
unfiltered into the watershed.
Thankfully, Orange County is working successfully to combine the
treatment of drinking water with the important goal of protecting the
environment. The Natural Treatment System currently being developed by
the County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, and the Irvine Ranch Water
District will have a tremendous impact on the water quality of the Bay.
The process will remove unwanted sediment, nutrients, and other
contaminants which, if left untreated, will pollute and clog up the
Upper Newport Bay. That is why this legislation is endorsed by local
environmental groups like the Orange County Coastkeepers and the
Newport Bay Naturalists and Friends.
As you are well aware, with the growing demands for water in
Southern California, it is important that communities take steps to
treat and conserve existing water resources. H.R. 1598 will authorize
the Bureau of Reclamation to assist in the planning, development and
design of a series of man-made wetlands that will help clean up
polluted surface runoff within the San Diego Creek Watershed. Because
the Bureau of Reclamation has extensive experience with such projects,
its participation will be important in ensuring that the project moves
forward as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.
The total cost of designing and constructing the Natural Treatment
System will be $41 million. A majority of these funds will come from
the private sector, and the Irvine Ranch Water District, state, and
local governments will contribute significant additional resources as
well. To ensure strong local support for the project, I included
language in H.R. 1598 limiting the Federal Government's involvement to
no more than 25% of the project's total costs. Once construction is
completed, annual operating funding will be provided entirely by local
agencies.
Finally, there is the potential for significant cost savings for
the Federal Government: by reducing silt runoff into Upper Newport Bay,
the Natural Treatment System will reduce the need for the Corps of
Engineers to regularly dredge the bay to remove the accumulation of
silt and pollutants.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your support for this important
legislation and for the opportunity to speak about it today.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7233.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7233.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7233.003
Mr. Calvert. And we are going to be receiving testimony
from Mr. Mark Limbaugh, Director of External and
Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
I think we are first going to be hearing from Mr. Limbaugh
who will testify on both bills. Be gentle, Mr. Limbaugh, and
you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MARK LIMBAUGH, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano,
members of the Committee. I would like to make some oral
comments and submit my written statement, if you so desire.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you.
Again, my name is Mark Limbaugh. I am the Director of
External and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Bureau of
Reclamation here in Washington. I am pleased to be here to talk
to you about the Department's views on H.R. 1598.
This Act would obviously amend the Reclamation Wastewater
and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, commonly known as
Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary to participate in
projects in the San Diego Creek Watershed in California and for
other purposes.
Reclamation has had preliminary discussions with Irvine
Ranch Water District on the proposed surface water treatment,
groundwater treatment and brine disposal components of their
project. However, we believe that because there is a lack of a
feasibility study at this time, that this legislation is
premature in authorizing the design and construction of a
project.
Also, we have concerns about the burdens on our budget from
additions to Title XVI projects, which already there is a large
backlog of unconstructed and authorized projects, but we will
continue to work with the district in California on this
project to help get to the point of at least the feasibility
level study. However, we cannot support this bill at this time,
Mr. Chairman.
I am also pleased to be here to present the views of the
Department on H.R. 1732, concerning the Williamson County
Reclamation Project in the State of Texas. Again, this bill
would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study
and Facilities Act, authorizing the Secretary to participate in
the design, planning and construction of a reclamation project
in Williamson County, Texas.
We have only recently met with local representatives of the
Lower Colorado River Authority and have not had sufficient time
to really discuss and review the merits of this project. So at
this time we cannot support H.R. 1732, but we will continue to
work with the Lower Colorado River Authority to investigate the
merits of this project at this time.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my comments on the two bills.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Limbaugh follow:]
Statement of Mark A. Limbaugh, Director, External and Intergovernmental
Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
H.R. 1598
My name is Mark Limbaugh and I am the Director of External and
Intergovernmental Affairs for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased
to appear before this Subcommittee to provide the Department's views on
H.R. 1598.
H.R. 1598 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575), commonly called Title
XVI, to authorize the Secretary of Interior to participate in projects
within the San Diego Creek Watershed in California and for other
purposes.
Reclamation has had some preliminary discussions with the Irvine
Ranch Water District about proposed surface water treatment,
groundwater treatment, and brine disposal components of their project.
However, H.R. 1598 authorizes the design and construction of the
project before Reclamation or the project sponsors have completed a
feasibility study that meets the legal requirements of Title XVI.
Reclamation requires that feasibility studies be completed first to
determine whether these particular projects warrant Federal
construction authorization. Therefore, the Department believes the
legislation to be premature and cannot support H.R. 1598 at this time.
The Department also believes that this legislation would likely
place an additional burden on Reclamation's already tight budget. With
the tremendous backlog of existing Title XVI projects, we do not
support the addition of new projects at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1598. That
concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Statement of Mark A. Limbaugh, Director, External and Intergovernmental
Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
H.R. 1732
My name is Mark Limbaugh and I am Director of External and
Intergovernmental Affairs for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased
to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1732,
concerning the Williamson County water reclamation project in the State
of Texas.
H.R. 1732 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575), authorizing the
Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and
construction of a water reclamation project in Williamson County,
Texas. The authority provided in H.R. 1732 is an amendment to limit the
Federal share of project costs to 25 percent of the total project
costs, caps the maximum Federal share of each project at $20 million
and restricts the Secretary from providing funding for the operation
and maintenance.
Reclamation only recently met with representatives of the Lower
Colorado River Authority and thus we have not had sufficient time to
review the merits of the project. In that respect, until we have more
information, we cannot comment on the merits of the project itself and
therefore cannot support H.R. 1732.
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. With the tremendous
backlog of Title XVI projects that already exist, we do not support the
addition of new wastewater projects at this time.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, in 1992, the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act (Public Law 102-575) was enacted.
Title XVI of this Act, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study
and Facilities Act, authorized construction of five water reclamation
and reuse projects. The Secretary also was authorized to undertake a
program to identify other water recycling opportunities throughout the
17 western United States and to conduct appraisal level and feasibility
level studies to determine if those opportunities are worthy of
implementation. In addition, the Secretary was authorized to conduct
research and to construct, operate, and maintain demonstration
projects. Reclamation has been administering a grant program to fund
these Title XVI activities since fiscal year 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. To date, Congress has provided
funding to plan or construct 19 of 25 specifically authorized projects.
Under the general authority of Title XVI, funding has been provided to
identify and investigate, at the appraisal or feasibility level, eight
potential water recycling projects, and to conduct three research and
demonstration projects.
In summary, the Department strongly encourages local water
recycling efforts and is engaged in numerous water reuse and recycling
projects around the West. However, for the reasons provided above, the
Department cannot, at this time, support authorizing this new
construction request.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1732. This
concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. I would only add,
before we get to the testimony of the other gentlemen that are
here to testify on behalf of H.R. 1598 to 1732, that I believe
that you are going to be, and I am going to be talking to
others in the Administration, a considerable amount of support
on both sides of the aisle, for reclamation projects, because
if we don't start developing additional resources by reusing an
existing resource, then I don't see how we can meet our water
demands in the future. I understand the budget constraints that
we are operating under, but we will need to deal with that.
With us today testifying on H.R. 1598 is Mr. Larry
McKenney, the manager of the Watershed and Coastal Resources
for Orange County, California, and Mr. Brian Brady, President
of the Board of Directors, the Irvine Ranch Water District of
California.
Testifying on H.R. 1732 is the Honorable Mr. Mike
Heiligenstein, Commissioner, Williamson County, Texas, and Mr.
Joe Beal, general manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority
in Texas.
So, with that, we will start off with Mr. Larry McKenney.
We are on a 5-minute rule, Mr. McKenney. As a matter of fact,
there is a town of McKenney, right there in Denton County,
Texas, where my dad was born, so it must be nearby.
So, with that, Mr. McKenney, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF LARRY McKENNEY, MANAGER, WATERSHED AND COASTAL
RESOURCES FOR ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. McKenney. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and other
distinguished members of the Committee. I am Larry McKenney. I
do manage the Watershed and Coastal Resources Division, which
is part of the Public Facilities and Resources Department of
the County of Orange. My task in that position includes the
watershed management efforts for the 13 watersheds that
comprise Orange County and also our Stormwater Compliance
Program.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today
about the Irvine Ranch Water District Natural Treatment Systems
Project and the water resources that that project would help to
steward and protect.
My comments today can be epitomized by the idea that we
should be using public funds as much as possible for multiple
purposes and that that is really the essence of the watershed
approach, an effort to manage water resources on the scale of
the watershed as a physical system, where there are many
competing and conflicting interests that can be resolved in
efficient ways if we look at it on a systems basis.
The County of Orange obviously exists to provide for and
protect the public health of its residents, and that includes
protecting its water resources, including both the adequacy of
the quantity of our drinking water and also the health of our
ecosystems, and the water quality of our streams and beaches.
