[Senate Hearing 110-312]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-312
SECURE WATER ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 2156 (SECURE WATER ACT), A BILL TO AUTHORIZE
AND FACILITATE THE IMPROVEMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT BY THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY
OF ENERGY TO INCREASE THE ACQUISITION AND ANALYSIS OF WATER-RELATED
DATA TO ASSESS THE LONG-TERM AVAILABILITY OF WATER RESOURCES FOR
IRRIGATION, HYDROELECTRIC POWER, MUNICIPAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL USES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
DECEMBER 11, 2007
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-273 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 4
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 3
D'Antonio, John, Representing Western States Water Council, Santa
Fe, NM......................................................... 23
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico............. 2
Hirsch, Robert M., Ph.D., Associate Director for Water,
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.................. 12
Johnson, Robert, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department
of the Interior................................................ 6
Lambeck, Jon C., Power Systems Manager, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA............... 35
O'Toole, Patrick, President, Family Farm Alliance, Savery, WY.... 29
Richter, Brian, Co-Director, Global Freshwater Initiative, The
Nature Conservancy, Charlottesville, VA........................ 39
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 5
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 4
Wunsch, David R., Ph.D., P.G., Representing National Groundwater
Association, Concord, NH....................................... 49
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 57
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 89
SECURE WATER ACT
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to welcome
everyone to this afternoon's hearing. We're lucky to have some
very well-qualified witnesses here to discuss water-related
challenges facing the Nation. The committee appreciates
everyone's effort to be here and to testify.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S.
2156, which is entitled the SECURE Water Act. This is a bill
that I'm sponsoring, along with Senator Domenici, Senators
Cantwell, Johnson, Salazar, and Tester. The bill would initiate
a range of Federal actions to help address water resource
issues across the country. While States and local communities
bear the primary responsibilities for allocating and managing
water, the Federal Government has a responsibility to be a
worthy partner in that effort, and the SECURE Water Act was
drafted to accomplish that objective.
Water has always been a priority in the West. Nonetheless,
the stakes are higher now than ever before as the confluence of
drought and climate change and population increases and
environmental needs are testing water managers in unprecedented
ways. Added to the mix is the increasing reliance on water
resources to help produce electricity and fuel.
Almost daily, we're seeing disturbing news reports
describing conflicts over water. These conflicts continue in
the West, as they have since the West was settled, but we're
also seeing them spread to other areas, such as the Southeast,
where drought has resulted in a heated dispute between Georgia
and Alabama and Florida over flows in the Chattahoochee River.
News is also filled with dire predictions about water supply.
For example, there are reports now forecasting significant
reductions in snowpack. Snowpack is the source of 80 percent of
stream flows in the West. Perhaps more alarming, USGS testified
before this committee in June that a majority of climate models
are in agreement that the Southwest, which is the fastest-
growing region in the country, will likely face a 20-percent to
40-percent reduction in overall water supply as a result of
global warming.
In light of these conflicts and projected uncertainty over
future water supplies, it's alarming that the funding available
for water resource programs has fallen significantly in recent
years. Accounting for inflation, total appropriations for water
infrastructure, management, restoration, and monitoring
programs at the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation,
EPA, USDA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, fell by 11 percent,
or $1.2 billion, between 2001 and 2007. If the President's 2008
budget were to be implemented, the reduction would be 19
percent, or $2.2 billion. In my view, these cuts have been ill-
advised. They have left many communities vulnerable.
Water issues are complicated, and the strategies intended
to solve them are, as well. Nonetheless, the premise of the
SECURE Water Act is simple: effectively addressing water issues
requires a better understanding of the resource and increasing
the efficiency with which water is used. For that reason, the
bill seeks to strengthen the National Stream Flow Program, to
improve groundwater monitoring efforts, to enhance an
understanding of water uses and availability, and to provide
grants to implement water conservation and efficiency projects.
It's also focused on improving our understanding of the impacts
of climate change on water and ensuring that adaptation
strategies are implemented.
So, I look forward to the testimony. I think this is
legislation that I believe will be very constructive for the
Nation, and I appreciate people being here to discuss it.
Let me defer to Senator Domenici for any opening comments
he has.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Thanks, to all of you. To the witnesses who have come from
afar to help us here today, we want to thank you very much.
I will speak about a minute.
Essentially, this legislation is an effort on our part to
put the U.S. Government in a better position of knowing what we
should know about water, water rights, water availability, and
trends in water, because we are going to authorize the study of
facts that will give us the answers to what I have just
described. There is no question in my mind that Senator
Bingaman has put his finger on the issue when he talks about
spending less money each year. I would tell him, this year in
the energy and water bill--it's not yet confirmed--we did put
more in, rather than what the President asked for. Now, we
haven't got it past muster yet, but the committee itself found
that it was time to put more in.
The U.S. Government must spend more money in the future, in
my opinion, on water--in some cases, on the water supply; in
other cases, in areas we're speaking of here--to enhance and
make better the resources that we use and the tools that we
use, to find out the facts about America's water or America's
water problems.
Thank you, Senator Bingaman. I'm on your bill, and hope we
can pass it quickly.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me just indicate, we do have some additional statements
that have been provided to the committee, commenting on this
legislation, that we will incorporate into the record today.
Of course, the full written statements of today's witnesses
will be included in the record, as well.
The first panel is made up of two witnesses that represent
the Administration: Robert Johnson, who is the commissioner of
the Bureau of Reclamation, and also Robert Hirsch, who is the
associate director for water at the U.S. Geological Survey. We
welcome both of you. If you'll go ahead and summarize your
testimony, then I'm sure each of us will have some questions.
Senator Domenici. Senator Bingaman.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by our
two Senators--if they might make a couple of----
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Domenici [continuing]. Observations.
The Chairman. No, that's fine.
Senator Craig, you go ahead, and we'll let all Senators
make comments if they want to.
Senator Domenici. Thank you, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, when you're a westerner and
you're not allowed to speak out about water, you feel a bit
frustrated, because it is all that you've just said it is, and
it's even more important than that.
I don't know that this phrase was coined in Idaho or in New
Mexico a long time ago, but the phrase goes something like
this, ``Whiskey is for drinkin', and water is for fightin'.''
That still remains a very valid statement today in a State--in
a region of our country that may even grow more arid and more
populated; and, of course, water, as you know, Mr. Chairman, is
the key to that.
So, whether it is in Santa Fe or in Boise, I'm going to
want to insist that the prior application--or appropriations
doctrine be fought out in our State capitals--and I think
you've basically said that--when it comes to allocation and
ownership.
But clearly the Federal Government has always played a
valuable role in western water issues. You're going to hear
that from Bob today, or from Dr. Hirsch here, or others; the
West would not be what it is today if it hadn't have been for
the Federal taxpayer, through the Bureau of Reclamation and
other approaches, watering the West, the arid West. We have
great concerns. Idaho is a very fast-growing State. The Idaho
Department of Water Resources is in its third week of hearings
right now over what to do. We're consulting with the best water
experts we can. Our State legislature has been involved now for
several years, wrestling over appropriation of water--who's on
first and who's on second, in other words--to try to avoid that
old argument about ``Water is for fightin'.'' But, certainly,
fights will occur, because water is the very sustenance of life
in the West as we know it.
So, I think you're most appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to push
the issue of the Federal knowledge and the Federal largesse
when it comes to helping the West shape its water future and
understanding it in a way that we might be missing.
I'm on the board of directors of the Center for the New
West, and we've held water hearings across the West, both urban
and rural, as it relates to the very issue you're concerned
about and that is reflective in S. 2156.
Thank you for the hearing today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for bringing S. 2156 forward, the SECURE Water Act.
We all know water is important, because, quite simply,
water is life. If we don't manage what we have, we're all going
to be in a lot of trouble. It is our responsibility to ensure
that the people on the ground making the management decisions
have the information they need in a format that they can
understand. You really can't manage something unless you know
how much you have, where it is, and how it changes over time.
This bill will provide State managers with the data they need
to efficiently and cost-effectively manage our Nation's water
resources.
In Montana, we understand that local and State governments
are in the best position to appropriately manage our water
resources, but that Federal support is critically important to
guarantee those State and local governments have the
information that they need.
Montana is currently suffering through it's arguably
seventh year of drought; it may be longer than that. Without a
thorough understanding of how climate change will affect our
water resources--especially the timing of precipitation and
snowmelt--Montana's already stressed farmers and ranchers, as
well as its water utilities, are sure to experience further
hardships and uncertainty.
As water is a vital, yet exhaustible, resource, a national
water-use and availability assessment is crucial to the future
prosperity of this country. It is better to find out what we
have, before we find out we don't have enough.
Montana, I'm proud to say, has been a leader in
implementing new and innovative water-management methods, such
as water trading and efficient irrigation technologies. The
funding provided in this bill will allow Montanans to more
efficiently harness those methodologies in order to promote the
wise use and conservation of our water resources.
Once again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
welcome the members of the panel. I look forward to your
testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I especially welcome Pat O'Toole here, all the way from
Savery, Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, he fought his way across I-80,
as it was closed on Saturday afternoon, to get from where he
is, in Savery, all the way across the State to get to an
airport to ultimately get to Denver and then to get here to
Washington. So, welcome, Pat. Pat served in the Wyoming
legislature a number of years before I did, but he is well
respected on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I do have some concerns with the underlying
legislation which is presented today, because, to me, this bill
is not a comprehensive analysis of water resources of the West,
but, in spite of what the title says, the bill assesses western
resources as it relates specifically to the impacts of climate
change on these resources. The language in the bill, about
collecting data, appears to be limited to the impacts of
climate change.
I have another concern, and that's the effort to establish
additional water resources. Those that I identify in the bill
specifically deal with reclamation.
I also have concerns about section 4, which establishes a
new Climate Change Adaptation Program that analyzes the changes
in water supply due to global warming on listed or candidate
endangered species.
When I look at this, I ask myself, Will proposed strategies
developed by the Federal Government, if not fully implemented,
open the door to environmental lawsuits to open up existing
habitat restoration plans? Is this section of the bill a way to
open up all these habitat recovery plans? I would submit that
we allow and help the States to develop their own comprehensive
inventories. The States could look at all factors affecting
water supply, not just the impacts of global warming on these
resources.
Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality or Wyoming's
Water Development Office have qualified individuals more than
ready to accomplish this task on behalf of our State.
The bill, as it is currently written, establishes two new
Federal panels and five new Federal grant programs at a sizable
cost to the taxpayer. In return, the concern is--from the
taxpayers of the West--is, Will they get more lawsuits and more
uncertainty for businesses, for landowners, and for local
governments? We all know there isn't adequate water in the
West. I support efforts to improve the availability of this
resource. I look forward to hearing the comments of those
testifying today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Bingaman,
chairman of the committee, and to Senator Domenici, for moving
forward with this important legislation.
Let me also just thank Patrick O'Toole, whom I happened to
serve on a national water commission many years ago, and look
forward to his testimony; Senator Barrasso, here later on
today.
From my point of view, this is a very important piece of
legislation, because when we look at our States in the West,
the Land of Enchantment in New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoming, the
State of Colorado, we know the importance of water there
perhaps more than any other place. As I often say in Colorado
when I talk about water, I say, ``Water is for fighting, and
whiskey is for drinking.'' That's the way it's done in
Colorado. So, it's important for us to look ahead at the issues
of water and the challenges that we're going to face in the
western United States, especially as we start seeing the
impacts of climate change with respect to what that means
relative to the timing of water runoff and storage and a whole
host of other things.
So, I think the assessment that is called for in this
legislation that also asks to address some of the water
management challenges that we're going to face is a timely
assessment, and I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this
legislation.
I have a full statement, Mr. Chairman, that I will just
submit to the record.
The Chairman. Very good, we'll be glad to include that in
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici for holding
this important hearing today on the SECURE Water Act. I am proud to be
a co-sponsor of this important bill, and welcome this legislative
hearing.
Climate change is a very real problem that is caused primarily the
burning of fossil fuels. This Congress has worked hard to promote clean
energy technologies that will significantly reduce the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions released to the atmosphere, and also reduce
our country's dependence on foreign oil. The energy bill Congress is
considering will ramp up domestic renewable fuel production, promote
efficiency throughout the U.S. economy and invest in groundbreaking
research designed to reduce carbon emissions. This energy bill is
critically important for our country, and I am committed to working to
find a bipartisan way forward on the energy bill.
Even if we move forward with significant increases in the use of
renewable energies, we are learning that some adaptation measures are
inevitable to reduce the harm from climate change that proves to be
unavoidable. Today's hearing is particularly important for those of us
from the Western states of the U.S. because many scientists are now
saying the American West will experience the effects of climate change
sooner and more intensely than most other regions. Our scarce snow and
water of the West is already being impacted, much of it in ways that we
do not clearly understand.
Colorado, my State, has a lot at stake when it comes to global
warming. For example, parts of my State have incredibly rich,
productive farmland that depends heavily on irrigation. The SECURE
Water Act is exceedingly important to help us increase the acquisition
and analysis of water-related data in order to assess the impacts of
climate change on the long-term availability of our water resources. It
is also important to help us understand what adaptation measures must
be planned for to ensure adequate water supplies for agricultural,
industrial, business and residential uses.
Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici, I thank you again
for holding this important hearing so that we can learn from the
experts testifying today.
The Chairman. Commissioner Johnson, why don't you go right
ahead.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman and Ranking
Member Domenici and other members of the committee. I am
pleased to be here today, along with Bob Hirsch from the U.S.
Geological Survey, to discuss S. 2156, the SECURE Water Act.
We have submitted a written statement for the record which
provides detailed comments of the Department on the bill. I
will summarize just a few highlights from that testimony.
Water is the lifeblood of the Nation and the foundation of
our economy. It is easy to forget that water is a limited
resource, particularly in some of the fastest-growing areas of
the country. The U.S. population is growing quickly in regions
of water scarcity, irrigated agriculture is changing, and our
increasing focus on biofuels will lead to significant water
needs. Additionally, climate change is predicted to change
precipitation types and amounts, runoff, and groundwater
recharge. The SECURE Water Act contains measures designed to
take proactive steps toward addressing the water challenges of
the 21st century.
Before agencies can plan for, and react to, these
variations, we need data, and that's the major consideration in
the bill before us today. Our Nation's network of stream
gauges, weather monitors, snow sensors, and soil moisture
measurements is extensive, but it will never cover every stream
of every basin in totality. S. 2156 seeks to narrow the gaps in
this data.
The Department supports the goals of S. 2156, and believes
it is a logical continuation of the work undertaken by
Secretary Kempthorne's Climate Change Task Force. The
Department also appreciates the fact that Section 5 of the bill
provides a new permanent authority for the Bureau of
Reclamation to issue water conservation grants for qualified
entities. This section would, in essence, authorize the Water
2025 Program, and is similar to authorizing legislation we
submitted to the committee as an administration proposal this
year. For the first years of this program, from 2004 to the
present, Water 2025 has been funded through annual
appropriation process. Permanent authorization would improve
the long-term effectiveness of Water 2025 by allowing eligible
entities to rely on the availability of the grants, and
therefore, to invest resources in developing potential
projects.
However, S. 2156 does contain some provisions that are of
concern to the Department. Section 4 and 6 direct the Secretary
to prepare reports describing each effect and each impact of
global climate change on operations, hydropower production, or
in major river basins. While the time is right for gathering
more data in these areas, the Department is not yet able to
recommend strategies to draw the kind of final conclusions
called for in these reports within the timeframes allowed. My
written statement expands on this further, and we'd be glad to
talk about timeframes with your staff or with you in more
detail.
Also, the Department recommends that the legislation
specifically designate the authority to enter into cooperative
agreements for research as not only limited to activities
carried out under the appropriations ceiling established by
this section, but also authority specifically for reclamation,
which is sometimes interpreted to have limited authority for
these types of grants. We think this legislation could clarify
our ability to use grants in our programs.
Finally, the Administration is concerned about the
potential cost of the bill and its impact on budget
formulation.
This concludes my remarks. I look forward to working with
the committee on this legislation, and will be pleased to
answer any questions.
[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hirsch
follows:]
Joint Prepared Statement of Robert Johnson, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, and Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water,
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici, we would like to
thank you for the opportunity to appear today to present the Department
of the Interior's views on S. 2156, a bill titled the ``Science and
Engineering to Comprehensively Understand and Responsibly Enhance Water
Act'' or the ``SECURE Water Act.'' This legislation would authorize
substantial new investments in our nation's understanding of the water
resources vital to our way of life. S. 2156 contemplates a number of
task forces, data gathering efforts, grant authorities, and assessments
prepared by key federal agencies covering many of the Nation's water
basins.
While some of the activities authorized in the legislation are
consistent with initiatives and research areas that are already being
pursued by the Department, we have strong concerns with certain parts
of this legislation. One concern is that many of the activities called
for in this bill are not in the President's budget. While some of the
bill's provisions have the potential to strengthen existing programs,
there are additional requirements in the legislation that would compete
with ongoing, high-priority Administration programs. In addition, we
note that the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) are already authorized to carry out many of the
activities provided for in this bill.
We believe, however, that many of the goals of this bill-expanding
data acquisition and analysis to improve water management and ensuring
that decisionmakers have reliable information about water resources and
climate change impacts on water availability and energy production-are
critically important. We support these goals, which are similar to
those outlined in a number of recent plans and reports issued by the
National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality
(SWAQ), and the National Research Council (NRC).
In particular, the bill tracks closely with five of the seven
elements of implementation identified by the SWAQ report, A Strategy
for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and
Quality in the United States (September 2007), which has been endorsed
by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy in their FY 09 guidance to the agencies. The areas of
congruence include calls for implementing a national water census,
developing a new generation of water-monitoring techniques, developing
and expanding technologies for enhancing reliable water supply,
improving understanding of the water-related ecosystem services and
ecosystem needs for water, and improving hydrologic prediction models
and their applications. Existing authorities are generally adequate to
pursue these activities.
In 2004, the National Research Council warned that ``[t]he
strategic challenge for the future is to ensure adequate quantity and
quality of water to meet human and ecological needs in the face of
growing competition among domestic, industrial-commercial,
agricultural, and environmental uses.'' The USGS has described a
possible approach to quantifying, forecasting, and securing freshwater
for America's future by developing a water census of the United States.
Such a census could include the status of the Nation's freshwater
resources and how they are changing, a more precise determination of
water use for human and environmental needs, the relationship of water
availability to natural and engineered storage and movement of water,
and other key issues (see Facing Tomorrow's Challenges--U.S. Geological
Survey Science in the Decade 2007-2017, USGS Circular 1309).
Water is the lifeblood of the Nation and the foundation of our
economy. It is easy to forget that water is a limited resource,
particularly in some of the fastest growing areas of the country.
Improving water security is important to our Nation's energy,
agricultural, and environmental future. The U.S. population is growing
quickly in regions of water scarcity, irrigated agriculture is moving
into new areas, and our increasing focus on biofuels will lead to
significant associated water needs. Additionally, climate change is
predicted to change evapotranspiration, precipitation types and
amounts, runoff, and ground-water recharge. The SECURE Water Act
contains measures designed to take proactive steps towards addressing
the water challenges of the 21st century. The remainder of this
statement will discuss each of the substantive sections of this bill
and discuss Administration concerns about each section, including
concerns about the need to take into account budgetary parameters.
climate change adaptation
Section 4 of the legislation authorizes a Climate Change Adaptation
Program, and requires that the Secretary report to Congress on the
effect of global climate change on each major Reclamation river basin.
Monitoring and reporting increments are all detailed in this section,
and much of it is focused on the potential effects of climate change on
Reclamation projects and developing mitigation strategies. Reclamation
testified before this Committee on June 6, 2007 regarding the widely
acknowledged need to improve the quantity and resolution of our basin-
specific data related to climate change. Existing authorities are
generally adequate for this purpose. The SECURE Water Act requires that
the Secretary collect information and provide annual reports to
``assess the effect, and the risk resulting from, global climate
change.'' While the Administration acknowledges the relevance of this
information, acquiring sufficient data to enable a comprehensive
assessment of the risk to water supplies at the basin level associated
with climate change, and then to develop and implement appropriate
mitigation strategies, is a significant challenge that would require
much more time than the one year allowed under this bill. In order to
carry out the necessary data acquisition to complete these reports, we
suggest that the 8 major river basin studies, or portions of the basins
as appropriate, could be completed in five years, and updated every
three to five years. This research and reporting activity would need to
compete among the Administration's other priorities for funding. We
also recommend that the bill make clear how it impacts basin-specific
statutes with existing obligations such as the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid
Lake Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-618.
Despite these concerns, we recognize and agree with the premise of
this section: that it is important to develop collaborative approaches
to assess the potential impacts of climate change on water supplies and
to develop strategies to address potential water shortages, conflicts,
and other impacts. Although it is widely agreed that climate change
will have significant impacts on water supplies and flood hazards,
there is a great deal of uncertainty about the nature of the change
that can be expected. Effective adaptation to these changes will depend
on better monitoring, better climatic and hydrologic models, and new
thinking about water-resource system operations. The USGS, Reclamation,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are already working together to
develop comprehensive approaches to water planning and management in a
more uncertain world. Federal agencies are also working with non-
Federal entities regarding climate change and water resource management
challenges in the United States.
water 2025 grants
Section 5 provides a new permanent authority for the Bureau of
Reclamation to issue water conservation grants for qualified entities.
This section would authorize the Water 2025 Program and is similar to
authorizing legislation we submitted to the Committee as an
administration proposal. This section would provide permanent
authorization for the Challenge Grant component of the Department of
the Interior's Water 2025 program.
Water 2025 is intended to focus attention on the reality that rapid
population growth in western urban areas, the emerging need for water
for environmental uses, and the national importance of western farms
and ranches are driving major conflicts between competing uses of
water. Water 2025 recognizes that State and local government should
play leading roles in meeting these challenges, and that the Department
of the Interior should focus its attention and existing resources on
areas where Federal dollars can provide the greatest benefits to the
West and the rest of the Nation.
Water 2025 has two purposes. First, it provides a basis for a
public discussion of the realities that face the West so that decisions
can be made at the appropriate level in advance of water supply crises.
Second, it sets forth a framework to identify the problems, solutions,
and a plan of action to focus limited resources as the Department of
the Interior works with States, Tribes, local government, and others to
meet water supply challenges.
For the first years of the program, FY 2004 through the present,
Water 2025 has been funded through the annual appropriation process.
Permanent authorization would improve the long-term effectiveness of
Water 2025 by allowing eligible entities to rely on the availability of
the grants and therefore to invest resources in developing potential
projects.
While the Department supports this provision, the requirement in
Section 5(a) contains overly proscriptive language relative to which
entities may receive the grants. The directive to provide grants only
in watersheds that have a nexus to federal Reclamation projects would
limit the flexibility of the current Water 2025 Program, and constrain
our ability to select projects that best match the Program's mandate to
remove institutional barriers to increase cooperation and collaboration
among Federal, State, Tribal, and other organizations. In the
Administration proposal, we suggested language limiting the grants to
activities ``in watersheds that have a nexus to Federal water
projects'' in Reclamation States. Federal water projects encompass a
larger number of projects than ``federal Reclamation projects,'' and
given the active role of agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs in developing water resources throughout
the West, this language is preferable to language in S. 2156 as
introduced limiting the grants to projects ``that have a nexus to
federal Reclamation projects.''
Additionally, the Department recommends that the legislation
specifically designate the authority to enter into Cooperative
Agreements for research as not limited only to activities carried out
under the appropriation ceiling established by this section. This
authority exists for almost all federal agencies, but it is not clear
whether Reclamation's authority, often contained in appropriations
bills, has general applicability. This legislation could clarify this
situation.
effect of climate change on hydroelectric power generation
Section(6)(a) tasks the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with
each Power Marketing Administration (PMA), to ``assess each effect of,
and risk resulting from, global climate change with respect to water
supplies that are required for the generation of hydroelectric power at
each Federal water project that is applicable to a Federal Power
Marketing Administration.''
While the responsibilities of transmission and marketing of federal
hydroelectric power lies with the PMA's (P.L. 95-91), hydrologic
scheduling and facility operations and maintenance still lie with
Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). There may be
some duplication of effort between DOI and the Department of Energy
given the requirements on Interior in Section 4, and Interior would
expect that much of the information generated for a Section 4 report
could be useful for the Section 6 assessments. Finally, as the nation's
first and second largest producers of hydroelectric power in the
nation, respectively, the Corps and Reclamation should be includedI in
the Section 6(a) consultations with the Secretary of Energy and the
PMAs in order to ensure a full assessment of risks to water supplies
used for federal hydroelectric generation.
climate change and water intragovernmental panel
Section 7 of the SECURE Water Act directs the Secretary to
establish and lead a climate change and water intragovernmental panel
to review the current scientific understanding of global climate change
impacts on the water resources of the United States and to develop
strategies to improve observational capabilities and expand data
acquisition to increase the reliability and accuracy of modeling and
prediction systems to benefit water managers at the Federal, State, and
local levels.
This is a commendable goal and, by directing multiple agencies to
participate, should foster coordination among the agencies and lead to
improved integration of water resources-related capabilities of the
numerous agencies with water-resources responsibilities. The Secretary
has already taken action on this front, by establishing a climate
change team, internal to DOI, to evaluate climate change science,
management, and policy issues. The proposed intragovernmental panel is
consistent with this effort and a logical next step. We suggest adding
the Secretary of Energy to the panel. In addition, the panel's efforts
should be coordinated with the work of the interagency Climate Change
Science Program. However, as we stated with respect to section 4, the
activities of this panel must compete against other programs for
funding, and under existing budget constraints the number and timing of
the reporting requirements may pose a resource and practical challenge.
usgs water data enhancement
The USGS has played an essential role in monitoring the Nation's
rivers for well over a century, providing streamflow information that
is critical for protecting life and property from floods, assessing and
allocating water resources, managing water quality, supporting
engineering design of water projects, and ensuring the safety and
enjoyment of the many people who fish and boat in the Nation's rivers
and streams. The USGS currently operates more than 7,000 streamgages
nationwide that provide daily streamflow records accessible to the
public. This national system of streamgages provides information that
is vital to water resources management throughout the country,
providing accurate measurements that protect human life, health,
welfare, and property.
We appreciate the emphasis that this legislation places on this
valuable network, for which the Administration has twice proposed
increases in the Federal funding (in the FY07 and FY08 budgets). We
have recently conducted an extensive review of the plans for the
National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), including reports by
the National Research Council and the Advisory Council on Water
Information (ACWI), and several national and regional stakeholder
meetings. Section 8(a)(1)of the proposed legislation calls for a review
of the NSIP plan. We are concerned about the additional time and
expense associated with such a review, in light of the recent
extensive, and expensive, reviews that have already been conducted. We
are also concerned that the legislation does not consider the important
role that cost-sharing plays in the funding of streamgages. We continue
to believe that cost-sharing by State and local agencies should be a
prerequisite for national funding. The lack of a cost-share requirement
would hinder efforts to meet the measurement goal identified in section
8(a)(4) of the bill, and could undermine the current cost-sharing
structure between the USGS and State and local agencies.
The SECURE Water Act requires the USGS to work with Federal, state,
and local entities to implement a systematic ground-water monitoring
program for major aquifer systems in the United States and to support
the ground-water climate response network. The USGS co-chairs the
Subcommittee on Ground Water under ACWI that was formed in January 2007
with the goal of creating a framework for ground-water monitoring
across the Nation. This effort, involving more than 60 people from the
private sector, academia, and Federal, State, and local governments, is
currently under way. If this legislation were enacted, the Secretary
would use the established ACWI mechanism to develop the plans called
for in Section 8(b). However, no new authorities are needed to move
this process forward.
The SECURE Water Act authorizes the Secretary to provide grants to
develop new methods and technologies to estimate or measure water-
resources data in a cost-efficient manner. Given the high level of
experience and capability of Federal agencies, including the USGS,
NOAA, Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, and the Agricultural
Research Service, we think that the use of grants only would be less
effective than a broader approach involving Federal agencies, academia,
and the private sector.
usgs water use and availability assessment program
It has been said that ``you can't manage what you don't measure.''
The last overall assessment of water resources for the Nation was
published by the Water Resources Council in 1978. Since that time,
dramatic changes in water availability and use have occurred as a
result of demographics, economic development, environmental issues,
technology, law, and a changing climate. Our ability to manage water in
the context of competing demands would be significantly enhanced with
an up-to-date water census that includes a national ground-water
information system, new technology that integrates surface- and ground-
water information, and better measurement that leads to better
management of water resources.
Section 9 of the SECURE Water Act directs the USGS to implement a
program to provide a more accurate assessment of the status of the
water resources of the United States; to assist in the determination of
the quantity of water that is available for beneficial uses; to
identify long-term trends in water availability; to provide a more
accurate assessment of the change in the availability of water in the
United States; and to develop the basis for an improved ability to
forecast the availability of water for future economic, energy
production, and environmental uses. This information would help us
advance from our current understanding of water availability toward a
more comprehensive, ``big picture'' assessment of available water
supplies.
Some work towards this assessment has been started pursuant to a
directive made by the House Appropriations Committee in their report
language on the FY 2002 budget. The USGS has responded to the Congress
with a plan for a comprehensive water assessment: USGS Circular 1223,
``Concepts for National Assessment of Water Availability and Use'' [see
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1223/]. It is also consistent with the
NRC report Estimating Water Use in the United States (2002), which
called for the USGS to strengthen its National Water Use Information
Program in order to maintain a comprehensive national water inventory,
help assure the Nation's water supply, and help preserve water quality
and protect ecological resources. The usefulness of this kind of
information can be seen from a pilot effort in the Great Lakes Basin to
assess how much water is in the region now, how the region is using
water, how water availability is changing, and how much water the
region can expect to have in the future. Through this pilot effort, the
USGS has published a number of products that we believe will help water
managers understand the water resources of that region, including
reports on estimates of ground water in storage, ground-water recharge
rates, lake-level variability, and historical changes in precipitation
and streamflow. We believe that this Great Lakes Basin pilot is a good
model of a water census as defined in the SWAQ report mentioned above,
A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water
Availability and Quality in the United States.
Recognizing that the goal is to develop and maintain a
comprehensive national water resource inventory, help assure the
Nation's water supply, and help preserve water availability and protect
water resources, we would be pleased to work with the Committee to
refine this section in order to put together a program that is fiscally
sustainable and appropriately integrated with State and local efforts.
conclusion
In conclusion, the Department is currently pursuing many of the
goals of this legislation, which include enhancing our understanding of
our Nation's water resources and encouraging collaborative efforts to
improve water management. While some of the actions authorized in the
SECURE Water Act have the potential to strengthen the Nation's ability
to address water-related challenges beyond activities currently
underway, funding requests for new activities will have to compete with
other high-priority programs for funds. We also have concerns with the
specific language in the bill, particularly relating to the need for
consistent terminology usage and definition of key terms that may be
defined differently in other environmental and natural resources
statutes. We have identified several other areas in which technical
changes may be needed. We would be happy to work with the Committee to
revise the bill to address our concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 2156. The Department
looks forward to working with the Committee to advance the objectives
described in the bill.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Hirsch.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. HIRSCH, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
WATER, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hirsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I'm Dr. Robert Hirsch, associate director for water
at the U.S. Geological Survey. I'm happy to be here today, with
my colleague Bob Johnson, to provide the views of the USGS on
the SECURE Water Act.
The goals of the bill are vital to the Nation's future.
Similar goals are outlined in reports issued recently by the
National Research Council, the Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality of the National Science and Technology
Council, and by the USGS. Managing our water resources in a
sustainable manner is crucial to our economy and to our
environment, and a strong base of science is crucial to
sustainable water management.
As we plan for the coming decades, we must consider not
only stresses from population growth and new needs of water for
agriculture and energy, but also from--due to changes in
climate. I am pleased to say that the USGS and Reclamation,
along with the Corps of Engineers and NOAA, are working
together to identify best practices for managing our water
resources in the face of the additional uncertainty of climate-
change impacts.
The USGS has played an essential role in monitoring the
Nation's rivers for well over a century. In fact, the first
efforts at stream gauging were conducted by the USGS is 1888,
at Embudo, New Mexico, on the Rio Grande River. Our second
director, John Wesley Powell, recognized that, in order to
develop and manage the resources of the West, we had to have
sound scientific knowledge of that, and he began that process
in New Mexico, at Embudo.
Providing stream flow information for protecting--provides
information for protecting life and property from floods,
assessing and allocating water resources, managing water
quality, supporting engineering design, and ensuring safe and
enjoyable recreation on the Nation's rivers and streams.
The USGS operates more than 7500 stream gauges nationwide,
in cooperation with over 800 State and local partners, to
provide daily streamflow data accessible to the public. We are
pleased to see that the SECURE Water Act specifically points to
the National Stream Flow Information Program. This program has
enjoyed strong support from the Administration and Congress in
the last two budget cycles, helping to stabilize and modernize
this vital monitoring system.
The SECURE Water Act calls on the USGS to work with
Federal, State, and local entities to implement a systematic
national groundwater monitoring program. Monitoring the
changing status of our Nation's aquifers is crucial to sound
water management. Through the Subcommittee on Groundwater that
was formed in January of this year under the Advisory Committee
on Water Information, the USGS is working with more than 60
people from the private sector, academia, and Federal, State,
and local governments to develop a framework for enhanced
monitoring and data-sharing that draws on the talents of
Federal, State, and local agencies.
It has been said that you can't manage what you don't
measure. The last assessment of the Nation's water resources
was published in 1978. Since then, dramatic changes in water
availability and use have occurred as a result of demographics,
economic development, environmental issues, technology, law,
and a changing climate. Our ability to manage water in the
context of competing demands would be significantly enhanced
with an up-to-date water census that includes improved
information on water use, surface water, and groundwater.
Managing water in a sustainable manner has to start with
knowledge of the resource and knowledge of--about how it is
being used.
I am pleased to report that efforts toward the kind of
water use and availability assessment program called for in
Section 9 of this bill has already begun. The USGS has
developed a plan for such an assessment, and a pilot effort is
underway in the Great Lakes Basin. We believe that this is a
good model for a national water census.
In conclusion, I would say that in 2004 the National
Research Council warned, and I quote, ``The strategic challenge
for the future is to ensure adequate quantity and quality of
water to meet human and ecological needs in the face of growing
competition among domestic, industrial, commercial,
agricultural, and environmental issues,'' end quote. The SECURE
Water bill is an important step toward addressing that
challenge, and the Department of the Interior is already
pursuing many of the goals of the legislation; however, we note
that the funding for these activities would have to compete
with other high-priority Administration programs for funds.
In our written statement, we have also noted a few concerns
with specific language in the bill, and we'd be pleased to work
with the committee to revise the bill to address those
concerns.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present
this testimony, and I'm happy to respond to questions that you
or other members of the committee may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me start with a
couple of questions.
Mr. Johnson, let me start with you. I believe in your
testimony, you refer to Reclamation's Water 2025 Program. This
would be authorized under Title 5 of this bill that we're
talking about here. You make reference to the fact that it has
been funded on a year-to-year basis up until now. Could you
give us some indication as to the extent of the applications
for grants under this program? What has been the amount of
demand? How much of it have you been able to meet with your
available funds? Anything else you can tell us about the
progress that you've made with this Reclamation Water 2025
Program?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, Senator. Water 2025 has been a very
successful program. It's gained a lot of interest throughout
the West. We do have a lot of competition. It's a challenge
grant program, where water districts--West-wide, not just
Reclamation districts, but other water entities, as well--
submit applications for proposals for water conservation
projects. We review those applications and grant loans of up
to--or, not loans, but make grants of up to $300,000 to assist
in implementing those projects.
