[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960 AND H.R. 2991
=======================================================================
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
__________
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-53
__________
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
______
89-270 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON 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
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
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 Wednesday, September 10, 2003.................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960 and
H.R. 2991.............................................. 3
Dreier, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 2991.......................... 6
Miller, Hon. Gary G., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 142........................... 9
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 2960.......................... 13
Sanchez, Hon. Loretta, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 1156.......................... 11
Statement of Witnesses:
Atwater, Richard, CEO/General Manager, Inland Empire
Utilities Agency........................................... 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 142 and H.R. 2991............. 20
Bilodeau, Denis, President, Board of Directors, Orange County
Water District............................................. 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 1156.......................... 29
Campirano, Eduardo A., Assistant General Manager and COO,
Brownsville Public Utilities Board......................... 31
Prepared statement on H.R. 2960.......................... 33
DeLoach, Robert, CEO/General Manager, Cucamonga County Water
District................................................... 34
Prepared statement on H.R. 2991.......................... 36
Letters submitted for the record......................... 39
Rinne, William, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior............... 14
Prepared statement on H.R. 142........................... 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 1156.......................... 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 2960.......................... 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 2991.......................... 17
Additional materials supplied:
Ovitt, Hon. Gary C., Mayor, City of Ontario, California,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 55
H.R. 142, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER
STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL WATER
RECYCLING PROJECT, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY TO CARRY OUT A
PROGRAM TO ASSIST AGENCIES IN PROJECTS TO CONSTRUCT REGIONAL
BRINE LINES IN CALIFORNIA, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE LOWER CHINO DAIRY AREA DESALINATION
DEMONSTRATION AND RECLAMATION PROJECT; H.R. 1156, TO AMEND THE
RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT
TO INCREASE THE CEILING ON THE FEDERAL SHARE OF THE COSTS OF
PHASE I OF THE ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, REGIONAL WATER
RECLAMATION PROJECT; H.R. 2960, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION
WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
BROWNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD WATER RECYCLING AND
DESALINIZATION PROJECT; AND H.R. 2991, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION
WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL RECYCLING PROJECT IN THE CUCAMONGA
COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PROJECT.
----------
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Calvert, Napolitano, Tancredo,
Inslee, Grijalva, Osborne, Rodriguez, Pearce, Baca and Ortiz.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. The legislative hearing by the Subcommittee on
Water and Power will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on four
bills, H.R. 142, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to participate in the Inland Empire regional
water recycling project, to authorize the Secretary to carry
out a program to assist agencies in projects to construct
regional brine lines in California, and to authorize the
Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy Area
desalination demonstration and reclamation project.
Mr. Calvert. H.R. 1156, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater
and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to increase the
ceiling on the Federal share of the costs in Phase I of the
Orange County Regional Water Reclamation Project.
Mr. Calvert. H.R. 2960, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater
and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the
Secretary of Interior to participate in the Brownsville Public
Utility Board recycling and desalinization project.
Mr. Calvert. And H.R. 2991, to amend the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
authorize the Secretary of Interior to participate in the
Inland Empire regional recycling project in the Cucamonga
County Water District recycling project.
Mr. Calvert. I will begin with an opening statement.
Throughout this year, the Subcommittee has focused on the
need for non-traditional water supply projects that are
regional in scope in an effort to help more communities become
drought-proof. The constant and positive drumbeat on the need
for these projects led me to include a competitive grants
program and a number of other provisions that promote
community-based water recycling and desalination efforts in
H.R. 2828, my legislation to increase water supplies
nationwide. Each of the bills that we will address today will
qualify and, I believe, have a better chance of being funded
and coordinated more efficiently through H.R. 2828 than the
current mechanisms we have in place.
However, I believe we need to continue to make the case for
the important role of water recycling throughout the country,
thus the need to hear these bills today. As we have often
heard, there is a legitimate Federal role in helping
communities develop new water supplies because existing
traditional water sources are being stretched beyond their safe
limits.
Today, we will focus on how several communities plan to
meet their water needs through non-traditional sources. In
water-deficient traditions, such as South Texas and the
Southern and Central coastal areas of California, advanced
water treatment facilities and technologies are being
considered to a greater extent than ever before in response to
increasing demands on limited high-quality water supplies.
As we know, the Bureau of Reclamation's core function is to
develop water supplies. As part of this responsibility, the
Department of Interior held a rock-star-like tour this summer
on its 2025 program. I am still waiting for the tour T-shirts,
but they haven't been delivered to my office.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. The tour throughout the West received much
input from water leaders on non-traditional ways to improve
water supply conditions. I hope this input has reinforced the
notion that the Department can do more to improve water
supplies and water recycling and desalination technologies.
Today, I look forward to hearing from the Bureau on how it will
go about incorporating the tour's input into its Water 2025 and
Western Water Initiative programs and its level of support for
water recycling and desalination legislation.
H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960, and H.R. 2991 would allow
the Secretary of Interior to provide technical and Federal
financial resources through the use of the Title XVI program.
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 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.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Throughout this year, the Subcommittee has focused on the need for
non-traditional water supply projects that are regional in scope in an
effort to help more communities become ``drought-proof.'' The constant
and positive drumbeat on the need for these projects led me to include
a competitive grants program and a number of other provisions that
promote community-based water recycling and desalination efforts in
H.R. 2828, my legislation to increase water supplies nationwide. Each
of the bills that we will address today would qualify, and I believe,
have a better chance of being funded, and coordinated more efficiently
through H.R. 2828 than the current mechanisms we have in place.
However, I believe we need to continue to make the case for the
important role of water recycling throughout the Country, thus the need
to hear these bills today. As we have often heard, there is a
legitimate federal role in helping communities develop new water
supplies because existing, traditional water sources are being
stretched beyond their safe limits.
Today, we will focus on how several communities plan to meet their
water needs through non-traditional sources. In water-deficient regions
such as south Texas and the southern and central coastal areas of
California, advanced water treatment technologies are being considered
to a greater extent than ever before in response to increasing demands
on limited high quality water supplies.
As we know, the Bureau of Reclamation's core function is to develop
water supplies. As part of this responsibility, the Department of the
Interior held a tour this summer on its Water 2025 program.
This tour throughout the West received much input from water
leaders on non-traditional ways to improve water supply conditions. I
hope that this input has reinforced the notion that the Department can
do more to improve water supplies from water recycling and desalination
technologies. Today, I look forward to hearing from the Bureau of
Reclamation on how it will go about incorporating the tour's input into
its Water 2025 and Western Water Initiative programs and its level of
support for water recycling and desalination legislation.
H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960, and H.R.2991 would allow the
Secretary of the Interior to provide technical and federal financial
resources through the use of the Title 16 Program. 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 will now recognize Mrs. Napolitano for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thoroughly and
sincerely appreciate your continued interest in the water
recycling and desalination projects. My views in promoting
these type of projects are very well known and I have been very
outspoken in this Committee and to other Committee members
about the necessity of increased funding for both of those type
of programs.
Our business community, our community leaders throughout
the Western States continue to press for help with vital
recycling projects, with desalination projects, with projects
to clean up contaminated groundwater supplies, and funding for
these projects would solve these costly problems. If we don't
care of them now, we pay much more in the future.
And in most of these cases, three-quarters of the funding
actually comes from local sources. In many of these cases, the
Federal Government only provides seed money, serves as a
partner and a facilitator in those projects. But for
questionable reasons nobody can explain, we continue to see
that these business-friendly and locally supported, cost-
effective, locally driven projects initiated by the previous
Bush Administration are lost on this current Administration.
I and many of my colleagues remain extremely frustrated,
confused, et cetera, by this Administration's consistent and
continued opposition to recycling and desalination
authorization bills, funding specifically for recycling
projects. How can Secretary Norton expect us to support the
Interior Department's Water 2025 program when this same
Department continues to oppose technology-based proven and
effective projects? As I expect we will hear in today's
testimony, what credibility does the Interior Department have
when they refuse to meet our many and repeated requests that
they release the reports on the California water recycling
mandated by Congress in 1992 that would, without a shadow of a
doubt, prove the effectiveness of these projects?
Mr. Chairman, you and I are not the only ones in Congress
who are not only puzzled but angered by the Administration's
denial of water recycling as an important tool for giving the
Nation the reuse of our precious commodity, water. I recall
seeing the recent report from Chairman David Hobson of the
Appropriations Subcommittee urging the Administration to
reconsider its lack of support for this program.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, who, I
am sure, will explain the many benefits of these projects to
our many communities and send a clear and simple message to
this Administration that it cannot afford to turn its back on
locally supported beneficial water recycling projects.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I again, for the record,
request that report again.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Grace Napolitano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate your continued interest in
water recycling and desalination projects. My views on promoting these
projects are well-known, and I have been very outspoken to you and
other Committee Members about the necessity of increasing funding for
them.
Business and community leaders throughout the Western States
continue to press for help with vital recycling projects, with
desalination projects, and with projects to clean up contaminated
groundwater supplies. These projects will solve costly problems, and in
most cases, 3/4th of the funding comes from local sources. The Federal
government merely provides seed money and serves as a partner and a
facilitator in these projects.
But for questionable reasons nobody can explain, we continue to see
that these business friendly and supported, cost-effective, locally
driven projects, initiated by the previous Bush Administration, is lost
on the current Bush Administration.
I and many of our colleagues remain extremely frustrated and
confused by this Administration's consistent continuance of opposition
to authorization bills and funding for recycling projects. How can
Secretary Norton expect us to support the Interior Department's ``Water
2025'' program when this same Department continues to oppose
technology-based projects, as I expect they will in their testimony
today? What credibility does Interior Department have when they refuse
to meet our many and repeated requests that they release the reports on
California water recycling mandated by Congress in 1992?
Mr. Chairman, you and I are not the only ones in Congress who are
not only puzzled but angered by this Administration's denial of water
recycling as an important tool for water supply nation-wide. I recall
seeing the recent report from Chairman David Hobson of the
Appropriations Subcommittee, urging the Administration to ``reconsider
its lack of support for this program.''
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, who I am sure
will explain the many benefits of these projects to their communities
and send a clear and simple message to this Administration that it
cannot afford to turn its back on locally supported water recycling
projects.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady and I will second her
request.
Our first panel, we are joined by our colleagues and
friends and I have the opportunity and privilege to introduce
my neighbor, Mr. Dreier, who also is the Chairman of the Rules
Committee, to give his testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mrs.
Napolitano, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Pearce, and Mr.
Ortiz. As I look at the combination of the Committee dais and
the panel at this juncture, I am happy that Californians
outnumber the other members who are in the room at this
juncture, but it does not in any way indicate the fact that we
don't want to enjoy very strong bipartisan and a broad
geographic base of support for recycling initiatives.
I am here very briefly, Mr. Chairman, to simply
congratulate you and Mrs. Napolitano on your commitment to our
focus on recycling and to say that I have introduced
legislation, which members of this Subcommittee and Mr. Miller,
you especially, Mrs. Napolitano, are cosponsors, along with our
colleague, Mr. Baca, and it is the last measure that you
mentioned, Mr. Chairman. It is the H.R. 2991.
I am pleased that there is an emphasis here from the
Congress, and I would say to Mrs. Napolitano, having listened
to her slightly--I put you in the undecided column on the
administration on this based on your comments. I don't take it
as a negative. I will say that often, the legislative branch
does provide encouragement to the second branch of government,
the executive branch, and clearly, the leadership role that you
and Mr. Calvert are showing on this, I believe will play a role
in it, as well as moving the very important legislation that we
are going to be here talking about.
I am very pleased that we have Richard Atwater, who is the
General Manager of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and he
is going to be testifying here on behalf of this important
legislation, because as you said in your opening remarks, Mr.
Chairman, we are looking for a locally led coalition that does
include people at the various levels of government, but it
needs to be locally driven. I think that is one of the things
that we focus on when it comes to environmental issues, when it
comes to water issues, because obviously that is the
appropriate thrust to take, rather than having it dictated from
a higher level.
So I hope very much--I believe that is what H.R. 2991,
which I have introduced along with our colleagues, is designed
to do, and I hope very much that you will be able to move ahead
on that. I thank you very much for having me and I hope you
will--you know, we just went through that series of votes and I
had a 2:30 meeting, so I hope you will excuse me and allow me
to go back up to try and make sure we keep the flow of
legislation for you all to vote on the House floor in order.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreier follows:]
Statement of The Honorable David Dreier, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on pending water
legislation. I am pleased to submit this statement for the record on
behalf of the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative, H.R.
2991, legislation I recently introduced to authorize water recycling
projects under the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program.
The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative includes two
projects, the first of which will be constructed by the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency (IEUA) and will produce 70,000 acre-feet of new water
annually. This project is expected to be fully constructed and on-line
by 2008. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), will produce an additional
5,000 acre feet of new water annually. This project is expected to be
fully constructed and on-line by 2010. Between these two projects,
75,000 acre feet of new water will be produced annually before the end
of the decade.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced a
new initiative--Water 2025 - Preventing Crisis and Conflict in the
West--aimed at preventing chronic water supply problems in the Western
United States resulting from drought, growth, or other challenges. In
addition to the federal strategy, California, more than a year ago,
established a special Water Recycling Task Force, managed by the State
Water Resources Control Board. The Task Force concluded that by the
year 2030, California should develop 1.5 million acre feet of new
recycled water.
In addition to being consistent with these broad studies, H.R. 2991
directly impacts the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program,
which is dedicated to investigate and identify opportunities for water
reclamation and reuse. The Bureau's budget is consistently underfunded.
The Fiscal Year 2004 request from the Administration was $878 million.
While this is an increase of $23.1 million from the Fiscal Year 2003
request, it is approximately $33.3 million less than Congress
appropriated for FY03. Currently under Title XVI, there are $580
million worth of existing authorized projects that have yet to receive
any funding.
This is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of Chairman
Calvert's Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act,
H.R. 2828. With the introduction of this legislation, it is clear that
the time has come to focus efforts on water reuse, a critical component
in a balanced water supply. Title I of H.R. 2828 established a
competitive grants program for desalination, groundwater recharge,
brine removal, water quality, and water reuse projects. With the
federal share set at 35 percent of the project's total cost, the
federal government can partner with local governments and local water
agencies, in a fiscally responsible manner, to meet our serious water
needs. This new program will only bolster ongoing activities within the
Bureau, and bring focus to an area of water policy that has gone
largely ignored for far too long.
Water supply issues in California and other Western states are of
paramount concern, especially in light of ongoing challenges with the
Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement. In order to meet
the water needs of the Inland Empire, and to help alleviate
California's over-dependence on the Colorado River, I see this
legislation as a key federal-local partnership to bring a significant
amount of new water supply to the region.
The local support for IEUA's ongoing efforts is so strong because
water recycling is such an innovative and environmentally sound tool
for meeting our water needs. IEUA currently offers disinfected,
tertiary recycled water through its four treatment facilities, that
meets all standards under California's Title 22 requirements for non-
restricted recreational use, which includes full body contact
activities, such as swimming. Monitoring and reporting to the Regional
Water Quality Control Board is required to ensure recycled water
quality standards are being met.
IEUA also produces recycled water for a variety of non-potable
purposes, such as landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation,
construction, and industrial cooling. By replacing these water-
intensive applications with high-quality recycled water, fresh water
can be conserved or used for drinking, thereby reducing the dependence
on expensive imported water. In addition, by recycling water which
would otherwise be wasted and unavailable, IEUA provides that the water
available goes through at least one more cycle of beneficial use before
it is ultimately returned to the environment.