We are very fortunate in Orange County to have a number of
special districts, like Irvine Ranch Water District, who bring
great expertise to the water business and help us to protect
these valuable resources. So even though the county itself is
not a water supplier, we work very closely with special
districts like RWD to manage our water supply and our other
water resources.
Orange County has taken a particular interest in Upper
Newport Bay, which is at the bottom end of the San Diego Creek
Watershed, where the natural treatment systems project is
proposed. Upper Newport Bay is an ecological jewel. It is a
recreational and aesthetic amenity as well, and it has been
severely threatened by development in the urbanized San Diego
Creek Watershed from pollutants like sediment, nutrients,
pathogens, and toxic metals.
The most efficient solutions to these problems are not to
treat the water near the bottom of the watershed, but to try to
address the pollution up in the watershed where the sources are
and to use the territory that we have as effectively as we can.
By improving water quality further up in the watershed, the
health of the stream channels all the way to the ocean will
benefit. One interest that the county has is that we are the
lead permittee under two separate stormwater permits. Under
these permits, the county, all 34 cities, and the Orange County
Flood Control District are co-permittees, and so we have the
legal responsibility to reduce pollution in the streams and
bays to the maximum extent practicable.
Our permits include provisions that strongly support our
own impetus toward a watershed approach. And in implementing
our stormwater program, we have created watershed groups that
include all of our co-permittees that have territory within
each watershed, and also special districts, property owners,
business interests, environmental and recreational interest
groups who are active in the watershed, and these groups help
us to balance the often competing environmental concerns and to
agree on priorities within that watershed.
One example of the conflicting interests that are typically
found in an urban watershed is the need for flood protection,
which then conflicts with the need to conserve rainfall for
water supply and the need to maintain the health of ecosystems
and rivers and streams.
In the San Diego Creek Watershed, the Orange County Flood
Control District has been doing an admirable job of protecting
the developed property in the watershed from damage from
devastating floods. And to achieve this, the flood control
district has improved miles of channel to carry peak flows
reliably and quickly downstream and has constructed detention
basins to hold water and dampen the peaks of flood flows
downstream.
One view of the world is that this flood control
infrastructure has been a tradeoff, a major public investment
in flood protection necessarily at the expense of other natural
features in the watershed. But the IRWD approach challenges
that paradigm and sees these flood control facilities as an
opportunity, where we can retrofit into that physical system
water quality features.
Their proposal includes numerous sites throughout the San
Diego Creek Watershed where wetlands could be constructed,
often within flood control facilities, and then these wetlands
will restore some of the lost functioning of the natural
system, including filtering out water impurities, encouraging
recharge of groundwater to improve water supply, and enhancing
the habitat values of the region.
This approach capitalizes on the fact that the full flood-
carrying capacity of the system is not necessary the vast
majority of the time and that we can build a water quality
improvement feature in the system and still have the flood-
carrying capacity available when it is needed.
The project is important to the region's overall management
of water supply as well. Orange County can't survive on the
local natural supply that is available to it, and we have to
use every other resource to ensure a reliable supply, including
importation, of course, as well as conservation and recycling.
It means also the use of groundwater and surface water
conjunctively in a coordinated way to optimize supply.
Maximizing the use of recycled water will allow us to use
every drop of water several times before it reaches the ocean.
All of these techniques are being used in Orange County, and
you can see that, like our emphasis on watersheds as the
appropriate physical frame of reference, this is a systems
approach, and it provides the most benefit when we are able to
use water from various sources with as much flexibility as
possible.
To be able to maximize recycled water use, to use imported
water from different sources at will, to manipulate groundwater
levels to optimize supply and at the same time maintain flood-
carrying capacity in our improved channels and not endanger
habitat values and overall water quality, to achieve all of
those goals, natural systems within the channels need to be
strong and healthy, robust enough to withstand the stresses of
that kind of system management.
IRWD's projects are great examples of innovation and
technical excellence. The Natural Treatment Systems Project is
an innovative concept. It is one of those concepts that, once
somebody has described it to you, it seems perfectly obvious,
and yet it is innovative.
My division was created within the county to encourage
collaboration between Government agencies that have activities
that affect water, and I am very happy to be able now to move
outside of the county and collaborate with special districts
like IRWD. We are very hopeful that the Bureau of Reclamation
will be authorized to collaborate with us as a partner as well
and bring their expertise to bear in helping us solve our
problems.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKenney follows:]
Statement of Larry McKenney, Manager, Watershed and Coastal Resources,
County of Orange, California
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cox, and other
distinguished Members of this Committee. My name is Larry McKenney, and
I manage the Watershed and Coastal Resources Division of the Public
Facilities and Resources Department in the County of Orange. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on H.R. 1598 and
to discuss the water resources that it would help to protect. I am
grateful to Congressman Cox for introducing this bill, and also to
Senator Feinstein for the related bill in the Senate.
The County of Orange exists to provide for and protect the health
and welfare of its citizens. That includes water resources, both the
adequacy of the supply of potable water, and the quality of water in
our streams and on our beaches. In particular, our bays and beaches are
very important because of their national ecological significance and
because they are the beating heart of the Orange County economy.
We are fortunate in Orange County to have a number of special
districts, like the Irvine Ranch Water District, that bring to bear
great expertise in addressing the water and wastewater service needs in
the County. These water resources issues are critically important in a
densely urbanized region that cannot survive on the amount of local
water that is naturally available. Several of our cities also have
water and sewer departments. The County itself is not a water supplier,
but has other water resources interests and has been a leader in the
watershed approach that Mr. Brady mentioned. Our approach is to look at
water resources holistically within the physical system of a watershed,
or single drainage area.
Water resources issues have a very high profile in Southern
California. If the adequacy of our water supplies comes into question,
even if the question is not justified, the public perception of a
problem is acute. Similarly, any threat, even a merely perceived
threat, to the quality of our recreational waters has a negative effect
on tourism, the economy, and the quality of life of the residents and
visitors in Orange County.
Starting more than ten years ago, Orange County began to look at
watersheds as the proper scale for the management of our water
resources. The County has led this effort, serving in different roles--
as committee chair, as facilitator, as technical expert--in the
thirteen different watersheds the comprise the County. The earliest
example was in the San Diego Creek and Newport Bay watershed. As that
watershed developed and an urban infrastructure was constructed, the
County and its municipal partners and other stakeholders have kept a
close watch on sediment, nutrients, and other water quality problems.
Orange County has taken a special interest in Upper Newport Bay. It
is an ecological jewel, and is also a valuable recreational and
aesthetic amenity. It has also been severely threatened by the effects
of development in the San Diego Creek watershed, particularly from
sediment, nutrients, and toxic metals. The County and other local
stakeholders have partnered with the Army Corps of Engineers to address
sediment issues, which affect not only habitat, but also navigability
in the upper and lower bays. Notably, the Army is starting an ecosystem
restoration project that will restore and improve significant habitat
areas in the Bay. The most efficient solutions to some of the other
problems facing the Bay must be implemented throughout the watershed,
and not just at the bottom of the system. Not only is this approach
more efficient, but it is substantially more effective in achieving
multiple goals. By improving water quality further up in the watershed,
the health of the stream channels all the way to ocean will benefit,
rather than simply cleaning the water near the end of the system. More
subtle, but more important, is the effect this approach has on our
overall ability to manage water resources.
One interest the County has is that we are the lead permittee under
two areawide municipal stormwater permits. All 34 cities in the County,
and the Orange County Flood Control District, are co-permittees.
Special districts, like Irvine Ranch Water District, are not covered by
those municipal permits. Our permits include provisions strongly
supporting our own focus on the watershed approach. In implementing our
stormwater program, we have created watershed groups that include the
co-permittees with territory within the watershed, and also the special
districts and property owners, business interests, and environmental
and recreational interest groups who are active in the watershed. These
groups do real work in helping the government agencies with
responsibilities for resources to see their needs and interests in the
context of the entire watershed, to balance often competing
environmental concerns, and to agree on priorities.
An example of the conflicting interests typically found in an urban
watershed is the need for flood protection, which conflicts with the
need to conserve rainfall for water supply, and the need to maintain
the health of ecosystems in rivers and streams. In the San Diego Creek
watershed the Orange County Flood Control District is doing an
excellent job of protecting developed property from damage from
devastating floods. To achieve this, the Flood Control District has
improved miles of channel to carry peak flows reliably and quickly, and
has constructed detention basins to hold water and dampen the peaks of
flood flows downstream.
One view of the world is that this flood control infrastructure has
been a trade off, a major public investment in flood protection at the
expense of the natural features and functions of our streams and
waterways. The IRWD Natural Treatment Systems project changes the
paradigm and sees these flood control facilities as an opportunity to
retrofit water quality features into the flood control system. The
proposal includes numerous sites throughout the area of the San Diego
Creek watershed where wetlands would be created, often within flood
control facilities. These wetlands will restore some of the lost
functioning of the natural system, including filtering out water
impurities, encouraging the recharge of groundwater, and enhancing the
habitat values of the region. The approach capitalizes on the fact that
the full capacity of the flood control facilities is not needed the
vast majority of the time, and it can be available to carry flood flows
when major rains do come.