We've had, you know, around 100 applications on an annual
basis. I think we've--and I can't remember the exact number. If
we could fully fund all of those applications, it would
require, on average, about $30 million. Our funding levels have
been in the $5 to $10 million range. This past year, 2007, I
think, was the highest funding level we had, which was $11
million for the Water 2025 Program. So, it's a very popular
program. It does a lot of good things, in terms of conserving
water on the ground in a relatively short period of time. The
language here could certainly boost our efforts in that
program.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hirsch, let me ask you, this National Stream Flow
Information Program, as I understand it, was intended to create
a base nationwide stream gauge network that was to be funded
100 percent by the Federal Government, or at least that was my
understanding. Your written testimony states that the stream
gauges under the NSIP program should be cost-shared rather than
federally funded. Is that a change in position, what's your
explanation on that?
Mr. Hirsch. No, Senator, there's no change in position.
Perhaps just some of the vagaries of our interpretation of some
of the language of the bill may have resulted in that.
I think what we were trying to express was the fact that
stream-gauging--the whole stream-gauging activity of the United
States Geological Survey is very much currently funded on a
cost-share basis. In fact, more than half of the money that is
used in this effort comes from 800 other State--800 State and
local agencies, plus other Federal agencies. We are trying to
build what we are calling a national backbone network in this
National Stream Flow Information Program that would be
federally funded, and we continue to take that position and
have been working in that direction. I think our point was
simply that, in considering the entire enterprise of stream-
gauging on a national basis, which is currently about a $120-
million-a-year enterprise, that there is a very, very important
role for cost-sharing, in that it drives all of us to be very
efficient and to work with the needs of people like State
engineers and other officials. But our goal for this backbone
network, in fact, is for it to be federally funded.
The Chairman. All right. Why don't I stop with that.
Senator Domenici, go ahead.
Senator Domenici. I'll yield to Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Pete.
A couple of questions of you, Bob. Certainly, Dr. Hirsch,
you can chime into this. For about 100 years, Idaho and western
States watered themselves. By the time most of the great
projects of the Bureau of Rec and others were completed, most
arid western States had substantially more water inside their
boundaries than they had historically had under just stream
flow and no storage.
Of course, it's become persona non grata today to even
suggest new impoundments. Yet, we know that in some areas if
you simply added a couple of feet to the top of an existing
reservoir, you could double the size or the capacity of a given
reservoir, because of--you know better than anyone else, that's
where the greater water storage capability is. There are even
some off-main-stem-type basins that certainly could provide
additional water.
When I look at the State of Idaho, for example, and I look
at our historic needs, both human and agricultural, versus our
new needs, versus the demands downstream--by the Endangered
Species Act--of fish, primarily in the salmon--the salmon-type
species of fish in the Snake and the Columbia system, it isn't
a matter of just reshaping our existing water in a more arid
environment, it is the possibility of getting more water.
Then I add the equation of energy in. Let's say, down the
road a few years, Idaho decides to build a nuclear reactor.
Those require a substantial amount of energy. If that new
reactor is a new reactor--meaning, a new generation high-
temperature gas reactor that could make hydrogen--that would be
through the electrolysis of water. All new energy-related
sources, be they the synthetics, ethanol--corn or cellulosic--
all require substantial amounts of water. Is the Bureau of
Reclamation--or, dare the Bureau of Reclamation even think
about new water when we are so busy scurrying around trying to
manage an even scarcer water supply to a much broader demand?
Mr. Johnson. Certainly, there are lots of new demands for
water out there, and there's certainly a lot of change--or a
lot of concern about the impacts climate change may have on
that water in the future. I think there are a broad range of
tools that the Bureau of Reclamation, along with other State
and local agencies, ought to be considering to meet those
demands, and water conservation, water reuse, water transfers
in markets where you package them in ways that protect
traditional rural values, and, certainly in cases, new
infrastructure may, in fact, be an appropriate way to address
future water needs. I think it depends on the basin, it depends
on the alternatives that are out there, and the individual
circumstances that may exist. So, certainly I think that's an
alternative. In various parts of the country, storage is being
looked at fairly optimistically. State of California, for
example, Governor Schwarzenegger and the State legislature are
looking at a $9 billion water bond. A fairly significant amount
would go toward actually building new storage in that State.
So, there are areas where that's certainly a consideration, and
ought to be part of what we look at when we look at the whole
toolbox on how we should manage our water supplies.
Senator Craig. Good.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
continue along those same lines.
I don't know if you can speak for Montana, specifically,
but generally in the West would you say that there is enough
storage to take care of the needs? You know, our snowpacks are
melting off quicker, and our irrigation season is shorter, in
particular. That is what I'm talking about.
Mr. Johnson. In some areas, there's probably as much
storage as can reasonably be built and justified. I mean,
depending on how much storage is there and what the annual
stream flow might be, it may or may not make sense to add
additional storage to take care of needs. I think, in most
places of the West, there is concern about there being enough
water supply to meet all the demands.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Johnson. So, certainly there's a concern about future
water supplies and being able to meet those demands.
Senator Tester. Have you done any estimates as to how much
storage we'd have to build, on a percentage basis, to meet
future demand?
Mr. Johnson. No. No.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Johnson. Not on any kind of a West-wide basis.
Senator Tester. All right. 2025, you talked about, $11
million is your highest funding level. How many States is that
program in right now?
Mr. Johnson. Seventeen.
Senator Tester. Are they all in the West?
Mr. Johnson. All in the West, yes.
Senator Tester. OK. You might have said it already, but
refresh my memory, how much would it be for that to be fully
funded, was that 30 million?
Mr. Johnson. $30 or $40 million has been the amount of the
applications that have been submitted, yes.
Senator Tester. OK.
Dr. Hirsch, you talked about the last evaluation, done in
1978. Did that include rivers, streams, and aquifers?
Mr. Hirsch. It did include all of them, although it's a--
its look at groundwater was quite limited at that time, and
groundwater development has moved rather rapidly since that
time.
Senator Tester. Did it give you enough information, where
if a new evaluation was done, you could make some pretty
informed decisions as to how quickly the aquifers are being
depleted and what it would take to change that?
Mr. Hirsch. That particular study would probably not shed
very much light on that, although I think there are studies
that have been done in the intervening years, such as our
analysis of the high plains aquifer, as an example, where we
track, every couple of years, what the changes in storage are
in that aquifer. It's quite varied, from one system to another,
what is our state of knowledge about how much water is in
storage and what the impacts are of the changes in storage that
are occurring.
Senator Tester. Could you say, generally, overall, that the
aquifers are being depleted quicker than they're being
recharged?
Mr. Hirsch. There are many aquifers that are being
depleted, having a net depletion in--not only in the West, but
in many other parts of the country, as well.
Senator Tester. OK. Is there an opportunity--or, is it a
viable option, I should say, to artificially recharge aquifers?
Mr. Hirsch. Yes. I think this speaks to the previous
question about storage. Artificial recharge and something
called ``aquifer storage and recovery,'' which is really a
subset of that, are quite viable tools, and we are very
actively engaged in study of a number of those systems, working
with State and local governments to determine how useful they
are. The whole idea of storage, whether it's surface water or
groundwater, is to take water from a wet season or a wet year
and hold it over in storage to use in a dry season or a dry
year. All of these systems have their drawbacks. We know some
of the drawbacks of surface water storage, in terms of what it
can do to the biota, as well as the evaporative losses that
come from surface water storage. Groundwater storage isn't
perfect, and there are losses, and there are energy costs
associated with it, but it can be an effective method of
storing water from wet years or wet season into dry years.
Senator Tester. Are there negative environmental impacts
with artificial recharge?
Mr. Hirsch. I would say not significant ones. I think there
are--when the water is to be used for drinking water, I think
there are some questions that need to be carefully examined,
particularly with the injection of chlorinated water, because
of the potential formation of trihalomethanes. But I would also
point out that in--particularly in southern California, those
water agencies, such as Orange County and others, have been
using these approaches for quite a number of years, and are
producing very, very high-quality water. So, in southern
California, these methods have been put to use quite
effectively, and, I would say, with little significant
environmental impact.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Domenici, did you want to go ahead
now, or Senator Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, if I could, in reading your testimony, it
seems that you believe that the Bureau of Reclamation is
already authorized to carry out many of the activities provided
for in the bill. You may want to comment on that a little bit
more and tell me if you believe this provides good value for
taxpayers.
Mr. Johnson. We do have existing authorities. We have a
general authority in the Reclamation Authorizing Act that can
be--the original organic act--that could be interpreted to
authorize these kinds of activities. There was another act,
back in the 1940s--and I don't have the specific cite on it,
but I could get it for you--that authorized research related to
reclamation projects, in general.
Aside from that, we do have individual authorizations for
reclamation projects, and many of those provide authority for
operating and maintaining our facilities, and looking at the
operation of our facilities, and certainly those authorities, I
think, could be used to support, on a project-by-project basis,
these kinds of--these kinds of activities.
So, we do have existing authorities. I think that this bill
does, however, focus the authority, and provides, maybe in one
place, some fairly specific direction from Congress, from doing
those kinds of--these kinds of climate-related research, how do
we operate our projects, what kinds of water basins ought to we
be looking at, and those sorts of things. So, I think there's
some helpful parts of this bill that does add to our authority.
Senator Barrasso. From the standpoint of the taxpayers and
value for their money, how do you think this stacks up, Mr.
Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I think, you know, it's always a struggle to
get the right balance in the budget process, and certainly
those are part of the concerns that we expressed in our
testimony, is that there's concerns about what, ultimately, the
impact of the bill might be on the budget. So, I think it
depends on the magnitude of the funding. Certainly, we're
funding some of these activities already. To the extent that we
increase the funding for these kinds of activities, they'll
have to be prioritized in the context of the broader budget,
and that's really the struggle we have is, What is the right
mix of priorities? Certainly, this is important, but I think it
really becomes a question of degree.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Domenici, did you have questions for
these two witnesses, or should we go to the second panel?
Senator Domenici. We have a Senator over there.
The Chairman. Oh. Senator Salazar. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I
thought you had had a chance.
Senator Salazar. I might have had one, but I want another
one.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We'll give you multiple chances. Go ahead.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman.
Commissioner Johnson and Dr. Hirsch, my question to you is,
How, from the perspective of your two agencies, are you
anticipating what many of the water agencies across the West
are already doing? That is, taking a look at climate change and
what that's going to do with respect to their water supply.
Just looking at the note from the Denver Water Board, which
both of you know well, in Colorado, the Denver Water Board has
estimated that a 2-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature
would cause a 6-percent increase in the demand for water. OK,
so, 2-temperature-degree increase, 6-percent increase in demand
for water, and a 12-percent decrease in water supply. So, as
this major entity in my State is doing its water supply
planning for the 2 million people served by the Denver Water
Board, they're taking these parameters into account, and most
water agencies across the West are starting to do that. Some of
them are further along than others. How, within your respective
two agencies, are you doing something that is similar and more
coherent on a national scale?
Mr. Hirsch. Thank you for that question. The subject of
climate change is one that we, in fact, in the water programs
of the USGS, have been actively engaged in working on for
nearly two decades. Many of the studies that have looked at the
changes, for example, in the timing of stream flow, the fact
that runoff is occurring earlier in the year, we have less
snowpack storage, that these were works that--work that we
accomplished in the USGS, both in the east and the western
United States. We've also done a great deal of work on
paleoclimate, understanding the climate of the last several
hundred years and those kinds of variations, and understanding
the underlying natural variability of climate, which is
extremely important to look at.
I think--we're also working closely with our partners, the
key two most important operating agencies in water resources at
the Federal level, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps
of Engineers. In fact, we have a small group that's beginning
to work on what we're calling a paper on best practices for
looking at how to operate in this more uncertain world that we
live in.
I would just want to say--and we also work with the global
climate modeling community on the hydrologic aspects of the
global climate models. In fact, one of our scientists testified
before this committee----
Senator Salazar. If I may, Dr. Hirsch----
Mr. Hirsch. Yes.
Senator Salazar [continuing]. What I'm----
Mr. Hirsch. Let me----
Senator Salazar [continuing]. What I'm trying to get to,
though--and part of it is support of this bill, because I think
what----
Mr. Hirsch. Right.
Senator Salazar [continuing]. This bill is trying to do is
to give us some coherency, in terms of----
Mr. Hirsch. Right.
Senator Salazar [continuing]. How we move forward. Right
now, I know, you're working with the Bureau of Reclamation,
with the Army Corps of Engineers, and looking at the issue of
climate change. But, from your point of view as the director of
USGS, do you think we have that coherent plan, moving forward,
making this assessment, that you could present to this
committee, present to those of us who have an interest? I would
ask the same of you, Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Hirsch. I would say this, that I think that the status
of the science of climate change and its impacts on water is
still really in its infancy, and that ability to predict the
specific consequences in specific parts of the country is still
very limited, and we need to recognize that. In fact, I think
the study of climate is one of learning about a lot of
surprises----
Senator Salazar. Let me have Commissioner Johnson have a
few seconds to respond.
Mr. Johnson. We're doing lots of things related to climate
change. We have partnerships with a lot of universities and
research agencies, partnerships with other government agencies.
We're trying to get more specific data on a basin-by-basin
basis, which I think is what this bill is, kind of, asking us
to do, is--it's identified basins, and saying we ought to get
more research in those basins on climate change. In fact, that
is something that we're trying to do. I think it's good
direction for Congress to tell us to do that. I think it's
something that we're already doing.
I agree with Dr. Hirsch, it's complicated. We have broad
climate models that are giving us indications on a broad
regional basis. But getting that down to specific basins is
very complicated and requires time and effort, and it's
something that we're currently working on.
So, yes, we have a plan, and yes, this one is very similar
to many of the things that we're already doing, what's being
offered in the bill.
Senator Salazar. I take it----
Mr. Hirsch. If I could----
Senator Salazar. I take it from your testimony that our
bill would be helpful in moving that whole effort along.
Let me just make a quick comment, because I only have 20
seconds left here. In my view, Chairman Bingaman and Senator
Domenici and my members--my colleagues on this committee--it
seems to me that, when you take a look at the last time when
this kind of water assessment was done, 1978, that was 30 years
ago, and I know that, in each of our respective States, there
are huge things that have changed in that 30-year period, in
how we manage the integration of surface water supplies and
groundwater, how we deal with new water efficiency measures,
how we institutionalize new water-sharing arrangements between
agriculture and municipal uses. There has been a huge change
taking place with respect to water and water supply management
in the West. I think that a 30-year passage of time makes it
imperative for us to really move forward and to support this
legislation which you have introduced.
The Chairman. Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, first let me say, to my
friend from Colorado, thank you for your questions and focusing
in the way you have. To our new Senator from Wyoming, I'm sure
that you handle your work as a U.S. Senator in exactly the same
way you handled your work as a surgeon, because you do come
here prepared, and I assume your life has been one where you
don't go unprepared to do your work. You will find that many of
us go unprepared. If you haven't made that observation yet, you
are less astute than I think. The reason I wait til the end is
so I can learn from all of you, so I can ask something
intelligent, because I have been too busy to work very hard on
this. I am now getting a little excited, so I'll ask a couple
of questions. Thank you.
Dr. Hirsch, Mr. Johnson, we're getting down to the point
where--just like almost every other committee that has any big
environmental authority--this issue of climate change haunts
us, because we are haunted as representatives of our people, by
the people talking and whispering and wondering about what it
means. I gathered, from what you've just said, that neither of
you would feel uncomfortable if we passed this bill. Of course,
we have to modify it here and there--after the hearing. But
neither of you would feel uncomfortable, both of you are
indicating that, to the extent that you have capacity now to
measure global warming and its impacts, you are trying to do
that in your respective jurisdictions. Is that correct? Both of
you. Let's start with you, Dr. Hirsch.
Mr. Hirsch. Yes, we certainly are. I think the--we make a
lot of measurements of surface water and groundwater. The
tricky part is understanding what's the signal, if you will,
that's coming from natural variability, the signal that's
coming from effects of humans on the landscape--say, in
developing groundwater--and the signal that's coming from
climate change. We continue to work on it, and we're learning,
all the time. But it's a subject that demands continuing
attention.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, yes, it's something that we are working
on----
Senator Domenici. OK.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. No question about it.
Senator Domenici. So, now, it seems to me that the question
that we have to know is, Do you think that you should do more
in this area, and that we should be considering giving you more
to do this work with, or do you feel comfortable, as the chief
professionals in your fields? I know, Dr. Hirsch, you're not in
charge, but you're second in charge of what is clearly the
world's best at what it does. I'm not sure, Director Johnson,
what that bodes for you, excepting we know that we have nobody
to look to for many other things, other than your Department.
Now, having said that, do you feel you need more to be able
to do more, or are we on the right path, and do you have the
resources and the agreements with other agencies and
departments to be doing this monitoring on climate change?
Dr. Hirsch.
Mr. Hirsch. That's a lot of aspects to that question that
we could go into, and you ended up by mentioning monitoring.
Senator Domenici. Be simple.
Mr. Hirsch. OK. I would say that we're very concerned, when
it comes to monitoring, with the continuity of the monitoring.
One of the reasons for this National Stream Flow Information
Program, which is a part of this bill, is that we have found,
in the last couple of decades, that long-term stream gauges
that really are one of our best indicators of climate from a
water perspective, that we have to shut many of them down
because of lack of funding from our partners or from our own
budget. In the last couple of years, each year--we've shut down
about 100 of them each year for that reason. It is for that
reason that the Administration has come forward with proposed
increased. In fact, the Congress has even gone beyond what the
Administration has proposed to make sure that we're able to
keep the continuity of that monitoring going. We also believe
that we need to build that long-term record in groundwater,
which we don't have in surface water today. So, those are a
couple of considerations.
Senator Domenici. Right. Very good.
Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. There's always more that we can do. We're
doing, I think, a reasonable amount now to be looking at
climate change. I do believe that there is more. I think this
bill helps focus in a single authority and provide direction
from Congress on what we would do. I come back to the
limitations that we talked about in our testimony, and we
always have to find the right balance in the budget. But,
certainly, this is a high priority and is something that we do
need to be focusing on and putting resources on.
Senator Domenici. Thanks to both of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Craig. One last question, if I might?
The Chairman. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. It is consistent with what you said in your
opening comments, Mr. Chairman.
Are either of you working with our national laboratories,
at this moment, that are out, many of them, in the West and in
the arid West? I know that they all have projects in relation
to future energy demands and water consumption. Is there a
relationship there at all? If there isn't, I am one who
believes there ought be.
Mr. Hirsch. Let me comment on--and this committee, I think,
sponsored the legislation a few years ago, and the common term
we use for it is the water/energy nexus, and looking at that
relationship. That effort is being led up at Sandia National
Labs. Many of our scientists have participated in that
exploration of that water/energy nexus, and, in fact, I'm a
member of the steering committee of the group that's putting
that picture together. So, it's an important issue, and we are,
in fact, engaged with the National Labs on that topic.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. We are, as well, as long--along with a lot of
other academic institutions, universities, Scripps Institute;
so, very much using that resource.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
The Chairman. OK. Thank you all very much.
Why don't we move to Panel 2. We have a vote in about 17
minutes, so why don't we ask the second panel to come forward.
While they're coming forward, I'll indicate who's on the panel.
John D'Antonio, who's our State engineer in New Mexico, is
here, representing the Western States Water Council, in Santa
Fe, and we appreciate him being here. Jon Lambeck is the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
representative here, from Los Angeles. David Wunsch is here
representing the National Groundwater Association, from
Concord, New Hampshire. Patrick O'Toole is with the Family Farm
Alliance, in Savery, Wyoming, and we appreciate Patrick being
here. Brian Richter is with The Nature Conservancy, from
Charlottesville, Virginia, and we appreciate him being here.
Let me just start with John, over on the left, and just
proceed across the panel there. If each of you could take 5
minutes or so, and summarize the main points, we'll include
your full statement in the record. We, again, appreciate your
being here.
John, why don't you go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF JOHN D'ANTONIO, REPRESENTING WESTERN STATES WATER
COUNCIL, SANTA FE, NM
Mr. D'Antonio. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and members of the
committee. My name's John D'Antonio. I'm the State engineer for
the State of New Mexico, and today I'm representing the Western
States Water Council.
The Western States Water Council is affiliated with the
Western Governors Association. I'll refer to things in my
testimony. When I say WGA, it's Western Governors Association.
The Council supports enactment of Senate bill 2156, the
SECURE Water Act. This bill addresses many needs identified in
the June 2006 WGA water report, entitled ``Water Needs and
Strategies for a Sustainable Future.'' The WGA report
recommendation 2A calls for a summary of existing uses, ground
and surface water supplies, and anticipated future demands.
There is now not sufficient water data for a firm foundation
for decisionmaking. This bill authorizes a National Water Use
and Availability Assessment Program to provide better
information and identify trends in use and availability.
Section 9 includes grants to assist States in developing
needed datasets and data bases. The WGA report 2A also suggests
State and Federal agencies should increase funding for basic
data gathering, as well as find ways to reduce costs to gather
and distribute data.
Section 8 authorizes a USGS Water Data Enhancement Program
that includes an expanded National Stream Flow Information
Program and Systematic National Groundwater Resources
Monitoring Program. The Council strongly supports expanding the
current Stream Gauging Program. It is increasingly evident that
there is often not sufficient data to support conjunctive State
administration and management of surface and ground waters.
The bill also directs the USGS to identify significant
brackish U.S. aquifers. Waters of impaired quality can offer an
effective alternative to traditional supplies.
Section 8 also authorizes grants to develop new
methodologies, technologies to cost-efficiently estimate or
measure water resources data, such as stream flows, groundwater
storage, precipitation, evapotranspiration, water withdrawals,
return flows, and consumptive use, as well as improved data
standards and methods of analysis.
I'd like to highlight the current use of Landsat to promote
sensing and thermal infrared imaging--it's known as TIR--for
monitoring and--evapotranspiration and calculating consumptive
agricultural uses. This type of applied research and technology
is something that should be supported, and is supported in this
bill. Unfortunately, the joint USGS-NASA program is threatened
by a failure to fund a TIR instrument on Landsat 8, due to be
launched in 2011. Again, we'll lose all capabilities if that
happens. We should not lose this valuable tool for present and
future water management, while authorizing research for, and
development of, other unknown possibilities.
We appreciate the interest of the chairman and other
members of the committee in this issue, and urge you to support
appropriations language directing NASA to immediately begin
work to design and produce a TIR instrument for Landsat 8.
The WGA report 2A says we should explore ways to promote
water conservation and greater water use efficiency, better
manage demand, reuse water, and use water banking and water
transfers to maximize existing water supplies.
Section 5 of that bill authorizes a Reclamation Water
Management Improvement Program to provide financial assistance
to non-Federal entities to help conserve water, facilitate
water markets, and enhance water and watershed management in
areas with a nexus to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation projects
or to address climate-related impacts. We support continuing
activities under Reclamation's Water 2025 Challenge Grants and
Field Services Program and the Bridging the Headgate
Partnership, which is intended to promote both on- and off-farm
management improvements.
WGA report 2A calls for a focus on grassroots watershed
approaches to water supply-and-demand management problems, to
find solutions. The assistance of--authorized by the bill will
be a welcome addition to our toolbox.
WGA report 3B suggests that the Congress should increase
appropriations from the Reclamation Fund, as we would urge the
committee to use the Reclamation Fund for appropriate purposes
and programs authorized by this bill.
WGA report 2B recommends we use our existing research
capabilities at State universities to focus on promising
applied technologies, to improve water data acquisition, water
treatment, and water energy efficiency.
Section 5 of the bill also authorizes cooperative
agreements with any university, nonprofit research institution,
and other organizations to fund such research.
The WGA water report highlights the need to prepare for the
impacts of increasing climate variability and change on water
resources, focusing on vulnerabilities, building resiliency,
monitoring and assessing future supplies, improving our
predictive capabilities, and mitigating anticipated impacts.
This needs to be done at the watershed level in the context of
current planning under various climate change and impact
scenarios, which requires modeling at a finer scale.
Section 4 of the bill establishes a Reclamation Climate
Change Adaptation Program to assess risks to water resources
and develop mitigation strategies to address shortages.
Section 7 creates a Climate Change and Water Intra-
Governmental Panel to review the science and develop ways to
better forecast water availability impacts.
Section 6 mandates hydroelectric power assessment of the
effects of climate change on power production.
I wish to express our appreciation for the recognition of
Senate bill 2156, that States bear the primary responsibility
and authority for managing water resources, and its provisions
requiring Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with State
water agencies. Moreover, the bill states, ``Nothing in this
Act preempts or affects any (a) State water law, or (b)
interstate compact governing water.'' It also directs the
Secretary to comply with applicable State water laws.
We recommend the committee, its members and staff, for
their initiative--or, we commend the committee--and look
forward to working together toward passage and implementation
of legislation to address our pressing current and future water
needs.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. D'Antonio follows:]
Prepared Statement of John D'Antonio, Representing Western States Water
Council, Santa Fe, NM
introduction
My name is John D'Antonio, the New Mexico State Engineer, and I am
representing the Western States Water Council (WSWC), whose members are
appointed by the Governors of eighteen states. We are an advisory body
on water policy issues affiliated with the Western Governors'
Association (WGA).
The Council supports enactment of the SECURE Water Act, introduced
by the Chairman, Senator Bingaman (and cosponsored by Senators
Cantwell, Domenici, Johnson, Salazar and Tester). The stated purposes
of S. 2156 are to: (1) increase water use efficiency; (2) expand data
acquisition and analysis of the Nation's water; and (3) enhance the
understanding of climate change impacts on water availability and
energy production in the U.S.
Specifically, we support the financial assistance to non-federal
entities for water-use efficiency improvements, enhanced spending
authority for USGS streamgaging activities, a ground water monitoring
system, brackish water study, new methods to estimate and measure water
use, a national water use and availability assessment, establishment of
a intra-governmental panel on climate change and water resources, a
Reclamation Climate Change Adaptation Program, and a hydroelectric
power assessment given the potential effects of climate change.
The bill addresses many of the needs identified in the June 2006
WGA Water Report, ``Water Needs and Strategies for a Sustainable
Future,'' which was prepared by the Council and adopted by the
governors.
Over the past year and a half, in cooperation with western
governors, western water state officials, federal agency
representatives and many stakeholders, we have been working to
implement and refine the recommendations in the WGA Water Report. The
report recognizes that the means to meet our future needs will need to
come from a variety of sources, and that federal, state and local
partnerships are one way to leverage limited budgets and staff. We must
face our future water resources challenges together.
S. 2156 authorizes additional programs and spending to help meet
some of the challenges related to ensuring we have sufficient supplies
of water of suitable quality to meet the future demands related to our
increasing population, economic growth, food, fiber and energy
production, as well as environmental and recreational uses.
One of the first challenges is to better identify and quantify our
existing uses, our anticipated future needs, and available supplies.
This is a monumental task. As the Council has consulted with our member
states, it has become evident that there is not now sufficient
information available to provide a comprehensive and firm foundation
for future decisionmaking.
The WGA Report Recommendation 2A states that--A west-wide summary
of existing water uses, water plans and planning efforts, current
ground and surface water supplies, and anticipated future demands
should be developed, then trends and common themes identified and
evaluated. This summary should address both consumptive and non-
consumptive uses and demands.
S. 2156 authorizes a National Water Use and Availability Assessment
Program. The Secretary of Interior, acting through the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and ``in coordination with . . . State and local water
resource agencies,'' is to undertake a program to provide better
information on water resources and identify trends in use and
availability, as well as help forecast water availability for future
economic, energy production and environmental needs. USGS is also to
maintain a national inventory on water, and provide grants to States to
enable locally-generated data to be integrated with national datasets.
We strongly support and are particularly interested in the
provisions under Section 9 for grants to State water resource agencies
to assist in developing and integrating water use and availability
datasets into a comprehensive database. This section should include
gathering information on environmental water uses, including instream
uses and outflows for bays and estuaries, as well as traditional
consumptive water uses.
As present, western states' water planning capabilities (and
spending) vary widely from state-to-state, particularly as it relates
to estimating future water uses and needs. The numbers are often no
more that ``unsubstantiated estimates.'' The Council is actively
working with the U.S. Geological Survey (the Bureau of Reclamation,
Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency) to better
define current capabilities and future data needs.
WGA Report Recommendation 2A also states that--Federal and State
agencies should increase support and funding for state and federal
basic water data gathering activities that can serve as the basis for
sound decision-making. Further, state and federal agencies must find
ways to reduce costs related to gathering and disseminating real-time
water data/information, including the acceptance of more in-kind
contributions from cooperators. Moreover, new and stable sources of
funding are needed. Basic data gathering is an appropriate governmental
activity.
S. 2156, under Section 8, authorizes a USGS Water Data Enhancement
Program that includes expanding the National Streamflow Information
Program (NSIP), a base network of streamgages, and integrating NSIP
with other state and federal water data collection activities. The
objective is to establish and maintain a minimum of 4,700 NSIP
measuring sites over the next 10 years.
The WSWC has a long history of working with the U.S. Geological
Survey, Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) and streamgaging
network stakeholders to support and improve the USGS Cooperative Water
Program and National Streamflow Information Program. We welcome efforts
to authorize greater expenditures for both programs, as well as actions
to achieve our future streamflow data needs in the most cost-efficient
manner possible.
The bill also directs the USGS to work with federal, state, and
local entities to implement a systematic national ground water
resources monitoring program for major aquifer systems in the U.S. It
has become increasingly evident that there is not sufficient ground
water data available, both quantity and quality, to support all the
administrative actions (at the state and local levels) needed to
understand and effectively manage ground and surface waters
conjunctively. Many wells are not metered, and increasing ground water
development is having a significant impact on surface water resources
in some areas. We must increase and improve our knowledge of our ground
water resources, and present and future challenges to ground water
management, including climate change.
More and more often, the use of waters of impaired quality, such as
brackish ground waters, offer an effective alternative to the
development of surface water supplies and their transport over long
distances. S. 2156 directs USGS to work with appropriate state and
local entities to conduct a study identifying significant brackish U.S.
aquifers. Desalination of brackish ground water and other impaired
waters promises to be an important alternate source of supply for some
uses and users.
Section 8 also authorizes the Secretary to provide grants to
appropriate entities to develop new methodologies and technologies to
estimate or measure water resources data in a cost-efficient manner.
Priority is to be given to: (1) predicting and measuring streamflows;
(2) estimating changes in ground water storage; (3) improving data
standards and methods of analysis; (4) measuring precipitation and
evapotranspiration; (5) developing descriptive and predictive models;
and (6) water withdrawals, return flows and consumptive use. All of
these are significant areas in need of greater emphasis.
I would like to highlight one technology of growing importance in
many western states that presently has the capability to provide
critical information on ground water withdrawals, agricultural and
other outdoor water uses, evapotranspiration rates and consumptive
uses. The USGS and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
now jointly operate a system of earth observation satellites that
include a thermal infrared (TIR) sensor on Landsat 5 and Landsat 7,
which are over due for replacement. Data from this sensor is now used
by western states (and others) to measure and monitor
evapotranspiration and consumptive uses from irrigated areas (and other
land cover) by calculating the ``residual'' energy balance. The Landsat
Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), under NASA's Earth Sciences
Directorate, currently has scheduled the launch of Landsat 8 for 2011.
Once in orbit, NASA will turn over satellite operations and data
management to USGS. However, NASA's FY 2008 budget did not include
funding for a TIR instrument, and without immediate action by the
Congress, this important tool could be lost for the foreseeable future.
We appreciate the Chairman's interest in this issue, as well as the
efforts of several members on this committee, in asking NASA to explain
how it intends to continue to provide this thermal data to USGS. At
present, I am not aware of any other alternative source of this data on
a comparable scale that would allow western water managers to continue
to meet the growing need for this type of information. For example,
Idaho uses this information to conjunctively administer rights to use
both surface and ground waters on the Snake Plain. Colorado uses this
data to assure its compliance with interstate compacts governing its
water use on the Arkansas River. This technology has also been used in
California, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming, and other states, including Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska,
Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota have expressed interest in its use.
It could be used in the Colorado River basin to verify extraordinary
conservation actions undertaken under the Seven Basin States shortage
sharing agreement currently being negotiated. This is the type of use
of technological applications that S. 2156 would appropriately promote.
Ironically, without prompt congressional action, we now face the loss
of this conservation and management tool.
WGA Report Recommendation 2E reads--Water conservation and water
use efficiency, demand management (including pricing structures), water
and water rights transfers, water banking, water reuse, revolving
fallowing of agricultural lands and other means should be explored to
augment existing supplies, as well as the relative merits and obstacles
related to various programs and technologies.
S. 2156, Section 5, authorizes a program for Reclamation Water
Management Improvement and allows the Secretary of Interior to provide
grants or enter into cooperative agreements with eligible applicants to
help conserve water, increase water use efficiency, facilitate water
markets, enhance water management or carry out similar activities in
any watershed with a Reclamation project nexus or to address climate-
related impacts to U.S. water supplies.
Reclamation may provide financial assistance to States, Tribes, and
local entities to construct improvements or take actions to increase
water-use efficiency to address drought, climate change, or other
water-related crises.
We support authorization for these and other continuing actions
taken under such programs as the Bureau of Reclamation's Water 2025
Challenge Grants and Field Services Programs, and the Bridging-the-
Headgate Partnership, of which the WSWC is a signatory. Further, we
strongly support the inclusion of in-kind services in calculating non-
federal cost sharing contributions, as provided under Section
5(3)(E)(ii).
WGA Recommendation 2A states--A summary should be developed of
existing water supply and demand management policies and programs, as
well as planned or potential activities. The focus should be on a
grassroots, watershed approach to identifying water problems and
potential solutions.
In November, a workshop was been held by the Council, along with
the WGA that focused on past and present efforts to meet western water
supply challenges through various policies and programs to improve
water management and increase supplies. It is important to recognize
and support grassroot, local initiatives to identify, assess and work
out solutions to water related problems. State and local agencies and
others are working to solve their own water problems, and it is
important that federal efforts complement and supplement these efforts.
S. 2156 authorizes such assistance and will be a welcome addition to
our present box of water management tools.
WGA Recommendation 3B suggests--The Congress should increase
appropriations from annual receipts accruing to the Reclamation Fund
for authorized Bureau of Reclamation projects and purposes to help meet
western water supply needs, especially for rural communities, to
maintain and replace past projects and to build new capacity necessary
to meet demands related to growth and environmental protection.
May we suggest that such sums as are authorized under S. 2156 for
Reclamation-related programs and purposes should be made available from
the Reclamation Fund. Current receipts are not now fully used for
authorized purposes. It is our understanding the amounts authorized for
expenditure under the bill are in addition to assistance authorized and
provided pursuant to other provisions of federal law. As a general
comment, we are concerned that the amounts authorized be sufficient to
reasonably support the mandated activities--and it follows that there
is a need for sufficient appropriations to match the authorization.
WGA Recommendation 2B directs we--Use the research programs at
western state universities to focus research on practical applications
of promising new technologies, and to identify areas where the
increased use of technology (e.g. remote sensing, supervisory control
and data acquisition, new water and wastewater treatment, and energy
and water efficiency) should be promoted to enable more efficient and
cost effective operations.
S. 2156, Section 5, also authorizes the Secretary to enter into
cooperative agreements with any university, nonprofit research
institution or organization with water or power delivery authority to
fund research to conserve water, increase efficiency or enhance
management.
