    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          H.R. 135: TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WATER COMMISSION ACT OF 2007

    =======================================================================

                                    (110-87)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                NOVEMBER 8, 2007

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    38-865 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2007
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
    ?

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia,   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    Vice Chair                           DON YOUNG, Alaska
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    Columbia                             WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
    BOB FILNER, California               RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         GARY G. MILLER, California
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             Carolina
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    JULIA CARSON, Indiana                BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York              Virginia
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado            MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            TED POE, Texas
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
    NICK LAMPSON, Texas                  CONNIE MACK, Florida
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio               JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              York
    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa                LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           Louisiana
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York           CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California

                                      (ii)

    ?

                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman

    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York              GARY G. MILLER, California
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado            HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              Carolina
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon           BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               CONNIE MACK, Florida
    JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice     JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
    Chair                                York
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
    Columbia                             Louisiana
    BOB FILNER, California               JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York             (Ex Officio)
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    vi

                                   TESTIMONY

    Conrad, David, Senior Water Resources Specialist, National
      Wildlife Federation............................................     9
    Georgakakos, Ph.D., Aris P., Civil and Environmental Engineering,
      Georgia Institute of Technology................................     9
    Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for the
      Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency.     9
    Linder, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Georgia........................................................     7
    Lynch, Robert S., Robert S. Lynch and Associates.................     9
    Mullican, III, William F., Deputy Executive Administrator for
      Planning, Texas Water Development Board........................     9

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Baker, Hon. Richard H., of Louisiana.............................    26
    Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri.................................    30
    Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois.............................    31
    Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................    33
    Linder, Hon. John, of Georgia....................................    36
    Matsui, Hon. Doris O., of California.............................    40
    Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona..............................    42

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Conrad, David R..................................................    45
    Georgakakos, Aris Peter..........................................    49
    Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H........................................    54
    Lynch, Robert S..................................................    67
    Mullican, III, William F.........................................    71

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    City of Atlanta, Georgia, Hon. Shirley Franklin, Mayor, written
      statement......................................................    80
    National Water Resources Association, Thomas F. Donnelly,
      Executive Vice President, written statement....................    85
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.003

          HEARING ON TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WATER COMMISSION ACT OF 2007