Since Orange County cannot survive on its own local, natural water
supply, we have use every other source to ensure a reliable supply.
This includes importation, of course, as well as water conservation. It
also means use of groundwater and surface water in a coordinated way to
optimize supply--an approach called conjunctive use. And it also
includes maximizing the recycling of water so that it gets used several
times before being discharged to the ocean. All of these techniques are
being used in Orange County, and you can see that this is, like our
emphasis on watersheds, a systems approach. It provides the most
benefit when we are able to use water from various sources with as much
flexibility as possible. To be able to maximize recycled water use, use
imported water from different sources at will, and manipulate
groundwater levels, all in order to optimize water supply, and maintain
flood carrying capacity in our streams, but without endangering the
habitat values and overall water quality in our streams and channels,
the natural systems within the channels need to be strong and healthy,
robust enough to withstand foreseeable stresses.
IRWD's projects are great examples of innovation and technical
excellence. The Natural Treatment Systems Project is one of those
innovative concepts that seem entirely obvious once someone has
described it. It truly illustrates the watershed approach in an
urbanized watershed. Each of Orange County's thirteen watersheds is a
unique situation in terms of problems, opportunities, partners, and
priorities. In the San Diego Creek watershed, the Natural Treatment
Systems project is the right approach, and we have stakeholders who are
willing to work on it. My division, the Watershed and Coastal Resources
Division, was created within the County to encourage collaboration and
innovation between other County programs that touch water quality,
including the flood control, transportation infrastructure, parks, and
development planning. It is especially exciting to be able to work in
the same way with other stakeholders within the County like IRWD who
share that vision. The County and the Flood Control District are proud
to be partners with IRWD. We are hopeful that the Bureau of Reclamation
will be authorized to participate with us as well so that we can
benefit from their knowledge and expertise with regard to constructed
wetlands, water quality, and the systems approach to water supply
management. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today. I am very excited about the great work that the
Irvine Ranch Water District has done in my community and we look
forward to partnering with the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure the
project's success.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Next, Mr. Brady, Brian Brady, the President of the Board of
Directors, Irvine Ranch Water District. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN BRADY, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IRVINE
RANCH WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA, ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL JONES,
GENERAL MANAGER, IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I am Brian Brady, the president of the board of
Irvine Ranch Water District. We appreciate the opportunity to
testify today on H.R. 1598, the Irvine Basin Groundwater and
Surface Water Improvement Act of 2003.
I would like to thank Congressman Cox, especially, for
introducing this bill and for Senator Feinstein for introducing
an identical piece of legislation on the Senate side.
As you may know, the Irvine Ranch Water District provides
domestic water service, wastewater collection and treatment,
water reclamation and urban runoff treatment for the city of
Irvine, and portions of four surrounding cities, as well as
unincorporated areas of the County of Orange. In total, the
district serves a resident population of over a quarter of a
million people and a daytime population of about a half a
million people.
I have with me today the General Manager of the Irvine
Ranch Water District, Mr. Paul Jones, to help answer any
technical questions that the Committee might have.
As background, as Mr. McKenney has mentioned, San Diego
Creek Watershed encompasses over 120 square miles in Central
Orange County. The watershed's boundary approximates that of
the Irvine Ranch Water District and includes, as I mentioned
before, the city of Irvine, also Lake Forest, Newport Beach,
Orange and Tustin.
Surface drainage or urban runoff containing fertilizers,
pesticides, sediments and pathogens flow through the San Diego
Creek Watershed into the Upper Newport Bay, severely impacting
the water quality of the watershed and the bay. As a result,
the EPA has identified the San Diego Creek and the Upper
Newport Bay as impaired water bodies.
In order to protect the water quality of the San Diego
Watershed and the Upper Bay, and it is the largest marine
estuary in Southern California, IRWD, in collaboration with the
County of Orange, and the cities I have mentioned, is proposing
to develop and maintain a system of manmade wetlands--31 in
total--throughout the area that would utilize natural process
to capture unwanted sediment, remove nutrients, pathogens and
other contaminants from the runoff and ensure that dry weather
flow and first flush from rains reaching the bay meet Federal
clean water standards.
In addition to completing the San Diego Creek Water Shed
Natural Treatment System or NTS, the proposed legislation would
authorize the Bureau of Reclamation assistance in developing a
related component of the project to treat and reuse impaired
groundwater within the groundwater basin. This will be built in
conjunction with the local groundwater management agency, the
Orange County Water District, and with financial assistance
from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
This project, known as the Irvine Desalter, will consist of
a well system and purification plant which will remove salts
and nitrates caused by natural geology and past agricultural
drainage. The project will employ reverse osmosis technology
and create a new highly reliable local drinking water supply at
a cost to Irvine Ranch Water District comparable to imported
water supplies from the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and the
Colorado River. The project is consistent with the Bureau of
Reclamation's objectives of reclaiming impaired water for
beneficial uses.
The final component of this project will be a regional
brine line. In Orange County, as well as throughout California,
wastewater reclamation for reuse is a critical component of the
region's current and future water supply portfolio. Our region
enjoys one of the most advanced systems of wastewater treatment
distribution and reuse in the world.
Currently, brines are disposed in the sewer from industrial
sources and from groundwater treatment facilities. This method
of disposal is problematic as it dramatically increases the
cost of treatment and impairs water and wastewater agencies'
ability to implement additional wastewater reclamation. To
alleviate this problem, we propose to construct a regional
brine line that consists of separate systems of pipes to
segregate the brine from sewage and dispose of it directly to
the ocean.
Providing a new local water supply such as that created by
the Irvine Desalter, and facilitating additional reclaimed
water development through projects such as the regional brine
line, are important strategies in reducing Southern
California's reliance on imported water supplies from the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and the Colorado River. In fact,
both the CALFED program for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary
and the California 4.4 Plan for the Colorado River assume
aggressive development and implementation of local water
resource projects.
Under CALFED, the fundamental objective of the Water
Management Program Element is to: ``Reduce the mismatch between
Bay-Delta water supplies and current and projected beneficial
uses dependent on the Bay-Delta system,'' through a strategy to
``increase the utility of available water supplies by making
water more suitable for uses and reuses.'' As noted earlier,
the Irvine Desalter makes unused water resources suitable for
use, while the regional brine line promotes additional water
reuse through reclamation.
Similarly, for California's consumers of Colorado River
water to stay within the 4.4-million-acre-feet of entitlement,
numerous new local water supply and reclamation projects will
need to be implemented. A recent report completed by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, entitled,
``Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies: A Blueprint for
Water Reliability,'' identifies a 32-percent increase in local
water supply project yield by the year 2025, as a key component
in reducing reliance on imported water from the Colorado River.
The total cost of the projects authorized by H.R. 1598 is
slightly under $80 million. As you know, the Bureau of
Reclamation's Title XVI allows a 25-percent contribution or up
to a limit of $20 million. To date, the District, that is,
IRWD, has spent over $2 million toward completing comprehensive
project development work, including feasibility analysis,
master plan and project engineering report preparation, water
quality and groundwater modeling, environmental documentation,
cost estimates, design plans and specifications.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, that completes my
comments.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brady follows:]
Statement of Brian Brady, President of the Board of Directors,
Irvine Ranch Water District
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cox, and the other
distinguished Members of this Committee. My name is Brian Brady and I
serve as President of the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water
District. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on
H.R. 1598, the Irvine Basin Groundwater and Surface Water Improvement
Act of 2003. First, let me express my sincere gratitude to Congressman
Cox for introducing this legislation, and also thank Senator Diane
Feinstein who has introduced an identical piece of legislation in the
Senate.
If I may, I'd like to briefly describe the role that the Irvine
Ranch Water District plays in our community and the context within
which our project is proposed. The Irvine Ranch Water District provides
domestic water service, wastewater collection and treatment, water
reclamation, and urban runoff treatment for the city of Irvine and
portions of four surrounding cities as well as the County of Orange. In
total, the District serves a resident population of over 266,000 with a
daytime population of approximately 500,000. We employ approximately
275 well-qualified employees who are committed to the mission of
providing a safe, reliable water supply to our customers without
sacrificing the environment. In fact, because of our outstanding staff,
the District has been recognized with numerous regional, statewide and
national awards for our leadership in developing innovative ways to
provide water while protecting the environment. The District's General
Manager, Paul Jones, is with me here today to assist in answering any
technical questions that the Members of the Committee may have about
the projects that would be authorized by this legislation.
We are extremely excited about this legislation, as it will allow
the Irvine Ranch Water District to even better serve the community and
the environment. The Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement
Act would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the
design and construction of projects that will enhance the environment
of a large portion of Orange County. This partnership would be a
tremendous help to the District as we work to develop new groundwater
supply projects and to protect the San Diego Creek watershed and Upper
Newport Bay.