The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the
support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies
downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square
miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana (through the
Fontana Water Company), Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga
(through the Cucamonga County Water District), and the Monte Vista
Water District. The Initiative is also consistent with regional
watershed plans, the California Department of Water Resources water
recycling task force, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's comprehensive
water study, and the Department of Interior's ``Water 2025'' plan.
I look forward to working closely with the Subcommittee on Water
and Power as well as the full House Resources Committee to see that
H.R. 2991 receives strong consideration, approval for House Floor
consideration, and eventual passage and enactment. Again, thank you for
holding this hearing.
______
Mr. Calvert. Unless there are any questions, you are free
to go.
Mrs. Napolitano. No questions, but Chairman Dreier, and I
understand what you are alluding to, but understand that when
we are faced with the cuts in the Bureau of Reclamation's water
recycling, none of these projects would go forward.
Mr. Dreier. Well, I understand, and that is why I am saying
that the stellar leadership that you and Chairman Calvert are
providing--
Mrs. Napolitano. We need some help.
Mr. Dreier. Well, listen, I am sitting here and I am ready
to stand up. And so once I get in motion, I will be ready,
willing, and able to do even more on behalf of it. Thank you
very much again, Mr. Chairman, and now the first string, Mr.
Miller and Ms. Sanchez, are going to take over.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much for having me.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Dreier.
Next, our friend, my colleague and also my neighbor, Mr.
Miller, to give his testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY G. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Gary Miller of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this important hearing. We spend a lot of time talking
about these issues and how it really impacts California, so
this is a real pleasure to be here before you and the
Committee.
This is a matter that is critical for the Southern
California region. I am pleased to be here with my colleagues
from California, both Mr. Dreier and Ms. Sanchez, who have very
similar bills, but we are all trying to accomplish the same
process.
Many States today are faced with the formidable task of
providing reliable and safe water resources for a rapidly
increasing population. Southern California's arid climate makes
it difficult for this region to find a viable, dependable
source of water. The Interior Department's ruling to reduce the
availability of Colorado River water to Southern California
exacerbates the area's water supply problem by diverting
approximately 700,000 acre feet of water a year alone. Not
having a reliable source of water discourages economic growth,
imperils the environment, and compromises the health and safety
of Southern California residents.
It is for this reason that Congress must work to find an
innovative and effective solution to the challenges posed by
such debilitating water shortages, and I believe H.R. 142
offers such a viable solution. This bill will help
significantly enhance the region's water quality and safety by
constructing a water recycling project, regional brine lines
and desalination demonstration reclamation projects.
First, to the construction of the water recycling project,
Southern California will be provided with a critical 70,000
additional acre feet of new water annually. In a region that is
prone to drought, the expansion of this water supply will
deliver safe and much needed water to the area's outdoor
recreational facilities, waters, parks, freeways, landscapers
and irrigators.
Second, the construction of the desalination reclamation
project to the Lower Chino Dairy Area offers a viable solution
to the region's water woes, and as you know, Mr. Calvert, we
have about 380,000 adult dairy cows sitting on that aquifer
that causes a tremendous problem. As former President Dwight D.
Eisenhower once said, we need a far-sighted program for meeting
urgent water needs by converting salt water to fresh water.
Once deemed impractical and costly, desalination has evolved
into one of America's most effective and reliable solutions to
water shortages.
The project provided for in H.R. 142 would expand
groundwater desalination to the Chino Basin from the current
9,000 acre feet per year to 40,000 acre feet per year, which
would provide a vital new drinking water supply for the rapidly
increasing population in San Bernardino County and Orange
County.
Finally, H.R. 142 provides a means to safely and
effectively discard excess brine from the desalination plants.
Specifically, this legislation calls for construction of a
regional line to transport excess brine to the Pacific Ocean,
where it can be safely filtered through an ocean outfall pump
station. This will prevent many of the environmental hazards
that can occur from the inadequate disposal of excess brine,
thus benefiting the quality of life of over the six million
residents of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino County.
In conclusion, I believe Mr. Atwater and Mr. Grindstaff
will illuminate the critical need for these projects in
Southern California and I welcome them to the Committee today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue and
I know you have fought hard for years to deal with this problem
and I trust in your leadership in the future. I am looking
forward to working with you. Thank you
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Gary G. Miller, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, on H.R. 142
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding a hearing on this important
issue. As this is a matter that is critical for the southern California
region, I am pleased to be here with my colleagues from the California
Delegation, Congressman Dreier and Congresswoman Sanchez.
Many states today are faced with the formidable task of providing
reliable and safe water resources for a rapidly increasing population.
Southern California's arid climate makes it difficult for this region
to find viable and dependable sources of water. The Interior
Department's ruling to reduce the availability of Colorado River water
to Southern California exacerbated the area's water supply problems by
diverting approximately 700,000 acre feet of water this year alone. Not
having a reliable source of water discourages economic growth, imperils
the environment and compromises the health and safety of southern
California residents. It is for this reason that Congress must work to
find innovative and effective solutions to the challenges posed by such
debilitating water shortages. H.R. 142 offers such viable solutions.
H.R. 142 will help significantly enhance the region's water quality
and safety by constructing a water recycling project, regional brine
lines, and a desalinization demonstration and reclamation project.
First, through the construction of a water recycling project,
southern California will be provided with a critical 70,000 additional
acre feet of new water annually. In a region that is prone to droughts,
the expansion of this water supply will deliver safe and much-needed
water to the area's outdoor recreational facilities, parks, freeway
landscaping and irrigators.
Second, the construction of a desalinization demonstration and
reclamation project in the lower Chino Dairy area offers a viable
solution to the region's water woes. As former President Dwight D.
Eisenhower once said, ``We need a farsighted program for meeting urgent
water needs by converting saltwater to fresh water.'' Once deemed
impractical and costly, desalinization has evolved into one of
America's most effective and reliable solutions to water shortage. The
project provided for in H.R. 142 would expand groundwater desalination
in the Chino Basin from the current 9,000 acre feet per year to 40,000
acre feet per year, which would provide a vital new drinking water
supply for a rapidly increasing population in San Bernardino County.
Finally, H.R. 142 provides a means to safely and efficiently
discard excess brine from desalinization plants. Specifically, this
legislation calls for the construction of a regional line to transport
excess brine to the Pacific Ocean, where it can be safely filtered
through an ocean-outfall pump station. This will prevent many of the
environmental hazards that can occur from inadequate disposal of excess
brine, thus benefitting the quality of life of the over six million
residents of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
I believe Mr. Atwater and Mr. Grindstaff will illuminate the
critical need for these projects in southern California and I welcome
them to the Committee today. I thank the Chairman for his continued
leadership and dedication to addressing southern California's critical
water shortage needs. I urge the Committee to move expeditiously on
this important legislation.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for your testimony. We
will work on this legislation together and hopefully be able to
get it passed.
Next, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, also my neighbor to
the Southwest.
STATEMENT OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first, I would
like to thank you and also Ranking Member Napolitano for
convening today's hearing and allowing us to bring forward
these bills and get a hearing on them. I only hope that we are
as lucky with your push to get a markup on these so that we can
get them signed into law.
This hearing is an important step toward addressing
Southern California's water supply and water quality needs. The
legislation, H.R. 1156, would authorize the Federal Government
to provide increased assistance for the ongoing construction of
Orange County Water District's water reuse project, what we
call the Groundwater Replenishment System.
Today, you will hear from Mr. Denis Bilodeau, the President
of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Water District.
He will speak to the importance of this project and he will
emphasize the need for increased Federal assistance. The Orange
County Water District is not only responsible for providing
Orange County constituents with their drinking water, it is
also responsible for managing one of the largest water basins
in California.
He was elected to the Orange County Water District Board of
Directors in November of 2000 and he currently sits as the
President of that board. As a licensed civil engineer, he is
ideally suited to comment on how this legislation would lead to
improved capability to manage the scarce potable water supplies
in Orange County.
In addition to his role as the Board President, he is also
a member of the Orange County Water Management--Waste
Management Commission and also the Orange County Water Task
Force He clearly has the background and the knowledge to
highlight the importance of the regional needs and how this
Groundwater Replenishment System will support that goal.
I would like to take just a brief minute to explain why I
think H.R. 1156 is so important. As any Southern Californian
knows, we have for decades had a lack of local water resources
in our area. This is a straightforward measure to ensure that
the district's groundwater replenishment project already in
development can deliver improved water supply reliability,
enhanced economic activity to the region, and improved
protection of our natural resources.
The increased authorization, which is what we are asking--
that is what the bill is about--would represent an important
commitment to providing the largest such facility in North
America with an appropriate level of Federal support.
Furthermore, securing an equitable Federal share would
guarantee that this project, which is proceeding in
construction, is funded in a manner consistent with other Title
XIV type project authorizations.
The members of this Subcommittee, particularly you, Mr.
Chairman and Mrs. Napolitano, have been tireless in advocating
for maintaining a strong Federal role in the development of
alternative water development projects. You have supported a
Groundwater Replenishment System in the past. That has been
vital to its progress to date and I hope that we can continue
to support it in the future. This project will provide reliable
water supply to meet the ever-growing demand in Orange County
in Southern California.
Again, I look forward to hearing the testimony and to the
Subcommittee's swift consideration of bringing this legislation
forward, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for allowing us to
have this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Loretta Sanchez, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 1156
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to thank you and Ranking Member Napolitano for
convening today's hearing to consider vital water reclamation
legislation. This hearing is an important step toward addressing
Southern California's water supply and water quality needs.
My legislation, H.R. 1156, would authorize the federal government
to provide increased assistance to the ongoing construction of Orange
County Water District's water reuse project known as the Groundwater
Replenishment System. I am hopeful that after today's hearing, this
Subcommittee will move expeditiously to markup the bill and permit
floor passage without delay.
Today you will hear from Mr. Denis Bilodeau, President of the Board
of Directors of Orange County Water District. Mr. Bilodeau will speak
to the importance of this project and emphasize the need for increased
federal assistance. The Orange County Water District is not only
responsible for providing Orange County constituents with their
drinking water, it is responsible for managing one of the largest water
basins in California.
Mr. Bilodeau was elected to the Orange County Water District Board
of Directors in November 2000 and last year was selected by his
colleagues to serve as President. As a licensed civil engineer, he is
ideally suited to comment on how this legislation would lead to an
improved capability to manage the District's scarce potable water
supplies. In addition to his role as Board President, Mr. Bilodeau is
also a member of the Orange County Waste Management Commission and the
Orange County Water Task Force. He clearly has the background and
knowledge to highlight the importance of meeting regional needs and how
the Groundwater Replenishment System will support that goal. I look
forward to his testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a brief moment to explain why I
think H.R. 1156 is so important. As any Southern Californian knows, for
decades a lack of local water resources has been one of the primary
problems facing the region's economic future. H.R. 1156 is a
straightforward measure to ensure that the District's Groundwater
Replenishment project, already in development, can deliver improved
water supply reliability, enhanced economic activity in the region, and
improved protection of our natural resources. This increased
authorization would represent an important commitment to providing the
largest such facility in North America with an appropriate level of
federal support.
Furthermore, securing an equitable federal share would guarantee
that this project, which is proceeding to construction, is funded in a
manner consistent with other Title XVI type project authorizations. The
Members of this Subcommittee, particularly you, Mr. Chairman and Ms.
Napolitano, have been tireless advocates of maintaining a strong
federal role in the development of alternative water development
projects. Your past support of the Groundwater Replenishment System has
been vital to its progress to date, and I look forward to your
continued support.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, this project will provide a reliable
water supply to meet an ever-growing demand. As our region grapples
with the realities of diminishing available potable water supplies and
increasing demands from our citizens, industries and environment; the
Groundwater Replenishment System provides an effective and efficient
response. Again, I look forward to Mr. Bilodeau's statement and the
Subcommittee's swift consideration of this legislation.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady and I appreciate her
testimony and for her bringing this good legislation forward.
Next, we will listen to our colleague here on the dais, Mr.
Solomon Ortiz, on H.R. 2960, concerning Brownsville, Texas, our
favorite Texas town.
STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mrs. Napolitano's hometown.
Mr. Ortiz. That is right. That is right. Brownsville is
very fortunate in that they get two Congressmen for the price
of one.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ortiz. We were very honored today to have these four
members of Congress testify before this Committee today, but
let me begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking
Member Napolitano. Both have a unique perspective on this
particular problem because both came to the Committee to a
hearing that we had in the Rio Grande Valley to see the problem
up close and personal. All South Texans are grateful to
Chairman Calvert's leadership on this issue. We are grateful
for your commitment to solving long-term water shortages in
South Texas. We will continue to work together to find
solutions to the unique situation associated with Mexico water
debt.
Ranking Democrat Napolitano is a native of Brownsville,
also is known as the other Congressman from Brownsville. I just
hope she doesn't run back in Brownsville.
The genesis for this begins in the mid-1990s when Mexico
failed, then repeated again and again in each successive treaty
cycle, to fulfill the obligations under a 1944 treaty dividing
the waters of the Rio Grande Valley, or the Rio Grande. South
Texas is the last stop of the water of the Rio Grande as it
flows, and without Mexico releasing their annual obligations of
water to flow down the river, our farmers and our municipal
water users have been devastated during the past ten, 15 years.
We tried repeatedly and successfully to engage the United
States State Department given this is a treaty issue, but that
was profoundly unsatisfactory when their solution was for the
United States to buy that water from Mexico. So we are
continuing our legislative journey to find creative solutions
for this continuing problem. Brownsville and Cameron County are
left to find legislative relief from this situation anyway and
anyplace that we can.
One of the innovative things Brownsville is doing is
exploring creating a river dam to catch the unused water in the
Rio Grande Valley called the Weir Dam. We are also working with
local irrigation districts to improve the canals and ditches
themselves, lining them, repairing cracks to keep water that we
have flowing normally without losing it. This Committee has
been generous in that regard.
H.R. 2960 makes the Brownsville Public Utilities Board
eligible for a Federal share of Title XVI funding for design,
planning, and construction of facilities to reclaim, reuse, and
treat impaired waters in the Brownsville, Texas, area. The
Public Utility Board's water supply planning includes water
reclamation and desalination projects. I will let a very
energetic public servant from PUB offer more detailed analysis
of the bill, but it includes reclaiming brackish water, not
obligated under the treaty, through desalination and building a
pipeline to transport treated sewage for irrigation. Today, we
will hear from a very committed South Texan to the Committee.
He is Mr. Ed Campirano, who is with us today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortiz follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Let me begin by thanking Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member
Napolitano--both have a unique perspective on this particular problem.
Both came with the Committee to a hearing in the Rio Grande Valley
to see a problem up close and personal; all South Texans are grateful
to Chairman Calvert's leadership on this issue.
We are grateful for your commitment to solving long-term water
shortages in South Texas.
We will continue to work together, to find solutions to the unique
situation associated with Mexico water debt.
Ranking Dem Napolitano is a native of Brownsville--also known as
Brownville's Representative in Congress--her familiarity with the area
is quite an asset for the Committee in this regard.
The genesis for this begins in mid-1990s when Mexico failed--then
repeatedly failed in each succeeding treaty cycle--to fulfill
obligations under a 1944 treaty dividing the waters of the Rio Grande.