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, November 8, 2007

                      House of Representatives,
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
               Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie
    Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Ms. Johnson. Good morning. Today's hearing comes during a
    historic week where the House of Representatives came together
    in a bipartisan fashion and soundly overturned the President's
    veto of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, the WRDA
    Bill, and I especially want to applaud all of my colleagues
    from the Committee, both Democrat and Republican alike who
    unanimously voted for overriding the veto.
        WRDA authorizes vitally important local projects for a wide
    array of water resources needs including water supply, flood
    control, navigation and environmental restoration. WRDA
    recognizes the vital importance of taking a watershed approach
    to water resource needs. This bill includes dozens of projects
    to provide for watershed management and water supply needs in
    communities across the Country.
        Provisions were also included to reinvigorate broader
    watershed planning authority including a federally-funded
    assessment of water resources needs for the river basins and
    watersheds of the Southeastern United States and a region-wide
    study to review drought conditions in the Southeastern U.S.A.
    These region-wide assessments are especially critical to the
    Southeastern U.S. including the States of Georgia, Alabama and
    Florida which are experiencing the ever increasing challenge of
    balancing water needs during a record drought.
        Earlier this year, the Committee received testimony from
    experts that highlighted the need for a comprehensive watershed
    approach to water resource planning, one that is not limited to
    just water supply needs but takes a comprehensive view of all
    the water resource activities in a watershed including local,
    State and Federal roles and activities in water supply, flood
    control and environmental restoration.
        The experts also advised taking into account the impact of
    global climate change on water resource capacity and future
    needs.
        As a result of these hearings, this past July, the
    Committee approved, by a voice vote, legislation to create a
    comprehensive review of national water policies also called the
    Twenty-First Century Water Commission. This provision, which
    was included in the Transportation Energy Security and Climate
    Change Mitigation Act of 2007, establishes a commission to
    provide expert scientific guidance on future water supply and
    demand projections, climate change impacts to our Nation's
    flood risk and water demand and associated climate change
    impacts on water quality.
        This commission would study current Federal, State and
    local water resources management programs and activities and
    ensure that the Nation is adequately prepare to meet the water
    supply, water quality and water resources demands of the next
    50 years. This provision was incorporated into H.R. 3221, New
    Direction for Energy Independence, National Security and
    Consumer Protection Act which was approved by the House, August
    4th, 2007.
        My home State of Texas has had long experience in water
    resource planning. Following the drought of the 1950s, Texas
    began its initial efforts in statewide water planning.
        In 1957, the State Legislature created the Texas Water
    Development Board. The board has prepared and adopted eight
    State water plans. Early efforts focused mostly on describing
    the State's water resources and then evolved into a focus on
    developing plans addressing water supply, conservation and
    environmental issues.
        But, drought in 1997 was a watershed event for Texas. This
    devastating drought caused nearly $5 billion in losses for
    agriculture and related industries and caused widespread loss
    and anxiety over water supply shortages.
        As a result of this statewide event, Texas totally changed
    its approach to water planning and moved from a very
    centralized approach to a decentralized process that put
    primary responsibility for water planning at the regional and
    local governments' level. The new process greatly increased
    public participation and implemented a bottom-up local and
    regional planning process. This new effort emphasized
    conservation and increases in environmental protection.
        Texas has just released its 2007 water plan which is one of
    the most comprehensive State water plans produced, and I am
    pleased that we have William Mullican, Deputy Executive
    Administrator for Planning of the Texas Water Development Board
    here today to tell us more about this plan.
        Mr. Baker.
        Mr. Baker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I certainly appreciate your willingness to hold this
    hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our colleagues from
    Georgia and those with concerns around the Great Lakes this
    morning to learn their perspectives on this obviously critical
    circumstance. I also look forward to the second panel of
    experts who I hope will have what is not apparent to me, the
    appropriate remedies for us to adopt.
        It is unfortunate that we really have to have a hearing
    this morning on the Water Commission Act as the past two
    Congresses have passed the measure. Had it made it through, we
    perhaps would have had an operational plan in place to more
    adequately prepare for these circumstances and for all involved
    to know what appropriate steps to take. Not to speak ill of my
    colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, but a little
    production would be helpful.
        Ensuring that we all have access to clean and sustainable
    quantities of water is an enormous responsibility. It is also
    very evident that the demand for clean water is expanding
    rather dramatically.
        Even though States like Georgia which would ordinarily not
    be viewed as a likely location for drought, it can happen and
    public water supplies are dangerously low. It goes beyond the
    mere convenience of watering one's lawn or washing your car on
    a Saturday afternoon. It goes to the very quality of basic
    life.
        I am hopeful that there are remedies within our reach, but
    I think it is tragic we find ourselves in this circumstance. We
    all knew this day would come. We just weren't sure when. Now we
    know. It is here and, perhaps, the remedies that can be
    attained will take considerable time, perhaps more time than
    citizens have available to them.
        I just want to again express appreciation to the Committee
    and to my colleagues in the Congress for their generous and
    repetitive response to those in need in the State of Louisiana
    in our terrible time and absolutely commit the Louisiana
    delegation to be responsive to any region of the Country's
    needs, knowing that you were there when we needed you, and we
    certainly want to be helpful to you in bringing this to a
    speedy conclusion.
        Madam Chair, I look forward to continuing work with you.
    Now having WRDA out and soon to be overridden in the Senate in
    about an hour, it gives us time to turn our attention to
    essential matters. I look forward to working with you.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Just a question, do you think anybody who didn't vote for
    the bill won anything out of it?
        Mr. Baker. Oh, no, no.
        Ms. Johnson. The Chair recognizes Mr. Salazar.
        Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Today, I believe that Congress has to examine the
    alternatives for funding and updating our aging infrastructure
    when it comes to water, but I would like to give today a
    perspective from the western States of America. As you know, we
    have been suffering a drought for many, many years, and we deal
    a lot with agricultural water. We deal a lot with urban water
    needs as well.
        Many of the Western water users are ag users and, without
    the financial resources to fund these necessary investments,
    they can't be made. While water allocation is a State water
    rights issues, much of the arid West's ag water infrastructure
    is from Federal resources. I believe that as we recently have
    seen in the Southwest, that drought, without Federal
    involvement, would leave us in dire straits.
        I think consistent with reliable water-related data is a
    prerequisite for good water planning, and I certainly respect
    exactly what you are doing, Mr. Linder.
        I believe that Congress has routinely reduced funding for
    the U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging program. Already a
    cost share program, the Federal share has now dropped below 50-
    50 partnership. I think that as we look forward to the 21st
    Century, our commitment to our water infrastructure needs has
    to include at least a 50-50 partnership.
        And so, with that, Madam Chair, I would like to turn my
    statement in for the record, but I would also urge you to look
    at the severe droughts that we are having not only in the
    Southeast but in the Southwest.
        I certainly want to thank you for your commitment to
    addressing the water infrastructure needs of this Country.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Salazar.
        The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Miller.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
    certainly appreciate your calling this hearing.
        I also voted for the override for WRDA and am pleased that
    we did work in a very bipartisan way on that. That is a
    critical piece of legislation, very, very important for the
    entire Nation. One of the reasons I was in support of it and
    voted for the override was because of the authorization for a
    number of projects that were critical to the Great Lakes.
        I have a statement I would like to enter into the record,
    without objection, but briefly I would like to say this: I
    appreciate Mr. Linder being here. I have a high regard for him.
    I must tell you I have huge consternation about his bill that
    he will be testifying about today.
        When we voted on this in the last Congress, I was one of 22
    Members who voted against that, and let me tell you why. In
    full transparency, my principal advocacy, coming from the Great
    Lakes State of Michigan and that basin, is the protection of
    our magnificent Great Lakes which is 1/5 or 20 percent of our
    fresh water supply on the entire planet.
        As other parts of the Nation are having droughts, which we
    have great empathy for and sympathy for what is happening
    there, I don't want to be looking at a national approach about
    anything that might talk about diversion of the Great Lakes to
    any other part of the Nation. I think that this bill could very
    well, in my mind, be looked at as a way of socialism almost for
    a national water policy, a national approach to water policy
    that needs to be looked at on a regional basis.
        I don't think I am being too alarmist about this, and I
    would make just one example here. Recently, about three weeks
    ago, Bill Richardson, who is a Presidential candidate, the
    Governor of New Mexico, this is what he said. He said, I want a
    national water policy. We need a dialogue between States to
    deal with issues like water conservation, water reuse
    technology, water delivery and water production.
        Okay, fair enough until he said, States like Wisconsin are
    awash in water. You can imagine the red flags that sends up to
    a State like Michigan and others around the Great Lakes Basin
    at a time when we are having historic low water levels in the
    Great Lakes.
        As we have lost population and jobs to other parts of the
    Nation, people want to build subdivisions in deserts or
    whatever they are doing, God bless them, but do not look to the
    Great Lakes to solve the Nation's water problem.
        I look forward to the testimony this morning. Thank you.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Mitchell.
        Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks for
    holding today's hearing.
        As you know, we are long overdue for a comprehensive review
    of water policy, Federal water policy, and we haven't had one
    since 1973. This is particularly distressing to a State like
    Arizona whose population has more than tripled since then and
    whose habitability is so closely tied to the availability of a
    safe, reliable water resource.
        Currently, Arizona is experiencing its 11th, and some
    people say 13th, year of drought. The Colorado River system as
    a whole is now in its 8th year of drought, and I believe it is
    past time for the Federal Government to study these issues.
        I want to extend a special thank you and welcome to Robert
    Lynch who will be testifying before us today on the second
    panel. Bob knows these issues as well as anyone. He has worked
    on them for decades both in Washington and in Phoenix, and we
    are very lucky to have him here with us today.
        I look forward to today's testimony. Thank you, and I yield
    back.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
        Anyone else?
        Mr. Ehlers. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you
    for calling this hearing.
        Water is the essence of life, and I am sure all of you know
    it is important because you like to drink it and you need to
    drink it, but as a matter of fact the majority of our bodies is
    water. By far the greatest concentration of chemicals in our
    bodies is H2O, and that illustrates the extreme importance of
    water not just for us but also for plant life which also is
    largely water. That is why water becomes so extremely important
    and agriculture, forestry and so forth.
        I would certainly like to second the comments of my
    colleague from Michigan, Congresswoman Miller. I would like to
    strengthen them, but the only way to make them any stronger
    than she has would be to add profanity, which I don't do, but
    this is a very serious matter.
        The feelings in the Great Lakes States are so strong that
    if anyone tried to divert water, I suspect we would call up the
    militia and come to arms. We feel that strongly about it.
        Our very existence depends on having that water. We have a
    major fishery, an $18 billion a year fishery in the Great
    Lakes. Some 40 million people get their drinking water out of
    the Great Lakes.
        Frankly, the Great Lakes are going down as well. Lake
    Michigan has dropped almost two feet in the past couple of
    years. So the drought or whatever other conditions are causing
    this are affecting us as well.
        So water is crucial. I think it is very important to have
    this hearing, and it is fine to get a national water policy.
    But I might point out that Congress has already passed
    legislation signed by the President, giving the governors of
    the Great Lakes States the authority of any diversion of water
    from the Great Lakes, and you can be assured that they would
    never allow diversion outside of the water basin. That is
    totally understood.
        With that, I will yield back. Thank you.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        The Chair recognizes Ms. Hirono.
        Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Water is one of the naturally limiting factors that impacts
    the growth and development and the economy of any State. The
    State of Hawaii has a statewide water commission which is
    charged with deciding who gets what water. So, even within the
    State, it is a very, very difficult process.
        I have no problems with the Federal Government coming in
    and acknowledging the importance of water resources throughout
    the Country, but at the same time I would like to make sure
    that the State of Hawaii, which is not even contiguous to all
    of the other States, if we are going to proceed in this way,
    that we acknowledge the unique circumstances of Hawaii in
    whatever we do.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Any other opening statements?
        The Chair recognizes Mr. McNerney.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to
    acknowledge your leadership on the Water Bill. That is very
    important to California and to the Nation. So I was proud to be
    a part of that, and I look forward to working in those issues.
        I want to follow up on Mr. Baker's remark that we all knew
    this day was coming. Well, it is here now. What we are seeing
    in Georgia, I think we are going to be seeing elsewhere across
    the Country with increasing frequency.
        In the West, we are used to droughts. We see those
    periodically. The demand for water is only going to continue to
    increase.
        We are seeing severe problems with the ecology of the San
    Joaquin Delta. We are having to shut down pumps that transport
    water to 23 million people in California now to protect marine
    life. So we certainly appreciate the dilemma that the people in
    Michigan are facing with people exporting water from our
    region.
        I think it is our responsibility in this body to plan for
    water supplies that could take up to 10 years or so or more to
    develop. So we have a lot of work to do.
        I am anxious to see this hearing come forward and the
    testimony. Thank you, Mr. Linder, for your testimony and for
    your work. With that, I yield back.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this very
    important hearing and I welcome our guest, the Honorable Mr.
    Linder.
        We have discussed this issue on the Floor in regard to the
    necessity of being able to establish a commission that is going
    to take a wide and deep look at the status of water. We have
    not had to face it. I think it is very apropos at this time
    that we begin. We should have started 10 years ago, but then
    that is hindsight.
        I strongly support your bill and look forward to working
    with you on being able to identify those areas that we know
    from our experience in the West, how we have either been able
    to deal with it or things that we need to begin to get the
    Federal Government involved in.
        It is also, Madam Chair, very important that our agencies
    that deal with water work in tandem with Congress to be able to
    work out the solutions specifically dealing with contaminated
    areas, with being to address the filtering of water to be able
    to make it potable and not carry anything that has not been
    able to be filtered, and I am talking about drugs and things
    that get into the water, and ensure that there is sufficient
    water for the continued growth of the communities that we all
    serve.
        The climate change has been diminishing our supply. We have
    heard how we can expect 100 years of climate change, that we
    have had 100 years of moist climate and now we are going to be
    having dryer climate. All of those are important issues so that
    we can take a look at not only our above-ground but our
    underground resources and how do we clean what we have so that
    we are able to face the challenges of the future.
        We have no new water sources, so we must figure out a way
    of being able to identify where we can capture water and where
    we have contaminated aquifers that we can clean and be able to
    put to production.
        The Federal Government has over 10 different water supply
    programs to recycle, reuse, desalinate, clean up and conserve
    our water resource within 4 Federal agencies, and we should
    bring those Federal agencies together to work out the solutions
    that we can all be supportive of. Your commission would create
    a national strategy to address the water shortages and
    recommend the improvements.
        I am hoping that as we move along that it is done
    expeditiously rather than in the next 10 years. I think we need
    to face the fact that we need strong and fast action.
        I thank you Congressman for bringing this to us and for
    authoring this important legislation.
        Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        We will now go to our first witness. We are pleased to have
    Congressman John Linder, sponsor of H.R. 135, the Twenty-First
    Century Water Commission Act of 2007, and we are pleased that
    you were able to make it this morning.
        Your full statement will be placed in the record. We ask
    that you limit your testimony to a five minute oral summary
    from your written statement.
        Congressman Linder, thank you.

      TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN LINDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

        Mr. Linder. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Baker and Members
    of the Committee. I am pleased to be here to talk about the
    Twenty-First Century Water Commission Act.
        But, first, I want to hasten to assure my friends from
    Michigan that the only thing worse than a national water policy
    is a global water policy. This is not to establish a national
    policy for using water but to get people around the same table,
    to bring all the knowledge we have about water to the same
    place to advise the Congress and the President.
        For example, California has the best conservation record in
    the Country. The rest of the States need to know how they do
    it. California has one other problem, though. Fifty percent of
    the water that falls on California goes to the sea, unused even
    once. They have to start using that water and reusing that
    water.
        Tampa is doing a great job in desalinization. They are
    bringing the cost down to make it almost commercially
    reasonable. They have to improve that and share that technology
    with the other States, but the most important thing is there
    are ideas all across this Country and across the world that are
    making their way into the discussion. We have to get at the
    same table.
        It is my fondest hope that some obscure expert from some
    obscure part of the world will bring some knowledge to us that
    we had no idea existed, so we can improve our storage, both
    above ground and underground, our conservation and, most
    important, repair our leaky pipes. Philadelphia loses 85
    million gallons of water a day through leaky pipes.
        We need to increase the revolving loan fund in the Clean
    Water Act, so that more States can fix their problems. We are
    fixing in Atlanta, a $3 billion problem with our sewage
    treatment. We ought to be able to borrow that money at low
    interest rates from the Federal Government under the Clean
    Water Act.
        This is not to establish any new policy at the Federal
    level. This is not to establish any new Federal policy to tell
    people at the Great Lakes what to do with their water but to
    tell us all how to store more of it, how to use more of it. We
    are going to have to have Federal help with the borrowing of
    the money from the Clean Water Act at low interest rates, the
    revolving loan fund.
        This was started after looking at what happened. How did we
    get our interstate highway system established? It was started
    in 1938 by FDR with a commission to bring all the knowledge and
    engineers to the same table. In three years, they came up with
    a proposal.
        That proposal took 70 years to enact and get completed, but
    it got completed and the individual States controlled what went
    on in their States with their development. That is exactly how
    I see this happening.
        Bob Lynch from Arizona, a water expert in the West, will
    testify after me. He will note that in 2003, when he testified
    for the first time, he was just as concerned as the folks in
    Michigan are about a national water policy. We hastened to
    assure him and others at that meeting, that that was not our
    intention.
        Our intention is just to say what do we know about water,
    what do we know works across the Country, bring it to the
    President and the Congress, so the Congress can look at it and
    decide how to help improve our storage.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Linder. I appreciate
    your cooperation and your valuable participation this morning.
    We will not pose any questions to you. We will talk about you
    when you are gone.
        Mr. Linder. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Johnson. The second panel of witnesses consists of the
    Honorable Benjamin Grumbles--I don't think he misses one of our
    Committee meetings--Assistant Administrator for the Office of
    Water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
        We have Mr. William Mullican, Deputy Executive
    Administrator for Planning of the Texas Water Development
    Board; Mr. David Conrad, Senior Water Resources Specialist,
    National Wildlife Federation; Mr. Robert Lynch from Robert
    Lynch and Associates; Mr. Aris Georgakakos, Professor of the
    Georgia Institute of Technology.
        As I noted to the first panel, your full statements can be
    placed in the record, and we ask that you try to limit your
    testimony to about five minutes as a courtesy to other
    witnesses. Again, we will proceed in the order in which the
    witnesses are listed.
        Mr. Grumbles, you may proceed.

      TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT
         ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF WATER, UNITED STATES
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; WILLIAM F. MULLICAN, III,
       DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANNING, TEXAS WATER
        DEVELOPMENT BOARD; DAVID CONRAD, SENIOR WATER RESOURCES
      SPECIALIST, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; ROBERT S. LYNCH,
      ROBERT S. LYNCH AND ASSOCIATES; ARIS P. GEORGAKAKOS, PH.D.,
       CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF
                               TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am Ben Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S.
    EPA, and it is an honor to appear before the Committee to talk
    about sustainable water policy and improving the coordination
    and integration at a national level and also a chance for EPA
    to discuss the three Rs of water sustainability: reducing
    waste, reusing water and restoring watersheds.
        EPA, as you know, has over the last five years been
    implementing its four pillars of sustainability for
    infrastructure: better asset management, full cost pricing,
    water efficiency and the fourth pillar of a watershed approach.
        But, today, as all of us are focusing in on the importance
    of water resource management, including quantity issues, it is
    important for us to articulate some enduring policy approaches,
    some guiding principles, and that is where the three Rs come
    into play.
        Reducing waste and inefficiency is the first. EPA is not a
    regulatory entity when it comes to water quantity or water
    allocation. However, we, like everyone else, recognize the
    importance, the inextricable connection between quantity and
    quality, and so we are using our non-regulatory authorities to
    encourage and to provide technology and innovation for water
    efficiency, to cut the water waste.
        I have spoken before to the Committee about the WaterSense
    program. We feel it is an extremely important part and it
    certainly would be a part of discussion, I am sure, with a
    water commission for the 21st Century to instill an ethic of
    efficiency and conservation.
        As Congressman Linder noted, there is a tremendous amount
    of water waste, and the WaterSense program is based on the
    principle of there doesn't need to be sacrifice. Through
    technology and providing information to consumers and utilities
    across the Country and manufacturers, we can see water
    efficient products and appliances where families save money and
    water and energy as well. So the WaterSense program is a very
    important part of reducing waste and inefficiency.
        The other R is reuse, reclamation and reuse of water,
    recycling water. I know this Committee is aware of that when
    you held hearings on water is the oil of the 21st Century. One
    of the solutions is technology. So to view water as a true
    resource and to reclaim it, the continued press for innovation
    on desalination and wastewater reclamation, indirect reuse,
    potable reuse is an important one.
        It also includes stormwater. One of EPA's visions is to
    work with communities to view stormwater not as a waste product
    but as a water resource.
        The Administrator has kicked off a campaign, a movement, a
    green infrastructure movement which is supported by grassroots
    and national organizations across the Country to view
    stormwater as a true resource and use rain gardens and wetlands
    and greening watersheds, retaining water to reuse it at a later
    point in time. So that is a very important component of water
    resource sustainability.
        The Western Governors Association, which is focusing in on
    water sustainability, is also very much aware of the need to
    reuse and reclaim. We see communities throughout the Country,
    desal plants, as the Congressman mentioned, in Tampa Bay or El
    Paso, a desalination plant, are very important ones.
        The third R is restoring, restoring watersheds. We all live
    downstream. So if steps are taken upstream to reduce the
    pollution through wetlands and buffer strips and through
    pollution prevention practices, that can reduce the treatment
    costs downstream and help provide for a healthier watershed.
        Those are the three Rs.
        What I would like to articulate, Congresswoman, is that a
    very important part of all of this, which is one of our pillars
    of sustainability, is full cost pricing. A key to making true
    progress toward sustainability is for citizens, governments,
    communities to pay the true value, to recognize the true value
    of water and water infrastructure, so that we all appropriately
    invest in those assets.
        The last thing I would like to say is with respect to H.R.
    135, I commend Congressman Linder for his leadership on this
    issue. While the Administration doesn't have an official
    position on the bill at this time, we recognize there are some
    very, very important and timely components that are part of
    this legislation and the discussion.
        I, myself, do not read the bill as providing some type of
    mandate or a hint towards looking at interstate diversions or
    threatening other water bodies or about water grabs, but I do
    see value in having discussions that emphasize the importance
    of State and local rights when it comes to water quantity and
    focusing in on private sector and entrepreneurial solutions and
    better integration among the Federal agency programs.
        Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to be part of
    this important panel and the discussion, and I look forward to
    answering questions you or your colleagues may have.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mullican.
        Mr. Mullican. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members of
    the Committee.
        For the record, my name is Bill Mullican with the Texas
    Water Development Board. I would be remiss this morning, Madam
    Chair, without recognizing on behalf of the citizens of the
    State of Texas, your own work in the development and passage of
    the Water Bill. In Texas, this has become of paramount
    importance to us. So we just want to thank you for all your
    efforts in that regard.
        I also thank you for your introductory remarks about the
    regional water planning process in Texas, and that is really
    what I want to talk about primarily this morning. In 1997, the
    State changed the way we do water planning.
        We had been doing it for 40 years, but the reality of what
    we learned is that if there is this top-down planning process
    put in place, then the reality of it is the local and regional
    project sponsors will not have any buy-in or support to that
    planning process. Therefore, the chances of implementation are
    almost zero.
        As such, we now have a process that is based on local and
    regional participation in that planning process. Already, just
    after 10 years of being engaged in this effort, we have
    produced two State water plans that were solely based on the
    recommendations of the local and regional water providers and
    11 other interest groups that are required to be part of that
    planning process through a consensus-building process, and we
    are already seeing remarkable levels of implementation of that
    process.
        Just in brief, the results of the 2007 State water plan are
    that Texas will more than double its population over the next
    50 years from about 23 million to over 46 million people by
    2060.
        As part of that planning process, you have to understand
    that this is not just a plan based on regional plans, but in
    Texas it is based on about 2,600 individual local plans. The
    decisions and recommendations are developed by those local and
    regional entities that participate in the planning process.
        Of those 2,600 entities, those local plans are then
    integrated into the 16 regional water plans which are then
    integrated into a State water plan.
        The results of the most current planning process are that,
    and they are rather sobering results, for the very first time
    our demands for water supply in Texas during drought conditions
    will be increasing from over 18 million acre feet today to over
    almost 22 million acre feet by 2060. This is compared to a
    currently available water supply of about 17.9 million acre
    feet today decreasing to about 14.5 million acre feet by 2060.
        As such, we already have right now today, during drought
    conditions, about a 3.3 million acre feet per year deficit of
    water supply. If we do nothing in Texas, we project that number
    will increase to almost 9 million acre feet. In 2060, if we do
    nothing, we project that 85 percent of the people in the State
    of Texas will not have adequate water supply during drought
    conditions.
        Due to the enormity of those conclusions, the Texas
    Legislature in its most recent session not only enacted several
    of the policy recommendations that came out of that planning
    process including the designation of 19 unique reservoir sites,
    but they also appropriated over $760 million to begin the
    process over the next two years of building the water supply
    projects that are going to be needed to meet our future water
    supply needs.
        With that success, I would just point out a few things
    about the bill that I think are appropriate to H.R. 135.
        First and foremost, Texas has a long experience in water
    planning. When you look at the kind of success that we are
    having in our water supply planning today and you look at the
    diversity that occurs within the State of Texas, where in far
    west Texas our precipitation average is about six inches a year
    and in far east Texas our precipitation averages about 60
    inches a year, there is an order of magnitude difference in the
    amount of precipitation that Texas receives from west to east.
        When you look at that kind of diversity, it seems to me it
    would be appropriate to make a comparison on a national scale
    to what we are facing today.
        As a result of that, I think it is incumbent upon you to
    consider ensuring in this planning process, in this evaluation
    process that it is truly a grassroots effort, that the local
    and regional water providers, the tribes and the States are the
    people that are driving this process and making the
    recommendations to Congress on what needs to happen from a
    national water policy perspective.