Before I talk about the specifics of our proposed project, it is
important to discuss the regional context and approach used by water
and wastewater agencies in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange
Counties to address water resource and urban runoff issues.
Contemporary surface and groundwater resource management relies heavily
on addressing issues on a ``watershed-wide'' basis. The Southern
California coastal plain and its watersheds extend from the mountains
to the ocean. One watershed, that of the Santa Ana River, extends 96
miles from the San Bernardino Mountains to the Pacific, between
Huntington and Newport Beaches. In terms of management, the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority, or SAWPA as it is known, provides
watershed-wide coordination of water resource management projects
through a joint powers agreement among five regional agencies. These
agencies have worked to develop numerous water reclamation, brackish
desalting and water quality wetland projects in the three-county
region.
In the lower portion of the Santa Ana River system in Orange
County, Orange County Water District, one of the five SAWPA members,
manages the groundwater basin, and as discussed later, is a key partner
in the groundwater component of the proposed project.
With respect to coordination of surface drainage, or ``urban
runoff'' issues, the County of Orange, in collaboration with the cities
and agencies within the County, are developing new, innovative methods
to treat contaminated surface runoff, including another component of
this proposed project referred to as the Natural Treatment System.
Larry Mc Kenney of the County of Orange is here today and will be
providing testimony regarding the County's watershed management
efforts, and the role the proposed Natural Treatment System component
of the proposed project plays in those efforts.
All these aforementioned partnerships provide the basis for, and
examples of, collaborative water resource management using a
comprehensive ``watershed-wide'' approach.
This brings us to the San Diego Creek watershed, which encompasses
over 120 square miles in central Orange County. The San Diego Creek
watershed's boundary is approximately the same as Irvine Ranch Water
District's and includes the City of Irvine and portions of the Cities
of Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, and Tustin, as well as
unincorporated areas of the County. Surface drainage or urban runoff
containing fertilizers, pesticides, sediment, and pathogens, flows
through the San Diego Creek watershed and into the Upper Newport Bay,
severely impacting the water quality of the watershed and the Bay. As a
result of these water quality concerns, EPA has identified San Diego
Creek and the Upper Newport Bay as ``impaired water
bodies.''
In order to protect the water quality of the San Diego Creek
watershed and Upper Newport Bay, the largest marine estuary in Southern
California, Irvine Ranch Water District, in collaboration with the
County of Orange and the aforementioned cities, is proposing to develop
and maintain a system of man-made wetlands throughout the area that
will utilize natural processes to capture unwanted sediment and remove
nutrients, pathogens and other contaminants from the runoff, thus
helping to ensure that the dry weather and ``first flush'' flows and
reaching the Bay meet Federal clean water standards. The Natural
Treatment System portion of the project will provide a cost effective
method to help the community protect the water quality and beneficial
uses in San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport Bay, and will also
provide additional neighborhood open space and wildlife habitat.
In addition to completing the San Diego Creek Watershed Natural
Treatment System, the proposed legislation would authorize Bureau of
Reclamation assistance in developing a related component of the project
to treat and reuse impaired groundwater within the groundwater basin.
This will be built in conjunction with the local groundwater management
agency, the Orange County Water District, and with financial assistance
from of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
This portion of the project, known as the Irvine Desalter, will
consist of a well system and water purification plant that will remove
salts and nitrates caused by natural geology and past agricultural
drainage from a portion of the groundwater basin underlying the San
Diego Creek watershed. The project will employ reverse osmosis
technology to create a new, highly reliable local drinking water supply
at a cost to Irvine Ranch Water District comparable to imported water
supplies from the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and the Colorado
River. The project is consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation's
objectives of reclaiming impaired water for beneficial uses.
The final component of this project will be a regional brine line.
In Orange County, just as it is throughout California, wastewater
reclamation for reuse is a critical component of the region's current
and future water supply portfolio. Our region enjoys one of the most
advanced systems of wastewater treatment, distribution and reuse in the
world. Currently, brines are disposed in the sewer from industrial
sources and existing or proposed impaired groundwater treatment
facilities. This method of disposal is problematic as it dramatically
increases the costs of treatment and impairs local water and wastewater
agencies' ability to implement additional wastewater reclamation. To
alleviate this problem, Irvine Ranch Water proposes to construct a
Regional Brine Line that consists of a separate system of pipes to
segregate brine from sewage and dispose of the brine directly into the
ocean where salinity is not a concern.
Providing new, local water supplies such as those created by the
Irvine Desalter, and facilitating additional reclaimed water
development through projects such as the regional brine line, are
important strategies in reducing Southern California's reliance on
imported water supplies from the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and
the Colorado River. In fact, both the CALFED program for the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and the California 4.4 Plan for the
Colorado River assume aggressive development and implementation of
local water resource projects. Under the CALFED program, the
fundamental objective of the Water Management Program Element is to:
``Reduce the mismatch between Bay Delta water supplies and current and
projected beneficial uses dependent on the Bay Delta system'' through a
strategy to ``Increase the utility of available water supplies and by
making water more suitable for uses and reuses.'' As noted earlier, the
Irvine Desalter portion of the proposed project makes unused water
resources suitable for use, while the regional brine line promotes
additional water reuse through reclamation.
Similarly, for California's consumers of Colorado River water to
stay within the state's 4.4 million acre feet of entitlement, numerous
new local water supply and reclamation projects will need to be
implemented in urban southern California. A report recently completed
by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California entitled:
``Report on Metropolitan's Water Supplies: A Blueprint for Water
Reliability,'' identifies a 32% increase in local supply project yield,
from 2.2 million acre feet 2005, to 2.9 million acre feet in 2025, as a
key component in reducing reliance on imported water from the Colorado
River. As such, the proposed project is consistent with these local
supply development strategies and will incrementally help southern
California meet its water supply management goals on the Colorado
River.
The total cost of the projects to be authorized in H.R.1598 is
slightly under $80 million. As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation's
Title XVI program allows the Bureau to contribute to 25% of the costs
of planning, designing, and constructing projects like the ones that
would be authorized by H.R. 1598 up to a limit of $20 million. To date,
the District has spent over $2 million toward completing comprehensive
project development work including feasibility analyses, master plan
and project engineering report preparation, water quality and
groundwater modeling, environmental documentation, cost estimates,
design plans and specifications. In total, our District and other local
sponsors are committed to providing over $60 million toward the
construction of these important projects.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman, thank you again for allowing me the
opportunity to share my testimony with you. The Irvine Ranch Water
District is committed to serving its customers in the most efficient,
cost-effective and environmentally responsible manner. I am proud to
serve as President of the Board for such an outstanding public agency.
We are looking forward to working with the Bureau of Reclamation to
make this project a success. Again, thank you for your time and
consideration of my testimony. I will be glad to answer any questions
you may have at this time.
______
[NOTE: A document entitled ``Irvine Basin Groundwater and
Surface Water Improvement Projects'' by Paul D. Jones II, P.E.,
submitted for the record has been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Next, testifying on H.R. 1732, Commissioner Mike, you are
recognized.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE HEILIGENSTEIN, COMMISSIONER,
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS
Mr. Heiligenstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Mike Heiligenstein, and I might say that the
Village of Heiligenstein is on the border of France and
Germany. And I used to be able to claim one or the other,
depending upon whose policies I agreed with. Right now I am
having a really hard time because I don't agree with either
one.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Heiligenstein. I have also chaired for the National
Association of Counties, and I am sure you hear from your
county commissioners all the time, I also chair for them, I
have chaired Water Quality, and I currently chair Air Quality
for the National Association. This year, the Western Interstate
Conference is in Tahoe, so I am sure water resources will be a
huge factor in their conference at the end of May.
I am here to testify on H.R. 1732 for Williamson County and
the Williamson County Recycling Act of 2003. I also want to
thank Congressman Carter and Congressman Edwards for their
support.
As a county commissioner in Texas, I and my fellow
Commissioners Court members, are the overall governing and
management body of the county. The Commissioners Court is
responsible, of course, for all budgetary decisions and setting
the tax rate.
Commissioners Courts in Texas are also charged by our
legislature to establish a courthouse and jail, build roads,
bridges and provide law enforcement through a county sheriff.
Williamson County's general fund is in excess of $66.5 million,
and the road and bridge is in excess of $10.7 million.
While the county has been given recent authority to provide
water and wastewater services through the legislature, it has
neither the budget nor the technical expertise to provide those
services. We do, however, consult frequently with the Lower
Colorado River Authority to be sure that the residents are
getting the best water and wastewater service.
Since 1990, Williams County has experienced phenomenal
growth, and Williams County is located just north of Austin. We
are the home of Dell Computer, Westinghouse and Motorola.