The WGA Water Report includes a section highlighting the need to
prepare for the increasing of climate variability and change on western
water resources. Warming in the West would lead to significant changes,
such as a more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. This has
the potential to upset the current balance achieved through the storage
of seasonal surpluses. Snow is a major source of water in the West. It
is a critical element in the current hydrologic cycle, and it is an
irreplaceable water storage medium. Increasing future climate
variability will bring new water management challenges involving not
only the quantity of water available, but changes in its form and the
timing with which it arrives. Several WGA report recommendations
related to climate would be addressed by S. 2156's provisions.
WGA Recommendation 5--While recognizing the uncertainties
inherent in climate prediction, efforts should be made to focus
on vulnerabilities and building increased resiliency to
climatic extremes.
WGA Recommendation 5A--Federal agencies must continue and
expand funding for activities necessary for monitoring,
assessing and predicting future water supplies.
WGA Recommendation 5B--The Congress should fund research for
improving the predictive capabilities for climate change, and
assessment and mitigation of its impacts. Given the complex
climatology in the West, it is important that climate change
modeling be conducted at a much finer resolution, e.g.
watersheds and sub-watersheds.
WGA Recommendation 5C(2)--Particular emphasis should be
placed on climate change within the context of watershed
planning and the impacts of climate-change scenarios on energy,
economic development and forest management.
S. 2156, Sections 4 and 7 respectively, direct the Secretary to
establish a Reclamation Climate Change Adaptation Program, and a
Climate Change and Water Intra-Governmental (I-G) Panel. Reclamation is
to assess the risks of climate change to water resources in its service
area and develop strategies and conduct feasibility studies to address
water shortages, conflicts and other impacts to water users and the
environment. The I-G Panel is to review the science on climate change
and water, and develop ways to better forecast impacts to water
availability. The Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation,
is to consult with State water resource agencies in assessing specific
risks to the water supply of each ``major Reclamation river basin.''
Similarly, the I-G Panel is to consult with States and the Advisory
Committee on Water Information (ACWI).
May we suggest that the definition of ``major Reclamation river
basin'' in the bill be expanded to include the Arkansas, Republican and
Pecos River Basins, and the Great Basin.
S. 2156, Section 6, also mandates a Hydroelectric Power Assessment
and directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the federal
Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs), and other federal and state
agencies, to assess the effects of climate change on the water
available for facilities producing hydropower marketed by the PMAs.
Lastly, we appreciate the explicit recognition that ``. . . States
bear the primary responsibility and authority for managing the water
resources of the United States'' and that ``the Federal Government
should support the States, as well as regional, local and tribal
governments . . . '' We appreciate the many provisions in the bill
requiring federal agencies to consult and coordinate with the
applicable State water resource agency with jurisdiction. The savings
clause is also important which states that: ``Nothing in this Act
preempts or affects any--(A) State water law; or (B) interstate compact
governing water.'' So is the requirement that the Secretary comply with
applicable State water laws.
In conclusion, we commend the Committee, its members and staff, for
their initiative in addressing these critical water issues. While
recognizing the jurisdictional limits of the Committee, we would also
urge you to ensure that water quality issues, which are inextricably
linked to water quantity issues, are considered together in
collaboration with all applicable federal and state agencies.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. O'Toole, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK O'TOOLE, PRESIDENT, FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE,
SAVERY, WY
Mr. O'Toole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the kind
words of some of the Senators. I've had the opportunity to work
with several of you in different instances, and this room
contains many people that are champions of water in the West,
and appreciate it.
I'm representing the Family Farm Alliance, and we support
this bill. We represent farmers in the 17 western States, and
our perspective is that there are things happening. We talked
to this committee about a report that we developed. It's called
``Water Supply and in a Changing Climate.'' I'll leave copies
available to the committee. But we've been looking at this for
about 4 years, not only because of the climate implications,
but also because of the impact to farmers on population growth
and lack of supply. We are the shock absorber for western
growth and the shock absorber for climate change. It's farmers
whose water is moving away from farms as this happens. I had
the opportunity last week to speak, in Sante Fe at the La
Fonda, to the New Mexico water users, and it was very clear how
emotional an issue it is there. It's the same in every western
State.
Our family ranches on the Colorado/Wyoming line. We have
cattle and sheep, and irrigate. The State line splits our
ranch, and so, we have experience with both Wyoming and
Colorado water law. I can tell you from personal experience
that we're seeing things on the ground that really tell me, as
a farmer and rancher, that things are changing. Places that I
would never go in the springtime with a horse, you go right
over, because of the cumulative effect of lack of water. This
is right at the top of the Continental Divide. We're 25 miles
from the split between the Platte and the Colorado River. So,
we know the country pretty well, and we know what we're used to
seeing. We know that things are changing. So, we try to react
accordingly.
The Family Farm Alliance has a very simple mission
statement, ``Adequate supply of affordable water for farmers.''
That's what we feel like is in great jeopardy as we move into a
different climate regime.
Again, as I said earlier, you know, we support this bill;
specifically, things like the coordination of Federal agencies.
I'll talk a little bit later about some recommendations. But
it's very important that, in today's world, that we have
uniform information, and I think we have a dearth of
information. Certainly the stream gauging information has got
to be accelerated. We lost a lot of that over the last couple
of decades, and we've got to have that. We've just got to have
information. As Senator Tester said, ``Water is life, and
knowledge is power.'' That's how we're going to solve these
problems. As farmers, our report was really about looking at a
broad set of recommendations, including storage. We think
storage is certainly going to be on the table. If you get to
the watershed level now, and you talk to people in their own
watersheds, they're going to tell you about storage. It
happened on the Rio Grande last week. If you guys can believe
it, the forest guardian fellow who is on a committee to work on
the Rio Grande, talked about storage. The days that that's--
that that isn't a subject that we can talk about are over. We
have to make watershed-by-watershed decisions about the
appropriateness of what we're doing.
This bill also authorizes cost-shared grants for
coordination with those Federal agencies. I think that's very
important for local districts. Again, the Family Farm Alliance
represents people at the district level in every one of the
western States. What we think we bring to the table--we're
celebrating our 20th anniversary this year--is a in-depth
knowledge of what's going on in the ground, and that's what we
try to bring to you all and others in the policy area, is that
we will tell you what really is happening. We began this water
supply issue--I know there was a question earlier, Is there
evidence, for example, in the Bureau of Rec? In the last energy
bill, we asked that all nonconstructed projects in the Bureau
of Rec be listed. Those that are there because of some of the
work that you all and we have done. I think there's a lot of
projects that have been authorized and still have all the
geology and all of the infrastructure described in detail, that
still have the possibility of construction. So, I think that's
a resource that we can take advantage of.
One of the things I wanted to mention real quickly is this
new responsibility of farmers to not only feed the Nation--and
food security is certainly one of our recommendations, a look
at food security--but the responsibility to produce fuel is
huge. My wife called me, just before, to wish me good luck in
this hearing, and she's in a ground blizzard north of I-80,
bringing in the truckload of corn that we're going to feed to
our sheep through the winter. That truckload of corn is about
double what it was last year, with the combination of diesel
and the acceleration of cost of grains because of the ethanol
and the fuel issues. I believe that anything that helps farmers
make more money is a good thing, but we have to realize that,
in this push that has been policy implemented to produce fuel
for the Nation, there are winners and there are losers, and it
is creating quite a lot of change in the industry. Feeding
livestock, for example, is a much more rigorous process than it
was a year ago, I can tell you that.
A couple of things that we would like to suggest for the
bill is certainly what Senator Barrasso referred to, and that's
a coordination with the States. As we all know, I mean,
everybody knows that in the West, if you don't work with the
States, there's going to be a pushback. I think the more
coordination we have with the States, the better off the
process is going to be. That's where the information is, that's
where the people on the ground are. So, we would really
recommend that.
One that hasn't been talked about very much, but I think is
very, very important--and in the next Administration, it needs
to continue on--but it's the fact that the water resides in the
forest. Most of the water in the West is in the U.S. Forest
Service, in the snowpack. My experiences, as I've related them
to you, about crossing rivers and all the things that we have a
creek that runs through, so you'd better have some sharp spurs
and be ready to have a ride to cross when it's in high water.
We didn't have that last year, didn't have high water, because
the April 80-degree weather took that hydrograph that was
supposed to be like this and made it like this. We have to
understand that if there's going to be storage built, a lot of
it's going to be built with forests--relationship with a
national forest.
Another one of our recommendations is regulatory reform.
Our community built a project, 23,000-acre-foot project, that
saved our community, really--took 24 years to permit. That just
can't keep happening.
So, this bill, I think, does an awful lot of good things.
We support it. We have some recommendations. I really
appreciate the opportunity to speak to you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Toole follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick O'Toole, President, Family Farm Alliance,
Savery, WY
introduction
Good afternoon, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Domenici, and
Committee Members. My name is Patrick O'Toole, and I serve as the
president of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance).
The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family farmers,
ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries in 16 Western
states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the
availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to
Western farmers and ranchers. We are also committed to the fundamental
proposition that Western irrigated agriculture must be preserved and
protected for a host of economic, sociological, environmental and
national security reasons--many of which are often overlooked in the
context of other policy decisions.
My family operates a cattle, sheep and hay ranch in the Little
Snake River Valley on the Wyoming-Colorado border. I am a former member
of Wyoming's House of Representatives and I served on the federal
government's Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission in the
late 1990's.
I am honored to be here today and grateful that Senators Bingaman,
Domenici, Cantwell, and Johnson have introduced S. 2156, The SECURE
Water Act. This legislation is not only important to the Alliance; it
also is immediately relevant to me and other Wyoming water users, and
to farmers, ranchers and small communities all over the West. We were
pleased to see that this bill contains some provisions that are very
close to recommendations we provided in my testimony before the Water
and Power Subcommittee last June.
alliance involvement with climate change issues
The Family Farm Alliance Board of Directors at its 19th Annual
Meeting in Las Vegas last February established a subcommittee to
develop a white paper that addresses the important issue of climate
change, its possible impact on Western water supplies and irrigated
agriculture, and recommendations on how to plan and provide stewardship
for this change. The report was prepared by a Family Farm Alliance
climate change subcommittee, our Advisory Committee, and water
resources experts from around the West. That document--titled ``Water
Supply in a Changing Climate: The Perspective of Family Farmers and
Ranchers in the Irrigated West''-was released in early September. If
you have not already received a copy of our report, we have additional
copies that we can make available to you.
Our report shows that climate change could further strain fresh
water supplies in the American West. We must begin to plan for that
now, and not wait until we are forced to make decisions during a
crisis.
s. 2156 represents a positive step towards addressing climate change
impacts to western water resources
Western water supplies are already inadequate to the demands of
agriculture, urban growth and environmental enhancement. Global climate
change, we're told, will further reduce those supplies. Working with
farmers has made us incredibly sensitive to the big picture
ramifications facing the future of Western agriculture, and the
critical role reliable water supplies play in that big picture. We must
immediately begin to address the critical challenges we face. A
practical, prioritized approach to addressing these challenges is
possible, and essential. We believe that S. 2156 takes a positive step
towards addressing two of the Alliance's key recommendations.
1. S. 2156 will promote coordination of federal agencies and resources
in assessing, monitoring, and planning for future water supply
impacts and trends
In our view, S. 2156 will promote coordination of federal agencies
and resources in assessing, monitoring, and planning for future water
supply impacts and trends--an important first step in developing an
adaptive approach to climate change and water. The Alliance supports
this approach as embodied in S. 2156 because it provides additional
authorities for federal agencies to offer grants and agreements for
demonstration, research, or methodology development in this
coordinative effort. Such partnerships with local water authorities,
universities, and local governments are key to providing localized
solutions to vexing water supply problems.
Our country has tremendous, but limited, resources available to fix
our problems, so we must prioritize and sequence our actions, including
those authorized or facilitated by S. 2156.
The Alliance recommends that an initial priority research item
carried out under S. 2156 be a comprehensive quantification of West-
wide changes in climate change-driven streamflow. This should be
followed by quantification of the amount of additional above-and below-
ground reservoir storage, conservation targets, etc. required to re-
regulate the anticipated hydrologic regime changes. To optimize water
management for beneficial use, researchers should look at scenarios
where storage is spaced through the drainage. Potential storage sites
should be located at high and low elevations to regulate and
subsequently re-regulate the water supply to maximize beneficial use. A
study of this type would quickly illustrate to policy makers the need
to start modernizing our water infrastructure.
The potential water impacts associated with use of alternative
fuels must also be studied. Throughout the West, we are seeing
proposals to build plants to make ethanol, another ``answer'' that may
(or may not) lower greenhouse gas emissions. An April 2007 Sacramento
Bee editorial provides a reality check on how much water it would take
to grow all the corn required to meet California's goal of producing a
billion gallons of ethanol a year. According to the Bee's calculations,
that's about 2.5 trillion gallons of water for 1 billion gallons of
ethanol, which is more than all the water from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta that now goes to Southern California and valley farms.
Because there is only so much water for agriculture in California and
other Western states, this means that some other existing crops will
not be grown, thus furthering our dependence on imported food sources.
Another growing demand that will be placed on Western water
resources is driven by power requirements. The total water consumed by
electric utilities accounts for 20 percent of all the nonfarm water
consumed in the United States. By 2030, utilities could account for up
to 60 percent of the nonfarm water, to meet the water needs required
for cooling and pollutant scrubbing. This new demand will likely have
the most serious impacts in fast-growing regions of the U.S., such as
the Southwest. Even without warming climate conditions, continued
growth in these regions will put the squeeze on both water and power
use. When you throw in climate change considerations, the projections
look worse.
Studies of these types of issues lend themselves well to a private-
public partnership that would add non-governmental farming
organizations, state agencies and academic institutions to a team of
federal agencies including the expertise found within the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S.
Geological Survey. For example, the Family Farm Alliance has partnered
with Colorado State University and recently developed a proposal to the
USDA for a project that would assess public attitudes and perceptions
regarding agricultural water use in the West.
2. S. 2156 will provide water managers with highly beneficial ``on-the-
ground'' solutions to infrastructure problems exacerbated by
global climate change
S. 2156 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide cost-
shared grants for planning, designing, or constructing improvements to
water infrastructure that conserve water, provide management
improvements, and promote increased efficiencies. These grants will
provide water managers with highly beneficial ``on-the-ground''
solutions to infrastructure problems exacerbated by global climate
change. These projects provide for improved water management, enhanced
supplies, water conservation, and greater efficiencies, thereby
stretching dwindling water supplies.
Temporary water transfers, conservation, recycling, and
desalination efforts must continue. However, these demand-management
actions must be balanced with supply enhancement measures that provide
the proper mix of solutions for the varying specific circumstances in
the West.
Supply enhancement actions should include rehabilitation of
existing facilities and construction of new infrastructure. Many of the
West's Reclamation projects are nearly a century old and many are badly
in need of repair and/or modernizing. Rehabilitation measures should
focus on maximizing the conservation effort through increased delivery
efficiencies, construction of re-regulation reservoirs to minimize
operational waste, and construction of new dams and reservoirs in
watersheds with inadequate storage capacity to increase beneficial use
and provide operational flexibility. Additional groundwater supplies
should also be developed, but in a manner where groundwater use falls
within the safe yield or recharge parameters of the aquifer.
Conjunctive management of surface and groundwater supplies should be
encouraged. Installation of additional stream gauges, water meters,
groundwater recharge projects to employ during times of high surface
flow, groundwater monitoring wells and better estimates of consumptive
use are of paramount importance for the equitable management of
available water supplies.
Many water projects are ready to be developed in the West (see
Family Farm Alliance, 2005; also U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2005).
While conservation and recycling programs have done a tremendous job of
meeting new growth, only a small amount of new water storage capacity
has been developed in the past 30 years. Maintaining the status quo
simply isn't sustainable in the face of unstoppable population growth,
diminishing snow pack, increased water consumption to support domestic
energy, and increased environmental demands. It's time to start
implementing the water infrastructure needed to cope with a changing
climate, meet the needs of a burgeoning population, and support a
healthy agricultural base in the West.
3. S. 2156 will improve streamflow measurement and data collection
efforts
Improved understanding and knowledge of existing water supply
inventories, the interrelationships between surface and groundwater
resources, and the impacts of predicted climate change on watersheds
will be critical to water managers and at the local, regional, state,
and national levels in adapting to and managing for climate change.
Most of the recent reports and studies on climate change and water
supply impacts suggest that federal agencies must focus on
vulnerabilities and improve knowledge-based data collection activities.
Current predictive models for future climate change scenarios, while
useful in illustrating general areas of impact, are not particularly
accurate at the local or regional scale. We support provisions in S.
2156 to improvement in streamflow measurement and data collection
efforts. We also support the development of more cost-effective
methodologies in accomplishing these goals.
suggestions to improve s. 2156
The membership of the Family Farm Alliance fully supports S. 2156,
and encourages its enactment. The Alliance, however, believes that
there are additional tools that are not included within the provisions
of S. 2156 and that should be made available in order for western water
managers and agricultural producers to adequately deal with the effects
of global climate change.
1. S. 2156 Should Encourage the Federal Government to Partner with
States on Groundwater Monitoring
S. 2156 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a
systematic groundwater monitoring program for each major aquifer system
located in the United States. We believe this can best be accomplished
in partnership with the states and their respective water resource
agencies. While we understand the utility of a national perspective in
understanding the status of groundwater resources in the U.S. and in
setting a standard criteria for comparative purposes, we also recognize
the important work the states have already accomplished in
characterizing these resources, and partnering with the states will
ensure the federal government is not ``reinventing the wheel'' in
implementing this provision of S. 2156. The bill only requires
``consultation and coordination'' with state and local water resource
agencies. We believe a stronger bond between the states and the federal
government through partnerships in this effort is a better approach and
will result in a better product. Any ``partnering'' should rely heavily
on the actual experience of those actively using groundwater supplies.
2. S. 2156 Should Strongly Encourage the Federal Government to Partner
with States on Water Use and Availability Assessments
We have similar concerns with the provisions calling for the
development of a water use and availability assessment program. Without
the complete involvement of state water resource agencies, this program
will not be successful. We are supportive of the grant authorities
provided through S. 2156 for implementation of this program, but more
assertive language with regard to Federal consultation is needed to
attract state participation and cooperation.
We appreciate and support the provisions of S. 2156 requiring the
federal agencies to comply with state water laws and compacts.
other needs
Outside the scope of S. 2156, we will continue to advocate for
solutions that will mitigate for climate change impacts to Western
water resources, as well as ensuring the availability of reliable,
affordable irrigation supplies. Critical problems remain to be solved.
1. Create Flexible Financing Options to Help Water Managers Proactively
Deal with Aging Infrastructure, Modernization and Climate
Impacts to Western Water Supplies
Such tools include new, innovative, federally-enhanced financing
instruments, such as expanded federal loan guarantees, tax-credit
bonds, private equity bonds, and municipal bonds to finance aging
federal and local infrastructure rehabilitation, modernization, and
technological improvements--especially where such financial tools are
currently not available.
Some of these financing options are already authorized and await
implementation by the responsible agencies. In the last Congress, this
Committee wrote rural water supply project legislation that authorized
the Secretary of the Interior to provide federal loan guarantees to
local water agencies to help them meet their obligations to pay for
costs of rehabilitating and improving aging Bureau of Reclamation
facilities. Congress enacted the Committee loan guarantee provisions,
yet they have not been implemented. Congressional inquiry and oversight
might be necessary in order to assist the responsible federal agencies
in achieving the goals of the loan guarantee program and to help
western water managers proactively deal with an aging water
infrastructure and global climate impacts to western water supplies.
2. Streamline the Regulatory Permitting Process
Modern, integrated water storage and distribution systems can
provide tremendous physical and economic flexibility to address climate
transformation and population growth. However, this flexibility is
limited by legal, regulatory, or other institutional constraints, which
can take longer to address than actually constructing the physical
infrastructure. The often slow and cumbersome federal regulatory
process is a major obstacle to realization of projects and actions that
could enhance Western water supplies.
3. Make the U.S. Self-Sufficient in Food Production
Remarkably absent from the newly-ignited dialogue about food safety
is a recognition of the importance of a secure and sustainable domestic
food supply. While much is made of the need to end our reliance on
foreign energy sources, nobody is talking about food independence. In
the big picture, a national response to climate change should include
as one of its goals self-sufficiency in food production. It is time for
our national leaders to stand up and focus on improving the security,
stability, and economic aspects of domestic food production so that our
food remains readily available, ample, affordable, and safe.
4. Protect Farmland
New research suggests that irrigation has kept croplands cool,
essentially countering rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gas
emissions over the last half century. Crops also turn carbon dioxide
into oxygen. In addition to a multitude of other benefits (economic,
security, habitat and open spaces, to name a few), our diminishing
farmland needs to be protected. Federal funds and other money should
also be authorized to help local governments protect farmland, analyze
ways to keep farmland in production, set up grant programs for local
governments and provide technical assistance to farmers. Congress
should consider the option to encourage states to lease development
rights from farmers to buffer their farmland.
conclusion
The impacts of climate change on sensitive Western water supplies,
while not totally understood today, will significantly challenge all
water users in the West--municipal, industrial, agricultural, and
environmental--in the near future. Being prepared requires investment
and adaptation in the management of Western water supplies. To meet
these challenges our efforts need to begin today--before crises, before
conflict, and before there are winners and losers. S. 2156 is a very
positive step in the right direction, providing much needed
opportunities for partnerships with federal agencies; providing
direction for federal policymakers in dealing with the impacts of
climate change on our precious water supplies; and providing some
innovative new tools that will be necessary in order for the federal
government to proactively work with local and state water authorities
on real solutions.
We stand ready to assist you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of this
Committee in improving upon, and enacting this legislation so important
to all our communities in the face of such an uncertain and challenging
future. We must emphasize, however, that we are facing water problems
right now. Legislation, water transfers and data collection alone will
not resolve these problems. The amount of water on the planet remains
the same. Only the infrastructure to conserve, reuse, store, treat,
manage and convey water to where and when it is needed, at the quality
and quantity needed, will resolve these problems and avoid even more
severe consequences that loom on the horizon.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee
today. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Lambeck, why don't you go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF JON C. LAMBECK, POWER SYSTEMS MANAGER,
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LOS
ANGELES, CA
Mr. Lambeck. Thank you.
Mr. Bingaman, Ranking Member Domenici, and members of the
committee, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California is honored to be invited to participate in today's
hearing.
Although I've provided a copy of my oral comments, I would
respectfully request permission to provide written comments in
due time.
The Chairman. We will certainly be glad to get any comments
you want to provide.
Mr. Lambeck. Thank you.
Again, thank you for inviting Metropolitan to testify
before the committee on S. 2156, as it addresses the important
issue of climate change and its effects on water supply
management, particularly in the arid West. I am Jon Lambeck,
and my responsibilities at Metropolitan are to oversee the
energy needs of our extensive water supply system.
Metropolitan is the Nation's largest provider of imported
water to an urban area, serving a population of over 18
million. Our region is expected to increase to 25 million over
the next 25 years. The sources of southern California's
imported water are from northern California and the Colorado
River Basin. Our mandate, to provide a reliable, long-term
wholesale supply of water to our high-growth region, is now
rendered more challenging in the face of unmistakable impacts
on water supplies, due to climate change. We are managing this
through a dynamic integrated resources plan that is designed to
respond to the rapidly changing water supply conditions first
evident in the West, and now emerging in other regions of the
country.
However, no water agency can respond alone, and that is why
legislation like 2156 is essential to define and authorize the
crucial role the Federal Government must play in obtaining
vital information to better understand the situation we are
facing, to assist in evaluating alternative solutions, and to
support the changes that will be necessary to mitigate the
challenges of climate change to the water industry.
There are many problems that must be addressed, as 2156
makes clear, but today I want to focus, in my brief remarks, on
the relationship of water resources and power generation. We
are also attaching previous testimony by our chairman to
Congress on the broader policy implications of climate change
for water agencies.
2156 is legislation that again proves the wisdom of a
committee having jurisdiction over both natural resources and
energy. As an example, one of the key issues encountered by
water managers in responding to climate change is the lower
water levels in storage facilities and the resulting decrease
in hydropower capability. The diminished storage can limit the
amount of water available to meet the needs of a growing
population and reduce the amount of clean hydropower available
to move the water. The result can be increased costs and
increased emissions of greenhouse gases.
For Metropolitan, water stored in Lake Mead on the Colorado
River is released to meet our water demands, while, at the same
time, it produces electric energy at Hoover Dam. From the start
of Metropolitan's water operations in 1939, the generators at
Hoover Dam have annually supplied over half the power needed to
move Metropolitan's water through its Colorado River aqueduct.
With storage elevations at both Lakes Powell and Mead down by
50 percent, the seriousness of the situation is obvious for
both water and power.
Metropolitan's planning assumptions are conservative,
meaning that we assume the effects of climate change will
continue and low storage elevations will be a factor for years
to come. This requires innovative responses, starting now.
Let me suggest two immediate areas in which Federal
assistance would be of immense importance on this set of
problems.
First, we need to understand how to optimize power
production with reduced water supply, such as more efficient
low head turbines. The Federal Government could undertake
studies itself, or support studies by others, to create models
and help develop and improve the design of more efficient
turbines. This would allow the most benefit and value to be
obtained from existing Federal hydropower assets under adverse
storage conditions. This would also provide power contractors
and water agencies with the technical means and credibility to
finance the construction of new facilities.
Second, other studies might address operational
modifications under reduced water levels or the potential for
physical changes, such as dredging at existing hydroelectric
facilities. Relatively minor actions could result in measurable
generation improvements.
If these studies show the potential to make generation more
efficient, they might be implemented relatively quickly,
assuming there is limited structural modifications that would
be required.
2156 does an admirable job of conveying many of the issues
that now allow water systems to respond to the effects of
climate change, and we support the bill, for that reason.
Nevertheless, we believe the legislation could be strengthened
by an addition to Section 6, which specifies additional
research the Secretary could perform, or contract to have
performed, to address the problems of hydropower generation
under reduced water conditions.
Although the existing language of 2156 may cover these
issues, the three areas of new generation equipment,
operational changes, and physical modifications are all
specified in the amendment that is attached, which we hope you
will consider.
It is important to maximize the efficiency of our clean,
noncarbon power sources in this era of climate change, and
these are some of the first steps we can take.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the
committee for moving so quickly and comprehensively on these
SECURE Water issues. As our chairman, Mr. Brick, told the Water
and Power Subcommittee in June, the uncertain effects of
climate change and increasing demands on the scarce fresh water
supply mean we cannot afford to wait. Metropolitan's climate
change policy encourages research and other efforts to better
understand the effects of this global issue as 2156 would
provide, and you can count on Metropolitan's support.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lambeck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Power Systems Manager, Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: Thank you for inviting the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to testify
before the committee on S. 2156, as it addresses the important issue of
climate change and its effects on water supply management, particularly
in the arid West. I am Jon Lambeck and my responsibilities at
Metropolitan are to oversee the energy needs of our extensive water
supply system.
MWD is the nation's largest provider of imported water to an urban
area, serving a population of over 18 million. Our region is expected
to increase to 25 million over the next 25 years. The sources of
Southern California's imported water are from Northern California and
the Colorado River Basin. Our mandate is to provide a reliable long-
term wholesale supply of water to our high growth region, now rendered
more challenging in the face of unmistakable impacts on water supplies
due to climate change. We are managing this through a dynamic
Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) that is designed to respond to the
rapidly changing water supply conditions first evident in the west and
now emerging in other regions of the country.
No water agency can respond alone, of course, and that is why
legislation like S. 2156 is essential to define and authorize the
crucial role the federal government must play in obtaining vital
information to better understand the situation we are facing, to assist
in evaluating alternative solutions, and to support the changes that
will successfully mitigate the challenges of climate change to the
water industry. There are many problems that must be addressed, as S.
2156 makes clear, but today I want to focus in my brief remarks on the
relationship of water resources and power generation. We are also
attaching previous testimony by our Chairman to Congress on the broader
policy implications of climate change for water agencies.
S.2156 is legislation that again proves the wisdom of a committee
having jurisdiction over both natural resources and energy. As an
example, one of the key issues encountered by water managers in
responding to climate change is the lower water levels in storage
facilities and the resulting decrease in hydropower capability. The
diminished storage can limit the amount of water available to meet the
needs of a growing population and reduce the amount of clean,
hydropower available to move the water. The result can be increased
costs and increased emissions of green house gases. For Metropolitan,
water stored in Lake Mead on the Colorado River is released to meet our
water demands while at the same time it produces hydroelectric energy
at Hoover Dam. From the start of Metropolitan's water operations in
1939, the generators at Hoover Dam have supplied over half the power
needed to move MWD's water through its Colorado River Aqueduct. With
storage elevations at both Lakes Powell and Mead down by 50%, the
seriousness of the situation is obvious for both water and power.
MWD's planning assumptions are conservative, meaning that we assume
the effects of climate change will continue, and low storage elevations
will be a factor for years to come. This requires innovative responses,
starting now. Let me suggest two immediate areas in which federal
assistance would be of immense importance on this set of problems.
First, we need to understand how to optimize power production with
reduced water supply, such as more efficient low head turbines. The
federal government could undertake the studies itself, or support
studies by others, to create models and help develop and improve the
design of more efficient turbines. This would allow the most benefit
and value to be obtained from existing federal hydropower assets under
adverse storage conditions. This would also provide power contractors
and water agencies with the technical means and credibility to finance
the constructing of new facilities.
Second, other studies might address operational modifications under
reduced water levels or the potential for physical changes, such as
dredging, at existing hydroelectric facilities. Relatively minor
actions could result in measurable generation improvements. If these
studies show the potential to make generation more efficient, they
might be implemented relatively quickly assuming there is limited
structural modifications that would be required.
S. 2156 does an admirable job of covering many of the issues that
will allow water systems to respond to the effects of climate change,
and we support the bill for that reason. Nevertheless, we believe the
legislation would be strengthened by an addition to Section 6 which
specifies additional research the Secretary could perform, or contract
to have performed, to address the problems of hydropower generation
under reduced water conditions. Although the existing language of S.
2156 may cover these issues, the three areas of new generation
equipment, operational changes and physical modifications are all
specified in the amendment (attached) which we hope you will consider.
It is important to maximize the efficiency of our clean, non-carbon
power resources in this era of climate change and these are some of the
first steps we can take.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the committee for
moving so quickly and comprehensively on these SECURE Water issues. As
our Chairman, Mr. Brick, told the Water and Power Subcommittee in June,
``. . . the uncertain effects of climate change and increasing demands
on the scarce freshwater supply mean we cannot afford to wait.''
Metropolitan's climate change policy encourages research and other
efforts to better understand the effects of this global issue as S.2156
would provide, and you can count on Metropolitan's support.
amendment
Insert a new (b) in Section 6.
(b) Authorization of Research--
(1) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY--The Secretary may perform
or have performed research by an appropriate party, to
provide the following:
(A) analysis of operational changes at
federal hydroelectric power plants to mitigate
adverse impacts to power production from
reduced water supplies caused by climate change
(B) simulations and models to test and verify
potential equipment changes that would achieve
higher power production at lower water storage
levels
(C) recommendations of physical changes to
federal hydroelectric power plants and dams to
increase power production during periods of
reduced water supplies
(2) TITLE TO IMPROVEMENTS--Any infrastructure
improvement to a facility under the jurisdiction of a
Federal agency that results from the activities listed
in Paragraph (1), shall be the property of the Federal
Government
(3) COST SHARING
(A) FEDERAL SHARE--Research performed at the
request of the Secretary shall be paid entirely
by the Federal Government and shall be non-
reimbursable.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici.
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, might I say to you that I
have a number of constituents waiting and I am going to have to
leave and let them walk with me to the vote. I want to just
comment on two things.
First, Mr. O'Toole, you raised the issue of how long it
took to license--24 years.
Mr. O'Toole. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. I wanted to tell you that, in the
Comprehensive Energy Policy Act, that's 3 years old, the
section on licensing--and it affects you--has been dramatically
changed, and, I think, if you were doing that now, you would
find that it would not take 24 years. I'm just guessing, but I
know what we did.
Mr. O'Toole. That's important. Yes, sir.
Senator Domenici. I want to say to the witness that just
testified, next year we'll introduce a bill--hopefully, our
chairman will support it--called ``Energy for Water, Water for
Energy''--a play on words. It will have a section on
researching--you know, urgency of research in the areas that
you have alluded to, and because of just what you've said.
Mr. Lambeck. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We are already into a vote, nearly halfway through a vote,
so I think the best course is to take a short break, and then
I'll come back in about 10 or 15 minutes, and we will hear from
the final two witnesses. I apologize for having to do that, but
that's the schedule around this place. We'll adjourn for about
15 minutes.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. Why don't we get started again. Sorry for
that interruption.
We have two additional witnesses here.
Mr. Richter, why don't you go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN RICHTER, CO-DIRECTOR, GLOBAL FRESHWATER
INITIATIVE, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
Mr. Richter. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to testify on the SECURE Water
Act and the impacts of climate change on the management of our
water resources.
My name is Brian Richter, and I'm the director of the
Global Fresh Water Program for The Nature Conservancy. The
Nature Conservancy is a leading conservation organization that
protects ecologically important places for nature and people.
Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in all 50
States and in more than 30 countries now.
While The Nature Conservancy's mission is focused on
sustaining the Earth's diversity of plants and animals, we know
that protection of ecosystems is also critical to human well-
being; therefore, we are gravely concerned about the potential
for climate change to substantially disrupt the things that
everyone in this room cares about: our economy, our culture,
and the ecosystems that support our way of life. That's why The
Nature Conservancy is calling for legislation and policies to
address greenhouse gas emissions by establishing a strong,
cost-effective cap and a market-based program to reduce
emissions.
As we all know, even immediate reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions cannot arrest the expected climate impacts of gases
we've already put into the atmosphere. Therefore, we must also
develop adaptation programs, like the one proposed in the
SECURE Water Act, to help ecosystems, and the human communities
relying upon them, to cope with the impacts of climate change.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Domenici, we applaud you and other
cosponsors of the SECURE Water Act for introducing legislation
that will help us to better understand the impacts of climate
change and what that will mean for the management of our water
resources, and to begin to prepare strategies now to adapt to
these changes.
I would like to focus the rest of my remarks on strategies
that will help better manage our water systems in response to
climate change and provide specific recommendations on how to
improve the SECURE Water Act to incorporate these strategies.
To meet both human and ecosystems needs in the face of
climate change, we must do a much better job of comprehensively
managing our water resources. First, we need to assimilate much
better data on the availability of water and how it is being
used. Today, most States possess only a rudimentary
understanding of who is using the water, how much they're
using, when they use it, and how much is left for other
purposes.
To ensure that all States have the ability to account for
and manage water resources comprehensively, we must
substantially increase State and Federal investment in basic
water accounting, particularly for the U.S. Geological Survey.
In fact, each and every one of the activities I will highlight
today is strongly dependent upon the science provided by the
USGS.
By providing support for the USGS National Stream Flow
Information Program, establishing new monitoring programs, and
providing incentives to integrate and standardize water
availability data, the SECURE Water Act will do a great deal to
fulfill this need.
Comprehensive water management will also require improved
management of our existing water infrastructure. By re-
evaluating current operations, we can better serve human needs
and adapt to changing climate conditions while protecting
natural systems. We appreciate the focus in the SECURE Water
Act on reassessing current operations of water supply and
hydropower dams, but we believe this assessment must also
include an evaluation of the water needs of downstream
ecosystems, referred to as environmental flow needs, so that we
can sustain the productivity and many benefits, such as healthy
fisheries, that freshwater ecosystems provide for our society.