        Second, I work with a lot of States in the United States on
    their water planning process as they try to move towards
    implementation of the Texas model. The reality of it is the
    data, the basic data needed for this kind of planning simply
    does not exist in a vast majority of the States.
        Third and in conclusion, the reality of it is there is a $9
    million authorization in this bill. Take it from someone who
    has been responsible for doing the budgets for the State of
    Texas over the last 10 years for this process, $9 million not
    only is totally inadequate to do this job, but the reality of
    it is it sends a message for a deliverable or a product that
    will be totally inadequate in the end for this process.
        Thank you very much for the invitation to be before you
    today.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. David Conrad.
        Mr. Conrad. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member
    Baker and Members of the Subcommittee.
        My name is David Conrad. I serve as Senior Water Resources
    Specialist for the National Wildlife Federation, the Nation's
    largest conservation education and advocacy organization.
        On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, I appreciate
    the opportunity to testify on H.R. 135, the Twenty-First
    Century Water Commission Act. We applaud Representative Linder
    for introducing this bill and the now 27 other Members who have
    joined as co-sponsors. This is a vitally important subject for
    legislation, and we believe there is a strong need for a new
    national water commission.
        The issue of water resources is critical to national
    security, economic security, the health and well being of our
    citizens and the wildlife and ecological health of our Nation.
    International tensions over shared water resources are
    increasing as water becomes scarcer and water quality is
    compromised.
        Many of our communities cannot afford necessary upgrades to
    their antiquated sewers, water treatment and delivery systems.
    Wetland resources continue to decline. Our Nation's flood risk
    is increasing. The need for broad-based planning in water
    resources in virtually every area of the Country is
    increasingly clear.
        For these reasons, we would urge an expansion of the scope
    of the commission in the bill from its current narrow focus on
    water supply. We believe a broader mandate that reflects the
    wide variety of water resources issues that we face would
    better serve the Nation's interests.
        Thirty-five years have passed since the last national water
    commission issued a report to Congress and the President on our
    Nation's water resources. The duties of the 1973 commission
    were very broad, and the commission's report provided insights
    on a wide range of issues ranging from the effects of water
    management on the economy, groundwater issues, State and
    Federal water law, interbasin transfers, the emerging concerns
    about the environment, financing, project evaluations and the
    roles and governance of water.
        A lot has changed since the 1973 report, not just
    technologically but also ecologically as well as our
    understanding of water concerns. Today, we are becoming
    increasingly aware of the delicate nature of our aquatic
    ecosystems and how dependent we are on the natural services
    that in the past we have often taken for granted.
        We have learned that interbasin transfers often are
    accompanied by transfers of invasive species, which do
    ecological harm, and increased political tensions due to
    threats to downstream communities' water supplies.
        The reality of global warming can no longer be denied. The
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear that
    global warming is expected to result in profound effects on
    water cycles, more drought in the West, more flooding and
    droughts in the East, higher sea levels along our coasts.
    Therefore, we urge the Committee to specifically require the
    commission to examine the impacts of global warming on our
    Nation's water resources including flood risks, water quality
    and wetland habitats.
        We would draw the Committee's attention to Section 8207 of
    the House-passed Energy Bill that the Chairwoman mentioned in
    her opening statement. This would authorize a commission
    similar to the commission in H.R. 135.
        The language, in addition to projecting future water
    development and optimizing future water supply, would also
    suggest strategies to use best available climate science and
    projections of future flood and drought risk, promote
    incentives for development of comprehensive water plans,
    support low impact development, encourage the use of and reduce
    biases against nonstructural elements and approaches when
    managing stormwater, address sewage overflow problems and
    support regional watershed planning. We urge the Committee to
    consider adding these important components to the duties of the
    commission.
        We also believe that the commission should definitely
    include members appointed by the Congress as well as the
    President. This would likely give the commission a broader base
    of support for the difficult tasks it would face.
        Finally, we would also like to draw the Committee's
    attention to the Water Resources Council which acted as a
    Federal integrated water resource planning entity from 1965 to
    1983. The Water Resources Council assessed the adequacy of U.S.
    water supplies and produced the principles and guidelines which
    are guidelines for evaluating federally-funded water projects.
        We strongly urge the Committee to consider requiring the
    21st Century Water Commission to evaluate the possibility of
    reviving the Water Resources Council or an entity with a
    similar function.
        Again, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, we
    applaud your work in holding a hearing on this important
    legislation. We all share a moral responsibility to protect our
    water resources and to protect our children's future. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Conrad.
        Mr. Robert Lynch.
        Mr. Lynch. Good morning, Madam Chairman and Members of the
    Committee.
        I am Bob Lynch. I am an attorney in Phoenix, Arizona. I
    really don't want to talk about the bill so much as how we got
    here.
        Before I start, I want to bring greetings to you from Leroy
    Goodson. Leroy is at the NWRA, the National Water Resources
    Association annual meeting, where I was going to be until you
    graciously decided to have this hearing. He also wanted me to
    advise you that he has a candidate for the commission if this
    bill becomes successful.
        I serve, among other things, as the Chair of NWRA Water
    Property Rights Taskforce which is probably the reason I ended
    up getting involved in this, and I actually testified against
    the original version of this bill in 2002. Western States had
    great concerns about the sovereignty of their adjudication and
    water rights management processes which we, I will tell you,
    you already know, guard very jealously.
        I will assure the Members from Michigan that there will be
    World War III before you get raided because if you can get
    raided, so can we, and that will happen over my dead body.
        So this commission has a very important role to play, and
    we hope that you will favorably consider this bill, but we
    started with a dialogue. Once the original bill was introduced
    and some problems were identified, I and others literally
    shopped the idea around the Western United States to water
    professionals, water lawyers, water buffalos, anybody who would
    talk to us, and we got a lot of input. We got a lot of support.
        I am here to tell you that for its third go-round in the
    House of Representatives, this bill is supported by State water
    agencies in the West. It is supported by the Western States
    Water Council, the water arm of the Western Governors
    Association. Everybody who cares about water in the West has
    had a look at this from the get-go, two Congresses ago, and has
    supported it.
        I testified in favor of this bill in 2003 because we had
    that iterative process that made things work and made the
    people in the West, who guard their sovereignty very, very
    carefully, comfortable.
        I call your attention to the provision in the bill on page
    three that says that this task will include respecting the
    primary role of States in adjudicating, administering and
    regulating water rights and water uses. Without that provision,
    I would not be here in support of this bill, and Western water
    interests would not support it. It is that critical.
        So, for those of you from other areas of the Country who
    are concerned about the ability of your States to deal with
    their resources, I am here to tell you we share that concern
    and that has been a primary motivating factor for us to be very
    careful about the language of this bill and to protect the
    rights of the States concerning water.
        I hope that if you decide to move in the direction or in
    some part of the direction of the provision that is in H.R.
    3221, that you give some of us the opportunity to assist you in
    developing some language. I am troubled by some of the verbiage
    in H.R. 3221. I don't know that it was intended to have some of
    the consequences it has, but it appears in certain phraseology
    in some of the paragraphs to be more limiting than I think you
    probably intend it to be.
        So, in closing, I just want to say that we do support this
    bill. It is an important bill.
        I was at the Justice Department in the late 1960s and early
    1970s when the National Water Commission was doing its work and
    litigating these issues. It has been a long time and, as Mr.
    Conrad said, this is an issue that needs focus from this
    Congress.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Georgakakos.
        Mr. Georgakakos. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        My name is Aris Georgakakos, and I am Professor of Civil
    and Environmental Engineering at Georgia Tech in Atlanta,
    Georgia. I am also Director of the Georgia Water Resources
    Institute.
        GWRI has been developing and implementing information and
    decision support systems for water resources planning
    management in several world regions including the Southeastern
    U.S., California, Europe, China, East Africa and South America.
        I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in