According to the 1990 census, there were 139,000 residents in
Williamson County. In just 10 years, we added over 100,000 new
residents to the county. For that decade, we became the second
fastest growing county in the State and the 19th fastest in the
country. Population projections show that in the year 2025, we
should be approaching 750,000 people. In fact, the city of
Austin will be the largest governmental entity in my particular
precinct.
The Texas Water Development Board has required all retail
providers to develop water conservation and drought contingency
plans. All of the water providers in Williamson County have
completed, and implemented, very restrictive water conservation
lands. Even so, the current water supplies of Williamson County
will meet the demand in the year 2017. As our population has
grown, we have struggled to keep up with the demand for water.
But because it is such a scarce and precious resource, we are
constantly looking for ways to conserve what resources we do
have and plan for the development of additional.
There have been two major studies completed recently
regarding the supply of water to Williamson County. In 1997,
the Texas State Legislature determined the need to facilitate
long-term water planning throughout the State and approved what
was called Senate Bill 1. This statewide effort resulted in 15
water plans throughout the entire State. One of those, Region
G, included detailed evaluations of the 50-year plan for
Williamson County.
As I said before, a significant conclusion of that report
is that the existing sources of water will be fully utilized by
2017. Possible alternatives to meet the long-term needs of the
county included, one, the construction of a nominal earnings
reservoir; two, the development of groundwater; three, the
inter-basin transfer of additional water from the Colorado
River to the Brazos River.
The second study was the Williamson County Water Supply
Facilities Plan that was prepared by the LCRA and the BRA. It
looked at how best to meet the 50-year needs of the cities and
other retail providers in 10-year increments. Both reports
placed significant emphasis on reuse. However, so far only
three cities in the county have begun reuse projects and with
only limited success. This is, in part, due to the fragmented
approach now being taken, as well as the high initial cost to
implement the reuse in Williamson County. The county believes
that a significant reuse program can both reduce and postpone
the need for the development of one or more of these new water
supplies. This will have a direct impact on every water
customer in the county.
There has been a long-term relationship between the LCRA
and Williamson County because LCRA has been a major power
provider for nearly 75 years for much of the county. And during
the last 10 years, the LCRA has been instrumental in bringing a
regional approach to water and wastewater needs in the county.
It is my understanding that the LCRA also has a long
history with the Bureau. We believe that these two
organizations can bring a truly regional approach to reuse in
Williamson County. The initial infusion of Federal funds from
the Bureau can jump start this important program. The LCRA's
leadership and expertise in project management and delivery
will ensure its long-term success.
Since the county has no experience with major water and
wastewater projects, we look to the LCRA and the BRA to provide
their expertise to such a project. County Governments
throughout the United States, as you probably know, are looking
more and more toward regional approaches to solving problems
that we have, including water.
The county recently acquired 800 acres for a regional park,
and we have constructed the first phase of that park. We use
200,000 gallons per day of drinking water, and that contract
with the city of Round Rock will expire in just 3 years. Until
a better, more reliable, source of water can be developed, the
county will be limited in its development of the remaining
portion of that park. The proposed reuse project will provide
that new source of irrigation.
On behalf of the Commissioners Court of Williamson County
and the citizens, I would like to thank the Committee for
considering this bill. I can also assure you that the cities
within Williamson County are aware of this important
legislation and wanted me to acknowledge their support.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to appear, and I
would be glad to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heiligenstein follows:]
Statement of Mike Heiligenstein, County Commissioner,
Williamson County, Texas
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
Mike Heiligenstein and I serve as a County Commissioner in Williamson
County, Texas. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R.
1732, the Williamson County Water Recycling Act of 2003. I also want to
thank Congressman John Carter for introducing this legislation and
Congressman Chet Edwards for cosponsoring. I am proud to have them
representing my county in Washington, D.C.
As a County Commissioner in Texas, I and my fellow Commissioners
Court members, are the overall governing and management body of the
County. The Commissioners Court is responsible for all budgetary
decisions and setting the tax rate each year. Commissioners Courts in
Texas are also charged by the Legislature to establish a courthouse and
jail, build roads and bridges and provide law enforcement through the
County Sheriff. Williamson County's general fund budget is in excess of
$66.5 million dollars and the road and bridge fund is in excess of
$10.7 million dollars. While the county has recently been given
legislative authority to provide water and wastewater services, it has
neither the budget nor technical expertise to effectively provide such
services. We do, however, consult frequently with LCRA to be sure that
the residents are getting the best water and wastewater service.
Since 1990, Williamson County has experienced phenomenal growth.
Williamson County is located just north of Austin and is the home to
Dell Computer. According to the 1990 census, there were 139,551
residents in Williamson County. By 2000, that number had grown to
249,967. For that decade, Williamson County was the second fastest
growing county in Texas and the 19th fastest growing county in the
country. Although the growth has slowed recently, population
projections still estimate we will have over 750,000 residents by 2025.
The Texas Water Development Board has required all retail water
providers to develop Water Conservation and Drought Contingency Plans.
All of the water providers in Williamson County have completed and
implemented very restrictive water conservation plans. Even so, the
current water supplies in Williamson County will be exhausted in 2017.
As our population has grown, we have struggled to keep up with the
demand for water. Because it is such a scarce and precious resource, we
are constantly looking for ways to conserve what sources we have and to
plan for the development of additional sources before they are needed.
There have been two major studies competed recently regarding the
supply of water to Williamson County. In 1997, the Texas State
Legislature determined the need to facilitate long- term water planning
throughout the state and approved Senate Bill 1. This statewide effort
resulted in fifteen regional water plans being developed. One of those
plans, the Region G plan, included detailed evaluations of the 50-year
water demands and supplies for Williamson County. This study was
partially funded by the Texas Water Development. As I said before, a
significant conclusion of that report is that the existing sources of
water will be fully utilized in 2017. Possible alternatives to meet the
long term water needs of the county include (1) the construction of a
new reservoir on the Little River, (2) the development of ground water
in an area 50-75 miles east of the county or (3) the inter-basin
transfer of additional surface water from the Colorado River to the
Brazos River basin. The second study was the Williamson County Water
Supply Facilities Plan that was prepared by the Lower Colorado River
Authority and the Brazos River Authority. It looked at how best to meet
the 50-year needs of the cities and other retail providers in ten-year
increments. Both reports placed significant emphasis on reuse in their
water supply calculations. However, so far only three cities in the
county have begun reuse projects and with only limited success. This is
in part due to the fragmented approach now being taken as well as the
high initial cost to implement reuse in Williamson County. The county
believes that a significant reuse program can both reduce and postpone
the need for development of one or more of these new water supplies.
This will have a direct directly impact on every water customer in the
county.
There has been a long-term relationship between LCRA and Williamson
County because LCRA has been a major power provider for nearly 75 years
for much of the county. During the last 10 years, LCRA has also been
instrumental in bringing a regional approach to the water and
wastewater needs in the county. It is my understanding that LCRA also
has a long history of working with the Bureau of Reclamation. We
believe that these two organizations can bring a truly regional
approach to reuse in Williamson County. The initial infusion of Federal
funds from the Bureau of Reclamation can jump-start this important
program. LCRA's leadership and experience in project management and
delivery will insure its long-term success. Since the county has no
experience with major water and wastewater projects, we look to LCRA
and the Brazos River Authority to provide their expertise to such a
project.
The County recently acquired 800 acres for a regional park and has
completed the construction of the first phase of its long-term plan for
the park. Further development is now limited by the availability of
irrigation water. The county now purchases 200,000 gallons per day of
drinking water from the City of Round Rock. This contract will expire
in 2006. Until a better, more reliable source of water can be
developed, the county will be limited in its development of the
remainder of the park. The proposed reuse project will provide that new
source of irrigation water.
On behalf of the Commissioners Court of Williamson County, I would
like to thank the Committee for considering this bill. I can also
assure you that the cities within Williamson County are aware of this
important legislation and wanted me to acknowledge their support. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for allowing me to appear before your Committee
today. I would be glad to answer any questions at this time.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
Mr. Joe Beal, the General Manager of the Lower Colorado
River Authority, Texas.
STATEMENT OF JOE BEAL, GENERAL MANAGER,
LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY, TEXAS
Mr. Beal. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other
distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Joe Beal,
and I am general manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority,
headquartered in Austin, Texas.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1732, the
Williamson County Recycling Act of 2003. I also want to express
my sincere gratitude to Congressman John Carter for introducing
this legislation and to Congressman Chet Edwards for co-
sponsoring this measure. Both Congressman Carter and
Congressman Edwards have been very supportive of LCRA and
Central Texas, and I appreciate their work on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly describe to the
Committee the mission and role of LCRA in communities
throughout Central Texas. LCRA was created in 1934 by the Texas
Legislature as a regional conservation and reclamation district
in Central Texas. The Federal Government and LCRA have had a
close and beneficial relationship since our creation, when LCRA
received Federal loans and grants to build six reservoirs that
form the Highland Lakes, and those loans have been repaid.