South Texas is the last stop of the waters of the Rio Grande--and
without Mexico releasing their annual obligation of water to flow down
the river--our farmers and municipal water users have been devastated.
We tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to engage the United States
State Department, given this is a treaty issue--but that was profoundly
unsatisfactory given their solution was for the United States TO BUY
THAT WATER FROM MEXICO.
So we are continuing our legislative journey to find creative
solutions to this continuing problem.
Brownsville and Cameron County are left to find legislative relief
from this situation anyway--and any place--we can.
One of the innovative things Brownsville is doing is exploring
creating a river dam to catch unused water in the Rio Grande, called
the Weir Dam.
We are also working with local irrigation districts to improve the
canals and ditches themselves, lining them, repairing cracks--to keep
water we do have.
This Committee has been generous in that regard.
H.R. 2960 makes the Brownsville Public Utilities Board (PUB)
eligible for a federal share of Title 16 funding for design, planning
and construction of facilities to reclaim, reuse and treat impaired
waters in the Brownsville, Texas, area.
PUB's water supply plan includes water reclamation and desalination
projects.
I will let Eddie Campirano, a very energetic public servant from
PUB, offer more detailed analysis of the bill, but it includes:
reclaiming brackish groundwater (not obligated under the treaty)
through desalination--AND building a pipeline to transport treated
sewage for irrigation.
Today, we will hear from a very committed South Texan to the
Committee.
Eddie Campirano is the Assistant General Manager for the
Brownsville PUB and will expand on the bill.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Calvert. Now, I would like to recognize our next
witness, Mr. William Rinne. This is our panel of one here. Oh,
we will have everybody come on up, I guess. Excuse me.
Mr. William Rinne is the Deputy Commissioner of Operations,
Bureau of Reclamation. Also with us today is Mr. Richard
Atwater, CEO and General Manager of the Inland Empire Utilities
Agency. Testifying on behalf of H.R. 1156 is Mr. Denis
Bilodeau, President of the Board of Directors of the Orange
County Water District. Testifying on behalf of H.R. 2960, as
Mr. Ortiz recognized, is Mr. Eduardo A. Campirano, Brownsville
Public Utilities Board. And testifying on behalf of H.R. 2991
is Mr. Robert DeLoach, CEO and General Manager of the Cucamonga
County Water District.
Everybody has their chairs. I would be pleased to now
recognize Mr. Rinne for his opening statement. Please try to
stay, by the way, on these opening statements, within the 5-
minute rule. Certainly, your full comments will be entered into
the record. With that, Mr. Rinne, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM RINNE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OPERATIONS,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Rinne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is William
Rinne, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations for the Bureau of
Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the
Department of Interior on H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960, and
H.R. 2991, all amending the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, commonly known as Title
XVI. I prepared four written statements, and in the interest of
time ask that they all be entered into the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rinne. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as these four bills amend
the same law and our comments are similar on all four
proposals, I will be providing a general statement and then
mention some additional comments relative to a few of the
bills.
H.R. 142 would amend Title XVI to authorize the Secretary
of Interior to participate in the Inland Empirial regional
water recycling project. The bill would also authorize the
Secretary to carry out a program to assist agencies in projects
to construct regional brine lines in California and to
authorize the Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy
desalination demonstration and reclamation project.
H.R. 1156 would specifically amend Section 1631(d) of Title
XVI to authorize the Secretary of Interior to increase the
Federal share of the cost of Phase I of the Orange County
regional water reclamation project from its current cap of $20
million to $80 million. As you are aware, current Federal law
limits the Federal share of the individual project cost to 25
percent of total project costs, for a maximum Federal
contribution of $20 million.
H.R. 2960 would amend Title XVI to authorize the Secretary,
in cooperation with Brownsville Public Utility Board, to
participate in design, planning, and construction of facilities
to reclaim, reuse, and treat impaired waters in the
Brownsville, Texas, area.
And finally, H.R. 2991 would amend Title XVI to authorize
the Secretary to participate in the Inland Empire regional
recycling project, virtually the same as to H.R. 142. The bill
would also authorize the Cucamonga County Water District to
pilot a recycling plant.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the
Department has consistently testified before this Subcommittee
that we have a great deal of concern about authorizing new
Title XVI projects due to the large number of existing
authorized projects with a potential Federal contribution of at
least $580 million. With Reclamation's already tight budget,
the addition of more projects makes it even more difficult to
meet our current obligations.
Additionally, while I commend those project sponsors that
have worked with Reclamation on preliminary work prior to
authorization, the Department has concerns that none of the new
projects before you today have undergone complete feasibility
analysis, which includes things like environmental review. The
Department believes it is essential to complete the feasibility
studies to fully inform Congress, the project sponsors, and the
Department itself about vital project information such as cost,
project features, environmental impacts, et cetera prior to any
consideration of authorization.
Primarily for these reasons, the Department cannot support
H.R. 142, H.R. 1156, H.R. 2960, and H.R. 2991. In addition to
the general concerns I just mentioned, there are a few specific
comments I would like to make about some of the bills.
Section 2 and 3 of H.R. 142 deviate from the Title XVI
statute capping the Federal cost share at $20 million. These
sections propose to increase the Federal cost share at 25
percent, or $50 million. The Department does not believe that
there is justification to support altering the statutory cap on
these projects, particularly since they have not been
previously authorized or currently under consideration.
With respect to H.R. 1156, through Fiscal Year 2003,
Reclamation will have spent approximately $8 million in Phase
I. This leaves around $12 million in Federal funds still
available for this project. The project is currently on
schedule to be completed sometime in 2007. Given the fact that
Phase I of the project is not scheduled to be completed until
2007 and there remains approximately $12 million still
available, the Department believes a Federal cost share
increase is unwarranted and inconsistent with the Title XVI Act
limiting the Federal cost share to $20 million.
In summary, the Department strongly encourages local water
recycling and desalination efforts and is engaged in numerous
water reuse and recycling projects around the West. However,
for the reasons previously mentioned, we cannot support the
bills before you today.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these bills
today, Mr. Chairman, and this concludes my statement. I would
be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 142 follows:]
Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
My name is William Rinne and I am Deputy Commissioner for the
Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 142, authorizing Reclamation to
participate in various reuse and desalination projects in the State of
California.
H.R. 142 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575 and commonly known as
Title XVI), authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to participate in
the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project. The bill would also
authorize the Secretary to carry out a program to assist agencies in
projects to construct regional brine lines in California, and to
authorize the Secretary to participate in the Lower Chino Dairy
desalination demonstration and reclamation project.
Section 1 of the bill amends Title XVI to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to participate in design, planning and construction of
the Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Project.
Section 2 of H.R. 142 amends Title XVI to authorize regional brine
lines in Southern California.
Section 3 of the bill authorizes the Secretary, in cooperation with
the Chino Basin Watermaster, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the
Western Municipal Water District, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority, acting under federal reclamation laws, to participate in the
design, planning and construction of the Lower Chino Dairy Area
desalination demonstration and reclamation project.
As the Department has consistently stated in previous testimony, it
does not believe it is prudent to authorize new projects Title XVI
projects while there is a major backlog of projects that already exist.
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. For these reasons, the Department
cannot support H.R. 142.
In addition to the ongoing concerns I just mentioned, Section 2 and
Section 3 of the bill deviate from the Title XVI statute capping the
federal cost share at $20 million. These sections have increased the
federal cost share cap to $50 million. The Department does not believe
there is justification to support raising the cap on these projects,
particularly since they have not yet been previously authorized or are
not currently under construction.
The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the
Department of Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water
recycling and desalination efforts. Partnering with state and local
governments is in accord with the Secretary's Water 2025 framework for
anticipating water supply crises and preventing them through
communication, consultation and cooperation, in service of
conservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 142. This
concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 1156 follows:]
Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner, Operations,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
My name is William Rinne and I am Deputy Commissioner, Operations
for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 1156, a proposal to increase the
federal share of the costs of Phase I of the Orange County, California,
Regional Water Reclamation project.
H.R. 1156 would amend Section 1631(d) of Title XVI, the Reclamation
Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, of Public Law 102-
575, the Reclamation Projects and Authorization Adjustment Act of 1992,
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to increase the federal
share of the costs of Phase I to no more than $80 million. As you are
aware, current federal law limits the federal share of individual
project costs to 25 percent of the total, or a maximum federal
contribution of $20 million.
This project is being constructed in three phases. When completed,
the first phase will produce about 60,000 acre-feet per year of water
to recharge the region's groundwater basin. Currently, the project is
about 10 percent complete. To date, Reclamation is only authorized to
participate in the first phase of the project. Through Fiscal Year
2003, Reclamation will have spent approximately $8 million on Phase I--
leaving about $12 million in federal funds still available for this
project through 2007.
In this context, the Department believes that this legislation,
which would authorize another $60 million, is unwarranted at this time
and therefore, we cannot support its approval. Furthermore, of the
currently authorized Title XVI projects, only four have received full
funding of the maximum federal share--and more than $580 million in
federal funding would be needed to fully fund the Federal portion the
remaining projects. As Reclamation has testified before in this
Subcommittee, the Department believes it is prudent to complete
currently authorized projects before authorizing additional projects or
increasing the Federal cost share of existing projects.
The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the
Department of Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water
recycling and desalination efforts. Partnering with state and local
governments is in accord with the Secretary's Water 2025 framework for
anticipating water supply crises and preventing them through
communication, consultation and cooperation, in service of
conservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 1156. This
concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 2960 follows:]
Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner, Operations,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
My name is William Rinne and I am the Deputy Commissioner,
Operations, of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the
views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2960, concerning the
Brownsville Public Utility Board water recycling and desalinization
project in the State of Texas.
H.R. 2960 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575) to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Brownsville Public
Utility Board (BPUB), to participate in the design, planning and
construction of facilities to reclaim, reuse and treat impaired waters
in the Brownsville, Texas, area. As you know, the Federal share of
project costs is limited to a maximum of 25 percent of the total, and
the Secretary is prohibited from funding the operation and maintenance
of the project.
All projects implemented pursuant to Title XVI require that a
feasibility study be conducted by Reclamation or the non-Federal
project sponsor. Reclamation has completed an appraisal study with the
Brownsville Public Utilities Board and is currently beginning a
feasibility study to more completely assess which of the proposed
actions would be the best to implement. Reclamation commends the
project sponsors for their work with us prior to authorization in
completing the appraisal study and beginning the feasibility study.
However, it is essential to complete the feasibility study to fully
inform Congress, the project sponsors and the Administration regarding
vital project information such as costs, project features, benefits,
and other factors, before the project can be authorized. Completion of
the feasibility study prior to authorization of construction is a
necessary component of informed decision making.
Moreover, enactment of this legislation authorizing new
construction projects will place an additional burden on Reclamation's
already oversubscribed budget. In light of the tremendous backlog of
currently authorized Title XVI projects, we cannot support H.R. 2960 at
this time.
The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the
Department of Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water
recycling and desalination efforts. Partnering with state and local
governments is in accord with the Secretary's Water 2025 framework for
anticipating water supply crises and preventing them through
communication, consultation and cooperation, in service of
conservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 2960. This
concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 2991 follows:]
Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner, Operations,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
My name is William Rinne and I am Deputy Commissioner, Operations,
for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 2991, a bill to authorize the Inland
Empire and Cucamonga County recycling projects. H.R. 2991 would amend
Title XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (P.L. 102-575) to include design, planning and
construction authority for these two projects.
The bill would authorize the Inland Empire recycling project with a
Federal cost share not to exceed 25 percent, and a funding
authorization of $20 million. The bill would also authorize the
Cucamonga County Water District Pilot Satellite Recycling Plant with a
Federal cost share not to exceed 25 percent, and a funding
authorization of $10 million. The local water district had a
feasibility report prepared that reviewed the proposed regional plans
for the area and recommended, among other things, a more localized
recycling system consisting of several smaller plants located closer to
their demand centers.
The Department cannot support enactment of this legislation for two
primary reasons. First, any new project authorized at this time will
place an additional burden on Reclamation's already tight budget, and
could potentially delay the completion of other currently authorized
projects. With the tremendous backlog of existing Title XVI projects,
we cannot support the addition of new projects at this time. Second, in
the case of the Cucamonga County Water District Pilot Satellite
Recycling Plant, the feasibility study prepared by the local water
district was not done in consultation with Reclamation and thus would
need to be reviewed to assure it meets our criteria.
The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the
Department of Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water
recycling and desalination efforts. Partnering with state and local
governments is in accord with the Secretary's Water 2025 framework for
anticipating water supply crises and preventing them through
communication, consultation and cooperation, in service of
conservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 2991. That
concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Calvert. Testifying on behalf of H.R. 142 and H.R. 2991
is Mr. Richard Atwater. Mr. Atwater, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. ATWATER, GENERAL MANAGER,
INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY
Mr. Atwater. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert and
members of the Committee. It is my pleasure to be here today.
In the past, I have testified in front of the Committee, going
back the last few years when Congressman Calvert held field
hearings in Southern California about the water problems. I
think the record is clear about the opportunities to develop
new local supplies in Southern California.
And let me just say on behalf of my Board of Directors and
Joe Grindstaff and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority,
which we are a member of, Joe couldn't make it today, but we
strongly want to endorse the three Southern California bills,
but certainly the ones that directly affect my service area,
both H.R. 142 and H.R. 2991.
Let me just stop for a moment and talk about the big
picture. These projects represent within the Santa Ana
watershed, as the Chairman and the Ranking Member well know
through their field hearings and previous hearings on water
recycling and desalination, a strategy that throughout Southern
California and Statewide is the most significant new supply
available to California.
Let me just highlight, first, since this isn't just
Commissioner Bill Rinne's statement, I would like to just enter
for the record, and since Bill and I used to work at the Bureau
of Reclamation in the 1980s, we talked about it. Let me just
say that in 1992, I was working very closely with this
Committee when we passed Title XVI and was General Manager of
Western Central Basin, which I think many people would
recognize as probably the most successful Title XVI projects
that were authorized, the largest, and initiated the Southern
California regional study. As a member of the Board of
Directors of the Water Reuse Association and the California
Water Commission, very familiar with the Bay Area study, I
would like to ask to enter in the record, since in Southern
California a local sponsor spent over $3.5 million to prepare
this study over the last 10 years, and in the Bay Area, about
$1.5 million. We would certainly like to submit the Southern
California Comprehensive Water Reclamation Reuse Study that you
requested for the record. It is a feasibility study.
Our projects that we are submitting under H.R. 142 and H.R.
2991 are consistent with the feasibility study. They track with
it nicely. And, by the way, we have fully complied with the
California Environmental Quality Act. We have completed all the
environmental reports for these projects and they are broadly
supported by the public, editorial boards, mayors, local
districts, the environmental community. We have businessmen who
are demanding the use of recycled water.
So I just for the record would like to ask if the Chairman
would--
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, the report is made part of
the record.
[NOTE: The report, ``Southern California Comprehensive
Water Reclamation and Reuse Study, Phase II,'' has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Atwater. The second thing I would like to highlight is
that we identified in Southern California, not just my service
area but throughout Southern California, that we could develop
by 2010 over 450,000 acre feet of new water. In the last week,
we have heard some good news about the Colorado River QSA, but
let me just remind everybody with the QSA and what is occurring
on the Colorado River. It means that the Metropolitan Water
District will have an aqueduct that is not full, 1.2 million
acre feet, but an average flow of 700,000 acre feet.