For example, through a national partnership with the Army Corps
of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey, called the
Sustainable Rivers Project, we are now working together to
improve the management of 27 dams and nine river basins in the
United States. Together, we're finding abundant opportunities
to better protect the river ecosystems affected by these dams,
while continuing to provide flood control, water supply,
hydropower generation, and recreational benefits.
Another important approach to provide for future water
supply needs without compromising our natural resources is to
implement nonstructural and natural means of water storage. For
example, floodplains and wetlands can store excess flood waters
and recharge our depleted aquifers. Conjunctive management,
also known as aquifer storage and recovery, of surface-and
groundwater can provide an integrated solution to meeting water
supply needs without building additional surface reservoirs by
artificially recharging aquifers that can store water for later
use. We believe these and other nonstructural approaches will
be critical for adapting to climate change. The adaptation
strategies and grants in the SECURE Water Act should
incorporate incentives for natural methods of water storage and
seek to minimize new infrastructure needs.
One of the most promising ways to improve our use of
existing reservoir storage is to reduce our reliance on dams to
provide flood control. I can illustrate this concept through
our work on the Yangtze River in China. We have developed a
proposal, now under serious consideration by the Central
Chinese Government, that calls for large-scale restoration of
the Yangtze River's floodplain to enable safe storage of flood
waters on the floodplain. This proposal would relieve the
upstream dams of having to provide flood control, and this
would free up considerable space in the upstream reservoirs,
that can be used for other purposes, including water supply and
hydropower generation.
Finally, all of our action must be based on sound science;
therefore, we would recommend an even stronger science
component in the development and implementation of adaptation
strategies in the SECURE Water Act.
In closing, it's important that all of our policy and on-
the-ground adaptation measures recognize the need to maintain
healthy and resilient ecosystems that preserve the ability to
adapt in the face of climate change and continue to meet the
needs of both humans and wildlife. With the improvements
suggested here, we believe this legislation will provide a good
first step in assisting humans and ecosystems in adapting to
climate change.
Thank you for your attention and in this opportunity to
share our thoughts with you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Richter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Richter, Co-Director, Global Freshwater
Initiative, The Nature Conservancy, Charlottesville, VA
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the SECURE Water Act and strategies to adapt
our water management practices for the impacts of climate change. I am
Brian Richter, the Co-Director of the Global Freshwater Program for The
Nature Conservancy. In addition to providing specific recommendations
on the SECURE Water Act, my comments today will focus on three themes:
impacts of climate change to streamflow, water temperature,
and water quality,
the need to balance human and ecosystem water requirements
in the wake of these changes,
and management strategies to achieve this goal.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in
all 50 states and in more than 30 countries and is supported by
approximately one million individual members. The Nature Conservancy
has protected more than 117 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of
river around the world. Our work also includes more than 100 marine
conservation projects in 21 countries and 22 U.S. states.
While The Nature Conservancy's mission is focused on sustaining the
Earth's diversity of plants and animals, our broader contribution to
society is in the protection of the life support systems of our
planet--we cannot protect the diversity of life on this planet,
including human life, without protecting the ecosystems that sustain us
all. Natural ecosystems provide humanity with clean water, food and
fiber. Natural resources derived from ecosystems support major sectors
of our economy, whether in the form of fisheries that sustain coastal
communities or through tourism economies that rely so heavily upon
nature-based recreation. Healthy natural ecosystems perform an array of
valuable services with substantial economic values, including purifying
our water supplies, sequestering carbon, and regulating the climate and
hydrologic cycles of our planet, and this work is provided to humanity
free of cost.
Climate change is perhaps the greatest long-term threat to the
health of aquatic ecosystems that support people, economies, and fish
and wildlife. Prompt action to address this threat is critical to
minimize future harm to nature and to the social and economic fabric of
our communities. While the testimony provided today will focus on
adaptation strategies in order to avert the most extreme effects,
strong action to address the causes of climate change is essential. The
Nature Conservancy is calling for legislation and policies that include
three paramount concepts:
A strong cost-effective cap on emissions and a market-based
program designed to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations at a level that ensures the well-being of human
communities and ecosystems worldwide. As a member of the U.S.
Climate Action Partnership, the Conservancy endorses the
coalition's call for specific U.S. emissions reductions to
achieve the goal of limiting global atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations to a level that minimizes large-scale adverse
climate change impacts to human populations and the natural
environment.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The US CAP's Call to Action states: ``We recommend Congress
establish a mandatory emission reduction pathway with specific targets
that are: between 100--105% of today's levels within five years of
rapid enactment; between 90--100% of today's levels within ten years of
rapid enactment; between 70--90% of today's levels within fifteen years
of rapid enactment. The short- and mid-term targets selected by
Congress should be aimed at making it clear to the millions of actors
in our economy and to other nations that we are committed to a pathway
that will slow, stop and reverse the growth of U.S. emissions.
Furthermore, Congress should specify an emission target zone aimed at
reducing emissions by 60% to 80% from current levels by 2050.'' The
Call to Action and more information on US CAP is available at www.us-
cap.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction of emissions from forest and land-use practices
through the incorporation of verified credits from these
practices in a cap-and-trade program.
Support for adaptation programs designed to help ecosystems
and the human communities that rely on them to cope with the
impacts of climate change.
The principles outlined here recognize that strong measures are
needed now to reduce the sources of greenhouse gases that contribute to
global climate change, but significant effort is also required to
mitigate projected impacts. Uncertainties in future human responses and
the persistence of previously emitted gases mean that even with
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we will continue to feel the
effects of climate change for decades to come. We can already see the
effects of a changed climate, including increases in global average air
and ocean temperatures, increased precipitation in some areas and more
frequent and severe droughts in others, and an increase in the
occurrence of intense weather events. These impacts are here today, and
they are projected to continue and, in many cases, intensify in the
future.
It is important for organizations, agencies and individuals to
identify strategies and policies to help human communities and
ecosystems adapt to a changing climate. We applaud the proactive
approach embodied in S. 2156, the SECURE Water Act, that recognizes the
need to better understand the impacts climate change will have on the
management of our water resources and to prepare strategies now to
adapt to these changes.
i. streamflow
Streamflow patterns rise and fall seasonally with changes in
precipitation, evaporation and snowmelt. Flow increases during rainy
seasons or as snow melts and declines with the higher temperatures of
summer. Freshwater and estuarine plants and wildlife have evolved in
concert with and are sustained by the natural variations in water flow
that occur seasonally, annually and over the course of many years.
Human alterations to natural flow patterns take a serious toll on the
plants, animals, and freshwater ecosystems that depend on it.
Environmental flows are the amount and timing of water flows required
to maintain healthy freshwater ecosystems and their benefits to human
communities. A well-managed water resource is allocated to people and
to environmental flows according to the needs of both.
Climate Change Impacts
Global climate change will exacerbate the changes to natural
streamflow patterns already caused by other human influences. The
anticipated changes in climate are predicted to happen at an
unprecedented rate, challenging any natural adaptation capacity and
affecting entire ecosystems. Managing our natural ecosystems to persist
during such rapid change will require fundamental changes in our
traditional water management approaches. Specifically, water managers
will need to fully consider not only the human needs like water supply,
hydropower, and recreation that are served by removing water from
rivers and lakes, but also the amount of water that must remain in
these ecosystems to support wildlife and other human benefits.
Recommendation: Broaden the focus of adaptation strategies in
Section 4 of the SECURE Water Act beyond threatened and
endangered species and fish and wildlife habitats to protection
of ecosystems and specifically the environmental flow needs of
freshwater ecosystems.
Streamflow in regions across the United States will be affected by
climate change in differing ways. Alaska anticipates and is already
seeing some of the most profound changes, including increased flooding,
especially in ecologically critical coastal wetlands; the thawing of
permafrost, which will lead lakes and wetlands to drain in some areas;
and earlier Spring peak flows that will cause northern freshwater
fisheries, central to local diets, to suffer.\2\ Pacific coastal and
Rocky Mountain states expect earlier spring peak runoff, more winter
flooding and less summer streamflow. Southwestern states are bracing
for lower summer flows due to reduced groundwater recharge and for
increased flash flooding. Midwestern states may expect more severe
droughts and possible steep declines in summer streamflow. The Great
Lakes are likely to recede due to reduced tributary streamflow.
Northeastern states may contend with large reductions in streamflow and
changes in the magnitude and timing of spring floods. Southeastern and
Mid-Atlantic states may have lower base flows, larger peak flows and
longer droughts. Every region anticipates higher water temperatures,
which weaken the ability of freshwater plants and animals to tolerate
the other changes in water conditions.\3\ And every region is faced
with uncertainty regarding the magnitude and timing of climate change
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Arctic,
2004.
\3\ http://www.isse.ucar.edu/water_climate/html_map.html (Specific
sources for each prediction are fully cited here.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change impacts to streamflow will severely impair our
ability to meet human water needs. Already, competition for limited
water resources between irrigators, municipalities, industrial users
and hydropower generators has ignited untold conflict in this country.
Even water-rich eastern states are mired in ``water wars'' that we
usually associate with the waterstrapped western region. Georgia,
Alabama and Florida, for example, have involved no less than twelve
federal agencies in attempting to resolve long-standing disputes over
water allocation in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-
Coosa-Tallapoosa river basins. Climate-change induced reductions in
water supplies during critical seasons will only exacerbate the
competition for water nationwide.
It is critical that providing for these competing demands in the
face of climate change does not come at the expense of our natural
aquatic systems. The key to providing for all demands efficiently is
flexibility to adapt in the face of uncertainty. Healthy natural
ecosystems and watersupply systems that are flexible to respond to both
short-and long-term changes in streamflow patterns have built-in
resiliency to floods, droughts and rising temperatures. And resiliency
secures water supplies both for direct human demands and for the
healthy aquatic ecosystems that support them.
Recommendation: To ensure that the appropriate balance between
healthy natural ecosystems and water supply is achieved,
language should be added to the SECURE Water Act to clarify
that adaptation strategies developed under The Climate Change
Adaptation Program in Section 4 and the Water Management
Improvement grants in Section 5 must seek to balance water
supply and ecosystem needs while preventing further degradation
of aquatic ecosystems.
Adaptation Strategies
Any adaptation strategies implemented at the federal, state or
local level must balance human and ecosystem needs for water. Below we
offer a number of management approaches that achieve this balance and
increase our ability to provide for both humans and ecosystems in the
wake of the impacts to streamflow described above.
Comprehensive Water Resource Management
Changes in climate and water availability will present new and
complex challenges for water managers. Fortunately, proven approaches
for comprehensively managing water resources for humans and nature
already exist. But in the vast majority of the country, water managers
still lack the basic knowledge of when and where water is physically
and legally available in the basins they manage. Despite the
availability of sophisticated water accounting tools and methods, very
few are actually applied to real-world regional water management in the
United States.
Texas leads the nation with its Water Availability Modeling (WAM)
system. WAM, which was implemented in 1997 by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality in collaboration with water users and managers,
computes water availability and reliability at 13,000 stream sites
within 20 watersheds covering 685,000 square kilometers. By
systematically accounting for the cumulative effects of all natural and
engineered controls on streamflow, including diversions, return flows
and reservoir storage, WAM enables competing demands on each stream
segment to be managed efficiently, taking into account both upstream
and downstream flow requirements. Through WAM, the state incorporates
environmental flow requirements into each new water permit, thus
integrating ecological resiliency into statewide water management.
Although the 5 state does not currently consider climate change in its
permitting decisions, WAM is a flexible tool with the proven capability
of modeling the impacts of climate change on water availability.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Wurbs, Ralph A., Ranjan S. Muttiah, and Fabrice Felden. 2005.
Incorporation of climate change in water availability modeling. Journal
of Hydrologic Engineering 10 (5):375-385; Wurbs RA. 2005. Texas water
availability modeling system. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management 131(4):270-279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability to manage water comprehensively over entire basins is
fundamental to ensuring flexibility in the overall system and is
particularly important in the wake of a changing climate. A key
component of comprehensive management is increasing our understanding
of water availability, which the SECURE Water Act will help to do by
providing support for USGS' national streamflow information program,
establishing new monitoring programs, and providing incentives to
integrate and standardize water availability data. In addition to
gathering the necessary data, it is important that all areas of the
country adopt and implement comprehensive approaches to water
accounting and management. Therefore, we would support more explicit
incentives in this legislation to ensure adoption of comprehensive
management approaches by states and localities.
Recommendation: The SECURE Water Act should provide incentives for
implementation of comprehensive water accounting and management
approaches by explicitly including comprehensive water
assessments and management, which includes environmental flows,
as a component of the climate change adaptation strategies
under Section 4 and water management improvement grants
authorized in Section 5.
Demand Management
Equally critical to adaptive, resilient water resource systems is
to have water-demand management plans in place for times of drought.
Even in water-scarce western states, innovative drought management has
successfully averted ecological disaster without threatening senior
water rights. The Big Hole basin in Montana is one such stirring
example. After nearly a decade of chronic water shortages and ensuing
conflicts, state and federal agencies, working together with local
stakeholders, have implemented rules for voluntary cutbacks in
irrigation diversions and sport fishing, triggered by measured drops in
streamflow. Meanwhile, applied hydrologic research has targeted
irrigation efficiency measures to specific stream reaches where they
most benefit the rest of the basin. Finally, The Nature Conservancy and
others are working to improve degraded stream habitat to enable water
to move more freely downstream, helping to maintain cool temperatures
and good water quality in the otherwise drought-stressed river.
Thus, after years of distrust and debate among ranchers and
agencies over irrigation water use, compounded by the threat of federal
listing of the imperiled Arctic Grayling fish as an endangered species,
and water rights laws that discourage water conservation, the tables
are starting to turn. Working together, the people in the Big Hole
basin have shown that strategically reducing consumption during periods
of drought and restoring stream habitat increases the resiliency of the
river and of both the human livelihoods and native species that depend
on it. As changes in climate increase the likelihood of drought
conditions in parts of the country, states and localities should
develop similar demand management plans that enable water users to
reduce consumption during periods of drought. Federal funding and
policy should support these efforts.
Recommendation: The SECURE Water Act should provide incentives for
development of demand management plans that protect both human
water supplies and ecosystem health by explicitly including
demand management plans that incorporate environmental flow
needs during droughts as a component of the climate change
adaptation strategies under Section 4 and the water management
improvement grants authorized in Section 5.
In addition to planning ahead for management during times of
drought, it is important that we begin now to reduce our demand on
increasingly scarce water resources by implementing proactive water
conservation and efficiency practices. We appreciate the focus on water
conservation and efficiency in both the development of adaptation
strategies and water management improvement grants authorized in this
legislation. However, it is often difficult to see a measurable impact
from water conservation practices unless they are coordinated on a
regional or watershed basis and measured to demonstrate the benefit to
the resource. Such an approach should be incorporated into any funding
distributed under this legislation for the purpose of reducing
consumption or increasing efficiency.
Recommendation: Demand reduction and water efficiency practices
funded through the SECURE Water Act should be delivered on a
regional or watershed basis and involve measurement of the
practices' impact in the delivery area.
Sustainable Water Storage
Historically, society's response to floods and droughts has been to
impound surface water in reservoirs and to release it as needed.
However, a dearth of geologically suitable locations for new dams, a
decrease in the reliability of water available to fill dams, and an
increased awareness of their ecological consequences will hinder this
response to future hydrologic extremes, even as their frequency and
intensity increase. In many areas, an integrated solution can be
achieved by managing ground water and surface water together. The
legislation's creation of a National Groundwater Resources Monitoring
program will provide key data useful for implementing conjunctive
management of ground and surface water.
By naturally or artificially recharging excess runoff, depleted
aquifers can be transformed into underground ``reservoirs'' to
supplement the flood-and drought-buffering capacity of existing
surface-water reservoirs. Existing infrastructure such as irrigation
systems can be used to distribute water and recharge aquifers. In
addition, wetland ecosystems play a very important role in naturally
storing water. By slowing the flow of water, wetlands facilitate the
percolation of water into aquifers that can later be used for water
supply during dry periods. In light of the environmental consequences
and costs of new dams and reservoirs, it is important that this
legislation provide incentives for natural and non-structural
approaches to water storage, such as artificial aquifer recharge and
wetland restoration.
Recommendation: The SECURE Water Act should incorporate incentives
for natural water storage such as conjunctive ground and
surface water management, artificial aquifer recharge, and
wetland restoration, while minimizing any focus on building new
water storage infrastructure.
Another way to increase water storage without building new
reservoirs is to increase the capacity of existing dams and manage the
stored water in environmentally sensitive ways. One of the most
promising ways to improve our use of existing reservoir storage is to
reduce our reliance on dams to provide flood control. Presently, a
tremendous volume of potential storage space is left empty behind dams
because that space is reserved to capture incoming floods and protect
downstream structures and roads. If those downstream structures could
be moved out of harm's way, and if natural floodplain areas could be
restored for the purpose of storing floodwaters, the immense volume of
usually-empty flood storage in our nation's reservoirs presently being
reserved for flood control can be converted into storing water to
supply cities and farms, generating hydro-electric power, and releasing
improved environmental flows into downstream ecosystems. Moreover,
floods that are allowed to return to their natural floodplains recharge
underlying aquifers, which slowly release groundwater back to the river
as cool, steady baseflows. Additionally, restoring natural floodplain
areas will greatly benefit many plants and animals that have become
endangered due to excessive floodplain development.
Through our work on the Yangtze River in China, we have developed a
proposal--now under serious consideration by the central Chinese
government--that calls for large-scale restoration of the Yangtze
valley's floodplain and illustrates the potential benefits of using
floodplains instead of dams for flood management. This proposal would
enable the flood control volume planned for the new reservoirs on the
Yangtze to be reduced substantially and would instead use the available
reservoir volume to produce much more hydropower from the Yangtze dams.
In fact, we estimate that as much as $1 billion per year of additional
revenue could be generated from increased electricity production on the
Yangtze River, which in turn would be used to fund floodplain
restoration and other non-structural forms of flood management. It will
also enable the Chinese to produce badly-needed electricity in a
relatively clean manner that does not exacerbate climate change.
We must integrate the role of healthy and functioning floodplains
and wetlands into our flood management and not rely solely on dams and
reservoirs to meet these needs, particularly as climate change makes
the other purposes of these reservoirs even more important. A national
assessment should be conducted to identify locations at which the
operating purposes of flood control dams can be modified by shifting
flood management to floodplains by removing or relocating roads and
structures or by removing or setting back levees that constrain
floodplain areas. Further, incentives are needed to both protect and
restore wetlands and floodplains, as these valuable areas continue to
be lost to urban development or agricultural expansion. By thinking
about flood management and water storage in a more comprehensive manner
and focusing funding, which may include revenues generated by
additional hydropower production or water supply, toward floodplain
restoration and flood mitigation below existing dams, aquatic
ecosystems, energy customers and water users benefit.
Recommendation: The SECURE Water Act should provide incentives for
restoring the natural flood storage capacities of floodplains
and wetlands and encourage dam owners and operators to assess
the potential for converting the available flood storage volume
in the nation's reservoirs into storage for water supply, power
generation, and environmental flow releases. To ensure the
ability of natural systems to provide flood reduction benefits,
the incentives in this legislation must be coupled with
additional strong disincentives for new development in
floodplains and wetland areas.
Modifying Dam Operations to Improve Environmental Flows
While the construction and operation of dams and reservoirs has
benefited the nation greatly by providing water supply, flood control,
and electricity production, dams have also had serious impacts on the
health of river ecosystems and are a leading cause of aquatic species
endangerment, including many fish species that are of considerable
economic value. The hydroelectric power assessment called for in
Section 6 of the SECURE Water Act and the adaptation strategies to be
developed under Section 4 present an excellent means for identifying
ways to modify dam operations to improve downstream environmental flows
that will benefit ecosystems made increasingly vulnerable by climate
change.
The Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation have a
critical role to play in maintaining adequate environmental flows. The
operating procedures for the hundreds of dams that the Corps and Bureau
own and operate seek to optimize inexpensive water, power and flood
control, but have largely ignored environmental flow needs downstream
of these facilities. The Sustainable Rivers Project, an innovative
partnership between the Corps of Engineers and The Nature Conservancy,
has already demonstrated at several sites that modest adjustments to
existing dam operations can yield substantial improvements in ecosystem
health by improving environmental flow releases from the dams, while
only minimally affecting other dam functions and keeping operational
changes within the project's authorized purposes.\5\ Updating operating
instructions by specifically incorporating flow releases that benefit
the river ecosystem at the nearly two thousand dams under federal
control could do a great deal to improve river health and increase
resiliency to climate change. Following the example set working with
the Corps on the Sustainable Rivers Project, we would support including
an evaluation of environmental flow needs in the assessment of
hydroelectric power dams required in Section 6 of the legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Postel S, Richter B. 2003. Rivers for Life: Managing Water for
People and Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, p. 92-102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: The SECURE Water Act should include evaluation of
environmental flow needs in response to climate change as a
component of the hydroelectric power assessment to be conducted
by the Secretary of Energy under Section 6 of the Act and the
development of adaptation strategies under Section 4.
ii. water temperature
Climate Change Impacts
In addition to the effects discussed above, climate change will
also cause a rise in water temperatures. Water temperature plays a
crucial role in the health of river and stream ecosystems. The
distribution of aquatic species and their growth and reproduction rates
are determined, in large part, by water temperature. Stream
temperatures are projected to rise 0.9 C for each 1 C rise in air
temperature.\6\ In some places, water temperatures have already reached
the lethal limits for some fish species. A recent analysis projects
that thermally suitable habitat for 57 species of cool-and cold-water
fish will decline by 50 percent in U.S. rivers if air temperatures rise
by 4 C.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Schindler, D.W. 1997. Widespread effects of climate warming on
freshwater ecosystems in North America. Hydrol Proc.
\7\ Poff, N. L., M. Brinson, and J. B. Day. 2002. Freshwater and
coastal ecosystems and global climate change: a review of projected
impacts for the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
Arlington, VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptation Strategies
As water temperatures rise, the survival of many aquatic species
may depend on stream connectivity and their ability to migrate upstream
or in a northerly direction to cooler waters. Access to suitable
migration corridors is necessary for this movement to succeed.\8\
Across the nation, state agencies and private conservation groups are
seeking to improve stream connectivity by actively removing old, unused
dams that block fish migration. Allowing these fish to migrate to
higher elevations and latitudes as temperatures increase may be the key
to their surviving climate change. Similarly, road culverts that pose
impediments to fish movements are being replaced with fish-friendly
structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Poff, N. L., M. Brinson, and J. B. Day. 2002. Freshwater and
coastal ecosystems and global climate change: a review of projected
impacts for the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
Arlington, VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Water Management Improvement grants under Section 5
of the SECURE Water Act should include funding for activities
to improve stream connectivity, which will enable the removal
of unnecessary dams, replacement of inadequate road culverts
with fish-friendly structures, and incorporation of improved
drainage structures into new construction.
iii. water quality
Change Impacts Climate
Climate change will adversely affect water quality in some regions
of the U.S. by altering water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels,
salinity, and assimilative capacity for point and non-point source
pollutants. There is an inverse relationship between water temperature
and dissolved oxygen levels, which plays a critical role in the health
of aquatic ecosystems. As water temperatures rise, dissolved oxygen
levels will decrease. Pollution, in addition to temperature, also
influences dissolved oxygen levels; when increased organic matter flows
into water systems dissolved oxygen levels decrease as bacteria and
other organisms consume oxygen while working to break down the organic
matter.\9\ So, ecosystems currently under stress from pollution levels
will see increased stress as water temperatures rise from climate
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Estuarine Research Reserve System, NOAA,
www.nerrs.noaa.gov/Monitoring/WaterOxygen.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed earlier, some regions in the U.S. will see decreased
streamflow due to changes in precipitation patterns caused by climate
change. In some areas, decreased streamflow can lead to increased water
salinity. One such example is Southern New Mexico. There the Rio Grande
picks up water on its journey south from upwellings of salt
concentrated spring waters. With less streamflow and runoff to dilute
the water, the river will become more saline causing problems for water
users in the area such as farmers who use the water for irrigation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Hurd, B., Coonrod, J., Climate Change and Its Implications for
New Mexico's Water Resources and Economic Opportunities, July 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, with reduced streamflow, the assimilative capacity for
point and non-point source pollutants is lowered. Using again the
example of the Rio Grande watershed in New Mexico, Brian Hurd of New
Mexico State University and Julie Coonrod of the University of New
Mexico point out that with less water, in non-attainment reaches of the
Rio Grande, lower total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) might be expected
and this could raise control costs. Additionally, new reaches of the
river may fall out of attainment causing higher pollution control
costs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adaptation Strategies
Climate change will exacerbate existing water quality impairments.
To respond it is important that we both continue and give renewed focus
to current efforts to address these water quality issues. Further, many
of the strategies described above to better manage water in the wake of
climate change will help to mitigate the expected impacts to water
quality.
iv. climate change adaptation research
All of the straegies outlined above will prove useful as water
managers respond to climate change. However, we must continue to
conduct research to better understand the climate impacts and necessary
responses in specific places. Scientists at the Conservancy are
actively monitoring climate change impacts around the world to better
understand climate change and how wildlife and ecosystems may adapt.
With a growing understanding of present and future scenarios, we will
be better equipped to help water managers and the ecosystems affected
by our management cope with warming, changes in precipitation and other
impacts of climate change.
Over the course of the past 12 months, The Nature Conservancy in
New Mexico has initiated a state-wide climate change vulnerability
assessment and adaptive management program which we hope will serve as
a blueprint for other states and regions. The primary goals of this
program is to provide specific science-based information on the current
and projected impacts of climate change on wildlife habitats, and to
work with key land managers and conservation practitioners to
collaboratively design and implement adaptive management strategies and
actions.
The project currently includes three core components: (1) analysis
of recent changes in climate, hydrology, and ecology and how these
relate to priority conservation areas and target species (as identified
in TNC's ecoregional analyses and the New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy), (2) assessment of potential changes in the
target species and ecosystem distribution under a suite of future
climate change scenarios and projection of implications for the
priority conservation areas, and (3) identification of adaptation
strategies that managers can use to promote ecological resilience that
will ultimately facilitate the conservation of biodiversity and
associated ecosystem services.
Climate change will alter landscapes, rivers, streams and seascapes
as we know them. It is important that we build our adaptation
strategies on sound science and seek to ensure that approaches to
address the consequences of a changing water supply balance the need to
protect our aquatic ecosystems. Projects such as the Conservancy's
climate adaptation program in New Mexico will help us analyze the
impacts of climate change on plants, animals and natural communities
and will help to create innovative conservation solutions that will
enable humans and natural areas to cope with and adapt to what may be
the unavoidable effects of climate change. Therefore, we recommend that
the SECURE Water Act take a similar approach by using scientific input
on climate adaptation in the development of the adaptation strategies
and linking the implementation of adaptation activities to the science-
based strategies being developed by the Department of Interior.
Recommendation: The development of adaptation strategies in Section
4 of the SECURE Water Act should be based on scientific input
regarding climate change impact to water supply and aquatic
ecosystems. In addition, the Water Management Improvement
grants in Section 5 should be linked to the science-based
adaptation strategies developed in Section 4.
v. conclusion
The impacts of climate change on freshwater systems will be
profound. Water flows in rivers will be altered, incidents of flooding
and droughts will increase, water temperature will rise, and water
quality will be degraded. Failing to protect freshwater ecosystems from
these changes will have tangible societal, cultural and economic
consequences, putting great pressure on our water managers. Our
response to climate change must recognize the role that healthy
ecosystems can play in mitigating these impacts to both humans and
natural communities. It is important that all of our policy and on-the-
ground adaptation approaches recognize the need to maintain healthy and
resilient ecosystems that preserve the ability to adapt in the face of
climate change and continue to meet the needs of both humans and
wildlife.
In order to enable aquatic ecosystems to provide for human and
wildlife needs in the face of a changing climate we must:
Design water-supply systems that are flexible to both short-
and long-term changes in streamflow patterns including
increased floods, droughts and rising temperatures.
Specifically, states and localities should develop demand-
management plans that enable water users to reduce consumption
during periods of drought. Federal funding and policies should
support these efforts.
Adopt comprehensive basin-wide approaches to water
accounting and management to preserve the flexibility of the
water system to adapt to change--all water management plans
should give due consideration to environmental flows needed to
sustain healthy freshwater ecosystems. This includes
acquisition and coordination of data on water availability that
will be necessary to inform comprehensive management.
Manage existing water infrastructure in a manner that both
meets human needs for water and sustains healthy freshwater
ecosystems. This includes providing appropriate environmental
flow releases from dams.
Restore floodplains and wetlands that can provide needed
flood storage and help to recharge aquifers, while freeing up
valuable storage space previously allocated to flood control.
The reservoir volume made available by non-structural flood
management downstream of dams can be used for improved water
supply, electricity production, and environmental flow
releases.
Remove barriers that constrain the ability of fish and other
aquatic organisms to move to cooler waters as the climate
warms. Unnecessary dams and road culverts that block aquatic
organisms from migrating should be removed or replaced.
Invest in applied research on the impacts of climate change
on specific ecosystems and link adaptation strategies to this
research.
We believe the SECURE Water Act is an important first step in
addressing many of the impacts climate change will have on our water
resources. We look forward to working with the committee to incorporate
the principles above into this legislation.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify and to comment on
this important legislation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Wunsch, you're our final witness, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF DAVID R. WUNSCH, PH.D., P.G., REPRESENTING
NATIONAL GROUNDWATER ASSOCIATION, CONCORD, NH
Mr. Wunsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of Senate bill 2156,
the SECURE Water Act.
My name is Dr. David Wunsch, and I'm representing the
National Groundwater Association, which is an association of
over 14,000 members that include drilling contractors,
manufacturers, scientists, and engineers, many of whom are
national leaders in the groundwater industry. On behalf of the
Association, I would like to applaud the committee's leadership
in the legislative initiative directed toward improving the
Nation's ability to manage and assess its water resources. This
action is overdue.
Developing scientifically based strategies for developing
sustainable groundwater resources is a key component in our
ability to address the growing demands of an increasing
population and the uncertainties of global climate change.
The Association concurs with the bill's statement, ``States
bear the primary responsibility and authority for managing
water resources of the United States,'' but we also agree that
the Federal Government should play a support role to the
States, as well as regional, local, and tribal governments.
One overriding theme that we would like to express is that
groundwater and quantity are inextricably linked when
discussing water availability, because water must be of
sufficient quality for designated or intended uses. Thus, all
programs promoted in this bill should recognize that fact.
National Groundwater supports the development of a climate
adaptation program which can help resource managers respond to
changes in the distribution of water resources.
While the bill requires an assessment of specific risks to
the Nation's water supply, there's no mention of assessing
changes in groundwater recharge or discharge, which we feel are
equally important. For example, land-use changes that create
impervious cover, such as parking lots, can critically alter
the amount of recharge to aquifers, and adequate recharge is
critical for maintaining sustainable groundwater supplies. The
Association also strongly supports the inclusion of conjunctive
use of groundwater and surface water, and also recommends
examining groundwater storage and recovery as ways to integrate
and enhance water availability.
Relative to the groundwater management section of the
legislation, we would like to emphasize that groundwater will
play an expanding and crucial role in the Nation's water
resource portfolio, and we will need to improve management,
planning, and policy tools to provide citizens with safe,
reliable water supplies.
In terms of increasing available, NGWA recommends adding
language under the section to include treating brackish or
impaired groundwaters, which would expand limits on what is
currently viewed as available. The Association supports the
creation of a Climate Change and Water Intergovernmental Panel,
but we suggest including the U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest
Service, in addition to the members currently named.
Senate bill 2156 would establish a Water Data Enhancement
and Water Use and Availability Assessment Program.
In regard to both of these proposed programs, the
Association supported the formation of the Subcommittee on
Groundwater under the auspices of the Federal Advisory
Committee on Water Information. With approximately 60 members,
this diverse body is working collaboratively to develop a
nationwide framework for monitoring groundwater quality and
quantity, and the Association recognizes the primary role the
States play relative to water resources management, and
therefore, we encourage ongoing dialog regarding the
Subcommittee on Groundwater to encourage the directives for
Federal agencies, as outlined in this bill, and to complement
the efforts of the subcommittee.
National Groundwater did have some concerns regarding the
funding mechanisms for these funding programs, particularly
concerns that some States may not be able to participate
without Federal support. The Association has long supported
increased Federal funding for cooperative groundwater quantity
and quality data collection, and encourages the committee to
consider the funding model that's provided through the National
Cooperative Geological Mapping Program, which I know the
Chairman is very familiar with. In the State map component of
this program, Federal dollars are provided on a 50/50 matching
basis for cooperative data collection for mapping, with the
States directing the data collection to meet the States' needs,
while simultaneously providing data to the Federal Government
for an integrated national mapping program. This may be a good
model for creating a national monitoring program, as well.
We are concerned, however, that State funding shortfalls
would keep many States from participating, and we suggest
Federal Government provide a maximum of 100 percent of funding,
or a minimum of 60 percent. Further, on funding questions it is
not clear as to if grants under the Water Use Availability
Assessment Program could be used by the States to support their
groundwater monitoring networks or efforts, which include the
actual data-gathering, with the idea of submitting and sharing
this information with the U.S. Geological Survey.
NGWA is currently completing work on a groundwater
monitoring survey with other cooperating associations, and
preliminary results show that several States do not have
statewide groundwater monitoring programs, or their programs
may not be sufficient for compiling a national assessment of
water availability without additional fiscal support.
In closing, the National Groundwater Association looks
forward to working with this committee and the entire Senate to
ensure passage of the SECURE Water Act. As always, our
Association is available to serve as a resource for scientific
information, as well as a conduit for further discussions
related to the Nation's water resource issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wunsch follows:]
Prepared Statement of David R. Wunsch, Ph.D., P.G., Representing
National Groundwater Association, Concord, NH
Good afternoon. My name is David Wunsch and I am here to speak on
behalf of the National Ground Water Association (NGWA). We appreciate
the opportunity to provide the perspective of its members on the SECURE
Water Act.
The National Ground Water Association is a not for profit
professional society and trade association for the ground water
industry. Our more than 14,500 members include some of the country's
leading public and private sector ground water scientists, engineers,
water well contractors, manufacturers and suppliers of ground water
related products and services. The Association's vision is to be the
leading community of ground water professionals that promotes the
responsible development, use and management of ground water resources.
I would like to begin my testimony commending the Committee's
leadership in the introduction and dialogue occurring here today on an
issue of vital importance for the United States--improving our ability
to assess and manage our nation's water resources. NGWA has
continuously encouraged lawmakers to consider the importance of
assessing, protecting and developing long-term strategies for one of
our most critical resources--ground water. Developing scientifically
based strategies for sustainable use of our nation's ground water
resources is a key component in our ability to address the growing
demands of an increasing population and to prepare for the potential
adverse effects of climate change.
NGWA strongly supports the bill's findings that adequate and safe
supplies of water are fundamental to sustain the health, economy,
security and ecology of the United States. We also support the bill's
goals of developing and implementing systematic data gathering
programs. Implementing the SECURE Water Act will help ensure data are
available to effectively manage our water supplies and maintain their
chemical quality to support population growth, economic growth,
irrigated agriculture, energy production and sustain ecosystems. NGWA
also concurs with the bill's statement ``States bear the primary
responsibility and authority for managing water resources of the United
States'' but ``the federal government should support the states, as
well as regional, local and tribal governments . . .''