These lakes have protected communities from destructive
floods, provided a reliable water supply for one of the
fastest-growing regions in the United States, produces
renewable hydroelectric energy and created opportunities for
parks and water recreation.
Today, our energy and water service areas cover all or part
of 58 counties in Central Texas. Thanks to the original Federal
investment, LCRA generates wholesale electric power for more
than one million people. We also manage a 600-mile stretch of
the Texas Colorado River from West Texas to the Gulf of Mexico,
and we provide raw water to cities, farmers, and industries in
the Lower Colorado River Basin. Of course, this is not to be
confused with the other Colorado River a little bit further
west.
The LCRA owns or operates 35 water and wastewater systems
that serve more than 112,000 residents in 11 counties. The soul
of LCRA is in our water services. We are a leader in Texas in
promoting long-term water supply management planning and
conservation practices. That is why I am here today to talk to
you about water reuse for Williamson County.
In 1997, the Texas Legislature divided the State into 15
regions, as Mike has said, and mandated that each region
develop a 50-year water plan. Through this planning process,
water recycling in Williamson County was identified as an
alternative water supply that would have three positive
outcomes:
First, it would reduce or postpone the need to develop more
surface water.
Second, it would delay and reduce the need for costly
imports of groundwater from as far away as 75 miles east of the
county.
Third, it would postpone the need for interbasin transfers
of water from the Colorado River to the Brazos River Basin.
Studies conducted under the State planning process show
that current water supplies will only meet Williamson County's
needs through the year 2017. That is just 14 years from now.
Water reuse, water sharing, and the development of new water
sources are necessary to meet the county's long-term water
needs.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly support H.R. 1732, and we have
committed significant funding to support this project because
we believe it will have a major impact on the water supply in
Williamson County.
Currently, parks, schools, and other recreational areas in
the county are literally dumping drinking water on the ground.
This obviously does not make sense. We welcome the opportunity
to partner with the Bureau to design, plan and construct a
consolidated system to improve the efficient use of water
resources in the county.
There is regional support for the use of recycled water in
Williamson County, and from a number of entities, including the
Cities of Round Rock and Leander, Williamson County and the
Round Rock Independent School District. The project will be
part of an alliance between LCRA and the Brazos River Authority
and will be completed in two phases.
Construction of Phase I would begin as early as 2005, will
take 1 year and will accomplish two goals:
First, two golf courses in the county use about 600,000
gallons of raw and drinking water a day for irrigation. This
project would transport effluent from an existing wastewater
treatment plant to the golf courses, freeing up drinking water
for thousands of homes.
Second, two large regional parks that also used drinking
water for irrigation would begin to use transported recycled
water. This will end a wasteful use of the city's critical
water drinking supply and will cost city and county Governments
and ratepayers far less.
Phase II could begin construction in 2006 and will take 1
year. It would expand delivery of recycled water to meet
irrigation needs of several middle schools and high schools,
other city and county parks and at least one more golf course.
The use of recycled water is the most reliable source of
irrigation for parks, school athletic fields and golf courses.
We estimate that this project annually will save about 5,000
acre feet or 1.6 billion gallons of raw and treated drinking
water.
The total cost of the project authorized in H.R. 1732 is
$29 million. The Bureau's Title XVI Program allows the Bureau
to contribute up to 25 percent of the cost, with a limit of $20
million. So that means that the Federal part would be about
$7.5 million, and LCRA is prepared to put up the balance of
$21.5 million.
We are very excited about this project and the opportunity
to work with the Bureau to ensure its success.
Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, thank you for
allowing me to appear before you today, and I am happy to
answer any questions that you might have for me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beal follows:]
Statement of Joseph J. Beal, P.E., General Manager,
Lower Colorado River Authority
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the
Committee. My name is Joe Beal and I am General Manager of the Lower
Colorado River Authority, headquartered in Austin, Texas.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1732, the
Williamson County Water Recycling Act of 2003. I also want to express
my sincere gratitude to Congressman John Carter for introducing this
legislation and to Congressman Chet Edwards for cosponsoring this
measure. Both Congressman Carter and Congressman Edwards have been very
supportive of LCRA and Central Texas, and I appreciate their work on
this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly describe to the Committee the
mission and role of LCRA in communities throughout Central Texas. LCRA
was created in 1934 by the Texas Legislature as a regional conservation
and reclamation district in Central Texas. The Federal Government and
LCRA have had a close and beneficial relationship since our creation,
when LCRA received Federal loans and grants to build six reservoirs
that form the Highland Lakes.
These lakes have protected communities from destructive floods,
provided a reliable water supply for one of the fastest-growing regions
in the United States, produced renewable hydroelectric energy, and
created opportunities for parks and water recreation. The Federal
Government's investment has paid a huge dividend to Central Texas and,
by the way, LCRA repaid all the loans years ago.
Today our energy and water service areas cover all or part of 58
counties. LCRA generates wholesale electric power for more than 1
million people. LCRA also manages a 600-mile stretch of the Texas
Colorado River from West Texas to the Gulf of Mexico, and provides raw
water to cities, farmers and industries in the lower Colorado River
basin.
LCRA owns or operates 35 water/wastewater systems that serve more
than 112,000 residents in 11 counties.
LCRA also provides community services such as parks and recreation,
water quality protection, and economic and community development.
But the soul of LCRA is in our water services. We are a leader in
Texas in promoting long-term water supply management planning and
conservation practices. That is why I am here today to talk to you
about water reuse for Williamson County.
In 1997 the Texas Legislature divided the state into 15 regions and
mandated that each region develop a 50-year water plan. Through this
planning process, water recycling in Williamson County was identified
as an alternative water supply that would have three positive outcomes:
First, it would reduce or postpone the need to develop
more surface water.
Second, it would delay and reduce the need for costly
imports of groundwater from as far as 75 miles east of the county.
Third, it would postpone the need for interbasin
transfers of water from the Colorado river to the Brazos River basin.
Studies conducted under the state planning process show that
current water supplies will only meet Williamson County's needs through
the year 2017. Water reuse, water sharing, and the development of new
water sources are necessary to meet the county's long-term water needs.
Mr. Chairman, we strongly support H.R. 1732, and we have committed
significant funding to support this project because we believe it will
have a major impact on water supply in Williamson County.
Currently, parks, schools and other recreational areas in the
county are literally dumping drinking water on the ground. This
obviously does not make sense. 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
the county.
There is regional support for the use of recycled water in
Williamson County from a number of entities including the cities of
Round Rock and Leander, Williamson County and the Round Rock
Independent School District. The project will be part of an alliance
between LCRA and the Brazos River Authority and will be completed in
two phases.
Construction of Phase 1 could begin as early as 2005, will take one
year, and will accomplish two goals:
First, two golf courses in the county use about 600,000
gallons of raw and drinking water a day for irrigation. This project
would transport effluent from an existing wastewater treatment plant to
the golf courses, freeing up drinking water for thousands of homes.
Second, two large regional parks that also use drinking
water for irrigation would begin using transported, recycled water.
This will end a wasteful use of the county's critical drinking water
supply, and will cost city and county governments and ratepayers far
less.
Phase II could begin construction in 2006 and will take one year.
It would expand delivery of recycled water to meet irrigation needs of
several middle schools and high schools, other city and county parks,
and at least one more golf course.
The use of recycled water is the most reliable source of irrigation
for parks, school athletic fields, and golf courses. We estimate that
this project annually will save about 5,000 acre-feet, or 1.6 billion
gallons, of raw and treated drinking water.
The total cost of the project authorized in H.R. 1732 is $29
million. The Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program allows the
Bureau to contribute up to 25 percent of the cost, with a limit of $20
million, for planning, designing, and constructing projects like the
ones that would be authorized by H.R. 1732. LCRA is ready and able to
provide the local cost share of $21.5 million.
LCRA is very excited about this project and the opportunity to work
with the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure its success. We have met with
the Bureau to discuss the need for developing a water recycling program
in Williamson County.
Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, thank you for allowing me
to appear before you today. I am happy to answer any questions you may
have at this time.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
First, I wanted to ask a question of Mr. Limbaugh as far as
if you know the answer to this question. If not, maybe you can
get back to me. Since we are pretty much ending the rainy
season, except here in Washington, D.C., obviously, but in the
West, the Colorado River, where are we at as far as the snow
pack and the Colorado River flows this year? Do you have any
insight into that?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with today's
forecast and will certainly get that information to you, but I
do know that on the drought map, the Colorado River Basin is
almost a bull's eye in terms of a drought this year. So those
reservoirs are working and doing their job.
Mr. Calvert. Right. Lake Mead, Lake Powell are at historic
low levels; is that correct?
Mr. Limbaugh. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That is correct.
Mr. Calvert. The reason I bring that up, and obviously
there are other places in the country, rather than just the
Upper and Lower Basin States in the West that are experiencing
drought right now, the Bureau has a number of programs to
enhance water supplies. Could you explain, for the record, the
role of Title XVI water recycling programs and how they play in
developing water supplies?