What we are doing with that report that you have in front
of you, we could implement, we could offset that loss from the
Colorado River. To put things in perspective--the Federal
investment is much less than 20 percent. Let me illustrate by
example.
In H.R. 142 and in H.R. 2991, we are talking about 70,000
acre feet in the Inland Empire area. We are going to invest
$125 million and the Federal cap is $20 million. That is a 15
percent cost share to develop 70,000 acre feet of new water.
The channel desalters the Assistant Commissioner referred
to and the rationale for the 50 percent models exactly the
language in 1996 when you reauthorized Title XVI for the Long
Beach desalination project, so that language does mirror that.
I would certainly be happy to work with the Committee to make
sure that it is consistent with cost sharing policies.
But let me just highlight that through desalination and
water recycling in Southern California, we could develop over
three-quarters of a million acre feet of water. And in fact, in
May, the California Water Recycling Task Force published a
report, and we would be happy to submit it for the record. The
report identified over 1.5 million acre feet Statewide and it
is being included in the California water plan, which the
Bureau of Reclamation is participating in and was part of that
group. The report also identified 1.5 million acre feet of
potential throughout the State through these efforts under
Title XVI.
And I must say, Chairman Calvert's new legislation really
would provide an opportunity to implement this not just in
California, but as a member of the Water Reuse Association, I
think in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Florida. If you
look nationally, there really is a huge opportunity to develop
new supplies in a very cost effective way.
With that, I see that my time is over. Let me just ask that
my written testimony be entered in the record and I would be
more than happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Calvert. Just for your attention is that the record
will be held open for 10 days for any additional information,
and certainly your full written comments will be made part of
the record.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chair, can we also ask for a copy of
that report he is talking about that just was completed that he
will submit?
Mr. Calvert. We will make sure that you are given a copy of
that report.
Mr. Atwater. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. It will be made part of the record within 10
days, and I will make sure it is distributed.
[NOTE: The California Water Recycling Task Force report has
been retained in the Committee's official files.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Atwater follows:]
Statement of Richard W. Atwater, General Manager,
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
I. Introduction
Thank you Mr. Chairman Ken Calvert and members of the Subcommittee
for Water and Power for the opportunity to testify today regarding the
water problems facing Southern California. I am the General Manager of
the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. On behalf of the Board of
Director's of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, I am testifying today
in support of H.R. 142 and H.R. 2991.
A. Inland Empire Utilities Agency/Chino Basin
The Inland Empire Utilities Agency, a municipal water district
under California law, was formed in 1950 by a popular vote of its
residents. The service area of the Agency is entirely in San Bernardino
County and has a current population of approximately 700,000. The IEUA
service area is rapidly growing and will probably double in population
within the next 20 years. The Chino Basin also has 350,000 dairy cows,
the most densely concentrated population of dairy cows in North
America. Overall water use is about 350,000 acre-feet annually, 70
percent of the supplies are from local sources within the Santa Ana
Watershed. With the rapid growth, demand from MWD could increase from
70,000 acre-feet per year currently to 200,000 acre-feet in 2020!
However IEUA, Chino Basin Watermaster and in cooperation with many
other agencies have developed a ``Drought Proof Plan'' that will
develop over 100,000 acre-feet of new local supplies to minimize the
need for additional imported water from MWD.
B. Background and Interagency Relationships
The Inland Empire Utilities Agency has been a member agency of the
Metropolitan Water District since 1950 and distributes about 70,000
acre-feet of imported water to the cities of Chino, Chino Hills,
Fontana (through the Fontana Water Company), Ontario, Upland,
Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga (through the Cucamonga County Water
District), and the Monte Vista Water District. The Agency also provides
wastewater treatment service (four regional water recycling plants that
produce about 60 million gallons per day or 63,000 acre-feet per year).
Excess recycled water flows downstream into the Santa Ana River and the
Orange County Water District recharges that water into the Orange
County groundwater basin for drinking water.
The Agency is also a member of the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority (SAWPA) and is an active member of the Santa Ana River
Watershed Group and the Chino Basin Watermaster. As a member agency of
SAWPA, the Agency's water projects are closely coordinated with the
SAWPA watershed wide planning and the funding of priority projects
through the Water Bond Prop.13 grants.
Public and Private Partnerships to Improve the Santa Ana Watershed
SAWPA and the Santa Ana River Watershed Group have
maintained an inclusive dialogue with all interested parties;
All local governments within the three counties (San
Bernardino, Riverside and Orange) are working cooperatively together to
manage growth and plan for the water/wastewater infrastructure needed
to meet the needs of this rapidly urbanizing watershed;
Partnerships with industry including dairies,
manufacturing, and developers have resulted in creative solutions to
local water quality problems (e.g. the Santa Ana brine sewer to the
ocean);
Industrial customers throughout the area are planning on
using recycled water to reduce costs, ensure reliability, and to be
excellent environmental stewards.
The Chino groundwater basin is one of the largest in Southern
California. The Chino Basin Watermaster adopted an Optimum Basin
Management Plan to protect the water quality of the basin and to manage
the local supplies effectively to the maximum benefit of the local
ratepayers. A key element is the expansion of the conjunctive use
operation of the Chino Basin to expand the storage and recovery by
approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000 acre feet, roughly equivalent to the
$2 billion Diamond Valley reservoir built by MWD.
Other key components are the Inland Empire Utilities Agency
regional water recycling project to develop new local supply 70,000
acre-feet per year and the Chino Basin desalters that would develop an
additional new local supply of 40,000 acre-feet per year.
The key benefits of the Chino Basin regional ``OBMP'' water plan
are as follows:
Benefits
Provide a more dependable local water supply and reduce
the likelihood of water rationing during future droughts;
Lower cost of water to industry and provide incentives to
attract new industry and jobs in the Inland Empire region;
Environmental protection--reduce wastewater discharges
into Santa Ana River by 50 percent through local water recycling and
protect Orange County drinking water supplies through implementation of
comprehensive lower Chino Dairy area manure management strategy;
Reduce imported water use in the rapidly growing Inland
Empire region (upper Santa Ana River Watershed) and thereby contribute
in a significant manner to the statewide CALFED Bay-Delta and Colorado
River solutions through more efficient use of existing local supplies;
Assist in solving multiple Endangered Species Act
problems within the Santa Ana Watershed, the CALFED Bay-Delta program,
and the Colorado River/Salton Sea; and
Implement a sustainable long-term water resources
management program that maintains the salt balance of the Santa Ana
River watershed.
II. Chino Basin OBMP ``Drought Proofing Strategy''
The IEUA Urban Water Management Plan, adopted in December 2000 and
the Chino Basin Watermaster Optimum Basin Management Plan adopted in
July 2000, document the overall strategy for improving the water supply
reliability in the Chino Basin area.
Water Conservation
Water Recycling
Local Groundwater Storage and Conjunctive Use
Groundwater Cleanup
Storm water
Renewable Energy and Organics Recycling
Water Quality Management
A. Water Conservation- (35,000 acre-feet per year, 10 percent of
overall use)
IEUA and its retail utilities are committed to implementing the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Urban Water Conservation in
California. IEUA is an active member of the California Urban Water
Conservation Council (CUWCC). Currently, the Agency is expanding its
conservation efforts to promote both water and energy conservation
programs to our customers. IEUA's goal is to reduce water demands by 10
percent (35,000 acre-feet per year) through aggressive implementation
of customer conservation programs. IEUA has initiated a number of new
innovative programs, including water brooms, outdoor native landscape
policy and rebates for x-ray machines besides promoting many
residential and school conservation programs.
B. Water Recycling (70,000 acre-feet by 2010)
IEUA owns and operates four water recycling plants that produce
high quality water that meets all state and federal requirements for
non-potable landscape irrigation, industrial uses, and groundwater
replenishment. The Agency recycles about 6,000 acre-feet annually and
has a plan to increase to approximately 70,000 acre-feet annually over
the next decade by constructing ``purple'' recycled water pipeline
system to hookup existing large customers (Inland Paper, golf courses,
city parks, Reliant power plant).
Blend recycled water with storm water and imported water in a
coordinated fashion with flood control district to ensure that all
water is conserved and replenishes the Chino Basin in an optimal manner
(targeted goal is an additional recharge of 80,000 acre-feet per year).
Build in the future new smaller water recycling plants in the
northern part of our service area to provide recycled water to
communities (Upland, Fontana, and Rancho Cucamonga) without the need to
pump the water to them. The Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD)
proposed satellite plant authorized by H.R. 2991 would be the prototype
water recycling plant to reduce energy use of pumping recycled water to
the higher elevations along the San Gabriel Mountains.
Coordinate with cities and developers on new urban development
projects so that dual ``purple'' piping is installed up-front to
maximize non-potable uses with recycled water.
C. Local Groundwater Storage and Conjunctive Use (500,000 acre-feet of
new storage by 2010)
Without the Chino Basin area, the Watermaster is implementing an
Optimum Basin Management Plan to enhance the conjunctive use storage of
the Chino Basin. The Optimum Basin Management Program developed over
the past two years by the Chino Basin Watermaster would implement a
comprehensive water resources management strategy to drought proof the
area and enhance the yield of the groundwater basin. The Chino Basin
Watermaster has developed a conjunctive use program to store 500,000--
1,000,000 acre-feet of imported water in wet years for drought year
withdrawal for both local, regional and statewide availability. In
June, 2003 IEUA, Chino Basin Watermaster, Three Valleys MWD and the
Metropolitan Water District executed an agreement for the initial
100,000 acre-feet of storage and recovery projects ($27.5 million
funding from MWD and Calif. DWR).
D. Groundwater Cleanup (40,000 to 50,000 acre-feet annually by 2020)
Historically, Colorado River water (relatively high salinity) and
agricultural practices have caused areas of the Chino Basin to have
high salts that make the water unfit for domestic uses. To correct this
problem and to recover this poor quality water, the Chino Basin Optimum
Management Plan recommends implementation of groundwater cleanup
projects to pump and treat poor quality groundwater to meet drinking
water standards.
Additionally, the desalination projects of the lower Chino Basin
area will protect and enhance the water quality of the Santa Ana River
and the downstream use by Orange County. H.R. 142 would provide
authorization under the Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program to
provide funding for the third Chino desalter and brine line
improvements with the SAWPA SARI brine system recommended in the
Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study
(USBR, 2003) and the joint MWD/USBR Salinity Management Study (1999).
Groundwater cleanup projects:
i. LLower Chino area--groundwater desalination 40 mgd (or
approximately 45,000 AF per year), $250 million capital improvement
program over 20 years.
ii. LJurupa Community Services District-emergency need to build an
ion exchange desalination project (about 4 million gallons per day
facility) because Riverside County residents have well water
approaching drinking water standards for nitrates.
iii. LCity of Chino Hills-local Chino Basin well water has elevated
arsenic (average concentrations over five times the proposed EPA
drinking water standard of 10 ppb).
iv. LAdditional treatment for nitrates in groundwater in the
communities of Chino, Ontario, Fontana, Upland, Montclair, Pomona, and
Rancho Cucamonga is needed. Approximately six treatment plants are
proposed that will pump and treat about 25,000 acre-feet annually of
nitrate contaminated groundwater for municipal drinking water supplies
through funding from the Metropolitan Water District and the California
Dept of Water Resources).
E. Storm water (25,000 acre-feet annual average of new percolation)
A critical issue facing the coastal plain of Southern California as
the region continues to urbanize and hardscape our landscapes will be
how to implement both small scale and larger scale projects for storm
water capture to allow percolation into our groundwater basins. IEUA in
coordination with the Chino Basin Watermaster, the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District and the Chino Basin Water Conservation
District is developing an integrated recharge master plan to optimize
the capture of storm water with replenishment of imported water from
MWD and our local recycled water to enhance the storage and recovery of
water from the Chino Basin.
IEUA is also sponsoring work, in part funded by the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program, with the Rocky Mountain Institute on small scale, on-
site (neighborhood development) storm water management strategies to
enhance percolation of rainfall to minimize runoff, contamination of
rainfall before it percolates, and cost effectively reduce flood
control requirements.
F. Renewable Energy and Organics Management (50 megawatts of renewable
energy)
The energy crisis reminds all of us working on the water problems
facing California how incredibly dependent the imported water
infrastructure of southern California is on cheap, low cost electricity
to pump imported water into our region.
IEUA in response to the energy crisis and our need to be a steward
of our environment has developed a Chino Basin Organics Management
Strategy that will:
Produce through anaerobic digestion enough methane gas
for 50 megawatts of clean, renewable electric energy by 2006;
Cost effectively recycle organic wastes into fertilizer
products in an environmentally safe manner that will reduce many
thousands a year of long haul diesel truck trips per year;
Reduce significantly air and water pollution from dairy
cow manure; and
Eliminate the need for electric power from the grid for
operating the Chino Basin desalination and water recycling plants.
IEUA and Chino Basin Watermaster are very proud of our efforts with
the Milk Producers Council to develop these innovative dairy manure to
energy/clean air/clean water projects.
G. Water Quality Management (natural treatment of Santa Ana River base
flow)
IEUA and Orange County Water District executed a Memorandum of
Understanding in October 2002 to cooperate in water quality management
issues in the Prado wetlands area. Current projects include Chino Creek
watershed planning, hydrologic control of the lower Chino Basin,
expanded natural wetlands to treat urban runoff and dairy washwater.
OCWD's goal is to have the total flow of the Santa Ana River be treated
with natural wetlands within the Prado Dam ``flood pool''.
Within H.R. 142, IEUA would recommend that a new provision be
included to add authorization for the Prado ``natural wetlands
treatment'' project.
III. IEUA Proposed Regional Water Recycling Projects--H.R. 2991/H.R.
142
In August, 2002 the Board of Directors of the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency, after receiving approval and endorsement by the Chino
Basin Watermaster, SAWPA and all the local cities and retail water
agencies within its service area adopted its Regional Water Recycling
Feasibility Study and certified the Environmental Impact Report. The
feasibility study fully complied with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
guidelines for Title XVI Projects (December 1998) and is consistent
with the regional water plans for southern California.
USBR's Southern California Comprehensive Water
Reclamation and Reuse Study
MWD's Integrated Water Resources Plan
SAWPA's Comprehensive Watershed Plan
SARWQCB Santa Ana River Basin Plan
California Water Recycling Task Force Report
MWD/USBR Salinity Management Study
California Water Plan, Bulletin 160
Need for Proposed Recycled Program
Provide a more dependable local supply and reduce the
likelihood of water rationing during future droughts, lower cost of
water and sewer rates to customers, and economic development incentives
to attract new jobs and industry in the Inland Empire Region of
southern California.
Consistent with Legislative Policy (Water Code 13550),
State Water Plan and California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
policies.
Consistent with CALFED Bay-Delta Water Use Efficiency
Program and Colorado River 4.4 Plan.
Consistent with Metropolitan Water District's (MWD)
Integrated Water Resources Plan (1996) and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's
Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse study
(authorized by Congress in 1992).