One overriding theme that NGWA would like to present to the
Committee for consideration is to ensure the bill promotes programs
that recognize water quality and quantity are inextricably linked when
discussing water availability. Water must be of sufficient quality for
designated or intended uses. Knowledge of both quality and quantity are
required for state and local water management and development and
should be treated with equal importance particularly when this bill
promotes building communication channels among various agencies and
organizations. Promoting collaborations on quality and quantity would
also ensure that data collection efforts could serve to develop water
management strategies that not only work to protect our nation's water
resources, but also provide information as to what water is available,
and for what use.
climate adaptation program
NGWA supports the bill's inclusion of establishing a climate change
adaptation program. Climate change has the potential to cause
significant impacts on the distribution of the nation's water
resources, and subsequent water demand. Changes in local and regional
temperature and precipitation patterns in the nation have been observed
and well documented over the past century.\1\ \2\ Further climate
change related modifications of temperature and precipitation patterns
are expected to occur over the next century creating greater
uncertainty in water supply reliability. In addition, changes in sea
level in response to the changing climate may have profound impacts on
state and national ecologic and water resource systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Preparing for a Changing Climate, the Potential Consequences of
Climate Variability and Change, a Report of the California Regional
Assessment Group for the US Global Change Research Program, June 2002.
\2\ Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of
California's Water Resources, Technical Memorandum Report, California
Department of Water Resources, July 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill requires an assessment of specific risks to the nation's
water supply including changes in snow pack, timing of runoff,
reservoir evaporation rates, and any increase in the demand for water.
However, there is no mention of assessing changes in ground water
recharge and discharge, which are equally important. While other parts
of the bill recognize ground water-surface water interactions, it is
not reflected in this section. NGWA recommends adding that the
assessment of changes in ground water recharge and discharge be
specifically listed as an important component of an integrated water
resources management framework for planning.
Ground water, the nation's subsurface reservoir, will be relied on
more in the future to help balance larger swings in precipitation and
temperature, and to increase the water supply reliability in the more
uncertain times caused by climate fluctuations. NGWA strongly supports
the bill's inclusion of conjunctive ground water and surface water
storage as a viable strategy to mitigate water supply changes from
climate change. There will be more emphasis on conjunctive use, which
involves the coordinated and planned operation of both surface and
ground water resources for conservation and optimal use.\3\ However,
NGWA recommends the Committee also include examining enhanced ground
water storage and availability as a potential strategy for mitigating
water supply shortages, in addition to conjunctive ground water and
surface water storage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Groundwater Hydrology, 3rd Edition, David K. Todd and Larry W.
May, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New Jersey, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
water management improvement
Ground water has and continues to play an expanding and pivotal
role in national, state and regional water management planning. The
expanding emphasis on the need and use of ground water resources will
require improved management, planning and policy tools to provide
citizens with safe, reliable water supplies. National leadership and
cooperation with state and local governments are necessary to ensure
these tools are made available to water professionals to develop
strategies for long-term sustainable use of our ground water resources.
NGWA recommends adding language under this section to include
treating brackish ground water or other impaired waters. Treating
brackish ground water, utilizing gray water and remediated contaminated
ground water, as well as, innovative uses of water impaired by either
natural or manmade substances would expand the water supply from what
is currently viewed as available.
climate change and water intragovernmental panel
NGWA supports the creation of an intragovernmental panel to develop
a comprehensive understanding of global climate change potential
impacts on the water resources of the United States. In order to ensure
the panel maximizes the resources of governmental experts and data
collections, NGWA recommends including the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service
to the panel.
water data enhancement program and water use availability
assessment program
In recognition of the primary role states play, NGWA supported the
formation of the Subcommittee on Ground Water (SOGW) under the auspices
of the Federal Advisory Committee on Water Information, wherein the
federal, state and private sectors could come together collaboratively
to develop and encourage implementation of a nationwide framework for
ground water quality and quantity monitoring. SOGW has grown and is
continuing to grow. Currently, more than 60 individuals from around the
country, representing a wide range of organizations as well as
individual interests, have volunteered their time and energy in
specific work group assignments. We appreciate the bill's incorporation
of consultation with ACWI and believe the SOGW can help in achieving
some of the legislation's aims set out in these sections. We encourage
on-going dialogue regarding the SOGW to ensure the directives for
federal agencies as outlined in S. 2156 complement the efforts of the
SOGW. To that point, NGWA would recommend adding to the objectives for
the National Groundwater Resources Monitoring Program the following
``to provide information necessary for the planning, management and
development of ground water supplies to meet current and future water
needs and sustain ecosystems as necessary.''
funding for water data enhancement/water use and availability
assessment program
NGWA did have some concerns regarding the funding mechanisms for
the Water Data Enhancement and Water Use and Availability Assessment
Programs. We have submitted questions for clarification to the
Committee to determine if it intended that only federal agency
personnel do the actual ground water monitoring data collection or can
state agency staff or others do the work and provide the data to the
federal agency if it proves more cost-efficient or for other reasons
determined to be more beneficial. NGWA is also concerned states may not
be able to participate without sufficient federal support.
NGWA has long supported increased federal funding for cooperative
ground water quantity and quality data collection. A possible model to
consider is the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP).
This popular program includes a core federal program, FEDMAP, as well
as two additional cooperative funding programs. Federal funding
available to the states is provided to state geological surveys through
the USGS STATEMAP program, which is the state component of the NCGMP.
The STATEMAP program utilizes state staff knowledgeable in the local
geology to maintain the data upon which much of the mapping is based.
The states, not the federal government, also select the areas of the
state that are in most need of mapping data. The program provides a
comprehensive understanding of the geology at/near land surface, in
which ground water is commonly a major consideration. However,
limitations of the program are that it requires a 1:1 matching of state
funds, which can prove to be a burden in some states. Thus we would
encourage the Committee to allow states to have personnel actively
involved and provide a funding stream that will not prohibit states
unable to provide cost-share from being involved (i.e. the federal
government may at a maximum provide 100% of the funding and at a
minimum provide 60%).
NGWA also requested clarification as to whether grant funds under
the Water Use Availability Assessment Program could be used by the
states to support their state ground water monitoring networks--the
actual data gathering--with the idea of submitting the information to
USGS. NGWA is currently completing work on a ground water monitoring
survey with other cooperating associations. Preliminary results show
several states do not have a statewide ground water monitoring level
program and for other states, their programs may not currently be
sufficient for the purposes of pulling and compiling a national
assessment of water availability without increased fiscal support.
concluding remarks
NGWA again would like to express its appreciation of the Committee
for the introduction and discussion of the SECURE Water Act. We commend
your leadership for recognizing and addressing data, tools and
communication channels that need to be supported and implemented in
order for the United States to develop long-term water management
strategies. The need for sound water policies and management is
especially vital with current drought conditions and growing
population. We look forward to working with this Committee and the
entire Senate to ensure passage of the SECURE Water Act. The NGWA is,
as always, available to this Committee to act as a resource for
scientific data as well as a conduit for further discussions with our
leading ground water scientists.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank all of you for
your excellent testimony. I know the time is late, and some of
you have planes to catch.
Let me ask one question that may show my ignorance. To what
extent are we actually seeing groundwater storage of water--
purposeful groundwater storage, or recharge of groundwater, in
the West? Let me ask John D'Antonio, first, if he has a
perspective on that.
Mr. D'Antonio. Mr. Chairman, we are looking at aquifer
storage and recovery in the State of New Mexico. Obviously,
there are several States that are using it. It's very important
to gain that extra storage space by using groundwater storage
opportunities. Again, we get rid of the evaporative loss factor
if we're able to do that. One of the things, again, that we
need to know more, is the condition of that aquifer--
essentially, quality and quantity of those aquifers--and to
determine where their availability is to deposit water in, and
making sure that the water quality issues are addressed. So,
we're looking at those issues.
The Chairman. Is there a good scientific consensus as to
the extent to which the evaporation problem is reduced by using
groundwater aquifer storage as distinct from surface reservoir
storage?
Mr. D'Antonio. Mr. Chairman, you completely get rid of the
evaporative loss component if you can store the water
underground. We use a significant amount of and lose a
significant amount of water in New Mexico with respect to our
evaporative losses.
The Chairman. OK.
Any of the others have a comment on this issue? Yes, Mr.
O'Toole.
Mr. O'Toole. Yes, sir. I think it's--we call it a balanced
suite of opportunities. In the Green River Basin--I know
Wyoming did a study in the Upper Green River Basin about
recharge, and the formations did not allow it. I think it's a
case-by-case basis. Arizona clearly did it successfully in its
relationship with California, earlier in the last decade. So, I
think some places, it's really worked. We, in our valley, used
wetlands as a water storage----
The Chairman. As an alternative?
Mr. O'Toole.--alternative. Right.
The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Lambeck.
Mr. Lambeck. At Metropolitan Water District, we have a
number of agreements, both within California and outside of
California, to store groundwater. Matter of fact, we've spent
over $400 million through 2006 to develop these efforts, and we
have several hundreds of thousands of acre feet stored in
aquifers----
The Chairman. This is water that's been reinjected into the
aquifers, or is it just water that has been there naturally?
Mr. O'Toole. No, this is new water----
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. O'Toole.--going into the aquifers.
The Chairman. Very good.
Yes, Mr. Wunsch--Dr. Wunsch.
Mr. Wunsch. My home State of New Hampshire, believe it or
not, a State that would probably not be normally equated with
having a dry, arid climate, does, indeed, have localized water
problems in such that we have a artificial recharge plan being
implemented right now by areas of our State for that same
reason, to inject recharge----
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Wunsch [continuing]. During the high times of flow,
after snowmelt in the springtime, to capitalize on that water.
The Chairman. Very good.
Again, thank you all for your testimony. Mike Connor, of
course, has been the key person working on this legislation. I
hope you'll continue to give us feedback on it as we try to
finalize this and move ahead with it.
But, why don't we stop the hearing, at this point, so
everybody can get on to whatever they have to do.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of David R. Wunsch to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1a. Your testimony advocates evaluating ``enhanced ground
water storage and availability as a potential strategy for mitigating
water supply shortages.'' How widespread is the use of ground water
storage in the United States right now?
Answer. In the face of the concern about the depletion of ground
water reserves and the potential reduction in surface water flows that
result, ground water storage projects are being implemented throughout
the United States. These ground water storage projects may employ wells
to pump water underground for storage and later recovery. Ground water
supplies are also recharged through the use of spreading basins and
other recycling and reuse programs (see Figure 1).* \1\ These
augmentation strategies are generally employed to prevent saltwater
intrusion and land subsidence, maintain base flow in streams, and store
excess water to sustain drinking water or other water supplies during
periods of peak demand, or to address seasonal and drought cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figures 1 and 2 have been retained in committee files.
\1\ Graphic courtesy of Ralf Topper, Colorado Geological Survey.
Artificial Recharge of Ground Water in Colorado--A Statewide
Assessment, p.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently we are not aware that a comprehensive data-base of
current and planned ground water storage projects exists nationwide.
Many of these projects are implemented by state and local
jurisdictions. In 2004, Topper et al. reported that artificial recharge
was being ``used in at least 32 states in the U.S., and at least 26
countries worldwide.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Topper, R et al. Artificial Recharge of Ground Water in
Colorado--A Statewide Assessment. 2004, p. ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. EPA in a 1999 study reported that there were 1,185 documented
aquifer recharge and aquifer storage and recovery wells in the United
States but that the actual number of aquifer recharge and aquifer
storage and recovery wells could be ``greater than 1,695 but unlikely
to be higher than 2,000.''\3\ As of 2005, there were approximately 72
aquifer storage recovery well fields in the United States, and an
estimated 100 more in various stages of development (see Figure 2).*\4\
The well fields contain one or more aquifer storage and recovery
wells.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. EPA. Class V UIC Study Fact Sheet. Aquifer Recharge Wells
and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells. 1999.
\4\ Pyne, R. David G. Aquifer Storage Recovery--a Guide to Ground
Water Recharge Through Wells, Second Edition,. ASR Press, Gainesville,
FL, 2005. p. 13
\5\ Pyne, R. David G. Where is ASR? Retrieved January 10, 2008 at
http://wwwasrforum.com/where.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban communities in the northwest and southwest are developing
underground storage capacity to meet their growing water demands,
rather than relying on agreements with larger cities possessing surface
storage facilities.\7\ Even in the New England states, which are not
normally thought of as having severe water shortages, aquifer storage
and recovery programs are being developed and tested. Attachment 1
provides descriptions of some aquifer recharge projects that were
discussed at a 2007 NGWA conference or that were provided as examples
by the NGWA membership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Committee on Sustainable Underground Storage of Recoverable
Water, National Research Council. Prospects for Managed Underground
Storage of Recoverable Water. Prepublication Copy, 2007. p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1b. Do you think its use can be significantly expanded?
Answer. The capacity to store excess water in the subsurface is
significant. However, ground water systems are complex and development
of these augmentation strategies need to be based on sound science.
Ground water storage can be significantly expanded; and as mentioned
previously, many water providers are moving forward with plans to
increase water supplies by developing local ground water storage
programs.
While there is currently no comprehensive, nationwide assessment of
ground water storage potential, there is some state specific
information. In 2004, the Colorado Geological Survey published a
statewide assessment that included an estimate of storage capacity in
all of Colorado's major aquifers. They concluded that from a ``regional
perspective large storage capacities (greater than 100,000 acre feet)
are available in both unconsolidated alluvial and consolidated bedrock
aquifers.'' Additionally, they found opportunities for local, smaller
aquifer storage projects are ``tremendous, and potential source waters
exist even in over-appropriated surface water drainages.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Topper, R. ``Nature's Underground Reservoir: Aquifer Storage
(abstract)''. 21st Century Ground Water Systems Conference Abstracts.
National Ground Water Association. October, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservative estimates in California indicate the potential to
increase average annual water deliveries throughout the state by
500,000 acre-feet with 9 million acre-feet of ``new'' ground water
storage. New storage includes both re-operation of existing ground
water storage and recharging water into de-watered aquifer space. More
aggressive estimates from screening level studies indicate the
potential to increase average annual water deliveries by 2 million
acre-feet with about 20 million acre-feet of new storage.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ California Water Plan Update 2005, California Department of
Water Resources Bulletin 160-05, December 2005, Volume 2, Chapter 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1c. What are some of the obstacles and challenges to
implementing a ground water storage system?
Answer. Increasing the availability and capacity of ground water
use and storage to augment and sustain water supplies and ecosystem
services is a complex challenge. With limited federal mandates for
water supply planning, variability in data collection and evaluation
techniques result on a state-by-state basis. The obstacles to
widespread implementation of ground water supply augmentation are
numerous and include a broad range of scientific, economic, legal, and
institutional issues that will need to be addressed. They include:
hydrogeologic system characterization
The subsurface geologic and hydrogeologic systems are
complex and as a consequence expensive to adequately
characterize.
The density and sufficiency of ground water level and ground
water quality monitoring information to properly characterize
the ground water storage receiving zone(s) is limited both
spatially and temporally.
There is insufficient geologic mapping identifying
appropriate geologic, hydrologic, and hydrogeochemical
characteristics of aquifer storage.
Currently, the scale and density of data collected to
characterize hydrogeologic systems may not be appropriate for
evaluation and selection of sites, locally.
The impact of global climate change on ground water
reservoirs is only now being investigated.
Surface and ground water interaction, in light of global
climate change and land development practices, is not well
understood.
water quality characterization and interaction
Both ground water quality and the hydrogeochemical
characteristics of aquifers and potential receiving zones will
require additional assessment
The potential interaction of the water injected or otherwise
used to augment ground water supplies will need to be carefully
studied. The mixing of often chemically and microbiologically
different waters may lead to potentially harmful reactions with
each other and with materials comprising the aquifer matrix
economics and finance
The cost to adequately characterize and evaluate aquifer
systems is high
The level of funding for characterization is variable from
state to state and may not be adequate to assess risks of
ground water recharge.
Funding for basic research on the federal level is
fragmented throughout several agencies with appropriately
different missions.
The price of water is typically undervalued and obtaining
the capital funds for planning and constructing a ground water
storage project is a challenge
Capital funds for planning and constructing a ground water
storage project must compete with funds and obligations for
other more traditional water and wastewater treatment projects
legal and institutional
Water laws and ownership rights to the water stored in the
subsurface are being debated in the courts.
Allocation of water rights is markedly different in the
eastern and western United States, along with the ability to
transfer water and water rights.
Subsurface aquifers may cross multiple political
subdivisions/boundaries and their management may be subject to
multiple jurisdictions.
Institutional control questions may arise where multiple
local agencies have responsibility for water and ground water.
Cooperative agreements may be required to develop ground water
storage projects in a region
Regulatory issues are complex with overlapping federal and
state laws and regulations. Water quality regulations are
typically based on protection from pollution and not based on
sustainability of water supplies or ecosystem services.
Property rights issues for easements and right-of-ways to
transfer water to be stored to appropriate injection well
locations.
Question 1c. Can the Secure Water Act help address some of these
obstacles and challenges?
Answer. The SECURE Water Act provides an opportunity to address
some of the obstacles described above. Several programs contained in
the SECURE Water will improve data collection and monitoring, which
would benefit the expanded use of ground water storage and enhanced
water storage recovery systems in the United States. NGWA supports
providing grants and cooperative agreements to improve ground water
data collection and management, which could also include the
integration of these systems. Monitoring our nation's ground water in
an integrated and comprehensive fashion would augment efforts towards
monitoring and managing enhanced ground water storage programs, and
establish suitable sites for their use. For example, it is important to
monitor ground water to determine which regions of the country would be
the most likely candidates for developing this management strategy. In
addition, ground water monitoring is important in determining the
volume of the aquifer that would be available for enhanced storage, and
changes that would occur during storage and recovery cycles. From the
water quality side, it is important to monitor ground water quality
continuously because even high quality treated water can react with
geologic materials in the aquifer and change the water chemistry while
underground. There have been documented cases where elevated
concentrations of unwanted natural chemicals, such as arsenic, have
been detected in the recovered water.
It should be noted that successful aquifer storage and recovery
programs are critically dependent on sound characterization of the
geological formations that would host the ground water. This requires
accurate and advanced geologic studies and mapping of aquifers. This
task may be accomplished in part by Section 8 which establishes a
Brackish Groundwater Assessment in the United States. However, NGWA
would encourage the addition of language to enhance the programmatic
advancement of detailed aquifer mapping across the nation.
Also, as noted in our testimony, NGWA is concerned about the
language in the SECURE Water Act which requires the Secretary to
prioritize states or local government entities to provide for a
``substantial'' share of the cost of operating a monitoring well
network or other measuring devices. NGWA is concerned because regions
in the country in most need, or those that are most geologically suited
for hosting enhanced recovery systems, could miss out on opportunities
because of a lack of state or local resources.
Question 1e. What are the tradeoffs of ground water storage versus
surface water storage?
Answer. Storing surface water underground may seem counterintuitive
to the public who cannot see the water and its impact on water
availability. Some recharged water will not be recovered at all,
although, the same is true of surface water stored in reservoirs.
Storing water below the ground is slower than surface water storage,
and you cannot capture storm flows as efficiently as with surface
reservoirs, and extracting the water from the subsurface reservoir is
slower being dependent upon the number of wells and pumping rates.
There needs to be in place sound ground water management practices for
ground water storage to be a viable option.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Hanak, Ellen. Water for Growth: California's New Frontier,
Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California. 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advantages of ground water storage versus surface water storage
include:
Ground water storage systems are, by design, more secure and
less vulnerable to accidental contamination, acts of sabotage,
or terrorism
Little, if any, water is lost through evaporation
Usually, there are fewer and less significant environmental
impacts associated with ground water storage projects. Impacts
to threatened or endangered species are greatly minimized, if
not avoided altogether.
Dams and surface water flows associated with surface storage
reservoirs can cause damage to riparian habitat and otherwise
impact fish and wildlife.
Ground water storage and recovery well systems allow for the
continued use of overlying land and reduce or eliminate the
potential for displacements of humans and wildlife. Acreage
that would be consumed or covered by water within surface
storage reservoirs remains available for other use and provides
continuing economic and environmental benefits.
While moderately expensive, it may be the least expensive
option\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Committee on Sustainable Underground Storage of Recoverable
Water, National Research Council. ``Prospects for Managed Underground
Storage of Recoverable Water''. Prepublication Copy, 2007. p. 215
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over time, surface water reservoirs fill up with sediment,
reducing overall storage capacity.
Question 2. What are some of the key water quality parameters that
need to be measured? Would securing water quality information greatly
add to the cost of monitoring aquifer water levels?
(Note: On behalf of NGWA, I am responding to this question as it
relates to the establishment of a ground water monitoring network. If
the question relates, instead, to water quality monitoring needed for
aquifer storage projects, we will be happy to develop and provide a
response to that question, as well.)
If very basic parameters, such as pH, temperature, and electrical
conductivity, are included, testing costs will be relatively
inexpensive. The electrical conductivity of ground water can be used as
a proxy for estimating the amount of dissolved solids, or saltiness of
the water. If the numbers and types of water quality parameters expand,
costs would as well. Ground water quality data are needed to evaluate
changes in ground water quality over time and to be able to assess what
water is available for specific uses or purposes, such as domestic
consumption, irrigation, livestock watering, or industrial use. Further
discussion on the need for, and importance of collecting ground water
quality (in addition to water level) data is contained within NGWA's
Issue Paper titled ``Ground Water Level and Quality Monitoring''.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Ground Water Level and Quality Monitoring. National Ground
Water Association. 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NGWA and some of its members played an important role in the
formation of the federal Advisory Committee on Water Information's
Subcommittee on Ground Water (SOGW) and continue to provide supporting
roles. As noted in our earlier testimony, the SOGW includes more than
60 individuals representing a wide range of organizations (federal,
state and private sector) as well as individual interests. Work groups
associated with this effort have identified the importance of and need
for ground water quality testing within a national ground water
monitoring network. They are analyzing information on existing state
ground water quality monitoring programs and also have an awareness of
on-going federal efforts, such as the National Water Quality Assessment
Program. While yet preliminary, an initial list of ground water quality
analytes the group recommends as necessary to characterize general
water quality includes calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, dissolved
solids, chloride, sulfate, nitrate/nitrite, ammonia and orthophosphate.
To this draft list, I would add alkalinity.
NGWA would be pleased to keep the Senator and Committee updated as
the SOGW moves forward with its deliberations as to water quality
testing parameters.
Responses of David R. Wunsch to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Please describe successful models involving the
coordinated and planned operation of both surface and ground water
resources for conservation and optimal use.
Answer. The following highlight a few examples of the successful
operation of both surface and ground water resources for conservation
and optimal use. See Attachment 2 for additional examples.
arizona
Arizona Water Bank: Ground water may be withdrawn from underground
storage and used during dry periods. This will result in a short-term
reduction in ground water levels. If this short term reduction is
balanced in the long term with replenishment, ground water can be used
much like an above-ground reservoir to store water for use when other
sources are in short supply. The Arizona Water Bank is an example of
this strategy. Nevada and California store excess Colorado River water
underground in Arizona. During drought periods, Nevada and California
divert surface water flow from the Colorado River while Arizona
recovers the underground stored water for its uses.
california
Orange County Water District: With a largely agriculture economy,
including substantial orange groves siphoning more than 200,000 acre-
feet of the ground water out of the Coastal Santa Ana basin annually,
in the early of the 20th century ground water levels dropped more than
65 feet. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) was formed in 1933 by
a special act of the California Legislature, and was empowered to
protect the water supply and the rights of those who depended upon it,
which at that time was 60,000 people with 86 percent agricultural water
use. This type of institution is unique in California, with significant
powers to manage, regulate, control, purchase, acquire, transport,
exchange water and ground water within the basin. Over time, dams were
constructed on the Santa Ana River, which limited the flow into the
basin, and a growing practice of importation of large quantities of
water to recharge the basin began to occur. Ground water extraction
continued to outpace recharge and by the mid 1950's seawater intrusion
was evidenced more than 3 miles inland. Today's OCWD covers well over
300 square miles, serves 20 cities and water agencies and a population
in excess of 2 million. In the forebay area, managed aquifer recharge
consisting of spreading basins along the Santa Ana River facilities
receive a combination of treated wastewater, Santa Ana River water, and
imported water, and these recharge facilities provide the majority of
recharge to the ground water basin, recharging approximately 250,000 to
275,000 acre-feet per year. Seawater intrusion is mitigated by pumping
a blend of recycled water and deep well water into a series of
injection wells near the coast. The recycled water treatment train
includes chemical clarification, re-carbonation, multimedia filtration,
granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis, chlorination and
blending.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Fox, Peter, editor. Management of Aquifer Recharge for
Sustainability, Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on
Managed Aquifer Recharge of Ground Water, ISMAR6, Phoenix, Arizona,
USA, October 28-November 2, 2007. Acacia Publishing Incorporated,
Phoenix, Arizona.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
florida
Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority: Operating as
a regional partnership with its members--Charlotte, DeSoto, Manatee and
Sarasota counties--the Authority works collectively to ensure adequate
water supplies for an ever-growing population of more than 750,000
people in the region. The Authority supplies an average of 18 million
gallons of water to its members. This water, skimmed from the Peace
River, is treated at the main facility located on the Peace River in
DeSoto County near Fort Ogden. This facility treats up to 24 million
gallons per day and has been withdrawing water from the river since
1980. Treated water is then injected into an aquifer and recovered as
needed. This ASR process is an ideal method for meeting seasonal water
demands. This allows the Authority to withdraw water during ``wet''
months and then store for use during ``dry'' periods when river levels
are low. A regional reservoir expansion, slated to be completed by
2010, will provide an additional 24 million gallons per day of
treatment capacity. The Peace River, as are other surface water
supplies, is susceptible to drought conditions. The addition of a
ground water supply through the Authority itself or its members would
add a significant degree of reliability to the public supply
system.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Personal communication. Jennifer Steadman Ryan, Sarasota
County Water Resources. 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
texas
San Antonio: San Antonio Water System's Twin Oaks Aquifer Storage
and Recovery Facility (ASR) currently stores about 40,000 acre feet of
potable water, which equals about 12 billion gallons of water. The
ASR's technology and science has been successfully proven as an
economical and environmentally sensitive alternative in helping to meet
the city's future water needs, especially if faced with environmental
change issues resulting in reductions in rainfall.
The ASR withdraws water from the Edwards Aquifer--a karst-based
limestone aquifer--in wet weather when water is abundant, and stores it
in the Carrizo sandstone-based aquifer south of the city. Since the
water tends to stay in place in the sandstone of the Carrizo Aquifer,
the transferred Edwards water remains in a ``bubble'' near the
injection site.
The facility proved itself to the community in 2006 when the region
experienced extreme drought. San Antonio Water System placed the ASR in
recovery mode. San Antonio was in drought restrictions during much of
that year, but retrieval of water from the ASR reduced the city's
pumping from the Edwards Aquifer while providing much-needed water.
San Antonio Water System's Aquifer Storage and Recovery facility
opened in 2004, and has the capacity to pump more than 30 million
gallons per day. It features 16 wells, a high-service pump station and
30 miles of large-diameter transmission main to convey water to ground
storage tanks. While there is currently about 40,000 acre feet of
storage at the site, San Antonio Water System is expanding the ASR
system and studying what the maximum potential of the facility may
be.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Personal communication. Anne Hayden. San Antonio Water
Systems. 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. Please describe the role of enhanced ground water
storage and availability as referenced in your testimony?
Answer. The role of enhanced ground water storage is but one
element of a balanced water management portfolio that will be needed to
sustain our resources into the distant future. Continued investment in
existing facilities and carefully planned new water developments will
also be required to provide a strong foundation to meet future demands
from continued growth. In addition to enhanced ground water storage, we
must also promote actions such as sound ground water management, ground
water protection and treatment, water conservation and recycling, and
support innovative technologies such as desalination of seawater and
brackish water to meet our future water needs.
Question 3. Please describe why several states do not have
statewide ground water monitoring level programs. If it is a financial
reason, please describe how money is allocated within State water
resources agencies that do not currently monitor this data.
Considering all of the federal agencies that provide funding to the
states for resource management and environmental protection programs,
there is no unique program that specifically provides funding for
creating or cost-sharing the development of statewide ground water
monitoring networks. As a result, there is a significant amount of
disparity between the states with respect to the number, distribution,
and quality of wells used for monitoring ground water. For example,
several states use available domestic water wells as the backbone of a
monitoring network, or irrigation wells that become hybrid monitoring
wells. However, these networks can have significant scientific and
statistical shortcomings because the wells were not planned, designed,
or installed with scientific collection of ground water information as
their primary purpose. In these cases there are also usually local
anthropogenic effects that can interfere with the ground water system
being monitoring, which does not give an accurate sample of basic or
ambient ground water conditions. Some states may have created networks
from orphaned wells installed for a specific water management project,
or from a specific permitting process.
For example, in my state of New Hampshire, the wells the state uses
for monitoring the state's ground water were installed during a
cooperative State/USGS study of the shallow, surficial aquifer that
overlies about 13 percent of the state's area. However, these wells are
biased with respect to the shallow ground water system, leaving the
state with few wells installed in the important, deeper bedrock aquifer
that is used throughout the entire state. States have recognized the
importance of ground water to their overall water management
strategies, and many states, including New Hampshire, have dedicated
resources to installing more infrastructure to monitor ground water.
However, in New Hampshire's case, the network is still inadequate for
meeting the state's long-term needs. Other states, such as South
Dakota, have successfully been able to build networks with funding from
EPA programs. However, funding for programs such as Section 319 that
provide funds for monitoring for promoting best management practices
for non-point source pollution from agriculture may not be applicable
in all states, or in regions within a state, depending on designated
land uses.
Vermont has a small program with the U.S. Geological Survey under
which the USGS monitors the ground water levels in less than 12 wells
in the state. The program is not a comprehensive statewide ground water
level monitoring program.
The state has a very active permitting system. In order to obtain a
permit, a public community water supply system must demonstrate that
they have access to a supply of water that would sustain their system
in the face of a 180-day drought. The hydrogeologic study to prove the
availability of an adequate water supply is done by the permit
applicant or its consultants.
The reason that they do not have a statewide ground water level
monitoring program is that the state does not have adequate funds for
existing programs that are viewed as higher priority. State
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act consumes approximately 99
percent of the available current funding. Additional funding would be
beneficial for state SDWA oversight and to assist public water systems
in meeting existing and upcoming regulations.
If there is targeted funding for a statewide ground water level
program, implementing such a program may still prove problematic if the
agency cannot overcome barriers to the hiring of additional state staff
to oversee the monitoring. Currently, there is a hiring freeze for
additional state employees. Existing state staff are stretched in
administering and undertaking current agency priority program duties
and obligations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Personal communication. Rodney Pingree. Vermont Agency of
Natural Resources, Water Supply Division, Water Resources Section. 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado has no statewide ground water level monitoring network.
The state does have one or more regional (large, multi-county areas)
ground water level monitoring networks.
The lack of a statewide network is largely a reflection of the
state's geology. The Rocky Mountains cut through the mid-state area and
are underlain by fractured bedrock aquifers. There is no ground water
monitoring network in this area, given the difficulty in monitoring
such aquifer settings and the lack of large-scale use of the ground
water. The Rocky Mountains play a critical part in the water supply for
Colorado and surrounding states, but in the form of a snow pack
reservoir which converts gradually over the spring and summer into
surface water runoff. The major aquifer systems in the state are the
Denver Basin Aquifer, Ogallala Aquifer and the San Luis Basin. Ground
water levels in these aquifers are monitored in the Ogallala and Denver
Basin aquifers by the State of Colorado and the San Luis Valley aquifer
is monitored by the USGS.
There are other regional bedrock aquifers in the state for which
there is little or no monitoring. However, these aquifers tend to lie
in areas of the state which are sparsely populated. If additional
targeted money were provided for ground water monitoring, the greater
need would be to augment the monitoring program in the Denver Basin
aquifer in those areas which are currently being highly stressed before
efforts were made to cover areas underlain by fractured bedrock in the
mid-state area or the other regional bedrock aquifers.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Personal Communication. Michael Schaubs. Office of State
Engineer, Division of Water Resources. 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 1.--Examples of Aquifer Storage Projects
Excerpt from 2007 NGWA Ground Water Summit and Provided by
NGWA Members
making the connection: joining the rio hondo and san gabriel river
spreading grounds for maximum operational flexibility
The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD or the
District) manages two of the most utilized ground water basins in
Southern California, the Central and West Coast Ground water Basins
(CWCB). The CWCB were adjudicated in the 1960s to limit ground water
production and to stabilize declining ground water levels. Since that
time, natural recharge has been supplemented through artificial
replenishment activities, including injection at coastal seawater
intrusion barriers and surface spreading at percolation basins
(``spreading grounds''). WRD spends over $20 million annually to
purchase imported and recycled water for these artificial replenishment
activities, owns and operates several replenishment-related facilities,
and works closely with the owners and operators of other such
facilities within the District.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) owns and
operates the majority of the replenishment facilities throughout Los
Angeles County. Their Rio Hondo Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds
(RHCBSG) and San Gabriel Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds (SGCBSG) are
the primary locations for artificial replenishment in the CWCB. The
RHCBSG are fed from the Rio Hondo, while the nearby SGCBSG are fed
primarily from the parallel San Gabriel River. An average of 125,000 AF
of water (consisting of imported, recycled and local water) is
conserved between the RHCBSG and SGCBSG each year.
The RHCBSG and SGCBSG receive imported, recycled and local water
from the same sources, but are not directly connected to each other.
This has led to missed opportunities for ground water recharge, when
one of the spreading grounds is available but the other is not.
WRD and LACDPW have worked closely together to identify and
quantify these missed opportunities for ground water recharge, so that
an appropriate connection may be designed and constructed between the
RHCBSG and SGCBSG to allow water to be shifted between the two
spreading grounds as needed, thus improving operational flexibility and
increasing the total amount of water conserved each year.
Nancy Matsumoto, P.G., C.HG., Water Replenishment District of
Southern California Kenneth A. Zimmer, P.E., Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works
summary of aquifer storage and recovery performance in the upper
floridan aquifer, southern florida
Interest and activity in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in
southern Florida has increased greatly during the past 10 to 15 years.
The storage zone in ASR wells drilled at 29 of the 30 sites in the
carbonate Floridan aquifer system is contained within the brackish to
saline Upper Floridan aquifer. The strategy for use of ASR in southern
Florida is to store excess freshwater that is available during the wet
season in an aquifer and recover it during the dry season when needed
to supplement water supplies. Each ASR cycle is defined by three
periods: recharge, storage, and recovery.
The primary measure used to evaluate ASR site performance is the
potable water per-cycle recovery efficiency. This measure, calculated
for 18 sites, is defined as the percentage of the volume of freshwater
recharged that is recovered prior to exceeding a recovered water
chloride concentration of 250 mg/L. Cumulative potable recovery
efficiencies also were calculated and display substantially less
variability than per-cycle efficiencies.
Per-cycle potable water recovery efficiencies vary from 0 to 94
percent. High potable efficiency on a per cycle basis can be related to
water banking--an operational approach in which a large volume of water
is recharged during an initial cycle. This process flushes out the
aquifer around the well and can build up a temporary buffer zone that
increases recovery efficiency substantially during subsequent cycles
conducted with much lower recharge volumes.