Mr. Limbaugh. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding
that the act, as we call Title XVI, did authorize the Secretary
to enter into some specific projects for planning, designing,
and constructing originally and also gave us authority to work
to identify pilot projects, and demonstration projects, and
bring those to feasibility study level in terms of planning, in
that light.
We believe that the Act was successful in its original
intent, and we certainly have been involved in those projects
in the past. We, however, are again dealing with limited
dollars and very real demands on those dollars, in terms of our
existing facilities that we have to operate and maintain, along
with security, and so we have tried to put as much as we could
into these programs, and we certainly have worked with the
local folks to try to get them to the place where they can at
least get to the merits of their individual projects on a case-
by-case basis.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Limbaugh, could you explain the role of
water recycling in your 2025 program?
Mr. Limbaugh. You are referring to Water 2025, the
secretarial initiative. We have four tools that we are
outlining in that program, and one of which--well, I can just
go through those real quick, Mr. Chairman.
The first one is conservation and improved water
management; the second one is collaborative efforts to deal
with water crises and conflict; and the third one is research
into desalination and advanced water treatment technologies to
bring the cost down; and the fourth one is better interagency
working relationships, cooperation and use of existing
infrastructure in a more efficient and effective manner.
Mr. Chairman, the third one is the one that I think would
relate to this because in Water 2025, we are trying to take a
global view of what would benefit all projects, in terms of an
initial investment in research and bringing the cost of water
desalination down, and especially in light of not only the
technology, but also the brine disposal because we believe that
water desalination is something that is up and coming in terms
of advancing future water supplies, not only from the ocean,
but from brackish or untreated, unusable groundwater.
So we believe that that initiative would look at focusing
funds in that direction to benefit all of these types of
projects.
Mr. Calvert. The reason I bring that up, isn't it true,
though, that you don't mention water recycling, even though you
probably should under 2025's Improved Technology section? There
is no mention of water recycling in the program; isn't that
correct?
Mr. Limbaugh. I would have to look at the document again,
but I would take your word for it, yes.
Mr. Calvert. And the reason I bring this up, and I am sure
we will have time here, is California, Texas, throughout the
country, we are experiencing problems as far as water is
concerned, and as Mr. Edwards had mentioned in his initial
testimony, that water is almost more precious than oil in many
parts of the country right now. Obviously, reuse of water,
recycling water is extremely important in these arid regions,
and certainly we would like to get the participation of the
Department of Reclamation. And you are right, we have
responsibility here in the Congress to help you along in that
process, and I assure you of my continued support to do exactly
that.
With that, Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
follow on your line of questioning to Mr. Limbaugh because in
our conversations, even in the budget, the recycled water
budget has gone from, what, $32.5- to was it $10-? There are
very few projects that are going to be able to be funded this
year with that amount of money.
And I think that our colleagues need to understand that it
is not that this Committee has not looked at water recycling,
it is just that the funding is being diminished, and in the
Water 2025, it is not even mentioned, which means it is being
phased out. Whether somebody wants to admit it or not, this is
a reality.
And we are urging--I have talked to Commissioner Keys--and
we are urging that it be reconsidered because it is not just
desal, and conservation, and storage that is going to get the
rest of the United States to be able to deal with these water
issues; it also includes recycled water. Because as we have
pockets of water that have been contaminated and treated that
are being dumped in the ocean, we should be having--our
communities benefit from the reuse of that water, and I
certainly want to convey the message very strongly. I have
mentioned this many times.
To you, Mr. Limbaugh, or to Mr. McKenney, the three
projects that are included in the Bureau of Reclamation's
Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse
Study, the three projects that you mentioned, are they included
in that study? And I must say, Mr. Limbaugh, for the record,
that I am again requesting a copy for this Committee of the
Bureau of Reclamation's Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation Reuse Study. Someday we may get it.
But have you any idea whether they are, Mr. McKenney or Mr.
Brady, included in that study?
Mr. McKenney. Well, as you know, Congresswoman, that study
hasn't been released, but based upon discussions with USBR's
staff, we understand that the desalter portion of the project
is included in the study or will be included in the study and
that the study does discuss brine impacts on reclamation and
the potential for brine disposal facilities.
Now, the third part of our project, the Natural Treatment
System, we understand is not in there. That is our best
information.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Limbaugh?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Napolitano, we will
take your comments back, and I will check on the status of that
study and get back to you on that.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would appreciate it very much.
Mr. McKenney, are these projects part of the plan proposed
by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority?
Mr. Jones. I am going to respectfully defer to Mr. Brady on
that question. He has been more directly involved in all of
those discussions with SAWPA about the water supply projects.
Mr. McKenney. And, once again, Congresswoman, the three
projects have been discussed at a staff level with SAWPA. As
well, Orange County Water District, which is a member agency of
SAWPA, is one of our partners in a portion of the--in the
desalter project, and SAWPA has indicated a strong interest in
perhaps partnering on the brine line, at least going up into
the Santa Ana River Watershed, as a partner with us.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the other two projects are not
considered in the context of the regional solutions?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, they are. In terms of regional contexts,
all three projects are in regional planning. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Do you anticipate any State assistance?
Mr. McKenney. We are hopeful. As many agencies are doing,
Proposition 13 and Proposition 50 funding, it is a competitive
process. If we were to receive everything that we have
requested, it would be perhaps as much as half of what we are
requesting under this Federal--
Mrs. Napolitano. Good luck.
Mr. McKenney. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Could you tell me how, if either you or
Orange County, have prepared the engineering environmental
studies on these projects and how much money has been spent to
date?
Mr. McKenney. Oh, certainly.
Mrs. Napolitano. Ballpark--I don't need exact figures.
Mr. McKenney. Well, ballpark, the short answer is about $2
million on feasibility and engineering studies, and in terms of
having the base data for feasibility studies, as mentioned by
the Bureau, we believe that all of the data is available, it is
a matter of formatting into another agency's requirements.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Osborne?
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
members of the panel for being here today. I really am somewhat
removed from your area of jurisdiction.
I do have one question, though. I am interested in your
comments on desalinization and also reuse of water. Are there
any plans or any projects that you have which would be for
additional water storage? I realize there is a reluctance to
build new water storage facilities, dams, those types of
things, and I didn't know if this was part of the project or if
you see any future in that type of movement. And that is
addressed to any of you who would care to answer.
Mr. McKenney. Congressman, we have additional storage
projects planned, but they are groundwater storage projects,
not conventional reservoirs. And, as well, we are a retail
agency serving a large part of Orange County, California, but
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California being
the overall importer of water and developer of large projects
like the Diamond Valley Reservoir is involved with many
potential storage projects. But for Irvine Ranch Water
District, in terms of storage, it would be groundwater storage
within our basin.
Mr. Osborne. Please say some more, would you about
groundwater storage, exactly how you are going to accomplish
that. I understand the concept, but I am not exactly sure how
that plays out in practical terms.
Mr. McKenney. Well, I guess the basics of it in Orange
County is we have the Orange County Groundwater Basin that is
fed primarily by the Santa Ana River Watershed. That provides a
good deal of recharge. There are recharge basins. And in
addition to that, the Orange County Water District has a
separate agency that is charged with replenishing the
groundwater, buys both imported water and other seasonal water
to recharge.
In addition to that, the Orange County Sanitation District
and the Orange County Water District have embarked on a very
large what is called groundwater replenishment system, taking
tertiary treated water from the Orange County Sanitation
District Waste Treatment Plants and pumping that back up into
the higher reaches and elevation of the Orange County
Groundwater Basin for additional recharge. That is a large
project. I don't have the exact size of the project, but it is
certainly the largest to date in the United States.
Mr. Osborne. So some of it would be putting more water in
the Santa Ana River; is that right? Some of this would be
accomplished that way?
Mr. McKenney. In Orange County, we take out of the Santa
Ana River to recharge, and the groundwater replenishment system
pipes that water for recharge up into large settling basins.
Mr. Osborne. One more question, and this really relates
more to problems that we face in a different part of the
country, and that is the interrelation between surface water
and groundwater. And you hear terms like the alluvium, you
know, the distance that you can drill a well from a river
without really draining a river. And I wonder if you have
developed models out there regarding the interrelationship
between the surface and groundwater; in other words, exactly
what impacts what and have you developed some theoretical
models that would pretty well illustrate the interrelationship?
Mr. McKenney. That work is being done. However, that's
being done by the Orange County Water District, not by Irvine
Ranch. We are a participant with them, and there is extensive
modeling being done at the groundwater, and its relationship to
the Santa Ana River, primarily, but we can, as Irvine Ranch
Water District, we can request more information for you to
submit to the Committee.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
Does the gentleman have any questions for the panel?
Mr. Grijalva. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No questions at
this time.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Nunes?