Proposed Regional Recycled Water System
The expansion of the Regional Recycled Water Program has been
designed to occur in a series of five phases in order to maintain a
balance between capital expenditures, sources of funding, and the
development of a customer base for the delivered water. In 2001, IEUA
conducted a market survey to identify potential customers and their
relative demand in relation to existing treatment and distribution
facilities. A primary recommendation from the study was that the
expanded distribution facilities should be developed in the central
portion of the Chino Basin where the greatest industrial demand is
located and where the greatest number of groundwater recharge basins
can be serviced. The construction of the pipelines will be phased so
that the most cost-effective projects will be brought on-line first.
IEUA evaluated the capital funding needs for the Recycled Water
Expansion Program and determined that, with the provision of State and
Federal funding assistance, it could be financed through the Regional
Wastewater Treatment Program without an additional increase in the
connection fee. This financing structure provides a significant
opportunity for local retail agencies to implement recycled-related
projects without the capital costs impacting the region's sewage rates
and charges. With full implementation of the program, it is possible
that the regional water and sewer rates could be lowered by 20-30
percent.
In closing, Chairman Calvert and members of the Committee I
appreciate very much your consideration and support for H.R. 142 and
H.R. 2991. Water recycling and groundwater desalination are critical
new supplies for Southern California that have statewide benefits and
also help solve the Colorado River issues for all seven basin states.
The federal government through the U.S. Department of the Interior
since the Colorado River Compact in 1922 and the authorization of the
Boulder Canyon Project Act in 1928 supported the development of
supplies on the Colorado River Basin to meet the economic needs of all
the residents of the arid southwest. It was this Committee in 1968 that
in the Central Arizona Project Act that made it federal policy to
explore options to augment the supplies of the Colorado River to meet
the future needs of the Lower Basin States (Arizona, Nevada and
California). Clearly, water recycling and desalting in Las Vegas,
Phoenix, Tucson and throughout Southern California have the potential
to be a significant portion of the new supply developed to meet the
statutory requirements of the 1968 Act authorizing the CAP. It is
imperative for the Bureau of Reclamation to provide the technical
leadership and to increase funding through Title XVI to assist in
meeting these critical water supply issues facing the arid southwest
portion of the United States.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.005
Mr. Calvert. Next, Mr. Denis Bilodeau, President of the
Board of Directors, Orange County Water District, testifying on
behalf of H.R. 1156. Thank you for your attendance. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DENIS R. BILODEAU, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Mr. Bilodeau. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Napolitano and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee
for Water and Power, for this opportunity to testify today
regarding California water issues.
My name is Denis Bilodeau. Currently, I have the privilege
of serving as the President of the Board of Directors of the
Orange County Water District. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today in support of H.R. 1156, to amend the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act
to increase the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of
Phase I of the Orange County, California, regional water
reclamation project, also known as the Groundwater
Replenishment System.
First of all, let me express my sincere gratitude to
Congresswoman Sanchez for introducing this legislation and also
thank you to Congressman Gary Miller for serving as the
coauthor of this important piece of legislation.
As you are well aware, California is grappling with many
water issues today. Colorado River supplies, drought, CALFED,
and the restoration of the San Francisco-San Joaquin Bay Delta
are some of the issues that make the headlines.
Orange County has developed a significant recycled water
project that addresses the multiple local issues and provides
regional water supply benefits. We have named it the
Groundwater Replenishment System. This system will provide
enough new water for 114,000 families each year. It could be
expanded to double that capacity in the future. While others
are talking about water, we are making it. We are making it at
home and we are making it of extremely high quality, similar to
bottled water. The citizens of Orange County are supportive of
the project and they are supportive of meaningfully
contributing to increasing and diversifying the region's water
supply portfolio and sharing this benefit with the citizens of
California.
Orange County is very dependent on imported water. Imported
water totals approximately half of our water supply. The
Groundwater Replenishment System is a visionary water supply
project that will create 72,000 new acre feet of water supplies
for residences and businesses in Orange County, therefore
reducing our need for scarce imported water. The Groundwater
Replenishment System has significant support in Orange County
from the medical, health, community, elected, business,
agricultural, media, and environmental organizations. The
project is a partnership between the Orange County Water
District, the Orange County Sanitation District, the State of
California, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the cities of Orange
County.
I am proud to say that the Groundwater Replenishment System
is currently under construction and will be operational in the
spring of 2007. The project's source of water is highly treated
secondary sewage from the Orange County Sanitation District,
which is currently being discharged into the Pacific Ocean,
which we see as a wasted resource. This highly treated water
will be further purified by the finest water purification
technologies in existence today. It will undergo advanced water
treatment that will include microfiltration, reverse osmosis,
and ultraviolet light disinfection with hydrogen peroxide. This
very pure water will meet or exceed all State and Federal
drinking water standards.
Some of the purified water will be pumped to recharge
basins and naturally filtered again as it is introduced into
the groundwater basin, where it will eventually blend into the
groundwater and be extracted and made available for consumptive
uses. Some purified water by our project will protect the
groundwater from seawater intrusion through our injection into
our Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier along the coast.
In the past, some recycled water projects have been
criticized for not achieving their full yield potential. For
example, a planned 10,000 acre feet per year project might
initially only achieve a project yield of 8,000 acre feet a
year. We know this will not be the case with our project. The
full production of the treatment plant will be utilized by the
Orange County Water District to enhance the management of the
groundwater basin. We are the producers and we are the
consumers. All of the purified water will be placed in the
groundwater basin either through direct replenishment and
percolation or direct injection at our seawater intrusion
barrier. We will use 100 percent of the water to maximize use
of our local groundwater basin and reduce our imported water
use.
The cost of the system is $450 million to produce 72,000
acre feet a year. We anticipate the unit cost will be about
$500 per acre foot, or roughly equivalent to imported water
cost. We are very pleased that the project has several
financial partners, including the Bureau of Reclamation under
Title XVI, the State of California, as well as the Orange
County Water District and the Sanitation District ratepayers.
H.R. 1156 will increase our Title XVI authorization from
$20 million to $80 million, thus providing equity, as many
other Title XVI projects enjoy a 25 percent Federal cost share.
I see my time is up, so I will wrap this up just by saying
that our project currently is receiving a 4-percent cost share
from Title XVI. The cap, of course, is 25 percent, and what we
are asking for is an $80 million authorization, which would
bring our share to 18 percent. Given the magnitude of our
project and the regional benefits, we feel that this is a fair
request.
With that, we look forward to working with you on this
legislation and address any questions you may have now or in
the coming weeks. In the course of preparing for markup of H.R.
1156, we would encourage the incorporation of our ideas to
supplement this project with a regional wetlands treatment
program. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilodeau follows:]
Statement of Denis R. Bilodeau, President of the Board of Directors,
Orange County (California) Water District
Introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ken Calvert, and the other distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee for Water and Power for the opportunity to
testify today regarding California water issues. My name is Denis
Bilodeau. I appear before you today as President of the Board of
Directors of the Orange County Water District. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R. 1156, to
amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities
Act, to increase the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of phase
I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project
also know as the Groundwater Replenishment System. First, let me
express my sincere gratitude to Congresswoman Sanchez for introducing
this legislation, and also thank you to Congressman Gary Miller for
serving as the co-author of this important piece of legislation
Orange County Water District
Orange County Water District was formed in 1933 by a special act of
the California Legislature. Created to protect Orange County's rights
to Santa Ana River water, Orange County Water District's primary
responsibility is managing the vast groundwater basin under north and
central Orange County. Since 1933, Orange County Water District has
replenished and maintained the groundwater basin at safe levels while
more than doubling the basin's annual yield. This important source
provides local groundwater producers with a reliable supply of high-
quality water.
Orange County's groundwater basin supplies water to more than 2
million Orange County residents. OCWD primarily recharges the basin
with water from the Santa Ana River and imported water purchased from
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Water enters
the groundwater basin via settling or percolation ponds in the cities
of Anaheim and Orange. Behind Prado Dam (constructed and owned by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood prevention), OCWD owns 2,400
acres in Riverside County, which OCWD uses for water conservation,
water quality improvement and environmental enhancement.
Groundwater Replenishment System
As you are well aware, California is grappling with many water
issues today. Colorado River supplies, drought, CALFED and restoration
of the San Francisco-San Joaquin Bay Delta are some of the issues that
make the headlines. No new water supply projects have been built in the
State since the l960's, and any new projects must be more
environmentally friendly than those of the past. Orange County has
developed a significant recycled water project that addresses multiple
local issues and provides regional water supply benefits--the
Groundwater Replenishment System. The Groundwater Replenishment System
will provide enough new water for 114,000 families each year. It can be
expanded to double that capacity. While others are talking about water,
we are making it. And we are making it of extremely high quality--
similar to bottled water. The citizens of Orange County are supportive
of the project and they are supportive of meaningfully contributing to
increasing and diversifying the region's water supply portfolio and
sharing this benefit with the citizens of California.
Orange County is very dependent on imported water--imported water
totals approximately half of its water supply. A look into the future
indicates continued population growth and political, environmental, and
water quality issues threatening both local and imported water
supplies, making water reliability a very significant issue.
The Groundwater Replenishment System is a visionary water supply
project that will create 72,000 acre-feet of new water supplies for
residents and businesses of Orange County and thereby reducing our need
for scarce imported water. The Groundwater Replenishment System has
significant support in Orange County from medical, health, community,
elected, business, agriculture, media, and environmental organizations.
The project is a partnership between the Orange County Water District,
the Orange County Sanitation District, the State of California, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the cities of Orange County.
I am proud to say that the Groundwater Replenishment System is
currently under construction and will be operational in Spring 2007.
The project's source water is highly treated secondary sewage, from the
Orange County Sanitation District, which is currently discharged into
the ocean. This highly treated water will be further purified by the
finest water purification technologies in existence today. It will
undergo advanced water treatment that will include microfiltration,
reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection with hydrogen peroxide.
This very pure water will meet or exceed all State and Federal drinking
water standards.
Some of the purified water will be pumped to recharge basins and
naturally filtered again as it is introduced to the groundwater basin,
where it will eventually blend into the groundwater to be extracted and
made available for consumptive uses. Some purified water produced by
the project would protect the groundwater from seawater intrusion
through injection into the Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier.
Benefits
The Groundwater Replenishment System solves five regional and local
issues:
1. It produces a new supply of water in an arid region that will
help mitigate future recurring droughts and their impact on the
groundwater basin.
2. It will provide new water for a larger, expanded barrier
against seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin along the coast.
3. The new water produced will be a quality similar to or better
than bottled water that will eventually improve water quality in the
local groundwater basin by lowering the mineral content.
4. Environmental Protection--It will delay, perhaps indefinitely,
the need for an additional ocean wastewater outfall in northern Orange
County and reduce our volume of daily wastewater discharge into the
Pacific Ocean.
5. Finally, it will help mitigate future predicted water shortages
and augment Southern California local water supplies, reducing our need
for imported water.
H.R. 1156
In the fall of 2002, after receiving support and endorsement from
virtually all of the local cities and retail water agencies in Orange
County Water District's service area, the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority and the State of California; Orange County Water District
adopted a Joint Operation Agreement that enabled construction of the
Groundwater Replenishment System to commence. The Groundwater
Replenishment System feasibility study fully complied with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation guidelines for Title XVI Projects and is a
component of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's
water supply reliability plan. The Groundwater Replenishment System is
contained in and consistent with many regional water plans for Southern
California.
SCCRWS
MWD's IRP
SAWPA's IWP
SARWQCB Santa Ana River Basin Plan
California Water Recycling Task Force Report
California Water Plan, Bulletin 160
H.R. 1156 would provide an increased Federal authorization for the
Groundwater Replenishment System. The increased authorization would
provide financial equity and ensure that 72,000 acre-feet of additional
water supplies will be created and used.
In the past, some recycled water projects have been criticized for
not achieving their full yield potential. For example, a planned 10,000
acre-feet per year project might initially only achieve a project yield
of 8,000 acre-feet per year. We know this will NOT be the case with the
Groundwater Replenishment System. The full production for the treatment
plant will be utilized by Orange County Water District to enhance the
management of the groundwater basin. We are the producers and we are
the customers! All of the purified water will be placed into the
groundwater basin, either through direct replenishment and percolation
or direct injection at the Talbert Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier. We
will use 100% of this water to maximize use of our local groundwater
basin and reduce our imported water use.
The cost of the Groundwater Replenishment System is $450 million to
produce 72,000 acre-feet per year. We anticipate the unit cost of
Groundwater Replenishment System water will be about $500 per/acre-
foot, or roughly equivalent to the current imported water rate. We are
very pleased that the project has several financial partners.
United States Bureau of Reclamation existing Title XVI
Authorization--$20 M
California State Grants--$70 M
Orange County Water District & Orange County Sanitation
District Rate Payers--$300 M
H.R. 1156 would increase the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI
authorization from $20 million to $80 million. This increase provides
financial equity to the Groundwater Replenishment System Project and
enables local dollars to be spent in developing other water supply
projects. Many Title XVI projects enjoy a 25% Federal cost share. The
current $20 million authorization means the Groundwater Replenishment
System Project receives a 4% Federal cost share. An $80 million
authorization increases the Federal cost share to 18%, still well below
the 25% cap.
Given the magnitude and regional benefits of the project--in terms
of new water supply created, ability to provide a measurable relief to
California's imported water woes, and the project's certainty that 100%
of the proposed yield will be utilized--we believe the Federal cost
share is appropriately set at 18% or $80 million. Thank you for your
time.
[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Bilodeau's statement have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
______
Mr. Calvert. Next, to testify on behalf of H.R. 2960, is
Mr. Eduardo A. Campirano, Brownsville Public Utilities Board.
Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF EDUARDO A. CAMPIRANO, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, BROWNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
Mr. Campirano. Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert,
Congresswoman Napolitano, and Congressman Ortiz and members of
the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony on H.R. 2960.
My name is Eduardo Campirano and I am the Assistant General
Manager and Chief Operating Officer of the Brownsville Public
Utilities Board. As it has been stated in many of the comments
today, Brownsville is located in deep South Texas. Are you
familiar with the area? Our dependency on water is totally
surface water from the Rio Grande, and not only Brownsville,
but all of South Texas. The situation for us is not getting any
better for the reasons that were so eloquently described by
Congressman Ortiz.
H.R. 2960 is a bill that would provide opportunity for
Brownsville to participate in the Title XVI funding for design,
planning, construction of facilities for the treatment of
recycled water as well as impaired waters in Brownsville. The
use of water reclamation and desalination is in our long-term
water strategy plan, and what I would like to do, if I may, is
just kind of describe one specific project that is currently
underway.
As I stated, we currently depend 100 percent on surface
water for use. Brownsville is part of a regional effort called
the Southmost Regional Water Authority. The Authority
represents Brownsville as the largest community, but also
smaller communities in the area. We currently have a project
that takes the treatment of brackish groundwater and utilizes
it for producing top-quality water, bottle-quality water, it
was stated earlier. The project actually will be producing
water under Phase I as early as next month, and full production
by the end of this year.
That particular project is strictly a local effort. It is a
$30 million project. All of it is coming from the local
entities. It will take ten million gallons of brackish
groundwater and produce 7.5 million gallons of treated water.
For Brownsville, that represents approximately 30 percent of
the potable water use in our community. For the surrounding
communities, it represents an equal amount, getting away from a
water supply that is obviously not influenced heavily by the
drought conditions and certainly by the increased pressures of
a growing South Texas on the water from the Rio Grande.
This particular project has the potential to be expanded to
double its capacity for half of the amount of money that the
local entities have put in to initiate the project. It can
easily be doubled under Phase II to produce 15 million gallons
of water per day.