The relative performance for 15 of the 30 sites was determined by
arbitrarily grouping performance into ``low'' (0-20 percent cumulative
potable recovery efficiency), ``medium'' (20-40 percent) and ``high''
(>40 percent) categories; 3 sites were rated high, 6 were rated medium,
and 6 were rated low. Although six sites have a high overall recharge
rate that is associated with water banking, three of these are rated
low.
Ronald S. Reese, Hydrologist, U. S. Geological Survey
colorado pursues managed aquifer recharge as an alternative for water
storage at the start of the 21st century
For Colorado and much of the West the 21st Century began with one
of the most severe droughts of record. This drought helped raise the
awareness of the important role that ground water, and perhaps more
importantly, the aquifers that hold ground water, can have in
management of water resources in this rapidly growing semi-arid region.
In 2003 the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) embarked on a statewide
assessment of managed aquifer recharge (MAR) that included an inventory
of existing practices at the time and went on to evaluate the
geological potential for water storage in aquifers and aquifer systems
across the entire state. This assessment is a cornerstone for current,
more detailed investigations into widespread utilization of this water
storage option.
Subsequent to, and in part as a result of, this assessment several
prospects for new managed aquifer recharge projects have arisen. These
projects include a detailed evaluation of MAR potential in the Arkansas
and South Platte River basins and a pre-feasibility investigation
identifying specific recharge sites in the Upper Black Squirrel Creek
basin of El Paso County. MAR is also being introduced to the water
community across the state through Colorado's Interbasin Compact
Committee Roundtable process.
Although awareness of the potential for MAR throughout the state is
increasing, many challenges remain. Acceptance by communities that are
traditionally surface-water dependant will depend on locating the best
convergences of favorable geology, source water availability, land
availability, proximity to water demand, proximity to established
infrastructure, and motivated funding sources.
Peter Barkmann, CPG, Colorado Geological Survey
pilot study to determine the feasibility of artificial recharge in the
san bernardino mountains, southern california
The Big Bear Valley encompasses an area of approximately 70 square
miles in the San Bernardino Mountains of southern California.
Historically, local purveyors have met municipal water demand in this
weekend recreation area using ground and surface water resources that
are replenished from precipitation within the watershed. Imported water
is not available to the area. However, artificial recharge of recycled
water has been identified as a potential water source to augment the
existing ground water supply.
In order to evaluate the feasibility of artificial recharge in the
Big Bear Valley, a phased investigation program was developed for
multiple potential sites. The program included field reconnaissance,
borehole drilling and testing, monitoring well construction, and pilot
testing. Key criteria for evaluating recharge feasibility included:
horizontal and vertical extent of low permeability layers, infiltration
rates of applied recharge water, aquifer characteristics which affect
the storage and recovery of ground water, changes in the quality of
recharge water in the vadose and saturated zones, and seepage rates and
stored water residence time.
Pilot testing results show that recharge water introduced during
pilot testing reached the ground water within a few days of
introduction to the pilot spreading basin. Soil moisture
instrumentation showed that, in some cases, percolating water reached
deeper portions of the unsaturated zone first and ponded up into the
more shallow sediments before saturating the entire soil column beneath
the basin. A surface infiltration rate of approximately 3 ft per day
was maintained throughout the test. Analysis of artificial recharge
scenarios using a calibrated ground water flow model show that the
recharged water can be stored in the aquifer system for more than 6
months before extraction, a major regulatory criteria for recycled
water. In summary, the testing showed that artificial recharge is
feasible in this mountain area.
Thomas E. Harder, P.G., CH.G., GEOSCIENCE Support Services Inc.
the effects of artificial recharge on nitrate concentrations in ground
water in the unsewered warren subbasin, california
In 1995, the Hi-Desert Water District (HDWD) implemented an
artificial ground-water recharge program in the unsewered 19 mi2 Warren
subbasin in the Mojave Desert. Artificial recharge from imported water
in spreading ponds in the eastern part of the subbasin increased
ground-water levels by as much as 250 feet. As water levels rose,
nitrate concentrations increased from 10 to more than 110 milligrams
per liter (mg/L), due to the entrainment of septage. In 2006, HDWD
constructed additional spreading ponds to recharge the western part of
the subbasin. A ground-water management and monitoring plan was
developed to maximize recharge and minimize increases in nitrate
concentrations. Monitoring sites were installed at the recharge pond
(YVUZ-1) and a nearby residential area with high septic-tank density
(YVUZ-2). The sites contain heat-dissipation probes, suction-cup
lysimeters, advanced tensiometers, and piezometers to monitor the
artificial recharge.
Prior to artificial recharge, nitrate concentrations in pore-water
samples collected from the unsaturated zone at YVUZ-1 and YVUZ-2 ranged
from 10 to 66 mg/L and 10 to 2,100 mg/L, respectively. Data collected
from YVUZ-2 indicate that septage has not migrated deeper than 130 feet
below land surface (bls). Monitoring at YVUZ-1 indicates that
artificial recharge reached the water table at 360 feet bls in 42 days,
for an average velocity of 8.6 feet per day. A total of 1,685 acre-feet
of imported water was recharged over five months, resulting in a water-
level rise of less than 10 feet beneath the ponds and less than 5 feet
beneath the residential area. Nitrate concentrations in samples
collected from the unsaturated and saturated zones at YVUZ-1 decreased
to less than 12 mg/L and increased to18 mg/L, respectively, in response
to the recharge. Continued monitoring will assist water managers in
making decisions that will help ensure that the water table remains
lower than septage-related high-nitrate zones.
Rhett R. Everett, Hydrologist1, Tracy Nishikawa1, Peter Martin1 and
Lee Pearl, General, Manager2, (1)U.S. Geological Survey, (2)Hi-Desert
Water District
diverse applications of the ground water recharge technology
Concerns from western communities include; the growth is straining
the water system; the water treatment plant is undersized, but growth
is not enough to fund additions; undersized transmission lines are
incapable of moving water to locations of development or for peak day
delivery; development is increasing runoff and flooding; or the
wastewater treatment plant is at capacity with concerns of expansion
and additional effluent discharge.
With the exodus of families from the overpopulated urban centers to
our peaceful communities, we are finding strains placed on the
infrastructure and resources. Communities will quickly find ways to
maximize the efficiency of the existing treatment and delivery systems,
though are lacking in the application of efficient source water
management. Water companies work hardest to make peak day delivery. In
all reality, this should be the easiest day of the year if the water
resources are efficiently managed in the fall, winter, and spring
seasons.
Placing potable water underground provides an alternative to
surface tanks or large earthen reservoirs. The water is secure, does
not require chlorination, and uses only the property required for the
recharge/recovery wells. Using underground storage, water can be moved
to location of demand when the pipelines are under low demand or water
is available, recovering the water for peak delivery at location of
need. Excess storm run-off water can be polished through simple,
natural means, and placed into the underground aquifer. Placing water
underground should become a common tool to all agencies to round out
the management of our water resources during the off seasons. Recharge
technology applications will be discussed from California, Nevada,
Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida,
North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, and across the
globe in Norway, Japan, China, Brazil, and Australia.
Tom Morris, ASR Systems LLC
overview of underground recharge facilities in arizona
In 1986, the Arizona Legislature established the Underground Water
Storage and Recovery Program which is administered by the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR). This program was designed to
promote the underground storage and use of the State's renewable water
supplies, such as effluent, surface water, and Colorado River-Central
Arizona Project (CAP) water, instead of non-renewable ground water. In
1994, the Legislature enacted the Underground Water Storage, Savings,
and Replenishment Act (UWS), which further expanded and defined ADWR's
Recharge Program. There are two types of recharge facilities or
Underground Storage Facilities (USF's) permitted by ADWR; managed and
constructed. A managed facility is designed to utilize the natural
channel of a stream to store water through the controlled release and
subsequent infiltration of effluent or other renewable water supplies
that are not part of the natural flow of the stream or river. A
constructed facility is designed and constructed to store water
underground by a variety of methods such as direct injection wells, ASR
wells, vadose zone wells, trenches and/or basins. Both types of
facilities can be permitted to recharge treated effluent, surface water
and/or CAP water. Currently, there are six managed recharge facilities
and 53 constructed recharge facilities permitted by ADWR across the
State. The annual permitted recharge volumes for these USFs range from
150 acre-feet per annum (AFA) up to 200,000 AFA. Since the inception of
the Recharge Program, ADWR has encountered unique and challenging
technical issues associated with permitting various recharge
facilities. This presentation will highlight these challenges and also
present a virtual tour of Arizona's permitted USFs, showcasing the
array of methodologies used at these facilities as well as their common
and/or unique issues and achievements.
Drew Swieczkowski, Manager, Tracey Carpenter and Sharon Morris,
Arizona Department of Water Resources
planning, development, and operation of large aquifer storage
facilities
The Salt River Project (SRP), the largest water purveyor of the
Phoenix metropolitan area, operates two large ground water recharge
facilities: the Granite Reef Underground Storage Project (GRUSP) and
the New River-Agua Fria Underground Storage Project (NAUSP). The GRUSP
has been in operation for twelve years and has stored nearly 1,000,000
acre-feet of water. It is the largest underground storage facility in
Arizona with a capacity in excess of 100,000 acre-feet per year. Water
stored at GRUSP is from two sources: Colorado River water delivered by
the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct (CAP water) and water from the
Salt and Verde Rivers (SRP water). Recharge at GRUSP is by water-
spreading in seven basins with a total surface area of 225 acres. The
basins are constructed on the dry channel of the Salt River, three
miles downstream of SRP's Granite Reef Dam. All water to be stored is
delivered by gravity. Recharge rates range from three to seven feet per
day. The site was selected because of its very favorable hydrogeologic
characteristics. The vadose zone and aquifer underlying the facility
are part of a thick alluvial fan composed mostly of unconsolidated
coarse detritic sediments at the base of the Mc Dowell Mountains. The
NAUSP is designed for a storage capacity of 75,000 acre-feet per year.
It consists of six off-channel basins. Total infiltration surface is
180 acres. Recharge rates exceed 2.5 feet per day. The site was
selected on an area of thick alluvial sediments that are part of the
valley of the Agua Fria River and very favorable for recharge and
underground water storage. The GRUSP and the NAUSP are an integral part
of the large water resources management system of the SRP.
Mario Lluria, Salt River Project
planning and life-cycle cost analysis of an aquifer storage and
recovery system (well #299) in the northeast regional aquifer, city of
phoenix
Due to the disconnection and or abandonment of wells because of
water quality issues and aging equipment, the City of Phoenix has the
capability of currently meeting 10 to 15 percent of its peak day demand
with ground water. A need to rebuild this well capacity for drought
redundancy, operating flexibility, system emergencies, and managing
surface water supplies has been identified. It is anticipated that
ground water needs for operating flexibility and system emergencies are
more compelling in the short term than demands to offset drought
impacts. The City's objective is to manage aquifers to ensure the
future availability of good quality ground water when needed, and to
reduce the risks of land subsidence and other adverse environmental
impacts. A life-cycle cost analysis and planning study was conducted
for an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) well to assess whether this
system is economically and technically feasible. Based on the life-
cycle cost analysis for treated Central Arizona Project (CAP) water
coupled with the operational management of our distribution and
treatment system, the following findings were identified:
Existing infrastructure and treatment system can be utilized
for the ASR system;
Additional land acquisition is not required;
From a well clogging/operational perspective, utilizing
injected treated CAP water will not be as problematic as other
water sources (i.e., raw CAP and reclaimed water);
Operational flexibility and redundancy is achieved during
emergency and drought conditions; and
Injection/recharge demands are easily assessable through the
CAP water wheeling process.
Our future goal is to develop a network of ASR wells that will meet
our long-term water resources needs and to implement a joint
management/planning strategy with City of Scottsdale so that both
Cities can manage and sustain ground water levels and our future water
resource supplies within the northeast aquifer.
Gary M. Gin, R.G.1, Marshall Brown, P.E.2, Aimee Conroy, P.E.1 and
Andy Terrey1, (1)City of Phoenix, (2)City of Scottsdale
proposition 13 ground water grants and loans program summary,
california department of water resources
In California, under Proposition 13 the Safe Drinking Water, Clean
Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act, between 2001 and
2004 a total of approximately $206 million in grant and loan funds were
awarded to 62 local projects whose total cost exceeded $1 billion.(4)
These 62 projects when completed are estimated to increase ground water
storage yield by 300,000 acre-feet per year. The California State Water
Plan calls for increasing average annual water deliveries by between 1/
2 million and 2 million acre-feet by the year 2030 by using between 9
million to 20 million acre-feet of new ground water storage.\6\
California Department of Water Resources, 2005.
Attachment 2.--Additional Examples of Conjunctive Use Projects
Provided by NGWA Members
Metropolitan Water District--California: The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California is often cited for their aggressive
program to expand and optimize their water supply. The Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, the primary wholesale provider
of imported water for the southern California regions, has a portfolio
of diversified supplies. They include water conservation, water
recycling, desalination, Colorado River deliveries, state water project
deliveries, water transfers, storage in ground water basins and surface
reservoirs, and drought contingencies.
Kern County--California: Intensive agricultural beginning in the
latter half of the 19th century and continuing throughout the 20th
century with related ground-water development resulted in ground-water-
level declines of more than 190 feet and land subsidence of as much as
9 feet in the early- to mid-1900s in the Kern County ground water
basin. The Kern County ground water basin is situated in the southern
end of the Central Valley of California, a 500 mile long valley which
provides have the fruits, nuts of vegetables in the US, or about one-
quarter of the nation's table food on only 1 percent of the country's
farmland. Water banking was initiated in the subbasin in 1978, and
seven projects with facilities including over 15 square miles of
recharge basins and more than 120 recovery wells, now contain nearly 4
million acre-feet of banked water in dewatered aquifer storage space.
Approximately two thirds of this storage is in the Kern River Fan area
west of Bakersfield; the remainder is in the Arvin-Edison Water Storage
District in the southeastern subbasin or in the Semitropic Water
Storage District in the northwestern subbasin.\8\
Tampa Bay Water--Florida: This regional water supply authority
consists of three surface water sources, one surface water treatment
facility, 13 wellfields, and six ground water treatment facilities. It
delivers approximately 182 million gallons per day of drinking water to
customers. The desalination facility,, which came online in December
2007, will provide an additional 24 million gallons per day and will be
used to offset ground water supplies. The Tampa Bay area is in the
Southern Water Use Caution Area of the Southwest Florida Water
Management District and in an area where ground water levels have been
severely impacted.
______
Responses of Brian Ritcher to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Your testimony contains a number of recommendations
intended to ensure that environmental flows are incorporated into
adaptation strategies and general water management goals. Currently,
however, it seems that environmental flow targets are only incorporated
into river management when endangered species are present.
Do you agree with this assessment, or do you think that water
managers are striking a better balance in providing water for
consumptive uses while addressing environmental needs outside the
Endangered Species Act?
Answer. It is certainly true that environmental flow issues are
given greatest attention when ESA-listed species are the driver. In
fact, the environmental flow studies conducted in rivers such as the
Colorado (Grand Canyon), Klamath, Trinity, Platte, Utah's Green, or
Sacramento related to endangered species recovery have considerably
advanced the science of environmental flow assessment, largely because
of the considerable funding resources and expertise that have been
committed to these efforts.
The re-balancing of water uses and changes in dam operations
required to restore adequate flow conditions in these rivers is also
spurring innovation in water engineering and policy, enabling
preciously-scarce water supplies to serve multiple purposes including
endangered species protection. In a partnership with the Army Corps of
Engineers (called the ``Sustainable Rivers Project''), The Nature
Conservancy is helping to demonstrate that important ecological,
social, and economic benefits can be realized in rivers such as the
Willamette in Oregon, the Bill Williams in Arizona, or the Savannah in
Georgia by restoring environmental flows through modified dam
operations, even when endangered species are not involved. More
information can be found at: http://www.nature.org/success/dams.html
Many states have adopted environmental flow policies and apply
these policies when issuing water rights or permits, and sometimes in
authorizing new reservoirs. Some states, such as Florida, Maine, and
Arizona, have been able to determine environmental flow needs for many
rivers within their jurisdictions, and are actively protecting
environmental flows through their water supply planning and management
efforts. However, the protection afforded environmental flows suffers
from one or more shortcomings in every single state.
These shortcomings include: (1) Environmental flow needs have been
determined for some but not all rivers, leaving the natural, cultural,
and economic values of the majority of rivers in every state in
considerable jeopardy; (2) The scientific methods being used to
determine environmental flow needs are, with few exceptions, grossly
outdated and lagging behind the progress made in scientific knowledge
by decades; and (3) Environmental flow requirements are usually
specified only for the largest water allocations and are generally not
applied to dam operations, particularly federal dams, which have
pervasive and severe impacts on environmental flows.
Healthy rivers are essential to the economic vitality, quality of
life, and cultural identity in every state, and there is nothing more
important to the health of our rivers than the protection of adequate
environmental flows. The scientific community has recently developed
methods that could enable state governments to determine the
environmental flow needs of every river and stream in their state in a
highly cost-effective manner.\1\ By determining environmental flow
needs for all rivers and using this information in water planning and
allocation, the states can substantially avoid the ``train wrecks''
that have arisen in river basins where species have become endangered
because of lack of attention to environmental flow needs, or where
river flow depletions are causing severe water quality problems and
economic consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See attached fact sheet describing the ``Ecological Limits of
Hydrologic Alteration'' (ELOHA) framework, now being implemented in a
number of states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SECURE Water Act can facilitate the application of scientific
methods and data needed to define environmental flow needs for all
rivers and streams in each state by providing funding support for this
work.
Question 2. You mention that existing reservoir space could be made
available and no longer reserved for flood control purposes if the
floodplain below the reservoir could be restored, including the removal
of existing structures.
Are there some examples you can cite to in the United States where
this has been done or where it might be possible?
Answer. In our committee testimony, we referred to the example of
our work in the Yangtze River basin in China. Early results from our
feasibility assessment suggest that rather than depending heavily on
new dams to provide flood control, it would be far preferable to manage
flood risk by utilizing the Yangtze's floodplain to maximum advantage.
By doing so, we can create the opportunity to maintain adequate
environmental flows in the middle reaches of the river and enable the
managers of new dams being built on the Yangtze to use the new dams to
generate much more hydropower.
We do not know of any similar analyses in the United States. Until
now, there has not been sufficient motivation to give this idea the
attention it deserves. It is difficult to justify the considerable
expense associated with restoring natural floodplains solely on the
basis of endangered species or biodiversity. However, a number of
emerging factors suggest that it is time to give this idea serious
consideration: (1) One of the most certain predictions about climate
change is that floods will become more frequent and severe, and
improved floodplain management can minimize increasing flood risks; (2)
Economic losses and deaths associated with flooding are already rising
in the U.S. due to continuing encroachment of human populations and
infrastructure into floodplains, a false sense of security that dams
can protect us from large floods, and possible changes in flood
frequency associated with climate change; (3) The economic value of
``ecosystem services'' such as the provision of natural flood storage
in floodplains, purification of water supplies by floodplain wetlands,
recreation and tourism opportunities, and commercial fisheries strongly
justify investigating this idea; and (4) The list of aquatic species
endangered by flow alteration, including alteration of natural flooding
patterns by flood control dams, is growing longer every year.
The potential benefits of implementing this idea are huge, and the
number of possible places in the US to implement it is great. The most
obvious candidates for these changes in reservoir operations would be
dams that are presently being operated for flood control and other
purposes already. According to the National Inventory of Dams, there
are 640 dams in the US being operated for flood control and water
supply; more than 400 being operated for both flood control and
hydropower. If the flood control needs of these dams were to be
lessened, specifically by enabling higher levels of flood releases from
the dams by moving downstream structures out of harm's way and
appropriately compensating landowners whose existing uses of floodplain
lands may be temporarily and occasionally impacted by higher
floodwaters, the reservoir space presently allocated to flood control
could be reduced. The freed-up space in these reservoirs could then be
re-allocated to other purposes, including water supply storage,
hydropower generation, and restoration of environmental flows.
We can illustrate the potential benefits of re-allocating reservoir
space in a flood control with the example of Lake o' the Pines in
Texas, owned and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The ecological
health of Big Cypress Creek and Caddo Lake (the state's only natural
lake) located downstream of Lake o' the Pines have suffered greatly
since the reservoir was built in 1959, primarily because the river's
floods have been reduced from an annual average of 6,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs) to a maximum of 3,000 cfs. By enabling higher flood
releases from the dam, the ecological health of the river and lake can
be restored. Just as importantly, some of the flood control storage
space in the reservoir could be made available for additional water
supply storage in this water-short region. In fact, approximately
28,000 acre-feet of water supply could become available for every
additional vertical foot of storage freed up in the reservoir
(presently, 21 feet of flood control storage is reserved in the
reservoir). Each foot of freed-up flood control space would store
enough water to supply a population of 17,000 people each year.
Alternatively, this additional water supply could be held in reserve,
for use during the more-frequent droughts expected under climate
change.
Another way to illustrate potential benefits of using floodplains
to store and convey floods is to review what has taken place in the
Sacramento valley, where a floodplain stores much of the floodwaters
that enter the valley. This floodplain, called the Yolo Bypass, serves
as an effective substitute for an immense amount of reservoir flood
storage. During major floods, such as in 1986, the Yolo Bypass safely
conveyed approximately 2.4 million acre-feet of water through the
valley during a four-day period. It would be prohibitively expensive to
provide that amount of storage in upstream reservoirs. The Yolo Bypass
provides important habitat for native fish and waterfowl, recreational
opportunities, and 2/3 of its area is in productive agriculture.
While the above illustrations and examples give some sense of the
potential benefits of this idea, the feasibility of implementation will
require rigorous engineering evaluation in each case. The SECURE Water
Act could provide funding support for such feasibility evaluations.
Attachment.--Ecological Limits of Hydrolgic Alteration
integrating environmental flows with regional water management
Worldwide, water conflicts are escalating as cities, industries,
agriculture, and energy producers compete for limited supplies. At the
same time, there is a growing awareness of the need to dedicate some
portion of natural streamflow to sustaining the health and productivity
of lakes, rivers, and aquifers that benefit communities and economies.
To provide for growing human populations while protecting and restoring
natural ecosystems, governments need efficient, integrated water
resource management systems.
The integration of ecosystem considerations into water plans has
been hampered by the difficulty, cost, and time required for
determining environmental flows - the amount and timing of water flows
required to maintain the species, functions, and resilience of
freshwater ecosystems and the livelihoods of communities that depend on
them. When environmental flows are determined, water managers know how
much of the remaining flow is available for human uses, and how much
alteration of natural water flow patterns by humans is too much. Thus,
the specification of environmental flows is a key to sustainable water
management.
Despite the existence of more than 200 methods for specifying
environmental flows, until now none was suitable for application to the
broad regional scales at which state, provincial, and national
governments manage water resources. Simple `rules of thumb' lack
scientific credibility, while complex, data-intensive methods are too
expensive and time-consuming to apply to every river and stream in a
jurisdiction.
The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) framework
provides a timely and scientifically credible means for broadly
assessing environmental flow needs when in-depth studies cannot be
performed for all rivers. By linking changes in river flows to changes
in ecological conditions, water managers and stakeholders can develop
regional environmental flow targets and apply them to all rivers in a
region without requiring detailed site-specific hydrologic or
biological information for each river. The Nature Conservancy, working
with leading international scientists, developed ELOHA specifically to
accelerate the integration of environmental flow management into
regional water resource planning. ELOHA builds upon the wealth of
knowledge about natural flow variability gained from riverspecific
studies and applies that knowledge to geographic areas as large as a
state, province, nation, or large river basin. Compared to river-by-
river approaches, ELOHA is rapid, flexible, costeffective, and
practical to implement.
ELOHA synthesizes existing hydrologic and biological databases from
many rivers within a region to generate flow alteration-ecological
response relationships for different types of rivers. These flow-
ecology relationships correlate ecological condition, which cannot be
managed directly, to streamflow conditions, which can be managed
through water-use policies. In this way, ELOHA helps water managers
comprehensively integrate human and ecosystem water needs throughout
their jurisdictions.
the scientific process: developing flow alteration-ecological
response relationships
Step 1. Build a hydrologic foundation, a regional database of daily
or monthly streamflow hydrographs representing both baseline
(undeveloped) and developed conditions for ``analysis nodes''
throughout the region, for a selected time period long enough to
represent past climate variability. (Once built, this foundation also
could be used to assess and manage the impacts of future climate
variability). Analysis nodes include sites where water managers may
want to make allocation or other water management decisions, as well as
sites where biological data have been collected. Hydrologic modeling is
used to extend the periods of streamflow data for gauged analysis nodes
and to synthesize data for ungauged analysis nodes as needed.
Alternatively, if a hydrologic model or decision support system for
water management already exists, then ELOHA can fully integrate with
the existing system.
computing flow statistics and hydrologic alteration
Hundreds of flow statistics that are already being used in hydro-
ecological research and environmental flow assessments may also be used
in ELOHA. Among these are the 34 ``Environmental Flow Components,'' or
EFCs, introduced by The Nature Conservancy to describe the magnitude,
duration, frequency, timing, and rate of change of pulses, large and
small floods, and low and extreme low flows. EFCs are well suited for
ELOHA because they strongly link between environmental flow assessment
and implementation, and they have clear ecological relevance. Because
EFCs are intuitive to hydrologists, ecologists, and water managers
alike, they greatly facilitate communication and understanding between
the disciplines. The Nature Conservancy's Indicators of Hydrologic
Alteration (IHA) software (free download at nature.org/freshwaters)
calculates hydrologic statistics, including EFCs, and also measures the
degree of hydrologic alteration between baseline and developed
conditions. ELOHA uses statistical methods to select a small,
manageable subset of non-redundant flow variables for analysis of
hydrologic alteration.
Step 2. Classify river segments based on similarity of flow
regimes, using hydrologic statistics computed from the baseline flow
series developed in Step 1. Subclassify according to geomorphology. The
number of river types in a region ranges from one to as many as ten,
depending on the region's inherent heterogeneity.
Step 3. Compute hydrologic alteration for each analysis node,
expressed as the percentage deviation of developed-condition flows from
baseline conditions at each analysis node, using six to ten flow
variables that are strongly linked to ecological conditions and are
amenable for use as water management targets.
Step 4. Develop flow alteration-ecological response relationships
by associating percentages of hydrologic alteration with associated
changes in ecological condition. A family of curves is developed for
each river type, using a variety of flow and ecology variables.
Ecological data used to develop the flow-ecology relationships - for
example, aquatic invertebrate species richness, riparian vegetation
recruitment, or larval fish abundance - ideally are sensitive to
existing or proposed flow alterations, can be validated with monitoring
data, and are valued by society. All stakeholders need to understand
the development and application of these flow-ecology relationships.
the social process: using flow alteration-ecological response
relationships to manage environmental flows
Step 1. Determine acceptable ecological conditions for each river
segment or river type, according to societal values. The goal of ELOHA
is not to maintain pristine conditions in all rivers; rather, it is to
understand and manage the tradeoffs between flow alteration and
ecological degradation. Stakeholders might, for instance, decide that
the goal for a particular ``working'' river is to achieve fair, not
excellent, ecological condition. A gradational approach like this lends
flexibility to governments overseeing variable levels of water
development within their jurisdictions.
Step 2. Develop environmental flow targets for each river segment
or river type by using flow-ecology relationship to associate the
desired ecological condition with the corresponding degree of flow
alteration. The allowable degree of flow alteration is the
environmental flow target. The development of regional environmental
flow targets is an on-going, iterative process in which additional data
collection, monitoring, testing and evaluation, and evolving social
values continually refine the targets and the flowecology relationships
upon which they are based.
Step 3. Implement environmental flow management by incorporating
environmental flow targets into the hydrologic model developed in Step
1 of the Scientific Process. Because that model accounts for the
cumulative effects of all water uses, it can be used to assess the
practical limitations to, and opportunities for, implementing
environmental flow targets at any analysis node in the project area, or
for every node simultaneously. It can be used, for example, to
prioritize restoration projects, optimize water supply efficiency, or
account for cumulative upstream and downstream impacts in permitting
decisions. For basins in which water is already over-allocated, it can
help target flow restoration options such as dam reoperation,
conjunctive management of ground water and surface water, drought
management planning, demand management (conservation), and water
transactions (leasing, trading, purchasing, banking) transactions
(leasing, trading, purchasing, banking) mediated by water trusts and
markets.
The hydrologic model used to build the hydrologic foundation is, in
essence, a comprehensive regional water management tool into which
environmental flow targets are integrated. Thus, ELOHA's hydrologic
foundation anchors decisions about future water allocation and river
management to a comprehensive understanding of the availability,
location, and timing of the flows needed to maintain or restore the
overall health of a region's river ecosystems.
who does eloha?
Because environmental flows sustain ecosystems critical to human
livelihoods, successful implementation of ELOHA necessarily involves
many people, from scientists to water managers to citizen stakeholders.
Engaging an interdisciplinary team of hydrologists,
hydrogeologists, aquatic entomologists, geomorphologists, water quality
and hydraulics specialists, fish biologists, and riparian vegetation
ecologists from government agencies and universities broadens and
strengthens the scientific products.
Both funding and expertise can come from a variety of sources. In
the United States, for example, The Nature Conservancy has cost-shared
with state governments and the federal government to have U.S.
Geological Survey scientists lead the scientific process. The
Conservancy coordinates the overall process, and the state government
adopts and implements the results.
conclusion
ELOHA is a robust regional environmental flow framework grounded in
scientifically-defined flowecology linkages that are subject to
empirical testing and validation. It is applicable worldwide across a
spectrum of social, political and governance contexts, and is useful
regardless of the stage of water resource development and historical
status of environmental flow protection. It also is applicable across
an array of flow alteration, from modified land use, to water
diversions, to river regulation by dams. And, notably, it is applicable
across a wide range of available data and scientific capacity.
While ELOHA is a necessary new advance in environmental flow
determination, it does not supplant river-specific approaches for
certain rivers that require more in-depth analysis where political or
economic issues are of such magnitude that only a river-specific
treatment will suffice. But at a time when population increase, land-
use change, economic development, and climate change are amplifying
demands for sound science to inform decision making, ELOHA fills an
urgent need to jump start the comprehensive management of streamflow
for people and for nature.
______
Responses of Patrick O'Toole to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1a. Your testimony recommends a comprehensive
quantification of climate change induced streamflow reductions to help
plan for developing supplies necessary to replace the loss of those
flows.
Do you believe that the data is currently available to perform this
analysis or do we still need to develop that database before
proceeding?
Answer. The answer to this question is both ``yes'' and ``no''. In
some parts of the West, we may have enough data, in others, not enough.
We need to focus the research that is out there to deal with a
comprehensive quantification of climate change induced streamflow
reductions. Sometimes, the desire for more research and more data
stifles actual progress required to reach solutions.
In the big picture, we understand that prehistoric climate and
hydrology research, such as Greenland ice studies and tree-ring
analysis, indicates that the climate in North America has been the most
stable from 1850 to the present. This type of research suggest that we
will likely see much more volatile climate conditions and longer
drought periods at some point in the future, similar to what occurred
centuries ago.
With that said, we have enormous amounts of data that tell the
story of recent climate conditions. However, even with all the data we
have today--we will ultimately only know the real facts regarding
climate change-induced prolonged drought ``after the fact''. We will
not have the right data until decades from now when we have actually
experienced such a drought. Often times, you only know you are in a
problem situation once you are three years into the drought.
Focused research must lay out a range of expected scenarios that
prudent water managers should use in their planning.
An initial priority research item should be a comprehensive
validation of West-wide changes in climate change-driven streamflow. We
offer the following recommendations that might be used to guide a
comprehensive quantification of watershed yield in the Western United
States:
Catalog the research and data collection that has already
been completed, on a watershed-by-watershed basis;
As these studies are assessed and compiled, the margin of
error associated with different climate change models and data
sets must be acknowledged so that realistic plans lead to real
political solutions for Western watersheds.
A range of predicted watershed yield values should be
developed for each watershed, reflecting the variability and
uncertainty associated with climate change models.
Consideration of legal and political influences should also
be assessed. For example, in North Dakota and other states,
pending Native American water rights settlements create
tremendous uncertainty regarding potential impacts to water
supply on sources like the Upper Missouri River. Understanding
these ramifications is critical for water managers and
decision-makers. Similarly, we believe it is important for
policy makers to understand the often significant differences
that exist between what natural stream flows are what
regulatory agency-driven biological assessments and opinions
call for. We need to recognize that a changed hydrology could
change the resultant biology which in turn may lead to a change
of biological / hydrological expectations that are more
realistic.
Quantify the amount of additional above-and below-ground
reservoir storage, conservation targets, and other actions that
would be required to address anticipated hydrologic changes. To
optimize water management for beneficial use, researchers
should look at scenarios where storage is spaced through the
drainage. Potential storage sites should be located at high and
low elevations to regulate and subsequently re-regulate the
water supply to maximize beneficial use. We believe a study of
this type would quickly illustrate to policy makers the need to
start modernizing our water infrastructure.
Data collection and research on climate change must be
properly peer-reviewed. Climate change research and data
collection must be guided by neutral, peer-reviewed processes
and diligence will be required to minimize political
manipulation of these efforts. Agricultural water users and
their communities need to be confident climate research will be
used to develop the best solutions, not simply the most
expedient solutions, which always seem to focus on transferring
agricultural water to urban and environmental uses without
regard for the long-term consequences.
Question 1b. Can you provide some specific examples of the water
supply enhancement projects that the Family Farm Alliance has looked at
to make up for streamflow losses?
Answer. The Board of Directors of the Family Farm Alliance in 2005
launched a project that pulled together a master data base of potential
water supply enhancement projects from throughout the West. Our goal
was to gather together ideas from around the West and put them into one
master data base.
The types of projects contained in the resulting Western Water
Supply Enhancement Study database are not monstrous dams like China's
Three Gorges project. Instead, they are supply enhancement projects
that range from canal lining and piping, to reconstruction of existing
dams, to integrated resource management plans. There are also some very
feasible new surface storage projects. The benefits from these projects
include providing certainty for rural family farms and ranches,
additional flows and habitat for fish, and cleaner water.
Along with basic information included on a CD-ROM, the database
that was generated from the compilation of the survey has a Global
Information System (GIS) element and includes pictures, maps and a
description of up to 500 words for each project or proposal. New GIS
format technology is embedded that permits viewers to see a map of 17
Western states and then ``drill down'' to see map details of a project
area.
Examples
There are over 100 projects included in our data base. Some
specific projects include:
Atterberry Irrigation Reservoir (Washington) is a small
proposed project that involves construction of an irrigation
water reservoir (500 acre-feet) which would reduce irrigation
water withdrawal from the Dungeness River during periods of low
streamflow. The project will provide substantial increases in
available side channel spawning/rearing habitat as well as
reduced water temperature benefits.
Plateau Reservoir (Colorado) would be operated in
conjunction with McPhee Reservoir to improve downstream fishery
habitat. The Dolores Water Conservancy District (DWCD), Bureau
of Reclamation, State of Colorado and Federal fishery agencies
have identified the need to provide at least 3,300 acre-feet
per year of additional water for the fishery flow downstream of
McPhee Reservoir in southwest Colorado. McPhee Reservoir and
related delivery facilities are part of the Bureau of
Reclamation Dolores Project a multi-purpose water storage
project that supplies water for irrigation, municipal, fishery
below the dam, and other uses. The fishery downstream of McPhee
Dam is an excellent cold water trout fishery. DWCD has been
studying methods to provide the additional fishery water and
has identified the construction of Plateau Reservoir as an
option to supply additional fishery water. Plateau Reservoir
would be approximately 21,000 acre-feet in capacity formed by a
120 foot high dam with a surface area of approximately 750
acres. Detailed topography and preliminary soils testing has
been conducted to confirm the availability of suitable
embankment material. A preliminary embankment design, including
spillway location and sizing, has been prepared for the
selected dam site. Discussions are ongoing with the involved
entities to assess the available methods to supply additional
fishery water and the development of Plateau Reservoir is one
of the considerations.