    support of H.R. 135 advocating the establishment of a water
    commission to develop recommendations for a comprehensive water
    strategy. I cannot overemphasize the need for a comprehensive
    strategy as water challenges are becoming increasingly complex,
    threatening our quality of life, compromising the integrity of
    the Nation's environment and ecosystems, and undermining
    economic growth and prosperity.
        In 2001 and 2004, two National Research Council studies
    thoroughly examined the urgency and complexity of water
    resources issues facing the U.S. Among others, the report cited
    that:
        There is abundant evidence that the condition of water
    resources in many parts of the Country and the world is
    deteriorating.
        Our institutions appear to have limited capacity to manage
    the provision of ecosystem services while concurrently
    supplying human needs.
        Demands for water resources to support population and
    economic growth continue to increase although water supplies to
    support this growth are fixed and already fully allocated in
    most areas.
        The frequency and magnitude of damages attributable to
    droughts and floods are increasing and so is our society's
    vulnerability to extreme climate and weather events.
        My own State of Georgia is presently in the second year of
    an unprecedented drought, rapidly depleting our water supplies,
    halting our economy, threatening the sustainability of aquatic
    ecosystems and increasing tensions among water users in our
    State and across the borders with Alabama and Florida.
        While droughts are the result of a natural climate cycle,
    drought stresses and impacts reach a new height with every new
    drought as urban, industrial and agricultural water demands
    rise steadily. Georgia, as well as most U.S. regions, is not
    well prepared to effectively manage these unprecedented water
    stresses.
        The main reasons are lack of comprehensive knowledge and
    information on the interdependencies of natural process and
    water uses, narrow perspective of water user groups on local
    rather than basin-wide interests, lack of Federal and State
    agencies coordination and cooperation, insufficient Federal and
    State research investments on the modernization of management
    processes, and weakening of water resources research and
    education programs.
        I would like to briefly comment on each one of those areas.
        On knowledge and information, the NRC reports developed a
    comprehensive list of 43 areas needing further scientific
    inquiry. These areas pertain to the interdependence of water
    quantity and quality, the balance between human and ecological
    water uses, and the legal, institutional and social factors
    that contribute to sustainable water resources management.
        While there is a lot to learn, a lot is already known and
    can significantly benefit the water resources planning and
    management. However, making this knowledge and information
    meaningful for and accessible to those involved in decision-
    making is a very serious challenge.
        Paradoxically, in spite of our information age, water
    resources policymakers, managers and stakeholder groups are
    becoming ever more removed from current scientific and
    technological advances. There is thus a compelling need to
    establish and invest in effective information and technology
    transfer mechanisms.
        On local versus system-wide scope, water stresses are often
    compounded by the efforts of individual stakeholders acting to
    safeguard their own local interests without regard of the long
    term risks of their actions. A local and short term scope by
    each stakeholder group, sharing the resource, cannot be
    sustainable and only serves to hasten the depletion of water
    reserves and the onset of disastrous impacts for all.
        This tragedy of the commons scenario is likely to occur
    when water uses and impacts are planned and managed
    individually without regard for their multiple temporal and
    spatial linkages. It is thus imperative that the proposed water
    commission take a holistic perspective in the development of a
    comprehensive national water strategy.
        On Federal and State agency coordination and cooperation,
    water resources management falls within the mandates of many
    Federal agencies. In reviewing the existing Federal
    coordination mechanisms, the NRC reports concluded that
    ``coordination among agencies has occurred only sporadically
    over the last several decades, despite repeated calls for more
    coordination.''
        As a result, the national water resources agenda among the
    Federal agencies is fragmented, has a disciplinary rather than
    a broad and holistic scope, and is unable to provide the
    breadth and depth of information needed by the political
    process.
        Furthermore, although Federal and State agencies must work
    together to ensure harmonization of and compliance with Federal
    and State laws in the management of trans-boundary water
    resources, the existing coordination and cooperation
    mechanisms, if any, have been ineffective, and more often than
    not turn water conflicts and disputes into costly litigious
    battles.
        This ineffective Federal and State agency culture and modus
    operandum need to be improved so as not to undermine
    implementation and positive impact of the H.R. 135 commission
    strategy recommendations.
        On the lack of investments, a striking finding of the NRC
    reports was that over the last 30 years total funding in the
    areas of water supply augmentation and conservation, water
    quality management and protection, water resources planning and
    institutional issues, and water resources data collection
    declined severely. As a result, long term basic research and
    technology transfer in modern methods of water resources
    planning and management have been neglected, and the majority
    of our water resources are managed by reactive, disciplinary
    and inefficient methods and procedures.
        In a recent assessment of the ACF River Basin in the
    Southeast, GWRI demonstrated that the use of modern forecast
    decision methods can mitigate drought impacts and sustain
    adequate water services for all human users and ecosystem.
    Similar assessments and similar findings have been carried out
    and obtained for the Northern California river system as well
    as for other river basins.
        The main impediments in the use of modern management
    methods are, first, the inflexible bureaucracies that have
    evolved around the use of old management procedures and, two,
    inadequate training of agency personnel. Thus, a promising and
    largely unexplored strategy to address water scarcity is the
    modernization of the current management procedures through
    recent but proven scientific advances which are transferred to
    professional practice through education and training.
        The other casualty of declining funding has been the
    weakening of our water resources research and educational
    programs. At a time when universities increasingly depend on
    soft funding, faculty positions and student support migrate to
    other higher priority areas. In sharp contrast to the 1960s,
    1970s and 1980s, very few academic programs can now claim
    significant expertise in water resources.
        This is not to imply that academic programs are shrinking.
    On the contrary, they are expanding to cover much finer and
    very exciting frontiers of geophysical, environmental and life
    sciences. In doing so, however, universities have lost their
    commitment to interdisciplinary education and are becoming
    overspecialized.
        An important role that water resources programs can play is
    to provide a scientific and policy framework for
    interdisciplinary research, education and technology transfer.
    Such a framework is necessary to create broadly educated
    scientists, engineers and policymakers able to invent
    technological and institutional solutions for the Nation's
    water resources and environmental challenges.
        In this regard, the Water Resources Research Institutes
    provide a unique network to address the need for
    interdisciplinary research, education and technology transfer.
    However, the Institutes cannot fully realize their potential at
    the current low rate of Federal and State funding. I hope the
    commission envisioned by H.R. 135 will also address the need
    for sustainable and sufficient investments needed to reverse
    the continued weakening of our water resources programs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
    Committee. I strongly support the establishment of a national
    water commission to study and develop recommendations for a
    comprehensive water strategy to address our Nation's future
    water needs. Thank you.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Unfortunately, we will have to have a short recess so that
    we can vote, and we will return for the questions.
        The Subcommittee is in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Ms. Johnson. The Committee comes to order, and we are now
    ready for our questioning.
        I would like to first ask Mr. Mullican a question. It
    appears that Texas' long experience with water planning has
    evolved from a relatively narrow focus on water supply to a
    broader look at the comprehensive watershed planning. Have you
    found this approach to be more satisfactory in planning for
    future water?
        Mr. Mullican. Yes, ma'am. The point of looking at our
    planning process from a watershed basis is that until you get
    to a level of sophistication where you can truly integrate all
    of the demands and all of the supplies and the interaction of
    those demands and supplies on a watershed basis, you are going
    to continually overlook opportunities for optimizing the
    system.
        So, for example, in Texas, one of the things that we look
    at is rather than operating a series of reservoirs within a
    watershed on an individual basis, we will look towards
    operating them as a system. Simply as a function of operating
    those reservoirs as a system within a watershed can result in
    significant increases in the supplies available to meet water
    needs.
        Ms. Johnson. You discussed the lack of data, that Texas is
    investing heavily in data and science for water resources. Do
    you feel it should be a Texas responsibility or do you see a
    greater Federal role?
        Mr. Mullican. Well, Texas is more than willing to assume