We believe that H.R. 2960 provides an opportunity for
Federal participation. In July, I had the opportunity to come
and testify before this Committee on Chairman Calvert's bill,
H.R. 2828, and that particular bill provides again creating
those opportunities for local participation along with Federal
participation in expanding projects that use non-traditional
sources of water.
For Brownsville and South Texas, these projects represent
strategies that are not currently being implemented and would
provide not only an opportunity for Brownsville, but all of
South Texas to begin to wean itself from the dependency of
surface water from the fragile Rio Grande.
I had submitted comments before and I ask that those
comments be submitted for the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Campirano. I want to end my testimony by simply saying
that I commend Congressman Calvert and members of the Committee
for what you are doing in efforts to provide these kinds of
strategies and alternatives in local communities. The water
situation is not getting any better, and until we begin to
explore non-traditional uses to supplement the already fragile
resources, we are not really going to address the problem.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have
and again want to commend you for your efforts. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campirano follows:]
Statement of Eduardo A. Campirano, Assistant General Manager and Chief
Operating Officer, Brownsville, Texas, Public Utilities Board
Good afternoon Chairman Calvert and Members of the Committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding H.R.
2960. My name is Eduardo A. Campirano and I am the Assistant General
Manager and Chief Operating Officer of the Brownsville Public Utilities
Board in Brownsville, Texas.
The Brownsville Public Utilities Board is a municipally owned
utility company providing electric, water and wastewater services to
the citizens of Brownsville, Texas and the surrounding area.
Brownsville is located on the southern tip of Texas along the US/Mexico
border, and is currently of the fastest growing metropolitan
statistical areas (MSA) in the United States. The Brownsville MSA
experienced a 30% population growth from 1990-2000 with a fairly young
population, where the median age is 29. The area has experienced
significant growth on both sided of the US/Mexico border and
Brownsville in particular is experiencing unprecedented growth.
This growth poses significant challenges to the Brownsville Public
Utilities Board. With the increased issuance of building permits and
the increased demand placed on the utility systems, there is a
tremendous demand for infrastructure improvements and additional water
supply. Brownsville and other communities in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley have been working together with the State of Texas and the
Mexican State of Tamaulipas to solve our need to ensure our long-term
water supply. This is the top environmental and quality of life issue
for the entire region.
The Brownsville Public Utilities Board has developed a water supply
plan that projects the demand and supply of water for the City of
Brownsville for the period of 2000--2050. At the current rate, water
demand will deplete supply by the year 2010. However, we have not been
idle in planning for our future water needs. The water supply plan
incorporates various elements including water conservation, increased
surface water capacity, groundwater treatment and development, water
reclamation and desalination. However, employing these strategies is
dependent on implementation of legislative and funding recommendations.
Several years ago, the Brownsville Public Utilities Board began
planning the construction of the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir Project
between the U.S. and Mexico on the Rio Grande River. The concrete/gated
weir structure will create riverine impoundment of water within the
banks of the Rio Grande River located approximately four (4) miles
southeast of the City of Brownsville. The project can store up to 6,000
acre feet of water consisting of flood spills and releases from Falcon
Reservoir, excess and unused releases from Falcon Reservoir, flood
flows below Falcon Reservoir and Mexican water flow with Mexico's
permission. The Brownsville Public Utilities Board is in the final
stages of securing federal approval under the Section 404 permit of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project cost is estimated to be $40
million and significant funds have been spent to date to get the
project through state and federal permit processes. As you very well
know, gaining the support of interest groups and guiding the project
through permitting can be a very challenging task. It has been very
frustrating to move the project through the maze of federal and state
reviews, but we are near our goal.
On July 24th of this year, I had the opportunity to present
comments before this Committee in support of Chairman Calvert's bill,
H.R. 2828. On that day, I testified about the importance of a federal
and local partnership to plan, design and construct water reclamation
and desalination facilities. The Brownsville Public Utilities Board
believes that H.R. 2960 provides great opportunity to secure federal
participation in the development of a viable project(s) that will help
diversify and expand a water supply that is currently dependent on the
Rio Grande River.
H.R. 2960 is a bill that would add the Brownsville Public Utilities
Board (BPUB) as an entity eligible for a federal share of Title XVI
funding for design, planning, and construction of facilities to
reclaim, reuse and treat impaired waters in the Brownsville, Texas
area. BPUB's water supply plan includes water reclamation and
desalination projects.
BPUB is currently exploring the potential for using reclaimed
wastewater for industrial prospects at the Port of Brownsville. The
Port of Brownsville is a deep water sea port for the movement of raw
and bulk materials via barge and ocean-going vessels. The Port also has
domestic and international rail crossings. The potential for using
reclaimed water for industrial use at the Port could result in
reclaiming up to six (6) million gallons per day of effluent discharge
form the North Sewage Treatment Plant. The proposed project would
result in the construction of a ten inch (10'') waterline to transport
the reclaimed water to the Port of Brownsville. The estimated cost of
constructing, designing, securing right-of-way and constructing the
line is $3 million.
In addition to the reclamation project at the Port of Brownsville,
BPUB in conjunction with the University of Texas/Texas Southmost
College has developed a project that would utilize effluent discharge
from the South Sewage Treatment Plant for use by the University for its
irrigation purposes. The University is situated on 380 acres that
includes the university campus, athletic facilities and a golf course.
The project will use up to four (4) million gallons per day of effluent
discharge for use by the University. The cost of constructing a
pipeline to transport the treated effluent to the University is
approximately $2 million.
In addition to wastewater reclamation, the BPUB is very interested
in federal desalination efforts. The Brownsville area has substantial
impaired groundwater and our location provides strategic access to
seawater, both of which are essential to our future water supply
strategies.
We are currently involved with the Southmost Regional Water
Authority in the construction of a regional brackish groundwater
desalination facility. This project provides for the deployment of a
water supply that is a source of water independent of the Rio Grande
River. Brackish groundwater is not subject to water rights purchases.
This project does not have the prohibitive environmental, capital and
operating costs of a seawater desalination facility while at the same
time developing a water supply that is drought tolerant and provides
for an improved potable water supply. Phase I of this project will
produce 7.5 million gallons per day of drinking water per day. The cost
of developing this project is $30 million.
The expansion of the brackish groundwater desalination facility or
Phase II provides for securing federal participation in this project.
Phase I is being funded with local resources and Phase II would double
the size of the facility. Phase II would expand the potential for
expanding the regional impact of this facility to include other
surrounding communities who might otherwise could not undertake such a
project on their own. The desalination facility could be expanded to
produce 15 million gallons of water per day at an estimated cost of $15
million.
These projects represent a tremendous opportunity for Brownsville
to enhance and expand its water supply. There is a great dependency on
water from the Rio Grande River and these projects represent the first
steps in deploying strategies that will lessen the dependency on this
fragile water supply.
This concludes m testimony. Thank you again for the opportunity to
appear at this hearing. Chairman Calvert and members of this Committee,
I commend you for your efforts to assist our communities in finding
ways to deal with the increased demand for water supply is a
diminishing resource. I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
______
Mr. Calvert. Next, Mr. Robert DeLoach, testifying on behalf
of H.R. 2991. Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. DeLOACH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
GENERAL MANAGER, CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Mr. DeLoach. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert and
Ranking Member Napolitano and members of the Subcommittee. I do
appreciate the opportunity to be here today and request that my
previously submitted written testimony be submitted as a part
of the record here today.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. DeLoach. Our agency is not unique amongst many agencies
in Southern California. We are a retail water and sewer agency
located within the Inland Empire Utilities Agency service area
in San Bernardino County in the Greater Santa Ana River
watershed.
Our agency currently provides water and wastewater services
to more than 160,000 people in a 47-square-mile area and is
expected to reach over 230,000 population by the year 2020.
According to a Census Bureau report released earlier this year,
the city of Rancho Cucamonga alone was identified as the third
largest growing city in the Nation with a population over
100,000.
Our agency supplies retail and water services to a variety
of communities, primarily the city of Rancho Cucamonga and
portions of the cities of Fontana, Ontario, Upland, as well as
the unincorporated area within San Bernardino County. Our
agency receives approximately 50 percent, if not more at
certain times of the year, of its water supply through the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California as delivered
through IUA. Approximately 40 percent of our local developed
water supply is actual groundwater supply in adjudicated
groundwater basins. The remaining 10 percent of our supply is
collected as surface water from the neighboring adjoining San
Gabriel Mountains. By the year 2020, our agency will need an
additional 20,000 acre feet of new water supply that we
currently do not have to meet our existing and growing demand.
In addition to our potable water supply, our agency is a
member of the Chino Basin Regional Wastewater Program which is
administered by Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Regional
projects currently underway, as Mr. Atwater previously
testified to, would generate 75,000 acre feet of new water
supply by the year 2010. Of that amount, over 20,000 acre feet
will be directly attributable to Cucamonga's service area at
full build-out.
The rapid growth within our region has triggered several
significant resource management issues. Local groundwater
basins have a legacy of agricultural contamination, and as you
know well, adjudicated groundwater basins have several
limitations placed on them through the courts. Additionally,
the goals and objectives of CALFED and the Colorado 4.4 Plan
place long-term limitations on our ability to take imported
water.
We have adopted a goal at CCWD or a philosophy to make sure
that every drop counts. Recycled water is a critical and
extremely valuable component of our future. Our planning
process established four major resource management goals.
Maximize the beneficial use of recycling water. Decrease our
reliance on the State water project system. Provide maximum
flexibility for overall supply opportunities. And develop
energy-efficient delivery systems.
The use of recycled water within our area is not without
its challenges. Much of our jurisdiction is built on an
alluvial fan which requires innovative and new technology not
previously used to the extent that we are proposing. Much of
the water would need to be delivered and pumped uphill to
parks, to schools, to neighboring landscaped areas. The energy
costs alone would become a major obstacle to the use of
recycled water.
Our innovative strategy calls for the siting of small,
localized satellite treatment plants adjacent to where the
demand actually exists. This strategy will allow us to use the
existing regional system for the peak demands of the gravity
flow system.
Each of these facilities is capable of producing up to
1,100 acre feet of new water. The avoided cost of moving off
the Metropolitan Water System imported deliveries could equate
to as much as $375,000 per site on an annual basis.
Working in cooperation with the many agencies that we
supply water to, we are proposing to site these facilities at
the various parks throughout the recreational system, through
schools and including a junior college. Each of these sites, if
not all, are located between 600 and 750 feet in elevation
above the nearest regional wastewater treatment facility. The
energy cost to move this water to that location would be cost
prohibitive.
Of all the benefits that we derive out of these projects, I
believe the key benefit would be that these satellite plants
provide complete water supply reliability and dry year
availability as a part of our drought-proofing program. Many of
the goals that were listed for both regional, State and Federal
programs have previously been spoken to.
In the essence of time, I would just note that the Southern
California Water Recycling Task Force identified the need for
1.5 million acre feet of new recycled water by 2030. Making
maximum beneficial use of this supply would allow us to note
only relieve the pressure on the State project system, but
assist users in the valuable fertile San Joaquin Valley.
We view the existing 25 percent Federal cost share formula
as an investment at the local level that will allow our agency
to leverage local funds to develop these worthwhile and very
beneficial projects.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, since I see my time is up, I
wish to thank you, Ranking Member Napolitano, and all the
Subcommittee members for your valuable leadership on this
issue. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeLoach follows:]
Statement of Robert A. DeLoach, General Manager/CEO,
Cucamonga County Water District, Rancho Cucamonga, California
Introduction
Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Robert DeLoach, the General Manager and Chief
Executive Officer of the Cucamonga County Water District located in
Rancho Cucamonga, California (San Bernardino County). Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
The Cucamonga County Water District supports H.R. 2991, and urges
its markup without amendment.
Cucamonga County Water District is a retail water and sewer agency
located within the service area of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency
in western San Bernardino County and in the greater Santa Ana River
Watershed. Our agency currently provides water and wastewater services
to more than 160,000 people in a 47 square mile area. According to a
United States Census Bureau report released earlier this year the City
of Rancho Cucamonga was identified as the third fastest growing city in
the nation with a population of over 100,000. Over the past five years
our agency has averaged over one thousand new connected water and sewer
customers annually. By the year 2020 our population is expected to
reach approximately 230,000 people.
Our agency supplies retail water and sewer services to the
community of Rancho Cucamonga and portions of the communities of
Fontana, Ontario and Upland as well as unincorporated areas within San
Bernardino County. Our agency receives approximately 50% of its water
supply from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, a member agency of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Approximately 40%
of our locally developed water supply comes from groundwater produced
from the Chino and Cucamonga Basins, both of which are adjudicated
groundwater basins. The remaining 10% of our supply is surface water
collected from our local San Gabriel Mountains. Our present average
daily water demand is 45 million gallons per day (MGD), with wastewater
flows averaging 10 MGD. By the year 2020 our agency will need an
additional 20,000 acre feet of new water supply to meet our growing
demand.
Urban Water Reuse Management Strategy--``Every Drop Counts!''
Our agency is a member of the Chino Basin Regional Wastewater
Treatment Program managed and administered by the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency. Recycling projects currently underway or proposed
within the Inland Empire region will generate 75,000 acre feet of new
supply by 2010. Of that amount, over 20,000 acre feet will be directly
attributable to Cucamonga's service area at full build-out.
The rapid growth within our region has triggered several
significant resource management issues. The Chino and Cucamonga Basins
have a legacy of agricultural contamination such as nitrates and other
agricultural chemical residuals. As such, new groundwater production is
limited without extensive treatment processes or due to limitations
established in the court approved adjudications. Additionally, the
goals and objectives of CALFED as well as the Colorado River ``4.4
plan'' place long-term limitations on imported water deliveries.
Our philosophy of making sure that ``every drop counts' '
recognizes the value of efficient water use. Recycled water is a
critical and extremely valuable component of our future and as a
preface to our planning process we have established four water resource
management objectives:
Maximize the beneficial use of recycled water;
Decrease our reliance and dependence on imported water
from the State Water Project;
Provide maximum flexibility of all supply opportunities;
and,
Develop energy efficient delivery systems.
Special Challenges to Deliver Recycled Water
The use of recycled water within our area is not without its own
challenges. Much of our jurisdiction is built on the alluvial fan of
the San Gabriel Mountains and requires extensive pumping and energy
cost to move water up the foothills to where much of our existing and
future need exists. Given the condition of the California's electricity
situation, this becomes a major obstacle in utilizing recycled water.
Additionally, the water conveyance facilities required to transport the
treated water to the area of need are non-existent requiring extensive
infrastructure investment and as a consequence increased costs to our
ratepayers.
Innovative Delivery of Recycled Water
Our innovative strategy calls for the siting of small, localized
satellite treatment plants adjacent to where the demand actually
exists. This strategy will allow us to use the existing regional system
to meet the peak demands of the gravity flow areas.
A unique feature of this technology is that the individual
satellite plants can be sized according to the actual demand of the
individual locations. Our analysis indicates that approximately 1,120
acre feet of new treated water supply will be available at each
location. In terms of imported water cost avoidance this equates to a
savings of $375,000 per site on an annual basis. A variety of new
customers have been identified and support for this initiative is very
high.
