[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