Viva Naughton Reservoir (Wyoming) is one of several
alternative storage sites under investigation on the Hams Fork
River above Kemmerer. The recent drought has greatly changed
the water agreement between downstream irrigators and
PacifiCorp, the owner of Viva Naughton Reservoir. Local
sponsors are interested in proceeding forward with permitting
of the most desirable reservoir alternatives, but that process
cannot begin until more information is obtained on site
specific geology and wetlands. Investigations completed for the
Green River Groundwater Recharge and Alternate Storage Study
published in late 2001 indicate enlarging Viva Naughton
Reservoir is one of the more efficient water development
projects in the state. The permitted enlargement of Viva
Naughton Reservoir reserves 10,752 acre-feet for irrigation on
the Hams Fork downstream of the dam, and would provide a much
needed source of late season water for users below the dam,
like the Hams Fork Water Users Association, and the Towns of
Kemmerer and Diamondville.
Santa Cruz River Offstream Storage (Arizona) would aid the
Tohono O'odham Nation reservation, located in the desert of
south central Arizona. Groundwater forms the primary locally
available water supply. The Santa Cruz River, once a perennial
river, now only flows intermittently for most of its course
except for stretches supported by discharges from municipal
wastewater plants. At times these flows are great enough to
cause extensive flood damages at the village of Chui Chu and
surrounding areas on the reservation and on the surrounding
non-Indian lands and communities. The Nation and others have
investigated opportunities to capture the intermittent flows of
the Santa Cruz River and put them to beneficial use on the
reservation.
Sites Reservoir (California) has been identified by the
Department of Water Resources and the CALFED Program as one of
the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial new
facilities under consideration in California. The Sites project
would enhance water supply reliability for environmental, urban
and agricultural uses throughout the state. It would provide
water supplies in average and dry years for urban, agricultural
and environmental purposes, increase San Francisco Bay-
Sacramento / San Joaquin Delta outflows during critical times,
improve flood control, enhance groundwater recharge, bolster
fish flows, and improve flexibility for existing projects, such
as Shasta Reservoir. Sites reservoir can greatly increase
reliability of water supplies by reducing water diversions on
the Sacramento River during critical fish migration periods.
Strawberry Valley Rehabilitation and Betterment Projects
(Utah) are proposed to decrease the water seepage and losses in
the Strawberry Valley Project, as well as provide gravity
pressure for the continued migration toward sprinkler
irrigation systems, which would then provide additional water
savings. These projects could save approximately 15,000 to
20,000 acre-feet of water per year in an agricultural area that
is rapidly urbanizing.
Temperance Flat Dam (California) would be a new structure
constructed on the San Joaquin River, above Friant Dam, which
would provide much needed water supplies and hydroelectric
power. The Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation
was completed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in cooperation
with the California Department of Water Resources, consistent
with recommendations in the CALFED Bay Delta Program Record of
Decision.
Teton Dam Re-Construction (Idaho) would replace Teton Dam,
which failed in 1976 just as it was completed, causing massive
flooding in the Rexburg, Idaho, area. Fremont-Madison
Irrigation District is considering participating in a
reconstruction of this dam, which, in 1990, was estimated to
cost $168--$265 million. The project would yield 41,000 acre-
feet of water to benefit the fishery, 24,000 acre-feet for
trumpeter swans, and 20,000 acre-feet for irrigation.
Water for Irrigation, Streams, and Economy Project (WISE--
Oregon), is a collaborative effort in Oregon to improve the
health of the Little Butte Creek and Bear Creek systems and
increase the effectiveness and efficiency of local irrigation
districts. The WISE Project utilizes a combination of
strategies including: piping and lining canals, increasing the
storage capacity of selected reservoirs, and installing a
pumping system that will provide access to water that has been
allocated for agricultural purposes. Collectively, more water
will be available for management for irrigation and
environmental instream purposes.
Shortly after the Alliance's data base was released, the Bureau of
Reclamation in November 2005 submitted a report to Congress that
identifies nearly one thousand potential hydroelectric and water supply
projects in the Western United States that have been studied, but not
constructed. The report was required by the Energy Act of 2005.
The 2005 Alliance and Reclamation efforts show that, in most areas
of the West, water resources are available to be developed.
Environmentally-safe and cost-effective projects exist. They await the
vision and leadership needed to move them to implementation.
Question 2. In addition to streamflow losses, increasing
temperatures and a drying climate will likely dry rangelands and have
other negative impacts to agriculture. This industry, particularly in
the Rocky Mountain region, is already stressed.
What is your sense of the future of agriculture in the West--do the
opportunities outweigh the challenges or do you have concerns about the
long-term viability of family farms?
Answer. The family farmers and ranchers that make up the membership
of our organization convey varying degrees of optimism and pessimism
when they discuss the future of irrigated agriculture in the West.
Unfortunately, in recent years, when our association gathers in Nevada
for our annual meeting and irrigators from Western states begin to swap
stories, the mood appears to be getting more pessimistic each year.
defining optimism
Where does our wealth come from, if we have it? How do we measure
up with others? The answers to these questions are also factors that
influence how optimistic today's family farmers and ranchers are.
Farming is unique because of the tremendous amount of money that is
tied up in our investment to work the land. By the time the year is
over, despite good markets and efficient operations, the financial
pickings are slim, compared to other occupations. One of the founding
members of the Family Farm Alliance--a successful rancher and
businessman from Arizona--was astounded later in life when he found out
how relatively easy it was to make money running an auto parts store.
The rate of investment in farming is very high, but the rate of return
is often very low. It's easy to sound like a pessimist when you look at
how all of your money is tied up, with very little return to show for,
and your kids are leaving the farm to try to live like the people they
see on television.
tough times to get things done
Many farmers and ranchers are pessimistic about the future of
agriculture because it is getting increasingly more difficult to
accomplish anything. As a nation, it seems that we have become rich,
spoiled losing the drive to get things done the way we used to. One of
my fellow board members is a farmer in the Dolores Water Conservancy
District in Colorado. His district put together a plan for an
outstanding and feasible water delivery project that would have added
another 4,000 acres of productive farmland to his community. The
project was ready to go, but then the 2002 drought arrived, and
community leaders became gun shy, and reigned in their efforts. When
interest was revived a few years later, the price of petroleum (and
thus, piping) had risen considerably. The district had to scale back
its original plan, re-engage with the regulatory agencies, and before
long, the momentum faltered, and the project never materialized.
We built Hoover Dam in less than five years, ahead of schedule and
under budget, during the midst of the Great Depression. In this day and
age, the environmental permitting and litigation alone for such a
project would take at least twice that time.
family farms in crisis
Family farms and ranches are experiencing a crisis in numbers. In
the 1930s, there were close to seven million farms in the United
States. Today, just over two million farms remain. Of the remaining
farms, roughly 565,000 are family operations, farming just over 415
million acres or 44 percent of total farmland. And 330 farm operators
leave their land every week.
One of the most troubling aspects of the on-going farm crisis is
the decline in the number of young farmers entering the field. More
than half of today's farmers are between the ages of 45 and 64, and
only six percent of our farmers are younger than 35. Some of my fellow
directors on the Alliance board will admit that we ranchers are
becoming dinosaurs. Both statistically and anecdotally, for the first
time in many generations we see sons and daughters of farmers opting to
leave the family farm because of uncertainty about agriculture as a
career.
Urbanization and competition for water supplies are driving Western
farmers off the land at a time when American food production in general
is following other industries ``off-shore'' in search of lower costs.
Traditional farms and ranches are disappearing, and our country is
becoming a net importer of food, drawing frightening parallels to our
dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Meanwhile, according to USDA's Economic Research Service statistics
for 2005, Americans are spending, on average, 9.9 percent of their
disposable income on food. To put this into perspective, just 70 years
ago, the figure was more than 25 percent. So, while more, better and
safer food is being produced by our farmers, they continue to feel the
pinch--and it is only a matter of time before that pinch translates
itself back into the supermarket.
Ironically, it is because Western irrigated agriculture has been so
adaptive and successful at providing plentiful, safe and affordable
food that it is now jeopardized--nobody believes there can be a
problem. The last Americans to experience food shortages are members of
the so-called Greatest Generation and their parents. For the most part,
they have left us, taking with them the memories of empty supermarket
shelves. When the issue has never been personalized, it's easy to be
complacent.
agriculture is not the reservoir of the west
A February 2007 report by a National Research Council (NRC)
committee says agriculture is the likeliest target for shifting use to
urban needs in the fast growing West. But that study--which focuses on
the Colorado River--cautions that ``the availability of agricultural
water is finite.'' It adds that rising population and water demands
``will inevitably result in increasingly costly, controversial and
unavoidable trade-off choices'' in managing a shrinking resource.
We are also troubled to hear more and more anecdotal accounts from
Western farmers and ranchers of important agricultural lands being
converted to residential and commercial development and of agricultural
water being used (transferred or bought) to support these new demands.
New environmental water demands imposed by regulatory agencies or
courts also first look to agriculture. This is happening in every
state, but farmers and ranchers point to some striking examples:
A report released in April by Environment Colorado found
that, from 1987-2002, Colorado lost an average of 460 acres per
day of agricultural land. The report predicts 3.1 million more
acres will be lost to development by 2022.
Arizona's Salt River Project (SRP) is the ``poster child''
for transfers of agricultural water to urban areas. In a few
years, the SRP will cease to provide water to agriculture in
order to meet new demands exerted by development.
In Las Vegas, over 70,000 new residents are moving in every
year, and Southern Nevada Water Authority is looking to rural
areas to satisfy its growing thirst.
A restoration agreement developed for the Platte River could
potentially dry up hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland
in Nebraska and Wyoming, in order to reallocate water to meet
the perceived needs of ESA-listed fish and wildlife.
According to the American Farmland Trust, the California
Department of Conservation documented more than 1 million acres
of farmland in the state that were converted between 1988 and
1998. Last year, California's population officially topped 37
million, and it is predicted that the state's population will
reach 59.5 million by the year 2050.
The continued focus on moving agricultural water to meet other
Western water demands-urban, industrial, and environmental--is very
disturbing to us. It is short-sighted and complacent to believe the
illusion that water can be taken from agriculture to take care of new
urban and environmental demands.
We cannot continue long-term hypothetical processes that focus
primarily on continued conservation and downsizing of Western
agriculture. The U.S. needs a stable domestic food supply, just as it
needs a stable energy supply. The post 9/11 world of terrorist threats
makes the stability of domestic food supply even more pressing.
In this era of shrinking agricultural landscapes, there does not
appear to be much talk of saving agriculture, let alone trying to
increase production acreage. If these things are not done, we're afraid
we will lose it all. The continued focus on eliminating farming and
tightening water conservation as means of freeing up water to meet
other demands could set us up for a train wreck. While we are a free-
market country, some of our members believe we need to get aggressive
about finding ways to keep water available for agriculture rather than
just allowing individuals to sell their water--developed with
government assistance to encourage agricultural development decades
ago--to fund their retirement.
Our entire society needs that water because we need a strong
domestic agricultural base. Americans are justifiably concerned about
the recent contamination of wheat gluten imported from China and used
in pet food that killed thousands of animals in the United States. Yes,
the U.S. has recently experienced failures in its own food safety
systems. But domestic food safety issues are within our power to
address. Contamination of food stuffs produced by factories and farms
beyond our borders is not. That is why the Family Farm Alliance
believes that a national response to climate change should include as
one of its goals self-sufficiency in food production. It is time for
our national leaders to stand up and focus on improving the security,
stability, and economic aspects of domestic food production so that our
food remains readily available, ample, affordable, and safe.
If Congress wants to do something truly meaningful, it too, should
look at the bigger picture. For farmers to survive; for food to be
produced in America; a stable water supply must be available. The
federal government must adopt a policy of supporting new projects to
enhance water supplies while encouraging state and local interests to
take the lead in the implementation of those projects.
Responses of Patrick O'Toole to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Do you believe that the inter-agency coordination
required by the bill will help achieve federal coordination of water
resources research?
Answer. Section 7 of the SECURE Water Act outlines the climate
change and water intragovernmental panel, which would be comprised of
federal agency leaders. We believe this proposed panel and the actions
they will be tasked with should improve federal coordination of water
resources research. We support the Section 7 provisions that direct
this panel to coordinate with state water resources agencies and
relevant water user, environmental and non-governmental organizations.
For this panel to achieve success, coordinating with the state water
resources agencies is critical.
Question 2. Please describe the opportunities and challenges in the
West regarding the current and future water demands for energy
production.
Answer. Throughout the West, we are seeing proposals to build
plants to make ethanol, another ``answer'' that may (or may not) lower
greenhouse gas emissions. An April 2007 Sacramento Bee editorial
provides a reality check on how much water it would take to grow all
the corn required to meet California's goal of producing a billion
gallons of ethanol a year. According to the Bee's calculations, that's
about 2.5 trillion gallons of water for 1 billion gallons of ethanol,
which is more than all the water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
that now goes to Southern California and valley farms. Because there is
only so much water for agriculture in California and other Western
states, this means that some other existing crops will not be grown,
thus furthering our dependence on imported food sources.
We believe a thorough, comprehensive and peer-reviewed analysis is
also needed to pin down future water needs for ethanol production,
followed by identification of measures required to meet that new
demand.
Another growing demand that will be placed on Western water
resources is driven by power requirements. The total water consumed by
electric utilities accounts for 20 percent of all the non-farm water
consumed in the United States. By 2030, utilities could account for up
to 60 percent of the nonfarm water, to meet the water needs required
for cooling and pollutant scrubbing. This new demand will likely have
the most serious impacts in fast-growing regions of the U.S., such as
the Southwest. Even without warming climate conditions, continued
growth in these regions will put the squeeze on both water and power
use. When you throw in climate change considerations, the projections
look worse.
Elsewhere in the energy sector, opportunities exist to better
manage water produced in the development of coal bed natural gas
resources in Rocky Mountain states. Large amounts of water, sometimes
saline, are produced from coalbed methane wells, especially in the
early stages of production. While economic quantities of methane can be
produced, water disposal options that are environmentally acceptable
and yet economically feasible, are a concern. Water may be discharged
on the surface if it is relatively fresh, but often it is injected into
rock at a depth where the quality of the injected water is less than
that of the host rock. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, another
alternative, not yet attempted, is to evaporate the water and collect
the potentially saleable solid residues; this scheme might be feasible
in regions having high evaporation rates.
Question 3. Please describe the relative costs of demand-management
actions in relation to supply-enhancement measures as described in your
written testimony.
Answer. Individual supply enhancement proposals and proposed demand
management actions must be evaluated and the associated benefits and
risks must be viewed in a net, comprehensive manner. While some
environmental groups focus on perceived negative impacts associated
with new facility construction (e.g. loss of habitat, disruption of
``natural'' stream flow patterns, and potential evaporative losses),
these perceived impacts must also be compared to the wide range of
multi-purpose benefits that storage projects can provide. Properly
designed and constructed surface storage projects provide additional
water management flexibility to better meet downstream urban,
industrial and agricultural water needs, improve flood control,
generate clean hydropower, provide recreation opportunities, and--yes,
create additional flows that can benefit downstream fish and wildlife
species.
Conservation is often seen as the solution to water supply issues.
While conservation is surely a tool that can assist in overcoming water
supply problems, it cannot be viewed as the single answer to water
shortages. Conserved water cannot realistically be applied to instream
uses, as it will more likely be put to beneficial use by the next
downstream appropriator or held in carryover storage for the following
irrigation season. Also, reliance on demand management alone--
particularly to meet growing municipal and industrial water demands--
ultimately leads to ``hardened'' demand that could lead to volatility
in extended droughts. A more productive federal role in conservation
would involve the development of programs that foster locally-based
conservation tailored to the unique circumstances of each region by
providing genuine incentives, rather than the issuance of directives or
attempts to inspire conservation by artificially manipulating economics
through vehicles like compelled tiered pricing.
The Alliance supports continued voluntary implementation of
efficient water management practices and opposes mandatory or
enforceable requirements for agricultural water use efficiency. Only
practices that reduce irrecoverable losses actually increase the total
useable water supply. Furthermore, water saved within a water district
or on-farm is used elsewhere within the same district or farm. Western
agriculture in many areas is already highly efficient in its use of
water and that more efficient water application does not necessarily
increase useable water supplies.
The relative costs of demand and supply management actions can only
be properly assessed by looking at the full range of benefits generated
and beneficiaries served. For the most part, new water supplies are not
being proposed to meet the expanding needs of agriculture. On the
contrary, we are seeing a move in the opposite direction, where
agricultural lands are going out of production and being lost to
expanding urban development. Water that was originally established for
agriculture and the communities it supports is now being reallocated to
meet new growing urban and environmental water demands. The growing
numbers of urban water users in the West and the public interest served
through improved environmental water supplies should naturally be part
of equitable financing schemes.
In addition to developing the proper mix of demand management
actions and new water supply infrastructure, it is imperative that we
find creative ways to provide for the operation, maintenance, and
modernization of existing water supply infrastructure. In 2005, we
attended a briefing with the Bureau of Reclamation and learned at that
time that there were 80 Western water projects in need of repair in the
next ten years and that 40% of those would require major
rehabilitation. The total estimated cost, including dam safety
projects, was estimated to be $800 million. Sound business practices
dictate that this existing infrastructure, and the water supply
provided by these facilities, be protected and preserved.
Question 4. Please describe the current interest within your
membership to implement the rural water project Federal loan guarantee
program.
Answer. The Family Farm Alliance--driven by its members
(particularly in Washington and Idaho)--advocated for the loan
guarantee provisions contained in the Rural Water Supply Act of 2005.
This new program addresses an important issue to western water users:
the inability of irrigation and water districts to pay for expensive
repairs to Bureau of Reclamation dams, canals and other facilities
As noted above, many Reclamation facilities are near the end of
their design life, and maintaining the West's aging water
infrastructure is a major financial challenge for Reclamation. It is
also a challenge for irrigation districts and communities that depend
upon these projects because in most cases, project beneficiaries are
obligated by contract to pay 100 percent of operation, maintenance and
repair costs at Reclamation facilities. Repair and replacement of aging
gates, canals and other facilities often involve major construction
projects costing millions of dollars. Under Reclamation law, project
beneficiaries are required to pay these costs immediately; they cannot
be repaid over time.
Private financing is difficult for many local entities to obtain
because they do not own the facilities that are being repaired. In the
past, programs such as the Rehabilitation and Betterment Act provided
federal loans and other assistance for meeting the costs of repairs and
replacement of equipment. However, such programs are no longer
available.
The alternative financing mechanism contained in the Rural Water
Supply Act--which would provide a government loan guarantee to allow
local entities to amortize expensive operation, maintenance and
replacement (OM&R) projects--will be helpful to some local agencies
struggling to afford repairs to federally owned facilities. By making
it easier for certain local agencies to meet their financial
responsibilities, loan guarantees would make it easier to protect the
federal investment in the West water supply infrastructure.
The Alliance is very concerned that the Department of the Interior
has not yet implemented the loan guarantee. The Department's apparent
lack of action is difficult to understand given the Administration's
strong support for the Act when it was pending in Congress. We urge the
Committee to take a close look at the Department's handling of the
program and to take steps to remedy whatever problems are hindering the
full implementation of the law.
Question 5. Please describe how you could streamline the regulator
permitting process to provide for the necessary improvements to augment
our existing and future water supply systems.
Answer. The Family Farm Alliance believes that without new sources
of water, increasing urban and environmental demands will deplete
existing agricultural supplies and seriously threaten the future of
Western irrigated agriculture. The often slow and cumbersome federal
regulatory process is a major obstacle to realization of projects and
actions that could enhance Western water supplies.
The federal government has played a pivotal role in the development
and subsequent regulation of water resources in the West over the past
century. However, this involvement has grown exponentially over the
past several decades through legislative enactments such as the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Implementation of these and other
laws has challenged traditional notions about continued control of
water resources by the States. In addition, there exists within some
agencies a defeatist attitude that no dams or water supply projects
will be built. So, there is no commitment to earnestly begin and engage
the difficult problems we face. The increased control exerted by
federal agencies through a variety of means has led to gridlock in the
management of water supplies in the West.
For the most part, expanding agricultural development is not
driving the need for new water supplies. Those new demands are coming
from expanding urban development and more emphasis on environmental
water needs. New water does not necessarily have to be developed for
agriculture but it can be developed to prevent water from being taken
from agriculture. That means regulatory streamlining will benefit urban
water managers as well as Western irrigators.
The Family Farm Alliance is hopeful that a concerted good-faith
effort to address these problems will result in a streamlined
regulatory process that will be efficient, fair and effective. Over the
past three years, we have developed and proposed specific
recommendations on how to streamline ESA and NEPA processes, which we
believe would make the regulatory process less daunting for state and
local water agencies trying to enhance water supplies.
recommended changes to modernize and streamline esa implementation
The Family Farm Alliance strongly affirms the goals of the ESA.
However, this 30-year old law could stand some targeted reforms,
including common-sense changes to make it work better, encourage
incentive-driven recovery efforts, and discourage litigation. Our
specific recommendations--developed by our members in 2005--include:
Encourage regulatory agencies to pull in senior policy
officials to help solve ESA problems. Districts should be able
to meet directly with upper level managers.
Find ways to streamline the consultation process. Establish
time limits, and force the agencies to comply.
Require agency work on biological opinions to keep pace with
development of NEPA compliance documents.
Enhance congressional budgets of the lead agency (often
Bureau of Reclamation) to cover additional costs associated
with consultation.
Employ better science in the consultation process.
recommended changes to streamline nepa implementation
The Alliance also developed a number of recommendations to
streamline NEPA implementation associated with new water supply
enhancement projects. These include:
Implement--either legislatively or administratively, the
recommendations of the 2006 final report of the NEPA Task
Force, chaired by U.S. Rep. McMorris-Rodgers (Washington).
Restrict agency NEPA regulators from dismissing potential
benefits or uses of future water supplies from ``Purpose and
need'' requirements. Planning opportunities and purposes for
which a project may be permitted should not be restricted,
which narrows the planning horizon, and makes it impossible to
plan for projects with long-term benefits.
Require that impacts of drought and continuing water demands
be assessed and built into the NEPA process.
Amend NEPA to create a ``NEPA Ombudsman'' within the CEQ.
This recommendation would direct the CEQ to create a NEPA
Ombudsman with decision making authority to resolve conflicts
within the NEPA process.
Direct CEQ to control NEPA-related costs.
Amend NEPA to add mandatory timelines for the completion of
NEPA documents.
Amend NEPA to create a citizen suit provision. This
provision would clarify the standards and procedures for
judicial review of NEPA actions.
Amend NEPA to clarify that the alternative analysis must
include consideration of the environmental impact of not taking
an action on any proposed project.
Require that ``reasonable alternatives'' analyzed in NEPA
documents be limited to those which are economically and
technically feasible.
NEPA documents should only pertain to the proposed action and only
address issues raised in public scoping that are directly tied to the
proposed action. A common ploy of certain activist groups is to throw a
``laundry list'' of issues and concerns at a federal agency, knowing
full well it will distract, confuse, and lengthen the process, thereby
creating a document with potential loop holes that might later be
appealed. We believe alternatives should be limited to the proposed
action being analyzed. The number of alternatives should be constrained
only to the range of activities and associated impacts of the proposed
action.
Response of Patrick O'Toole to Question From Senator Salazar
Question 1. The Family Farm Alliance's recent report, Water Supply
in a Changing Climate, discusses the increase in ethanol and energy
production as another demand on water resources in the West. Do you
think the SECURE Water Act goes far enough in assessing impacts to
water from energy use, or would you suggest other changes to the Act?
Answer. Section 9 of the SECURE Water Act directs the Secretary of
Interior to work with an advisory committee and state and local water
resource agencies to develop a water use and availability assessment.
One of the tasks charged to this group is to work towards an improved
ability to forecast the ability of water required for energy production
uses. This specific charge--while fairly broad--should provide a
vehicle to develop a thorough, comprehensive and peer-reviewed analysis
to pin down future water needs for ethanol production, and new power
plants, followed by identification of measures required to meet that
new demand.
We also recommend that this assessment identify opportunities to
better manage water produced in the development of coal bed natural gas
resources in the Rocky Mountain states. A basin-by-basin quantification
of the potential ``new'' water that could be generated through coal bed
methane production operations should also be undertaken.
______
Responses of Jon C. Lambeck to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1a. MWD is one of the largest water utilities in the
nation, and perhaps the one facing the greatest number of challenges.
Based on current and long-term projections, you face the distinct
likelihood of reduced Colorado River supplies, potential reductions in
State project water because of environmental issues in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Bay-Delta area, and an ongoing local drought.
Is MWD facing the possibility of rationing water to its 18 million
customers? If not, what strategies have you implemented to help avoid
that possibility?
Answer. Metropolitan is preparing for the possibility of allocating
supplies to its 26 public member agencies by developing an allocation
plan for adoption by its Board. This plan sets in place a formula to
equitably cut supplies through all of Southern California should that
become necessary.
However, Metropolitan is acting to avoid allocation by utilizing
its drought storage reserves and pursuing water transfers. Further,
Metropolitan has embarked on a regional education and media campaign to
reduce water use and encourage conservation, including the promotion of
California native (low water use) plants and landscaping. This is in
addition to stepped up incentive programs to cause retail customers to
install water saving appliances and plumbing fixtures, and to use
recycled water whenever available and appropriate for use.
Question 1b. Can you estimate how much water MWD has been able to
save because of conservation efforts over the last 10-15 years? Do you
anticipate that additional savings are possible?
Answer. Metropolitan's modern water conservation efforts date back
to the prolonged drought of the 1980s. Since 1990, conservation efforts
in the Metropolitan service area have saved approximately 10 million
acre-feet (AF). Conservation savings have reduced regional water
demands by about 15%. In fact, conservation has provided almost 800,000
AF of water in our service area this past year--that is more water than
we will receive from the Colorado River. It should be noted that 1 AF
typically meets all the indoor and outdoor water needs of two average
Southern California families.
However, our conservation efforts are nowhere near complete and
many new opportunities exist. Most water savings in California have
come from indoor plumbing improvements such as changing to low flow
shower heads and retrofitting residential toilets to ultra-low flush
models. The commercial, industrial, institutional, and landscape
sectors still have significant opportunity for savings. These sectors
have not participated in efficiency programs in the past due to
complexities in business practices, procurement processes,
institutional barriers, and a lack of water saving technologies. Most
of these obstacles have been or are now being overcome. New landscape
efficiency devices, like Smart Irrigation Timers and high efficiency
spray nozzles that ensure more of the water gets to the plants, can
greatly reduce water use in commercial and residential landscapes.
Industrial process improvement programs are seeing a large increase in
participation in Metropolitan's service area as corporations and local
businesses begin to see the financial and social benefits of
conserving. A recent example is the partnership between Metropolitan
and Kimberly-Clark in which Metropolitan paid approximately $500,000 to
offset some of the costs of Kimberly-Clark's industrial process
improvements in a paper production facilities, saving about 500 acre-
feet per year. But even with the best corporate citizens, bad choices
are sometimes made when they cannot tell the difference between
efficient and non-efficient devices in the marketplace. Because of
this, Metropolitan supports national labeling of water efficient
devices through EPA's WaterSense Program. Continued Congressional
support of this program will leverage local effort to get businesses to
make water efficient choices.
Question 2a. Your testimony recommends evaluating ways to optimize
hydropower production at federal facilities due to the likelihood that
power production will continue to be impacted by low reservoir
elevations in the future.
What is the current state of research associated with developing
more efficient low head turbines? Is it realistic to expect that it
will be technically and economically feasible to retrofit such
equipment on existing facilities in the near future?
Answer. Turbine manufacturers have developed different designs over
the years that have higher efficiency or generation output under
specific reservoir elevations or head. As reservoirs in the western US
have been drawn down as a consequence of continuing drought, the head
under which the existing turbines are operating has moved further
outside their optimum operating range. Hydrologists and other experts
have questioned whether we can expect the western reservoirs to return
to their historical operating elevations anytime in the near future.
The studies recommended in the testimony would take available
designs and technology and analyze the technical challenges and
improved power production that would be achieved under current and
continuing reduced head conditions. The studies would provide the
expected increase in power and the cost to implement the equipment
change. With the information produced, stakeholders could make
decisions on whether the increased value is worth the required
expenditures.
Question 2b. What other sources is MWD looking at to potentially
replace the hydropower it currently uses to move water through the
Colorado River Aqueduct?
Answer. Metropolitan is looking at several options to replace the
possible reduction in federal hydro power. With wind measurement
equipment (wind speed and direction) supplied through the Western Area
Power Administration as part of their customer service program for
renewable energy development and equipment purchased directly by
Metropolitan, the wind along the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) is being
monitored for potential use as part of a multi-year program. The data
from this monitoring will be analyzed to determine the economics of
wind power development along the CRA.
Metropolitan is also analyzing the potential for solar power along
the CRA as an expansion of solar power development already underway at
Metropolitan facilities in its Southern California service territory.
These current solar power developments are at existing facilities such
as water treatment plants served under retail electricity service
tariffs by utilities such as the Southern California Edison Company or
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
Another option is the use of power Metropolitan produces at its 16
small hydroelectric power plants located along its pipelines is
Southern California. The energy produced at these hydroelectric plants
is presently sold to electric utilities. If economically feasible,
Metropolitan could utilize the power from these hydroplants to meet
some of its own CRA energy demand.
Other options include purchasing addition energy from the wholesale
energy marketplace to replace the declining Hoover energy or develop
contracts for a firm supply of power from new facilities owned by
others or in partnership with Metropolitan.
Responses of Jon C. Lambeck to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. In addition to the correlation between energy and hydro
production, please describe what Metropolitan is doing to reduce their
energy demands on moving water through the system and developing new
water supplies through desalination and the recycling of brackish
water.
In regards to reducing energy demands, Metropolitan has always been
proactive in identifying and implementing energy saving improvements.
For example, beginning in the earlier 1980's, Metropolitan initiated an
aggressive construction program to install small hydroelectric
generators at pressure control facilities on its water distribution
system. This allowed the production of clean, zero-emission, renewable
electric power from the energy in water flowing through distribution
pipelines that previously had gone untapped. In 2007, Metropolitan
produced approximately 500,000 MWh from its 16 small hydro generators.
Also starting in the 1980's and continuing into the 90's,
Metropolitan spent over $32 million rehabilitating its Colorado River
Aqueduct structures and electric equipment, including 45 electric
motors ranging in size from 4300 HP to 12,500 HP . This rehabilitation
project resulted in annual savings of over 110,000 MWh during periods
of high water deliveries.
Finally, in 2005, Metropolitan completed the redesign of one of its
major distribution system pumping plants. The new design reduced the
energy requirement to pump water from 400 kWh/acre-foot (AF) to 200
kWh/AF and has resulted in energy savings of over 9,000 MWh annually.
The above examples are some of the larger efforts Metropolitan has
undertaken to reduce its energy use. There are many other smaller
efforts have been completed or that are continuing, including:
implementing energy audit recommendations at all its major facilities
(such as lighting retrofits, installation of variable speed motors,
HVAC improvements and motion sensing light switches); utilizing high
efficiency equipment in new installations; installing photovoltaic
solar generation at its treatment plants; and replacement of old CRT
monitors.
Lastly, Metropolitan is championing an effort that would provide
recognition to electric utilities who support water conservation
efforts by allowing them to obtain the credit for energy saved from
reduced water conveyance, treatment and distribution energy
requirements.
Concerning new water supplies in Southern California, recycled
water production is used to offset potable water demands to irrigate
golf courses and public parks, offset imported water demands for
industrial process water, and protect groundwater basins from seawater
intrusion that could impair groundwater production and storage.
Groundwater recovery programs desalt brackish groundwater to create a
new supply while cleaning up groundwater basins to enable better
groundwater storage and management. Seawater desalination is not
currently in large-scale production in Southern California, but
advances in membrane and energy recovery technologies have brought the
cost of this supply to levels where it can be considered as part of a
diverse portfolio of a reliable water supply.
In 2006, Metropolitan set a regional target of 750,000 acre-feet of
annual production for the combined resources of water recycling,
groundwater recovery (brackish water desalting), and seawater
desalination. Currently, the region has approximately 320 TAF per year
of recycling and groundwater recovery production. Metropolitan offers
financial incentives up to $250 per acre-foot of produced water through
its member agencies. Metropolitan financially supports over 150 TAF of
the existing annual production. Finally, Metropolitan has signed or is
in the final process of signing five contracts to provide financial
assistance to local seawater desalination projects that are expected to
be online as early as 2015.
Question 2. In what areas should the federal government focus its
research on water for energy and energy for water?
Answer. As mentioned in the response to the previous question,
improvements in the design and technology of the desalination process
continues to result in lower energy requirements for the water
produced. Metropolitan has done extensive research to improve the
efficiency of the desalination process and to lower the overall cost of
desalination for brackish waters through improvements in pretreatment,
membrane fouling, scale-up of membranes, and brine treatment. Federal
research in these areas, along with improvements in energy recovery
devices, may result in further cost reductions for desalination and
help reduce energy usage, not only for brackish waters but also for
other water sources such as seawater.
Another area where research could provide significant benefits
regarding energy for water would be in raw water treatment. Many of the
newer water treatment processes, including ozone and ultraviolet
disinfection are very energy intensive. Advances in reducing the energy
requirements for water treatment could result in significant cumulative
energy savings throughout the country.
Regarding the issue of water for energy, large quantities of water
can be consumed in energy related activities such as thermal power
plant cooling, fuel refining and oil and gas exploration and
extraction. Any research that could result in new industrial processes
that require less water would be beneficial by allowing the conserved
water to be available for other critical purposes.
Research by the federal government in the above areas could provide
substantial benefits, especially to regions of the country where
existing and new supplies of water are limited or constrained.
Metropolitan would support such federal efforts.
______
Responses of John D'Antonio to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1a. Water allocation and management are primarily a state
and local responsibility. At the same time, with the number of water
issues increasing, there seems to be a growing need for more federal
assistance in this area.
What is your sense of the role the Federal government should have
in water management? What is the States' perspective on recent federal
budgets for water resource programs?
Answer. It is imperative that the federal government be a strong,
committed partner in assisting state and local communities with current
and future water supply challenges. Recent federal budgets have not
kept pace with the urgent water resources challenges faced by state and
federal water managers, especially in the western United States. S.2156
would provide the financial assistance to non-federal entities for
water use efficiency improvements, enhanced spending authority for USGS
stream-gauging activities, a ground water monitoring system, brackish
water study, new methods to estimate and measure water use, a new water
use and availability assessment, establishment of intra-governmental
panel on climate change and water resources, a Reclamation Climate
Change Adaptation Program, and a hydroelectric power assessment given
the potential effects of climate change.
S.2156 authorizes a National Water Use and Availability Assessment
Program. The Secretary of Interior, acting through the USGS and in
coordination with state and local water resource agencies, is to
undertake a program to provide better information on water resources
and identify trends in use and availability, as well as help forecast
water availability for future economic, energy production and
environmental needs. The USGS is also to maintain a national inventory
on water, and provide grants to states to enable locally generated data
to be integrated with national datasets. Using federal grants and state
cost sharing, this essential partnership will develop and integrate
water use and availability datasets into a comprehensive database and
can serve as the basis for sound decision making.