Working in cooperation with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, we
propose to site a number of satellite treatment plants throughout their
recreational park system. One such location, which is typical for many
of their larger parks, will be at the Red Hill Community Park which is
approximately 600 feet above the elevation of the nearest regional
wastewater treatment facility. This park site and an adjacent high
school are ideal candidates for recycled water use. Prior to
development of this innovative technology, the energy costs alone would
have made this project cost prohibitive given the state of their
respective budgets.
The key benefits of this innovative technology are obvious:
Locating the satellite plants where the need exists
allows us to eliminate energy costs associated with pumping.
The need for imported water from the State Project system
is now avoided.
Construction of new or expansion of existing regional
wastewater treatment facilities is deferred saving valuable financial
resources.
During times of drought the satellite plants will provide
water supply reliability and dry-year availability which is a critical
element of ``drought-proofing'' the region.
Reuse Goals Consistent with Regional, State and Federal Programs
The implementation of our unique wastewater management strategy
expands our existing water supplies and is consistent with all
regional, State and Federal programs. From the Federal perspective it
meets the goals of the CALFED program through development of a new
resource opportunity. The United States Bureau of Reclamation recently
completed a Comprehensive Water Recycling and Reuse Study for Southern
California and concluded that water recycling projects in Southern
California could produce almost 450,000 acre feet of new recycled water
by 2010. Our project coupled with those proposed by the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency will produce approximately 75,000 acre feet of that
new supply.
The State of California's Water Recycling Task Force identified the
need for 1.5 million acre feet of new recycled water by the year 2030.
Making maximum beneficial use of recycled water creates additional
benefits by relieving pressure on the State Water Project system which
in turn assists users in the fertile San Joaquin Valley.
Regionally, our project conforms to the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California's Integrated Resource Plan, the Santa Ana
Watershed Project Authority's watershed program, the Chino Basin
Watermaster and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency's water supply
goals.
As previously indicated, our watershed is one of the fastest
urbanizing watersheds in the nation. We do not expect to receive more
water from the State Water Project, and may well get less that
originally planned. Nevertheless, we can expand our existing water
supplies through development of local supplies to ``drought-proof'' our
water district.
H.R. 2991--The Dreier Bill
The Dreier Bill proposes to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act and to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to participate in the Inland Empire regional recycling
project and in the Cucamonga County Water District recycling project.
We support this initiative because it would commit the Federal
government to provide assistance to agencies who are trying to bring
new water supplies online using innovative technologies.
The existing 25% Federal cost share formula is an investment at the
local level that will allow the Cucamonga County Water District to
leverage local funds to develop these worthwhile and very beneficial
projects.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you, Ranking Member
Napolitano and all the Subcommittee members for your leadership on this
issue.
______
[Letters submitted for the record by Mr. DeLoach follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.010
Mr. Calvert. We were up in Albuquerque, Mr. Pearce's
district, over the weekend, and a beautiful district that it
is, but as I said at that hearing, it is kind of deja vu all
over again. I hear a lot about the stress of the lack of water
throughout the West, and whether it is the Colorado River or
the Klamath Valley or the Snake River, the Upper Rio Grande,
the Lower Rio Grande and Brownsville, Texas, certainly the
issue of the quantification settlement agreement and our
ongoing negotiations to get that resolved, we have a lot of
water problems ahead of us.
I am looking forward to working with the Bureau, Mr. Rinne,
to resolve some of these issues, because if, in fact, and I
understand--I met with the Secretary this morning. I think we
are very close to an agreement on the quantification settlement
agreement. I think we have all the parties both in the Upper
Basin and Lower Basin together on this.
But as you know, even if we enter into that agreement and
we are successful in putting that to bed, California, and
rightfully so for our friends here in the Upper and Lower Basin
States, we have to do our part and wean ourselves from the
Colorado River for our friends in the other States can get
their fair share and fair allocation of that water.
However, as you also know, California is about half the
population of the Reclamation States and for us, in order to
meet those requirements, we must develop additional water
resources. So as we look forward to dealing with you, I would
hope that to continually promote to you and to your colleagues
that this is absolutely not something that we should be on the
sidelines on. It is something we need to do.
I want to ask to all of the witnesses here today, how do
the cost benefits of desalination, brackish water treatment,
wastewater recycling, all these things that have been brought
up today, and other water supply enhancement options, what are
the costs of these and what are our options if we don't do
them? Mr. Atwater, why don't I start with you.
Mr. Atwater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, at your field
hearings and as we have talked about at the California Water
Commission, there are no longer other options in California.
Certainly in CALFED, we have talked about new surface storage
and we hope that comes to pass. But from a groundwater storage
and developing new supplies, realistically, water recycling,
desalination, both groundwater and ultimately seawater at the
Metropolitan Water District and working with some of the member
agencies like L.A., West Basin, Long Beach, Orange County and
San Diego, we do think there is a potential over the next ten,
15 years to develop about 100,000, maybe 150,000 acre feet of
seawater desalting.
But the projects that we talk about on the Santa Ana River
are really incredibly important when you look at the growth in
Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange County. And clearly, we
think they are very cost effective. I would be happy to provide
to the Committee a cost comparison between some of the
reservoir projects and the other alternative supplies in
California so that you can--
Mr. Calvert. That would be helpful, and the record, as I
mentioned, will be held open for 10 days. We would be happy to
get that.
Any other comments?
Mr. Bilodeau. Very quickly. The cost of our water to
produce is about $500 an acre foot. Desalination--ocean
desalination is about double that. We are able to do it cost
effectively because it takes so much less energy to clean
secondarily treated sewage than desalt ocean water. And also,
our project is the largest of its kind in North America. Not a
week goes by that we don't have visitors from Asia or the
Middle East or Europe that come to see what we are doing so
they can emulate that in other parts of the world.
Mr. Calvert. Great. Mr. Rinne?
Mr. Rinne. The only thing I would add to that, as I think
about options, there may be more than this, but probably three
or four, certainly the water recycling, desalination, water
conservation, and then I would throw in--my term would be water
transfers. All of it probably play into helping to solve the
puzzle in the long term. In and of themselves, probably none of
them, as we all would probably agree, would do it. But they all
probably help.
And then finally, in that regard, and I appreciate your
comments to us, Mr. Chairman, about wanting to work with us. We
do want to work with you on solving these problems and I think
the area--one of the areas we are trying to do is our part as
we can in some of the--with an emphasis on research, say, in
desalination, where it may help, this other gentleman before
mentioned, to even bring the cost down further if we can and
that would help, again, to make it more feasible to do some of
these things.
Mr. Calvert. Robert?
Mr. DeLoach. Mr. Chairman, I just offer two points. One I
already spoke to earlier, and that was the cost avoidance for
our customers, the actual ratepayer who pays the bill, and that
is the avoided cost of not purchasing State project water,
anywhere from $300,000 to $375,000 a year per one of these
sites that we discussed.
The second part is as we purchase this water through the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency and build the infrastructure to
deliver it to our customers, that rate is significantly less
than the potable rate that we normally supply to our customers,
about a 20 percent cost decrease. That helps the ratepayer to a
significant degree to meet just the standard of living that we
have grown accustomed to.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I sit here and
wonder how we are going to get this done, but Mr. Rinne, one of
the things you mentioned was that you would oppose all bills
because of the reasons you stated--the cap was over, you didn't
think--they didn't have any EIR review analysis. Yet, most of
these programs have already--they are online. They have not
been funded by the Bureau of Reclamation before, maybe in
assistance with the planning.
But how do we continue to move forward to try to meet the
plan, and I am not talking about Texas, but the rest of the
ones that are here from California, to be able to continue
producing potable water for the communities, for the industrial
community, for the needs that the growth demands? It isn't a
matter of we can stop the growth. We can't. So how do we
address that without saying, if we are going to build more new
desalination plants, alone the cost, and then what do you do
with the brine? So there are other issues that go into--if you
just say, well, desalination might be the major answer. That is
why we are focusing on that. Water transfers.
I had asked when we were in Moab, Utah, when we were
working on the Colorado River, the Utes were willing to sit at
the table. But there is a Federal law that prohibits water
transfers. They have plenty of water, they say. We would be
willing to help transfer some of that. Federal law prohibits
that. How do we do that? How can you come and say to us, here
are things that we can do? Here are some of the solutions that
some may need, legislative processing. Others may be working
together, coalition building. I certainly hope my Texas
Representative here would pick the brain of Richard Atwater,
Mr. Bilodeau and Mr. DeLoach so that we can learn from each
other, so we can help each other, so we can understand the
priorities.
When you have a Texas area that is not only drought--we
have been working on that. We had that hearing in Texas with
the Rio Grande. But the fact that they are right at the ocean,
so they have saltwater intrusion. They have all kinds of
problems. How do we help them deal with the increase in
population, with the increase in being able to deal with the
industrial growth, and address those issues.
We are trying to help them so we have that assistance in
our budgetary needs, and we can't do it without the help of the
agencies. I mean, what do we do, sir?
Mr. Rinne. Maybe a couple of thoughts. First, I will
restate again, while we cannot testify in support of the bills
that are here today, we are not opposed to water recycling
projects, and I think that is borne out by the program that we
have ongoing over the last--
Mrs. Napolitano. Right, except that the funding has been
decimated. So, in essence, you may not totally not support
them, but you don't fund them.
Mr. Rinne. The second thing is that maybe --when you think
of the proposed initiative for 2004, the Water 2025 as the
Chairman had mentioned in opening remarks about the trips
around the West, which is a pretty good active statement. I
think, of a lot of going ons. The hope is that, and two of the
key objectives as I understood them was, number one, it was an
attempt to get people, all of us, not just the Federal people
but locals and from all walks of water together and actually
talk and do the very thing you are--to look at the very
questions you are asking. How do you best tackle these things?
And that is why a moment ago, when I was talking, not that
those four areas are the only areas that solve water problems.
I don't kid myself that I have all the answers there. But I
think that is the way that we can do it, is get the people
together in the same room as some of them have started. That is
what some of the 2025 meetings were about. Get the dialog
going. The second thing was to then try to see if we could come
up with solutions collectively that might help avoid these
conflicts, you know, identify where the problems are. Again, I
think they were characterized pretty accurately. You just look
at about any river system and urban areas on it and it speaks
for itself.
I don't know if there is a silver bullet. I just think that
it is going to take a lot of hard work. I do think that--I also
don't think at this point that we are--you know, we are working
hard on the projects that are authorized. We want to do the
Title XVI ones, we want to do our part. But it is not an easy
solution to solve that. We certainly look at it. We hear your
concerns and we want to address them and work with them.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. I know my time is up, but
in California, we are expected to meet 4.4 by 2016. How are we
going to do that if we don't have this additional tool of being
able to increase the funding for recycled water projects? It is
only seed money, but it is helpful because it then allows that
project to move forward. It is just frustrating, sir. Thank
you.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Pearce?
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
coming to the Second District of New Mexico over the weekend.
That was an excellent hearing and I am still getting favorable
comments on that.
My questions, we in the Southern District of New Mexico
make millions of barrels every day of produced water that is
manufactured--it is brought to the surface when you bring oil
to the surface. We separate it out and typically we dispose of
that water. Usually, it is coming from very deep production
zones and it is a waste of water that could be cleaned up, the
salt taken out, the hydrocarbons taken out.
My question is, Mr. Bilodeau, as you talk about your costs,
$500 per acre foot. Is that cost including the cost of the
plan, or are those just operational costs that you are
referring to?
Mr. Bilodeau. It is the cost of the production as well as
the amortization of our debt.
Mr. Pearce. OK. And when you talk about cleaning up your
water to where it is well beyond the cleanliness required or
the content required for drinking water, what part per million
are you expecting that you would have as you discharge the
water for, just approximately?
Mr. Bilodeau. About 300 parts per million on that, total
dissolved solvents.
Mr. Pearce. Three-hundred?
Mr. Bilodeau. Yes. I believe the drinking water standard is
500.
Mr. Pearce. In my district, we are going to the sewage
treatment plants and we are putting water into the Rio Grande
River and the parts per million are down around two, two parts
per million, and they were using a figure of 30 for drinking
water, or for discharge into the rivers, and these are just
your standard run-of-the-mill sewage treatment plants. I am
wondering what is different about your process than a standard
sewage treatment plant that would--I mean, we looked at the
filters of just tap water and then the filter of this water
coming through. It is highly purified just in the normal
sequence. Can you give me some clarity on that?
Mr. Bilodeau. I think perhaps we will have to get back to
you on that in terms of the--
Mr. Pearce. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Bilodeau. We might be talking about a different
measurement or a different--
Mr. Calvert. I think, Mr. Pearce, I think probably on the
total dissolved solids, I am sure that it is somewhat higher
than two parts per million that is coming out to the Rio Grande
after treatment, because the Colorado River is approximately
700 parts per million on TDS, and if you can clean any water at
300, it is very, very, very, very good water.
Mr. Pearce. Well, I--
Mr. Atwater. Excuse me. And when you normally talk about 30
parts, that normally equates under the Clean Water Act, for the
wastewater sewage treatment plant, you are probably talking
about 30 milligrams per liter biological demand, BOD, as we
call it, or suspended solids, which is the normal measure of
how much we cleaned up the wastewater. It is not salinity, but
it is a different measure. So we may be talking about apples
and oranges--
Mr. Pearce. I would suspect so, but if you could get me
information, I would like to compare it to what I am saying--
Mr. Bilodeau. Absolutely.
Mr. Pearce. --because we have got different communities
there that are saying they are in single digits. Again, this is
wastewater that is going back into the river.
Mr. Campirano, as you talk about the input of the water
that you want to desalinate, what parts per million are you
looking at on some of the waters that you have in Brownsville
there?
Mr. Campirano. The brackish groundwater that we currently
are taking in is about 3,500 parts per million.
Mr. Pearce. OK.
Mr. Campirano. So it is considerably less, obviously, than
the access that we have to our seawater.
Mr. Pearce. Seawater is about 25,000 parts.
Mr. Campirano. Actually, we have a very high salinity. I
think we have one of the super-saline bodies of water in our
area that can go as high as 45,000 parts per million, so in our
particular case, it just--it is cost prohibitive to begin to
look at the kind of operation where we can look to the Gulf for
our source of water and we need to really explore all of the
groundwater options before we begin to look at that.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask one
last question. It will be kind of an open question to each of
you who have projects, and that would be about the ownership of
the water. Who would own the water that comes out as an output?
And Mr. Rinne, at some point, I would like your comments on
that.
I have had friction with the Bureau of Reclamation before
over them claiming that because they ever participated in any
financial way, that they own the water, and we have got a
circumstance in our district. So that I would caution each one
of you water systems that if you take water from the Bureau of
Reclamation at some point in the future, they may say, it is
our water, it is not your water. The Elephant Butte is the
only, the only irrigation system that has ever been paid off in
the Bureau of Reclamation system, or was at the time that the
Bureau of Reclamation decided to say that that water was
theirs.
So my simple caution, and maybe it is a question, that you
really look at this with your eyes open if you think this is
going to be your water without context 20 and 4 years into the
future. It is a very problematic question. If you would like to
respond, I would like to hear from you, and then, Mr. Rinne, if
you would like to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Campirano, one question. Just following up with what Mr. Pearce
said, just before we go to our next question, your 3,500 parts
per million TDS, and what is your cost to clean up the water,
approximately, per acre foot?