Mr. Nunes. No questions.
Mr. Calvert. Mrs. Napolitano, and then I will take it next.
How is that?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Your desal project, Mr. Brady, will treat groundwater
contaminants by salts and nitrates caused by natural geology,
and of course, as you mentioned, past agricultural damage. Have
other contaminants, such as perchlorates or the VOCs been found
in your groundwater?
Mr. McKenney. Yes, Congresswoman. We have, at the former El
Toro Marine Air Base, they have found VOCs in the groundwater,
as part of a separate project in conjunction with the
Department of Defense, the Navy, Irvine Ranch Water District.
That water will be extracted and cleaned up. That water will go
into the reclaimed water system. It will not go into a potable
water system.
The desalter operation is at a distance from that
contamination, and what we are treating there, as you have
said, is total dissolved solids and nitrates, and that water,
once treated, will go into a potable water system, so we will
be able to use that for drinking water.
Mrs. Napolitano. In your testimony and in your booklet that
you have handed out, you indicated that you have the funding
request for the treatment of stormwater, which is now being
used or the Federal mandate is that all cities charged with the
water that is going into the ocean through the stormwater
systems, is that part of what Title XVI is charged with? And,
Mr. Limbaugh, that is a question for you, too.
Mr. Jones. Well, perhaps I will go first, Congresswoman.
The short answer is, yes, Title XVI includes provisions that
say that the money in Title XVI can be used to clean up
impaired waterways, and I guess another significant perspective
on it for me is that the Irvine Ranch project is a good example
of taking money that can be used for one purpose and having it
accomplish multiple purposes. To me, that is what the watershed
approach is all about.
And so the county, with the legal responsibility to comply
with the stormwater permits, is very excited about working with
a project that IRWD is pursuing because of the water supply
aspects of it, and it achieves multiple purposes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I totally agree with you. I just
hope that we and the Administration are able to have cities
have enough funding to be able to help get where you are going.
Mr. Limbaugh?
Mr. Limbaugh. I would agree with the witness on the
applicability of Title XVI to the treatment of that source of
water.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is there a possibility then that the
Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation might include that
provision in year 2025?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Napolitano, we are
accepting comments on that, and we would certainly take your
comments and your advice back, and take it under advisement as
we look forward to working with Congress and working with the
stakeholders out in the West on this vision for water
management in the 21st century, yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would be very pleased to see what the
results of the dialogue will be, but I would also hope that you
would include EPA, since they are the ones who are mandating it
on all cities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
A couple of quick questions here, and I am going to take
off on Mrs. Napolitano on the issue of point discharge, and I
am getting these questions throughout the West. I don't know so
much in Texas, but certainly in the coastal regions of, and you
may have the same problem in the coastal regions in Texas, too,
but on the issues of point discharge the EPA standards, which
are mandated, are Federally mandated, to meet, and it is an
expensive mandate.
And so it is another way of selling Federal participation
to meet standards that are being forced upon local communities,
which need to meet those standards, but are having a hard time
paying for those things and the types of projects that the
Irvine Company--I shouldn't say the Irvine Company--the Irvine
Water District is developing helps meet those standards.
By the way, I was going to ask the question, if this
project is built, do you have the flexibility in that where the
State that is apparently operating or is involved in the
technicalities of meeting these standards, are they continually
going to take a look at every opening, of flood control
opening, or can you focus in more of a larger view here in what
you are trying to do here? Will that satisfy the regulators?
Mr. Jones. Sir, I don't think that the regulators will ever
be completely satisfied. The stormwater standard that we meet
is maximum extent practicable, which is a flexible standard. So
the more we learn, the more we will probably be required to do.
I think that is the reality.
We do have some specific objective standards in the San
Diego Creek Watershed that have resulted in the listing of the
water body as impaired for several constituents, including
sediment, nutrients, pathogens and toxicity, and this project
certainly contributes significantly to meeting the TNVL goals,
especially in the near term.
I think one other comment I would like to make in response
to what you were saying is that it is important to note that
when the Clean Water Act first came into existence, the Federal
Government provided very substantial economic support to the
industries and sewage treatment plants that were being brought
under point source permits, and now that the regulations are
being applied in a new way to municipal stormwater systems, it
is not always, that kind of economic assistance is not always
made available as readily. So we are really looking to be more
creative in finding these opportunities to collaborate with
Federal agencies.
Mr. Calvert. Commissioner and Mr. Beal, regarding Texas and
recycling, how much recycling is being done statewide in Texas?
Are you seeing a substantial increase? I know the city of
Austin has been here on a number of occasions talking about
recycling. Do you see it moving around throughout Texas?
Mr. Beal. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As the population continues to
increase in Texas, and as our water supplies continue to be
stressed, we are seeing more and more recycling around the
State. El Paso has a program of recycling wastewater into
drinking water. The city of Austin has a very good program. The
city of San Antonio, also, with their short supplies, has
instituted a significant recycling program.
Mr. Calvert. I know sometimes with an education process on
recycling, are the people in Texas accepting the utilization of
recycled water for parks and recreation areas? Is there any
political fallout for this?
Mr. Beal. I will let Commissioner Heiligenstein talk about
the political part of it, but the fact is that the people of
Texas, with most of the State having been in drought for a
number of years, and with the focus of the legislature on
future water supplies, the people of Texas are becoming used to
recycling water, and it is very much an acceptable practice
today.
Mr. Calvert. Commissioner, anything to add to that?
Mr. Heiligenstein. Just that, yes, in the county I think
even in the school districts and the public facilities it has
become acceptable. I was telling Congressman Carter earlier
today that even at what we call Dell Diamond or Double A Ball
Club we do use recycled water for that facility, and all you
have to do is mix that smell up with the popcorn, and the
peanuts, and the hot dogs, and you are just fine.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. I guess that is why we call it ``integrated
water'' supply.
Mr. Heiligenstein. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. That is a good answer.
Are there any other questions of this panel, Mrs.
Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. One more question, and I happened to read
some of the testimony, and it is an interesting terminology
that is used, and that is effluent reuse and, to me, I don't
know whether you are talking about recycled water, is it
secondary treated? Is it tertiary treatment?
Mr. Beal. When we say effluent reuse, what we mean is the
recycling of the water. In Texas, the State Health Department
has standards about how recycled wastewater can be used. If
there is general access to the area that is being irrigated
with that wastewater, the treatment levels are tertiary
treatment. If there is very limited access, it is secondary
treatment, 10-15, and usually with phosphorous removal.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is it treated for infectious,
communicable?
Mr. Beal. Yes, ma'am, but there are also signs posted
announcing to the public that is recycled. There are
precautions, but the water is treated and generally filtered
before it is ever reused.
Mrs. Napolitano. I guess that is about most of the
questions that I have. I am hoping that we will be able to be
more successful in educating the general public throughout the
United States about the value of recycled water, and as we move
forward in other new treatments that we may be able to make a
difference.
And I have made the statement before that we are drinking
water that was around eons ago. It is just being recycled by
Mother Earth, and refiltered and reused. So we are really
reusing the reused water.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Cardoza, do you have any questions of this panel?
Mr. Cardoza. No.
Mr. Calvert. I want to thank this panel for coming out. I
think both H.R. 1732 and H.R. 1598 are part of the solution to
the problem we have in this country, and certainly I, as Mrs.
Napolitano and many of us, support water recycling. I think the
Department of Reclamation does also. I understand the budget
constraints the Department is under, and hopefully we can help
out here. But in order for us to meet the requirements that a
growing population needs, we are going to require the
utilization of recycling and additional supply of water to make
sure that we maintain a productive economy.
With that, I want to thank you, and hopefully we can move
these fine pieces of legislation forward and find the money to
do it.
Have a great day. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Mr. Limbaugh's response to questions submitted for the
record follows:]
June 10, 2003
Honorable Ken Calvert
Chairman
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the follow-up question
from the May 22, 2003 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Water
and Power on H.R. 1598 and H.R. 1732.
Enclosed is Reclamation's response to your question. I would
appreciate your assistance in inserting it into the hearing record. If
you have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Limbaugh, Director, External and Intergovernmental Affairs
RESPONSE TO CHAIRMAN CALVERT S QUESTION
1) Question: Does Federal funding of these Title XVI projects imply
ownership of water rights in these projects by Federal agencies,
specifically by the Bureau of Reclamation? If not, would you be willing
to have an amendment placed in the bills specifying there is no
ownership of water rights by the Bureau of Reclamation to the projects
they participate in?
Answer: Title XVI projects that are funded by the Bureau of
Reclamation are owned and operated by the non-Federal project sponsor.
Reclamation has no responsibility in the project once the project has
received its legislated full share of Federal funds. Ownership of water
that is reclaimed and available to be reused resides with the local
water agency and is not subject to Federal control or responsibility.
Reclamation would not be opposed to an amendment to Title XVI that
clarifies this, although it is not considered to be necessary.