    its fair share of the costs and effort that is required for
    water data collection and for the science that goes along with
    it, but the reality of it is when you look at the impact on a
    variety of Federal acts such as the Clean Water Act, Safe
    Drinking Water Act, Endangered Species Act, you cannot ignore
    the fact that those actions do have a consequence and do
    establish a Federal role at least in the aspect of making sure
    that we have adequate data to make the wise policy decisions
    that we must make.
        As was mentioned earlier in the panel, it is very
    frustrating to have this deterioration in Congressional funding
    for the USGS for their basic data collection program because
    what that does is it just simply transfers that cost share
    responsibility on to the State. We have for the last several
    sessions and will continue this session and into the next to
    work with you and Congress on getting back to a point where we
    are truly in a 50-50 working relationship on the data
    collection activities.
        But we are not going to stop there because the reality of
    it is there are many parts of the United States--and again this
    comes from my working with other States--where the data simply
    is not being collected. There are huge gaps in the data that
    are needed to make the financial decisions and the policy
    decisions with respect to our water resources.
        One does not want to go out and build a billion dollar
    water supply project that may have an environmental component
    to it, that may have a power, hydroelectric component to it.
    You do not want to make that kind of investment when you have
    inadequate data to ensure that the water supplies that project
    is supposed to be developing will actually occur.
        And so there must be a balance. That is what Texas has been
    working on for a time now, a balance between State and Federal
    roles in the basic data collection and science development, the
    development of new techniques and scientific models that we
    need to ensure our future water supplies, and I think that also
    goes over into climate change issues.
        We must look at adaptive management tools so that we can be
    responsive to the needs of the States to develop their water
    supplies. I think that when you look at the national
    perspective of things like that, it is really more appropriate
    for the Federal Government to be involved in the science of
    developing those new models rather than having 50 different
    States making an investment basically to develop the same tool.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Grumbles, climate change is likely to impact a host of
    water resource areas, and these include increases in water
    pollution, more extreme weather events impact on water, reduced
    availability of water supplies in some areas because of drought
    or saltwater intrusion, and change in aquatic biology. EPA is
    obviously involved in these areas, but so are many other
    Federal agencies, not to mention State and local governments.
        In your opinion, how should the Federal, State and local
    governments, not just EPA, best plan and prepare for limiting
    the impact of climate change on these vital shared resources?
        Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        A couple points I would make, one is making sure that we
    can all identify appropriate issues, so we can be proactive
    about the range of climate change impacts.
        EPA has developed and we have an internal work group. We
    have been spending an enormous amount of time and effort
    identifying potential issues, a range of different effects and
    considerations so that we can be proactive and have adaptive
    management, and we are working on developing a draft strategy
    that we would then finalize after public comment and input.
        The key is coordination with other agencies and levels of
    government and move forward in a responsible manner that
    recognizes that there is a need for adaptation and continued
    research on some emerging areas.
        There is also an important component of working on
    mitigation of greenhouse gases. So a good example of
    interagency collaboration is with the Department of Energy
    where we are recognizing the potential of aquifers, not
    aquifers but underground storage areas for deep injection of
    carbon dioxide to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. That
    is an emerging area.
        We are working with them and working with the Interior and
    Army Corps of Engineers, looking at a range of wetlands and
    water supply issues and impacts.
        At the same time, it is very important to be working with
    those who are closest to the ground, and that means the
    utilities, water and wastewater utilities, and State agencies
    on what their particular needs, whether it is a coastal concern
    about sea level rise or an inland concern about potential water
    quality or water quantity-related impacts from ethanol or other
    biofuels.
        There is no doubt this is an important component of climate
    change, looking at the water-related aspects, and we are
    certainly committed to doing that within EPA and coordinating
    with other agencies at the Federal, State and local levels
    including tribes.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Miller.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        At the risk of sounding like a broken record about the
    Great Lakes, that is why I came here today, so I am going to
    say my peace about our Great Lakes here again.
        Notwithstanding some of the comments earlier from Mr. Lynch
    and your assurances that under no circumstances do we ever have
    to worry that any part of this legislation would ever be a
    problem for us, I have red flags all over the field on this
    piece of legislation. I just have to keep reiterating that.
        I say that, the huge consternation that we have, because in
    the Great Lakes Basin we have had bad experience in the past
    every time the Federal Government has gotten involved with
    anything regarding the Great Lakes. I will just give you two
    quick examples of things that have happened, that are manmade
    by the Federal Government, by the Army Corps of Engineers, that
    are literally diverting billions of gallons of Great Lakes
    water right now.
        In one instance, if you think of Michigan, right here in
    the St. Clair River, as Lake Huron comes into the St. Clair
    River, the Army Corps of Engineers in the early 1960s did
    extensive dredging there actually to open up the upper Great
    Lakes to shipping which was a great thing, but subsequent
    dredging and erosion has, we think--there is a huge theory out
    there--it has actually effected something like a bathtub
    effect, like the drain out of a bathtub. We are literally
    diverting billions of gallons over the Niagara into the big
    pond there because of that.
        Another example is at the mouth or the foot of Lake
    Michigan, the Chicago diversionary canal, again constructed by
    the Army Corps of Engineers years ago, and I appreciate the
    drinking water part of that, but billions of gallons of Great
    Lakes water is being flushed down the Mississippi River to
    float the barges in the Mississippi, again at a time when we
    have historic low lake levels.
        We are very, very concerned about this piece of
    legislation. I just want to tell you that I intend to make sure
    that every Member of Congress in the Great Lakes Basin from
    every State, which would be Michigan, New York, Ohio, Indiana,
    Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, receive my own
    lobbying, I guess, to make sure that they understand that this
    piece of legislation could have negative ramifications for us
    in the Great Lakes Basin.
        I think, as you look at a national model, for instance, in
    the Great Lakes, our governors have a covenant, an annex
    actually, the governors in the Great Lakes Basin as well as the
    provinces of Canada because we share the long liquid border
    there, to ensure that there is never any diversion of the Great
    Lakes.
        Let me just say accolades to all of you for your fantastic
    water conservation and things that you are doing in your own
    States, in your own regions. God bless you. I think it is
    wonderful.
        I am very parochial about this, and I know you might think
    I am alarmist, but this is where I am going with this. It is
    such a big issue for all of us.
        If you just think of this, I don't know how much this water
    costs. Maybe it is a buck, right? If you think about how much
    it costs for a gallon of gasoline, let's say it is $3, maybe a
    little bit more. Let's say it is $3. I mean a gallon of bottled
    water is $6 to $8, and you can actually live without the gas,
    but you cannot live without fresh water.
        So it is an asset that we have in the Great Lakes Basin,
    and we do intend to make sure it is not diverted to other parts
    of the Nation.
        My question would be to each one of you. I have only one
    question. I would like you each to answer this. Would you still
    support this bill if there was language in the bill which
    clearly spelled out that under no set of circumstances could
    any national commission that would be comprised by this bill
    ever consider any diversion of Great Lakes water?
        If there was boilerplate language to iterate that in the
    bill, would you still support this bill that you have all
    testified on? That is my question for the panel.
        Mr. Grumbles. I will start, Congresswoman. I think it is
    important for any commission or any entity or agency to
    recognize existing law, Section 1109 of WRDA 1986, which makes
    it very clear that if there is a Federal agency involved in a
    project or even study of a diversion from the Great Lakes that
    doesn't have the support of the Great Lakes governors as
    spelled out in Federal law, then that is prohibited.
        I think the value of having certain savings clauses or
    provisions in the bill that identify what is the scope of the
    commission's considerations is an important one. I think there
    can be a danger, though. It runs the slippery slope of starting
    to take broad discussion areas off the table.
        But I certainly understand that, and I think other regions
    of the Country would understand that it should be a discussion
    about not perpetuating problems but coming up with solutions
    and then suggesting them to policymakers.