Mr. Campirano. In this--I don't have that unit in cost per
acre foot. I can break it down to you as compared to what it
costs us in terms of 1,000 gallons, which is what we use to
measure how we are going to sell the water. In our particular
case, not only the--all of the infrastructure that is going
into place for the brackish groundwater project as well as the
treatment and the big cost of powering the facility. It comes
out to about 92 cents per thousand. That is very--in our
community, that is affordable.
Mr. Calvert. That is approximately the same price as the
Orange County water price, I suspect. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Solomon Ortiz?
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask Mr.
Campirano, maybe you can expand on some of the features that we
have in the Brownsville area that you plan to use as part of
your water supply system. I believe that we call them resacas
and maybe you can talk to the Committee and explain how do you
plan to use these features that we have.
Mr. Campirano. Brownsville is unique that it has these
features, bodies of water that essentially, I guess, could be
described as ox bow legs that were part of the Rio Grande
system many years ago that have been cutoff over time. In
Brownsville, we currently have a project with the Corps of
Engineers that is called the Resaca Restoration Project.
Unfortunately, the resacas over time have been used as flood
control for the city of Brownsville and consequently have been
heavily damaged over the years as basically being the catch
basins for all of the surface drainage.
In Brownsville, those resacas actually serve as surface
water storage for our surface water treatment. What we hope to
do with the resacas is to essentially restore them to their
original depth and that will, in effect, add approximately
1,700 acre feet of storage capacity to our surface water
storage system.
They also offer other benefits, but from a water supply
standpoint, it is critical for us to be able to have as much
storage capacity as possible simply because we are at the last
leg of the Rio Grande. Nobody takes water out of the river any
further south than Brownsville. So, consequently, taking
advantage of those available releases when they are available
in our water rights, we need to enhance our surface water
storage capacity, and that is how we would do that, with the
resaca system.
Mr. Ortiz. And I just have one more question. Going back to
the funding, Mr. Deputy Secretary, do you make your own request
or do you go by what the Administration requests as far as
funding?
Mr. Rinne. Congressman, each year, of course, as we develop
our budget request, we look at our overall program, and just
focusing in on, say, the Title XVI program, as part of that
activity, we will try to work through and see what we--we would
want it, obviously, to be in line with the Administration
priority, but we will look at what projects--we are trying,
first off, to complete all the projects, all the Title XVI
projects.
So we are trying to complete the ones that we have on the
books and there are quite a few there, and so then we will just
try to--we work through a process of that along with our other
programs and then we will make a submittal through the
Department, which, of course, then gets worked by the
Department and Office of Management and eventually becomes part
of the Administration's proposal.
Mr. Ortiz. But it just so happens that the ones that we are
talking about today are not in the books, so that means that
there is no money for them. Now, we want to work with you, and
I know that if we don't fund it, there is no way you can work
on it. But in many instances, and I have said this before, the
next war we are going to have is not going to be about oil. It
is going to be about water.
In my neck of the woods, you get down to the nitty-gritty.
I mean, you go to the school children, you know, how they flush
the toilet, and it sounds pretty nasty, but I have said this
before. They even had a contest in the schools to see if the
children could come up with something that would rhyme. Do you
know what they came up with, because we were having a serious
water shortage? And it sounds nasty, but this is the only way
how they would get children not to flush the toilet. And they
came up with an award-winning slogan, Mr. Chairman. They came
up and said, ``If yellow, you let it mellow. If brown, you
flush it down.'' Can you imagine when we have to get to that
level and we don't find any relief? I mean, this is pretty
serious.
I know we have a hard-working Chairman here who is very
conscious of the problems, not only in my district, but
throughout the United States. We want to help you, Mr.
Chairman. I am willing to do everything in my part to help.
But, you know, I am at the last, like Mr. Campirano just
stated, at the end of the Rio Grande. Besides all the stuff
they flush into the river, we get the last of it. So this is
very, very serious and I just hope that maybe we can find a
solution.
I am willing to--I mean, if--and I guess I was the only
Hispanic member who supported the President on the war with
Iraq, but I think that if we can go to Iraq and fund all these
projects in Iraq, let us do something for our people here. I
hope that we can find a solution, because our communities are
in dire need of finding a water solution to our area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Baca?
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all,
I want to thank you for having this hearing and our Minority
Ranking Member, Grace Napolitano. It is a serious problem and a
top priority for a lot of us.
Water is very critical in each and every one of our
districts and I know the district that I represent and the
Inland Empire, which is the fastest-growing region in the State
of California, and I appreciate your leadership in reference to
H.R. 2991, which I am a cosponsor of that legislation, which I
think it is important for our area that serves both the city of
Ontario and Fontana.
As we look at our growth in our region, we continue to have
people moving into the Inland Empire, so with housing, water
then becomes a very critical problem in the Inland Empire to
make sure that we have an abundant supply of water, and quality
of water is very important as we look at the Inland Empire.
That is why I am somewhat appalled to hear that the
Administration does not support these initiatives that are
before us because when you look at water, water is like gold,
and without water, you can't live. It seems like sometimes we
try to look for other alternatives. The bottom line is that we
need to supply water and quality water and we need it now and
sometimes we wait a little bit too long.
Based on that, I want to ask two of the members from my
district, either Richard Atwater or Bob DeLoach, one of these
questions, and either one of you can answer. More than one-
third of the groundwater wells in the city of Rialto,
California, are now closed because of perchlorate
contamination. Drought conditions have added to the situation
to cause a water emergency. I understand that the legislation
discussed today does not address the issue of perchlorate
contamination, but I would like to know how these water
recycling projects will be able to benefit the areas facing
hardships because of perchlorate contamination. Will it have an
indirect effect on these issues?
Mr. Atwater. If I may, Congressman Baca, you raise a good
point. If we develop recycled water, we can reduce the need for
that local well water, or as Robert pointed out, imported water
needs. By having the city parks in Rialto or in Fontana, the
industrial users like Inland Paper in Ontario, using recycled
water, it puts less stress on that valuable drinking water.
It is kind of common sense. Why would you want to use the
valuable drinking water to irrigate a golf course, the city
park, the high school football, all that outdoor turf, or
industrial uses. And with the perchlorate problem, what
available good, clean drinking water we have, clearly, you
don't want to waste it. I don't mean that in a bad term. But
why would you want to use that really pure water for things
that you could use the recycled water for? And that would
stretch Rialto's supplies if we could develop more recycled
water in the area.
Mr. Baca. Robert, do you want to attempt to add anything
else?
Mr. DeLoach. Thank you, Congressman Baca. I would agree
with Mr. Atwater. I think the point of your question was, would
recycled water alleviate this pressure? Obviously, it doesn't
clean up the perchlorate issue, but as Rich indicated, it does
relieve the pressure so that communities such as Rialto in your
district does not perhaps have to shut off as many wells. They
can continue to supply water to their customers at a cheaper
rate rather than going to the imported water.
The whole issue of perchlorate, as you know, is another
issue that is exploding in our area and is rapidly becoming the
primary issue affecting water quality and water supply. But
recycled water certainly will get to the point where you can
offset that loss to some degree, but not completely.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. The next question I have, small
satellite treatment plants are part of the plans to drought-
proof the area. How long would you predict that it would take
to build these treatment plants and put them into use, question
one. Two, how cost effective are these treatment plants as
opposed to other types of water projects?
Mr. DeLoach. Thank you. Two good questions. Our plan that
we have in place currently would have the sites developed and
ready to go by 2010 delivering water. The actual cost
differential would be about 80 percent of the Metropolitan
rate, which is currently at $333 an acre foot. So they do
represent substantial savings to our customers.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Once these projects are put into
place, do you expect them to become models for other regions
and States, question number one, and I am wondering if this
could be another incentive for Congress to move this
legislation through. Do you agree?
Mr. DeLoach. Yes and yes.
Mr. Baca. Thanks. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank you for taking the leadership and also going to New
Mexico to Belen, the hometown where I was at, to deal with the
water problems and the droughts that they are having in the
immediate area. I know a lot of the farmers are very concerned
because they didn't have water in the immediate area and part
of it was because of an endangered species that was identified
there. But water is a problem and drought was a problem in that
area, so thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Just as Brownsville, Texas, has two members of
Congress, now Belen, New Mexico, has two members also
representing their interests, so they are a very fortunate
community.
I would like to spend a little time here on my bill, H.R.
2828, promote that and ask Mr. Rinne about hopefully the
Bureau's support of that bill. As you know, as we talk about
the issue of contaminants, whether it is perchlorate or arsenic
or nitrate or any other number of contaminants that we must
deal with under the Federal law and the State law, and so there
is a Federal role to play, I think. And certainly desalination,
as we meet the Federal requirements that are outlined to get
out of the Colorado River and to utilize the bay delta to meet
the guidelines of the Endangered Species Act, which is also a
Federal law, there is a Federal role to play.
In H.R. 2828, we try to outline legislation that meets the
requirements that the Federal Government lays out, at the same
time gives us additional water supply to meet the needs of the
West and, in fact, the entire country as we get into these
problems, not just in the West. We see some issues right now in
Florida and Georgia. We certainly had a problem right here in
Maryland until last year, I think. Happily, the drought ended.
But I would hope--I think we are getting the support
virtually of every water agency in the State of California and
certainly most everybody in the West, and I think this is a
great way and I am certainly happy. I think everyone here is
supporting this legislation. But I want to hear from the
Department, the Bureau. Have you had a chance to look at this
legislation, and I would like to have your input on it a little
bit.
Mr. Rinne. Mr. Chairman, I honestly have not myself, and so
I am feeling a little bit unprepared. But I guess if that would
be helpful and with the record being open, I would be very glad
to--we could get back to you on that.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I know that when you went on your 2025
road trip, you heard a lot about recycling, desalination, and
the rest of it from everyone in the West, and so I would hope
that you will take a good look at that because we intend to
mark this bill up pretty quickly and to move it forward,
because as we are here today, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, addressing these bills. They are fine bills. They
want to do the right thing for the country.
We have a water crisis all over the country. It was like I
mentioned in New Mexico. We have got problems in Nevada.
Nevada, as you know, right now in this quantification agreement
they are trying to figure out a way to buy some additional
water, but you mentioned water transfers. They are not that
simple, as you know. I don't have to lecture you on this. You
know that as people get water out of the river, if someone
wants to sell it, it doesn't necessarily mean they can sell it
because of the way the water law within the States. They are
allocated.
So it is more, I think, an easier route for the Federal
Government to take to leverage resources into developing water
throughout the West, whether it is reclamation, desalination,
and the rest. So I would certainly hope that we can continue to
work with the Department and with the Bureau to make sure that
we get that help.
Mr. Pearce, any additional questions?
We have a list of questions here that I am going to submit
to all of our witnesses. If I could get some written answers
back, I would appreciate that.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a
couple of things that I have left hanging here.
One of the questions I have is for Mr. Campirano, whether
or not you have been in contact with the Department of
Interior, any previous contact with the Bureau regarding your
projects and what kind of help have you gotten from them.
Mr. Campirano. We have actually worked with the Bureau in
Texas and the Bureau is very, very helpful.
Mrs. Napolitano. The Bureau in Texas, you mean the Texas
Bureau.
Mr. Campirano. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. But how about our Federal Bureau?
Mr. Campirano. Well, I am talking about the staff in the
Texas Bureau, out of Austin. In fact, we have been working with
them on implementing one project at the present time. The
problem that we see with the Bureau, again, as has been stated
here, is they simply don't have the resources to respond, and
many of the issues that we face, as everyone else in this panel
is, that they are critical. I mean, they are things that need
to be done now and can't be waited on.
But the projects that we have and the discussions that we
have had with the Bureau have been very, very helpful, and
certainly we hope that the deliberations that you are having of
being able to provide the resources to implement the projects
will give them that much more opportunity to actually begin to,
in a more expeditious manner, begin to address our concerns and
get some of these projects implemented. But efforts to date
have been very, very helpful with the Bureau.
Mrs. Napolitano. Could you use some more?
Mr. Campirano. I beg your pardon?
Mrs. Napolitano. Could you use some more help?
Mr. Campirano. Absolutely. We--actually, some of these
things we feel we are ready to implement, so we could save that
money and go directly into implementation if they had the
resources available to push these projects.
Mrs. Napolitano. You border Brownsville, Texas--I mean,
Matamoros. What is the population of Brownsville versus
Matamoros?
Mr. Campirano. Brownsville's population is 150,000.
Matamoros's population is about 650,000.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. I thought it was closer to a million.
But what is your daily traffic from south of the border?
Mr. Campirano. Bridge crossings, I believe, average into
the 50,000 a day line on the three international bridges.
Mrs. Napolitano. So that adds to your daily--because those
people go to work, they go to eat, they go to shop, and that
increases your use of your local resources, namely water, am I
correct?
Mr. Campirano. That is correct.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. So I just wanted to see how that--
because you haven't had much of a population growth in
Brownsville.
Mr. Campirano. On the contrary. Brownsville is one of the
fastest-growing regions of the country and the population
growth from the last census was roughly 30 percent and there is
no indication that is going to slow down any. The same thing
really goes for all of the border regions of Mexico. There is a
tremendous influx of population from the interior of Mexico to
the Fontana and Matamoros is also experiencing--
Mrs. Napolitano. What about your snowbirds?
Mr. Campirano. That typically is a population that would
begin to arrive in November and stay through March. Spring
breakers run them out.
Mrs. Napolitano. Numbers?
Mr. Campirano. Roughly, in the Valley--I am going to talk
about the Valley--according to studies done by University of
Texas Pan-American, we roughly get 150,000 what we call winter
Texans in our area.
Mrs. Napolitano. So you have all these added uses, or
users, that require additional services.
Mr. Campirano. That is correct.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Atwater, we have talked about the cap, the Federal cap,
the 25 percent or $20 million on Title XVI. Is that sufficient?
Mr. Atwater. I think certainly since 1992, Congress has
articulated that 25 percent cap and it has worked well for many
of the projects. Most of them actually, as Denis Bilodeau from
Orange County Water District testified, they are at 4 percent
now, so certainly 4 percent is a lot less than 25 percent. And
in general, very few of the projects get over 20 percent.
Mrs. Napolitano. But would there be a reason to have a
review of the size of the projects, the amount of people it
serves and the effect that that percentage may not be adequate?
Mr. Atwater. Certainly, that is a good question that ought
to be revisited on a regular basis, is the cost sharing
formula. In this case, very small Federal investment leveraging
a large amount of non-Federal dollars to solve water problems
throughout the West, and under the Chairman's bill, nationally,
which I think is a great idea. It is certainly something that
ought to be revisited on a regular basis by Congress and the
Administration.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That ends my questioning.
Mr. Calvert. I would just be happy if they would make the
25 percent. That would be great, and we need to help you with
that, I understand, Mr. Rinne.
One further comment. In the issue with Texas, and this has
the attention of the President of the United States. He brought
it up to me, so he is very much aware of the issue in Texas. Of
course, the problem in Brownsville, much of that is brought
about by the situation with Mexico and their inability or their
refusal to deliver the water under the treaty obligations that
they are required to do. So hopefully, there is some small
relief that is going in that direction, but certainly, we have
the State Department that needs to do a better job of working
that issue and making sure that Brownsville gets the water that
is owed to them.
Again, I thank all the witnesses for being here. I thank
you for your support on H.R. 2828. Go out and tell everybody
about it and pass the gospel. I appreciate it. We are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Gary C.
Ovitt, Mayor, City of Ontario, California, follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9270.011