        I think the bill, as currently written, does make a pretty
    strong signal about deferring to States on water quantity,
    water allocation, water diversions. I see value in clarifying
    that or strengthening it, but I do think there can be a danger
    to starting to take specific issues or areas off the table for
    a commission to consider.
        Mrs. Miller. I will take that as a definite maybe. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Mullican.
        Mr. Mullican. Well, in 1968, the State of Texas passed a
    water plan that would have in part put an interbasin transfer
    that would have diverted water perhaps out of the Mississippi,
    perhaps from as far as your part of the world, and the voters
    of Texas voted it down. And so, I think I can say that we would
    not have a problem just on the face of it with excluding the
    Great Lakes from consideration as far as water supply to Texas
    is concerned.
        But I would even go further, though, to say that based on
    the Texas experience, that I think there has to be a certain
    amount of buy-in to anything that comes out of this process for
    there to be any chance of any consideration or implementation
    by those that are responsible. I mean the local and regional
    water providers.
        As such, it seems to me that the focus of this particular
    first step is a true assessment of what and where are the
    demands and when are they going to occur and where are the
    needs because until we get that fundamental understanding of
    our water supplies, then to me you are putting the cart before
    the horse when you start worrying what are the recommendations
    for how we are going to meet our future water supply needs. You
    are making an assumption that we know what those needs are.
        I will argue, having worked with a number of States across
    the United States, that that very basic understanding does not
    exist in most States in the United States. So, first and
    foremost, there has to be some sort of assessment to understand
    what those needs are and where they are going to occur. Then
    you can think about what the potential solutions might be, but
    I really want to emphasize that putting the solutions before
    the assessment is, as Mr. Grumbles said, a very slippery slope.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
        Actually, I am out of time and, with the Chair's
    indulgence, perhaps just another 30 seconds for the other three
    to answer if you could. Thank you.
        Mr. Conrad. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I respond somewhat to some of the caveats that Assistant
    Administrator Grumbles has there about the commission being
    essentially a study group that wouldn't be empowered to
    actually make decisions.
        I am going to say, first off, the National Wildlife
    Federation is one of the staunchest supporters of the integrity
    of the Great Lakes, and we strongly support both the law that
    was passed in 1986, the compact that exists.
        In 2005, I believe it was, our organization, which has a
    kind of national legislature of affiliates, adopted a very
    strong policy view that interbasin transfers should really be
    discouraged and not allowed except under the most narrow
    circumstances. It was almost a don't do it policy, and I think
    we believe that for all the major basins.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
        Mr. Lynch?
        Mr. Lynch. Mrs. Miller, I must confess that I was born in
    Manistee on Lake Michigan, and my extended family still farms
    south of Grand Rapids.
        Mrs. Miller. I knew there was something I liked about you.
        Mr. Lynch. And so, all I can say is I experienced
    appropriations bills here, oh, for three decades from a
    gentleman by the name of Scoop Jackson who said there will be
    no transfers from the Columbia Basin to the Colorado, and
    everybody got the message.
        I hope that this commission would be able to consider your
    concerns that you have voiced today about things going on in
    the Great Lakes, but I would join Mr. Conrad. We are not
    interested in having you raided for anybody or solutions like
    that.
        The West is as paranoid about its sovereignty as you are
    about the Great Lakes, and we join you in that paranoia, and we
    will do everything we can to preserve the prerogative of the
    States in addressing these issues.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hall. [Presiding.] You are welcome, Mrs. Miller.
        Mr. Georgakakos, would you like to briefly answer the same
    question?
        Mr. Georgakakos. Thank you, yes.
        Water resources is a common good, and it is never meant to
    pit one part of the Country against another. So I would not
    support a bill that actually does that.
        But it should be a process that is the result of the
    consensus, a regional consensus, and only then if it is
    discussed democratically and is agreed upon that perhaps it is
    a solution, then it should become a bill and then we should be
    asked to vote for it.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mrs. Miller.
        You can add me to the list of people you will be lobbying
    because New York State also has a long stretch of Lake Ontario
    and little teeny bit of Lake Erie and, of course, we are
    concerned about Great Lakes water as well.
        Mr. Georgakakos, you discuss a reduction in funding for
    research and a decline in academic programs. Is this a U.S.
    problem or is this a short fall in research funding plaguing
    science globally?
        Mr. Georgakakos. I mentioned it specifically about water
    resources programs. As I said, back in the 1960s and 1970s and
    1980s, there were good programs in many universities of ours,
    but if you look now I think very few universities can claim the
    expertise that I talked about in terms of adaptive forecast
    decision methods and management.
        So somehow it is the natural consequences of actually
    moving into more finer frontiers of science and funding those
    as opposed to making sure that we maintain the integrity of our
    academic programs.
        I would say that if we are going to create solutions and
    invent solutions looking to this interdisciplinary question, we
    need to have people educating in that regard. I think this is
    the kind of funding that we need to maintain the programs and
    have the people that are going to find the solutions.
        Technology is not going to do it by itself. It is the
    people that are going to put things together. I am worried that
    without this funding we are just putting ourselves in the
    situation that we cannot do that.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you.
        Mr. Grumbles, you mentioned in your testimony high
    efficiency toilets as a concrete or a ceramic way to make an
    immediate impact. I noticed on a recent trip to Israel that all
    of the toilets there had two buttons, the little button and the
    big button, and I think most people in the United States can
    figure out which was the one to hit.
        Is this something that you think the American public would
    accept and the Administration would look kindly on as a
    mandate, if I dare use that word?
        Mr. Grumbles. I don't think we would accept a mandate. The
    Administration feels that the most successful approach is to
    encourage the market to develop innovative, sustainable
    solutions.
        Our WaterSense is certifying. We have certified and given
    the WaterSense high efficiency label to over 80 different types
    of toilets now, and some of those are the dual flush toilets.
    We leave it to the consumer to choose.
        We see and want to encourage products like that that work
    well and save water and save money on the energy bills for
    utilities, to continue to use those. So the dual flush toilets
    are one of many exciting innovative technologies that are
    really taking hold and there is an increasing use of dual flush
    toilets.
        Mr. Hall. Excuse me for interrupting you because we have
    votes called and I only have a couple minutes, but I just
    wanted to ask you if the combination of public outreach and
    incentives are, in your opinion, working enough to make this
    change?
        Mr. Grumbles. Right now, the law is 1.6 gallons per flush
    or less for toilets. What we are focused on is trying to
    increase the efficiency of that to 1.28 through incentives and
    encouragements, and we see that the marketplace will drive more
    and more consumes voluntarily to use those dual flush and other
    truly high efficiency toilets.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you.
        I wanted to ask the question, and it bears on Mrs. Miller's
    question about certain regional concerns but also on the
    regional supply of renewable energy that could be used for
    desalinization or for water purification.
        Now an Israeli company, Solel, which is currently building
    a photovoltaic in the Mojave Desert to supply electricity for
    about 400,000 homes in partnership with PG&E. The nice thing
    about solar, among other renewables, is that it generates
    sometimes, it doesn't at other times, but when it does you can
    use it for storage of whatever you are trying to produce, be it
    power or water.
        So I am curious of the commission, what do you foresee?
        I would ask maybe Mr. Conrad first, do you see the
    commission as studying desalinization technology and do you
    think that, for instance, in the Southwest where there is such
    an abundant supply of sunshine and also proximity to water, be
    it from the Gulf or from the Pacific, that that is a viable way
    to try to bring a new supply of water on board?
        Mr. Conrad. I believe that is the kind of forward thinking
    that a commission of this sort needs to do. It needs to look at
    technologies and mixtures of technologies that are being tried
    in other places or being tried within the United States and not
    generally known and whether they are valuable and to bring that
    forward to the Congress and to the public.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you very much.
        Thank you all for your testimony.
        We have to leave for another vote. At this time, if Mr.
    Brown and Mr. Arcuri will agree, we will ask Members to submit
    the balance of questions to the witnesses and answers will be
    taken for the record rather than having you sit here and go and
    vote for who knows how long.
        Thank you again for your testimony, and the hearing is now
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8865.064