I would like to highlight one technology of growing importance in
many western states that presently has the capability to provide
critical information on ground water withdrawals, agricultural and
other outdoor water uses, evapotranspiration rates and consumptive
uses. The USGS and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
now jointly operate a system of earth observation satellites that
include a thermal infrared (TIR) sensor on Landsat 5 and Landsat 7,
which are over due for replacement. Data from this sensor is now used
by western states (and others) to measure and monitor
evapotranspiration and consumptive uses from irrigated areas (and other
land cover) by calculating the ``residual'' energy balance. The Landsat
Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), under NASA's Earth Sciences
Directorate, currently has scheduled the launch of Landsat 8 for 2011.
Once in orbit, NASA will turn over satellite operations and data
management to USGS. However, NASA's FY 2008 budget did not include
funding for a TIR instrument, and without immediate action by the
Congress, this important tool could be lost for the foreseeable future.
Question 1b. In your view, does the SECURE Water Act respect state
primacy over water rights while properly addressing a federal role that
will help address water resource issues?
Answer. Yes, we appreciate the explicit recognition that ``. . .
States bear the primary responsibility and authority for managing the
water resources of the United States'' and that ``the Federal
Government should support the States, as well as regional, local and
tribal governments . . .''. We appreciate the many provisions in the
bill requiring federal agencies to consult and coordinate with the
applicable state water resource agency with jurisdiction. The savings
clause is also important which states that: ``Nothing in this Act
preempts or affects any--(A) State water law; or (B) interstate compact
governing water.'' So is the requirement that the Secretary comply with
applicable State water laws.
Question 2. Some of the impacts of climate change on water
resources are pretty well understood, such as reduced snow-pack,
earlier runoff, and increased evaporation.
Are the Western States actively dealing with these impacts, either
individually or collectively, or is more information still needed to
better understand the specific impacts and to be able to tailor
solutions to identified areas of concern?
Answer. The Western States Water Council has consulted with its
member states and it is evident that there is not sufficient
information available to provide a comprehensive and firm foundation
for future decision making. Presently, western states water planning
capabilities vary widely from state to state, particularly as it
relates to estimating future water uses and needs.
Changes in climate variability due to warming temperatures in the
West has the potential to upset the current balance achieved through
the storage of seasonal surpluses. The Congress should fund research
for improving the predictive capabilities for climate change, and
assessment and mitigation of its impacts. Based on the complex
climatology in the West, it is important that climate change modeling
be conducted at a much finer resolution such as at the watershed and
sub-watershed level. Also, it is unclear how temperatures affect summer
monsoonal activity in several western states and efforts should be made
to focus on vulnerabilities and building increased resiliency to
climate extremes.
Responses of John D'Antonio to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Do you believe that the inter-agency coordination
required in the bill will help achieve federal coordination of water
resources research?
Answer. Yes, interagency coordination will greatly enhance the cost
effectiveness of the necessary water resources research and avoid the
potential duplication of efforts that would likely occur under a non-
coordinated approach. The bill specifies how the Secretary of Interior
will interact through the USGS and the USBR in coordination with state
and local water resource agencies and promote the development and
integration of locally generated data with national datasets. The
efforts will include the expansion of the USGS' National Streamflow
Information Program (NSIP), the implementation of a systematic national
ground water resources monitoring program for major aquifer systems in
the U.S. to identify significant brackish aquifers that could use
desalination technologies as an important alternate source of supply.
Also, the Secretary shall establish a Reclamation Climate Change
Adaptation Program and a Climate Change and Water Intra-Governmental
(I-G) Panel to assess risk of climate change to water resources and to
review the science on climate change and water, and develop ways to
better forecast impacts.
The bill also mandates a Hydroelectric Power Assessment and directs
the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the federal Power
Marketing Administrations (PMAs), and other federal and state agencies,
to assess the effects of climate change on the water available for
facilities producing hydropower marketed by the PMAs.
The USGS and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
now jointly operate a system of earth observation satellites that
include a thermal infrared (TIR) sensor on Landsat 5 and Landsat 7,
which are over due for replacement. Data from this sensor is now used
by western states (and others) to measure and monitor
evapotranspiration and consumptive uses from irrigated areas (and other
land cover) by calculating the ``residual'' energy balance. The Landsat
Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), under NASA's Earth Sciences
Directorate, currently has scheduled the launch of Landsat 8 for 2011.
Once in orbit, NASA will turn over satellite operations and data
management to USGS. However, NASA's FY 2008 budget did not include
funding for a TIR instrument, and without immediate action by the
Congress, this important tool could be lost for the foreseeable future.
Question 2. Please describe the type of water assessments you would
undertake if grants were provided to State water resource agencies.
Answer. The Office of the State Engineer (OSE), the New Mexico
Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) and the New Mexico Bureau of Geology
and Mineral Resources through (NMBGMR) will work in coordination with
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to undertake a program to provide
better information on water resources and identify trends in use and
availability, as well as help forecast water availability for future
economic, energy production and environmental needs. State agencies
will help integrate locally generated data with national datasets
compiled by the USGS and other federal agencies to update and maintain
a national inventory of water resource information.
The OSE, ISC, NMBGMR and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
will assist the USGS with implementing a systematic national ground
water resources monitoring program for major aquifer systems that
extend into New Mexico. It has become increasingly evident that there
is not sufficient ground water data available, both quantity and
quality, to support all the administrative actions (at the state and
local levels) needed to understand and effectively manage ground and
surface waters conjunctively. Many wells are not metered, and
increasing ground water development is having a significant impact on
surface water resources in some areas. The OSE will continue to
actively pursue metering and measuring of water use in seven key basins
under our Active Water Resource Management initiative.
More and more often, the use of waters of impaired quality, such as
brackish ground waters, offer an effective alternative to the
development of surface water supplies and their transport over long
distances. Federal grants to the State's water resource agencies would
allow state and local entities to work with the USGSS to conduct
assessments identifying significant brackish aquifers. Desalination of
brackish ground water and other impaired waters promises to be an
important alternate source of supply for some uses and users.
Under federal grants, state agencies could enter into cooperative
agreements to help conserve water, increase water use efficiency,
facilitate water markets, enhance water management or carry out similar
activities in any watershed with a Reclamation project nexus or to
address water use efficiencies, drought, and climate-related impacts to
water supplies.
Question 3. Please describe the States that have the most complete
understanding of their groundwater resources. What are these States
doing to better understand this important water resource?
Answer. It is difficult to address which states have the most
complete understanding of their groundwater resources. In my experience
in attending Association of Western State Engineer and Western State
Water Council meetings, it seems that the vast majority of western
states are having extreme difficulty in managing their surface and
groundwater together. As is evident by all of the past and current
interstate litigation between states, the effect of groundwater
withdrawals on surface water supplies has had deleterious effects on
compact deliveries to neighboring states. Resulting damages as a result
of these interstate lawsuits is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
A better understanding of how to conjunctively manage groundwater and
surface water would greatly reduce these interstate conflicts.
Question 4. Do you believe anything in this legislation would lead
to the federalization of State water rights?
Answer. No, as the legislation has been drafted we appreciate the
explicit recognition that ``. . . States bear the primary
responsibility and authority for managing the water resources of the
United States'' and that ``the Federal Government should support the
States, as well as regional, local and tribal governments . . .''. We
appreciate the many provisions in the bill requiring federal agencies
to consult and coordinate with the applicable state water resource
agency with jurisdiction. The savings clause is also important which
states that: ``Nothing in this Act preempts or affects any--(A) State
water law; or (B) interstate compact governing water.'' So is the
requirement that the Secretary comply with applicable State water laws.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Robert M. Hirsch From Senator Bingaman
Question 1a. Your testimony sends mixed signals. It expresses
support for the SECURE Water Act's goals, but then expresses concern
because many of the activities called for in the bill are not in the
President's budget.
At present budget levels, will Reclamation and USGS be able to
carry-out the objectives of this bill, such as effectively responding
to the water challenges posed by climate change, increasing water use
efficiency, substantially increasing the National Streamflow
Information Program, expanding groundwater monitoring, and implementing
a comprehensive national water census?
Question 1b. Will Reclamation be able to continue the Water 2025
grant programs without the long-term authority provided by the SECURE
Water Act?
Question 2a. It's my understanding that a fundamental purpose of
the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) was to create a base
nationwide streamgage network that would be 100% federally-funded. The
SECURE Water Act is intended to implement NSIP as originally
envisioned, including its current goal of establishing 4,700 monitored
sites, which the bill requires to be done within the next 10 years.
Your written testimony, however, states that the streamgages under the
NSIP program should be cost-shared, rather than federally-funded.
Does your testimony represent a change in the structure of the NSIP
program and its purpose of having a base network designed to meet
federal science objectives?
Question 2b. As a follow-up--is the current NSIP network stable and
functioning as intended, or does the system need to be updated with new
equipment and technology?
Question 2c. Is there anything in the SECURE Water Act that would
alter the existing cooperative water program under which USGS also
installs and maintains streamgages?
Question 3a. Bob Hirsch, USGS--Earlier this year, USGS indicated
there was general agreement among climate models projecting a long-term
drying trend in the Southwest. Subsequently, an August 2007 report
noted that current climate models predict a decrease of 15-20% in
precipitation during the 21st century in the Upper Colorado River
Basin. Under these models, the Colorado River Compact and U.S. water
treaties with Mexico will be met only 60% of the time by 2070. In New
Mexico, a report was recently released predicting a 12-33% decline in
surface water availability in the Rio Grande basin over the next 20 to
70 years.
What current degree of confidence exists in these projections?
Question 3b. Can the accuracy of the projections be improved by the
actions called for in this bill? If so, what are the most important
steps that need to be taken?
Question 4a. The National Ground Water Association's testimony
raises questions about whether states are adequately monitoring water
resources to help compile a national assessment of water availability.
Does USGS have a similar concern? If so, how long do you think it
will take to establish the monitoring necessary to accurately assess
long-term water availability in this country?
Question 4b. What does USGS expect to learn from a national water
census? Who will use that information and for what purposes? Will it
help avoid water conflicts?
Questions for Robert M. Hirsch From Senator Domenici
Question 1. You indicate that much of the Secure Water Act can be
done under existing authorities. Will you please provide the Committee
with these existing authorities and how you have used them in the past,
and will use them in the future?
Question 2. Please describe the current Federal interagency
process, identified in your written testimony, to develop comprehensive
approaches to water planning and management throughout the United
States.
Question 3. Please describe the non-federal entities you are
working with on climate change and the type of research currently being
undertaken.
Question 4. Has the Department of the Interior created an
intergovernmental panel, similar to the interagency Climate Change
Science Program, to address the water needs for energy production?
Question 5. Please describe the current research that the
Subcommittee on Ground Water is undertaking. How much of the research
is being done by outside groups?
Question 6. Please describe the effort being undertaken in the
Great Lakes Basin to assess how much water is in the region now, how
the region is using water, how water availability is changing, and how
much water the region can expect to have in the future. In addition,
please describe the opportunities and challenges that have resulted
from the study, and whether this pilot program can be replicated
elsewhere.
Questions for Robert M. Hirsch From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Mr. Hirsch, I am aware of the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission program jointly managed by NASA and USGS. Currently, the
thermal infrared sensor that is so important to providing data to water
managers is not budgeted to be included in Landsat 8. Can you discuss
USGS's use of the data from the thermal infrared sensor, and the
importance USGS places on the continuity of this data?
Question 2. Mr. Hirsch, the USGS is one of the participating
federal agencies in the U.S. Climate Change Program that is conducting
research on climate change, including impacts on water. Do you have any
recommendations for ensuring coordination between the work the U.S.
Climate Change Program is doing and the Climate Change and Water Intra-
Governmental Panel the SECURE Water Act proposes to establish?
______
Questions for Robert Johnson From Senator Bingaman
Question 1a. Your testimony sends mixed signals. It expresses
support for the SECURE Water Act's goals, but then expresses concern
because many of the activities called for in the bill are not in the
President's budget.
At present budget levels, will Reclamation and USGS be able to
carry-out the objectives of this bill, such as effectively responding
to the water challenges posed by climate change, increasing water use
efficiency, substantially increasing the National Streamflow
Information Program, expanding groundwater monitoring, and implementing
a comprehensive national water census?
Question 1b. Will Reclamation be able to continue the Water 2025
grant programs without the long-term authority provided by the SECURE
Water Act?
Question 2a. Reclamation's Water 2025 program has been funded on a
year-to-year basis through the annual appropriations process.
Has the demand for grants under the program exceeded the annual
amounts so far available? Can you provide for the record an estimate of
the average annual demand for federal funding under the program over
the last several years?
Question 2b. Has the program been implemented in a manner that
gives priority to projects that will help minimize or reduce water-
related conflicts? Are grants coordinated on a watershed basis to
leverage the maximum benefits for both water users and environmental
needs?
Question 2c. Could you please summarize the grants or other
financial assistance provided under the Water 2025 program since it was
initiated? What are the benefits of the program?
Question 3. One of the purposes of the SECURE Water Act is to
ensure that water managers and the scientific community are working
together to avoid water-related crises to the extent possible. Question
4 outlined some of the dire predictions currently out there with
respect to water supply in the West.
Is Reclamation currently using this information to engage in long-
term planning in the affected river basins? What needs to be done to
make this information more applicable for water managers?
Question 4. Testimony by the Nature Conservancy indicates that
there is a tremendous volume of reservoir space available behind
existing dams because that space is reserved to capture incoming floods
and protect downstream structures. If those structures were removed and
some amount of the natural floodplain could be restored, then the
reservoir space could possibly be used to meet water user and
environmental needs.
Has Reclamation studied this possibility as it applies to its
facilities? Do you agree that the potential exists to secure the use of
existing reservoir space if some floodplain restoration were
undertaken?
Questions for Robert Johnson from Senator Domenici
Question 1. You indicate that much of the Secure Water Act can be
done under existing authorities. Will you please provide the Committee
with these existing authorities and how you have used them in the past,
and will use them in the future?
Question 2. Please describe the current Federal interagency
process, identified in your written testimony, to develop comprehensive
approaches to water planning and management throughout the United
States.
Question 3. Please describe the non-federal entities you are
working with on climate change and the type of research currently being
undertaken.
Question 4. Has the Department of the Interior created an
intergovernmental panel, similar to the interagency Climate Change
Science Program, to address the water needs for energy production?
Question 5. Please describe the current research that the
Subcommittee on Ground Water is undertaking. How much of the research
is being done by outside groups?
Question 6. Please describe the effort being undertaken in the
Great Lakes Basin to assess how much water is in the region now, how
the region is using water, how water availability is changing, and how
much water the region can expect to have in the future. In addition,
please describe the opportunities and challenges that have resulted
from the study, and whether this pilot program can be replicated
elsewhere.
Questions for Robert Johnson From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Many of the Bureau of Reclamation water projects in the
West are nearing a century in age, and badly in need of repair. More
than 300 dams in Colorado are classified as high hazard dams meaning
the loss of human life is expected in the event of dam failure. Forty
five of these high hazard dams are owned by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The SECURE Water Act would authorize grants to provide financial
assistance to States, Tribes, & local entities to construct
improvements or take actions to address drought, climate change, or
other water-related crises. Do you foresee opportunities to
simultaneously address drought/climate change issues and high hazard
dams?
Question 2. In your's and Mr. Hirsch's testimony, you discuss a
review of the National Streamflow Information Program which has been
conducted. Can you tell describe the results of that review in terms of
the need for additional streamflow stations? Can you also describe the
cost-share arrangements you have with State and local governments when
new streamgages are added?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of the Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS)
The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) offers the following
statement regarding our support and recommendations regarding the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on S. 2156, the
SECURE Water Act.
WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater
districts, cities and towns and water resource professionals focused on
water quality and water quantity issues in the states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas.
Established in 1992, our vision has been to ensure sustainable water
quality and quantity in the arid West. Our mission has been to work
with state, regional, and federal water quality and quantity agencies
to promote scientifically-sound laws, regulations, funding, and
policies that protect the public health and the environment in the arid
West.
The Southwestern United States is the fastest growing region in the
country, with a 100% + population growth increase projection for
Arizona and Nevada by 2030, and nearly 60% increase in Utah and Texas,
and yet most areas in these states have suffered multiyear droughts
over the last decade. This rapid growth projection, along with the
consequences of a changing climate, requires communities to have a
diverse water supply portfolio; and new approaches to creating higher
quality sources of water supply need to be undertaken to meet the
region's essential needs. Not unlike the arid West, there is already
recognition that new water conservation skills will be critical for
each region of the country to manage their water resources properly, as
highlighted by the recent events in the Southeast.
The issue of climate change is global in nature but, for our
purposes, national in scope and not just limited to the West. WESTCAS
is supportive of addressing water quality and quantity problems in the
East, Southeast, and other regions, but we deserve reciprocity in
having our unique resource challenges met in a responsible fashion.
Though much has been done on the issue of climate change in terms of
broad research, we believe in the need to approach the issue in terms
of practical preparedness in a comprehensive manner. This includes:
water resources and the related issues of energy generation and use,
sustainable agriculture, environmental conservation, public health and
safety, and national security. In this context, we must highlight our
concern that the federal government is inadequately addressing funding
upgrades to existing water infrastructure, and is not focusing on
federal agency outreach/coordination programs for at-risk sectors.
These elements are necessary and vital adaptations in any national,
climate change mitigation strategy.
Preparedness can be a strong cornerstone for such a strategy. In
our view, what is missing is a nationwide approach where state and
local governments, the private sector, non-governmental entities with
expertise in the subject area, and the incubators of new deas (i.e. the
university system), become part a national dialogue and national plan
for addressing these pressing concerns.
WESTCAS supports the SECURE Water Act, and in particular one of the
principles behind the SECURE Water Act that mandates routine reports to
Congress on the effect of climate change on water resources and the
quantity of brackish water within the United States. We believe that
collection and reporting of independent scientific data, free of
political posture, should be the basis for such policies and program
development. Investing in more robust data collection, monitoring
efforts, and modeling is important if we are to engage in the business
of proper planning and making decisions which impact (what some refer
to as) the triple bottom line: the economic, environmental and social
agendas of this country. As such, the SECURE Water Act provides federal
requirements to monitor and manage limited water resources to ensure
adequate supplies for the future, and this is important if we are to
convene a national strategy for addressing climate change as an issue
that can be reconciled with population growth.
Although we support the proposed legislation, WESTCAS poses the
following question regarding the expected direction to the Bureau of
Reclamation to initiate a climate change adaptation program to develop
strategies and conduct feasibility studies to address water shortages,
conflicts, and other impacts to water users and the environment.
Although WESTCAS is a historical and ardent supporter of the Bureau of
Reclamation, we raise the question of whether the Bureau of
Reclamation, at the present time, is the best federal agency to carry
out such a mission, i.e. should the new mission go to another federal
agency? Although we have been impressed with the Bureau's recent effort
on the Modeling of the Boise Reservoir System with Climate Change, we
wonder if the Bureau resources are being over-taxed, considering their
massive backlog of authorized projects. Although, we can envision that
with adequate Congressional funding and a serious commitment by the
Bureau, when the backlog of work in their Construction Program is
addressed, that they could play a positive role in the future of this
key undertaking.
In posing this question regarding which federal agency is best to
lead this proposed initiative, WESTCAS draws your attention to specific
information that provokes our question on this issue, which can be
found in the Bureau of Reclamation budget, through their Science and
Technology program, which is currently funded at less than $10 million
dollars. When you examine the Bureau's Water Conservation Field
Services program you see only $6 million and less than $1.5 million for
Emergency Planning and Disaster Response. The Bureau of Reclamation's
Water Investigations program ranges from the thousands to a couple of
hundred thousand, and is not even active in every state of the arid
West. Even more to the point, in 1997 a document was produced by the
Western Water Policy Review Commission, which included numerous
recommendations and studies that the Bureau could have taken advantage
of in order to address the new mission that this legislation is now
proposing. Instead, the Bureau embarked on their own initiative called
Water 2025 which offered no scientific basis for their decisions, as to
where to provide minimal `seed' money for projects--that do not even
relate to a larger strategic plan as envisioned by the SECURE Water
Act.
Although it is not our intent to appear critical, the Bureau is
facing two other issues that raise this ``best agency'' question
regarding the assignment of carrying out this proposed new mission. The
first, the aging of its infrastructure, has hopefully been addressed by
the last Congress with the passage of the Rural Water Supply
legislation and the 21st Century Water Works Act, though we note the
delays by the Bureau to advance the guidelines for this new effort. Of
additional concern is the Bureau's increased funding of their Operation
and Maintenance program; this is the first year it has exceeded the
budget for their Construction program. In our view, this has important
ramifications for the Bureau's undertaking of new missions.
The downsizing of the Bureau's staff also has implications for
their engaging in new program work. The Bureau has been engaged in a
`Managing For Excellence' effort for the past two years, and like many
other federal agencies, there are a large percentage of employees who
are now eligible to retire. This retirement pool represents a huge
institutional knowledge base, especially with regard to the unique
character of the West. This, too, will have an impact on the Bureau's
ability to perform additional new work in the future.
On a more positive note, WESTCAS participated in an effort--the
Invest In the West Campaign--several years ago to increase the budget
of the Bureau of Reclamation, which had been chronically under-funded.
Thankfully, Congress recognized the need and through its leadership,
the budget was increased several hundred million dollars over several
years. Still, our WESTCAS members, particularly those in California,
have been concerned with the on-going lack of funding for the backlog
of the authorized projects within the Bureau's Title 16 Water Reuse and
Reclamation Program. With over $300 million needed, (and more
authorizations pending in this Congress) these new `rivers' of water
are the future supplies for many in the West, and play an important
role in addressing the conditions of future climate change. Reuse
projects represent one of the most cost-effective approaches to meeting
new water needs throughout the United States; WESTCAS would be pleased
to work with Committee Members and their staffs on funding strategies
to reduce the Bureau's Title 16 backlog.
Legislation for greater research and technology development that
promotes additional water reuse is also needed. In addition, we urge a
federal agency education program aimed towards community acceptance of
water reuse -in partnership with the local project developer-along the
lines of the need for, and the benefits of, this technology. Especially
in the arid West, recycling and reuse of finite water supplies is
undoubtedly one of the major elements of adaptive management strategies
in the face of the impacts of long-term drought and climate change and
the burgeoning population growth.
We know the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not under the
jurisdiction of your Committee. However, the recently passed and
enacted Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for the Corps provides a
model that should be considered on a national scale for water resource
planning at the state level--the unstated purpose inherent in the
proposed language of S. 2156. A recent report that we are familiar with
indicated that, in the West, ten states have developed State Water
Plans, three rely on annual reports, and four rely on so-called
strategic plans for their water resources planning. The WRDA
legislation, which WESTCAS supported, authorizes Statewide
Comprehensive Water Planning for Oklahoma in Section 5119 of the Act, a
section that should be applied nationwide. What is most important is
the authorized technical assistance. This provides for the Secretary of
the Army to assist in: 1) acquisition of hydrologic data, groundwater
characterization, database development, and data distribution; 2)
expansion of surface water and groundwater monitoring networks; 3)
assessment of existing water resources; 4) numerical analysis and
modeling necessary to provide an integrated understanding of water
resources and water management options; 5) participation in state
planning forums and planning groups; 6) coordination of federal water
management planning efforts; and 7) technical review of data, models,
planning scenarios, and water plans developed by states. There is $6.5
million authorized at a twenty-five percent cost-share. We see this
approach as the future, and it should be applied nation-wide.
The Texas members of WESTCAS have undertaken in their state, along
with others throughout state and local government, the development of a
new State Water Plan. That effort will be materially aided by the
tremendous water resource planning expertise of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the modeling capabilities within the organization, which
is second to none. The Corps' budget far exceeds the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's, and they are nationwide in scope. We strongly encourage
a more pivotal role for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in this new
legislation, i.e. S.2156.
WESTCAS supports the proposed roles and responsibilities for the
USGS in the SECURE Water Act. We have been supportive of the USGS
Stream Flow Information Program, and have worked to see that it has
been adequately funded as a consequence of the cooperator partnerships
that many of our members have undertaken as a result of the program.
The inclusion of the USGS in this effort, given their scientific
credibility and expertise, will be quite beneficial (as demonstrated
later in our testimony) to water resource practitioners at the state
and local level who are now challenged to address the climate change
issue.
We have been impressed with the modeling efforts of the USGS and we
also recognize how much they have done with so small a budget
allocation for that effort. The recent announcement of the
Instantaneous Data Archive (IDA) website will be extremely valuable for
local and state water planners and the engineering community involved
in hydrologic analysis. This points to the importance of the stream-
gauging program being appropriately funded over the years. In addition,
the recent USGS Circular Water Budget: Foundations for Effective Water-
Resources and Environmental Management will ultimately prove to be a
valuable tool in helping the public and elected decision-makers
formulate better policies in the water resources arena.
An area of some concern for WESTCAS is how S. 2156 will be
integrated with other Climate and Energy legislation currently before
Congress. There are other climate adaptation programs, provisions for
national water policy commissions, provisions for other studies to take
place, and studies that have been previously authorized that have yet
to yield results. In addition, there are new provisions in the Farm
Bill legislation before Congress that promise also to be beneficial in
this field. In addition, we believe there would be value in federal
water agencies providing the Committee Members and staffers with a
historical overview of what has been previously funded under loans,
grants and cooperative agreements over the past ten years, so that
future financial resources are well-directed. In addition, there is
language in current legislation for recovery efforts on the Platte
River--regarding water and land--that is being considered in the
definition of an in-kind contribution. We believe, in these tight
budgetary times at the state and local level, that serious
consideration ought to be given to this concept.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee has jurisdiction of the
Department of Energy and the National Laboratories. Several WESTCAS
members in New Mexico and California have experience with National
Laboratory involvement in water resource issues, such as the
hydrogeologic and technical assistance work in the Espanola Basin in
New Mexico, and perchlorate research in California. One of the issues
regarding Laboratory contributions to water resource problem-solving is
always the cost-of-services for such expertise, and limited access to
Laboratory expertise. Although the National Laboratories have a ``work
for others'' program, the bureaucratic requirements often impede its
successful utilization. In addition, the lack of a Department of Energy
(DOE) Water Program creates a barrier to Laboratory involvement in
water resource initiatives due to such work being viewed in variance
with current DOE missions. We would encourage the Committee to consider
how to bring these talented and valuable scientific resources to the
table so that state and local water resource planners and managers
could more readily benefit from these institutions and their Federal
funding.
The expertise the National Laboratories possess with regard to
science, engineering, computational modeling, basic research, and the
development of new technologies adds an important new dimension to
cutting edge solutions in the national water resource arena. We feel
that all the National Laboratory expertise in both the energy and
national security areas (that are being addressed by this legislation)
can help bring a more holistic approach to all our efforts.
Finally, we would suggest that with regard to the Water
Intergovernmental Panel created under Section 7, that the Secretary of
Energy and EPA Administrator be added. It is important that both power
and water quality issues be integrated into the Panel's efforts, as
they are integrally linked with water quantity issues. We also
appreciate the inclusion of the Secretary of Commerce through the
Administrator of NOAA, especially given the work of the Climate
Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado and the National Weather
Service's efforts with the development of the National Drought Monitor.
The many members of WESTCAS thank you for considering our views.
This hearing is an important first step in considering the issue of the
nation's water resources within the context of global climate change.
We would encourage the Committee to engage in field hearings throughout
the West to better hear from those likely to be affected and those who
are challenged to prepare for the region's changing water resources
future.
We look forward to the opportunity to work with the Committee as
you move forward with this legislation.
______
American Rivers,
Washington, DC, December 21, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici: On behalf of
more than 65,000 members and supporters of American Rivers, I want to
thank you for holding a hearing on S. 2156, the SECURE Water Act. This
legislation is an important first step in addressing the effects that
global climate change will have on our nation's rivers and other
freshwater resources.
Healthy rivers are vital to the health, safety, and quality of life
of communities across the country. Many communities already face
threats to their local rivers from population growth, unsustainable
land use, inefficient agricultural and urban water use, poor dam
operations, and unbridled resource extraction, among other factors.
Climate change will likely exacerbate the impact of these threats on
communities. In light of climate change, it is imperative that we
protect and maintain healthy watersheds, restore damaged rivers and
floodplains, and begin to manage our water resources and existing water
infrastructure more efficiently. These actions will help maintain and
improve the condition of our nation's rivers even in the face of
climate change and other pressures. At the same time, they will provide
more cost-effective and sustainable ways to meet the needs of
communities and agriculture, including providing water for drinking.
boating, fishing, irrigation. and for wildlife.
S. 2156, the SECURE Water Act, will expand our knowledge of the
nation's water supplies--especially in the western United States--so
that water resources can be managed in an intelligent and efficient
manner in the face of global warming. Wisely, the SECURE Water Act does
not hold out new surface storage as the primary tool for meeting future
water needs, instead including it as one tool among many. This is the
right approach, as building new surface storage projects can be
prohibitively expensive, is often environmentally damaging, and may be
less effective than alternatives.
As the Committee further refines the provisions of the bill
relating to water management tools, we urge consideration and
incorporation of the following water supply principles throughout the
bill.
1) Demand for water should be addressed using the most cost-
effective tools that maximize environmental benefit, minimize
environmental harm, and can be readily adapted to meet changing
circumstances;
2) The full range of credible alternatives for meeting
demonstrated water demand should be evaluated;
3) An accurate assessment of current and future water supply
tools (including demand-side management such as conservation)
and future water demand should precede any commitment to build
a water supply project;
4) Beneficiaries of water supply projects should pay project
costs; and
5) Public involvement should be a priority during each stage
of evaluating a new water supply project.
In addition to offering these general principles, we urge the
Committee to make several changes to the text of the bill to help
better realize its purpose of improving water management. The following
recommendations are offered to ensure that future water and dam
management strategies are cost-effective, enjoy widespread support, and
result in minimal harm and maximum benefit for rivers, river
ecosystems, and communities that depend on healthy rivers.
Where possible, we propose specific changes to the bill's language.
In other places, we flag questions or concerns we have with the
existing language. We look forward to continuing discussions with the
Committee on how best to craft the bill to ensure that it results in
sound management and stewardship of our freshwater resources and
ecosystems.
recommended changes
Section 2. Findings
Sec. 2(6)(b)(ii)-This section is unclear as to the definition of
``reclaimed.'' This section could be struck; the previous section (Sec.
2(6)(b)(i) on efficient management and use of water resources
adequately describes why the information developed by the SECURE Water
Act will be helpful.
Section 4. Climate Change Adaptation Program.
Sec. 4(b)(3)(C)-change to ``recreation upstream and downstream of
reclamation facilities''
Sec. 4(b)(3)(G)-add subsection ``environmental flow needs of
freshwater ecosystems.''
Sec. 4(b)(4)-While consultation with ``non-Federal participants''
is appropriate, that consultation should always include states and
affected tribes in order to ensure broad public support. As such, we
recommend revising this language to read ``in consultation with states,
affected tribes, and other appropriate non-Federal participants...''
This broad consultation requirement may be unnecessary for lower
impact, less costly projects such as habitat restoration, but since
this subsection lumps together evaluation of potentially small scale
projects such as restoration or conservation with large projects such
as new surface storage, broad consultation is necessary. Alternatively,
this subsection could separate large and small projects and subject
them to different levels of consultation and scrutiny.
Sec. 4 (b)(4)(C)-change to ``water conservation and efficiency,
including demand reduction strategies.''
Sec. 4(b)(4)(E)--Add subsections (F) ``water markets'' and (G)
``enforcement of state water laws.''
Sec. 4(c)(3)-Strike ``and implemented.'' Implementation of these
strategies is premature at best until the feasibility study process
described in Section 4(d) is complete.
Sec. 4 (d)(1)-The relationship of the ``feasibility studies'' in
this section to the National Environmental Policy Act and Bureau of
Reclamation Feasibility Study process is unclear. This language should
be clarified to make its relationship to existing law clearer--perhaps
the term ``feasibility studies'' could be changed to ``pre-
feasibility'' studies in order to avoid confusion with existing law.
In addition, the Committee should ensure that projects with a
significant environmental impact are subjected to cost-effectiveness/
cost-benefit and alternatives analyses. It is important to avoid
institutionalizing the assumption that the construction of major new
infrastructure, such as a water storage dam, is the only way to meet an
identified water need. In addition, this section should require the
non-Federal participant to conduct the study in cooperation with
affected state and tribal governments--otherwise, there will be a
higher risk that federal resources will be spent studying and possibly
constructing unnecessary, environmentally harmful projects backed by
narrow interests. We look forward to further discussions with the
Committee to refine the language in Sec. 4(d)(1).
Sec. 5. Water Management Improvement
This section does not include a vetting process for the project
applications it will solicit, and grants may be given to eligible
applicants with no evidence that the project is a feasible,
environmentally sound, or cost-effective way to deal with water
resource challenges from climate change or that the project has broad
support. We suggest that this entire section be deleted unless it is
tied to the climate change adaptation program in Section 4 including
analyses of alternatives and cost-effectiveness, assuming the above
concerns are addressed. In addition, should this section remain in
place, states and any affected tribes should be required to partner in
applying for a grant with non-sovereign ``eligible applicants'' in
order to ensure the projects have broad public support and provide
public benefit.
Section 6. Hydroelectric Power Assessment We recommend that a
subsection be added to Section 6 requiring a report be conducted on how
climate change is expected to not only affect hydrology, but also
ecologically healthy flows and fish and wildlife. The language, which
could be appropriately plugged into existing subsection 6(c) as a new
subsection 6(c)(1)(C):
(i) how the Bureau of Reclamation and Power Marketing
Agencies expect to ensure the provision of ``ecologically
healthy flows'' in light of climate change, including:
I. how flood control rule curves could be safely
altered to help meet ecologically healthy flows; and
II. how any increase in flood risk from new flood
control rule curves could be addressed by changing land
use in floodplains downstream of dams
(ii) Identifying, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, constraints or limitations
on hydropower operations at Bureau of Reclamation projects
necessary to protect resident and diadromous fish and wildlife,
including species listed under the Endangered Species Act or
managed pursuant to tribal or international treaties.
Sec. 6(a) should be changed to read ``...with respect to water
supplies that are required for the generation of hydroelectric power
and for the provision of ecologically healthy river flows at each
Federal water project...''
Section 8. Water Data Enhancement by United States Geological
Survey
Sec. 8(a)(4). We recommend that the number of sites measured under
the national streamflow information program be increased sooner than
the 10 years specified.
Section 9. Water Use and Availability Assessment Program
Sec. 9(d)(1) Add new subsection (we suggest a new subsection
9(d)(1)(C), moving the other subsections around accordingly)-``to
determine the proportion of streams in the United States that have
ecologically healthy flows''
All of us at American Rivers applaud the Committee for addressing
this issue and for the opportunity to provide written testimony for the
record. For our communities to continue to enjoy healthy rivers and the
many health, economic, and quality of life benefits they provide, we
must help ensure that rivers are protected and well-managed in the face
of climate change and growing populations. We look forward to working
with the committee on S. 2156 to identify and implement sustainable and
cost-effective policies to protect our nation's water resources.
Sincerely,
Randall D. Snodgrass,
Vice President, Goverment Affairs & Outreach.
______
Environmental Working Group,
Washington, DC, December 11, 2007.
Dear Senator: In preparation for your hearing on the Science and
Engineering to Comprehensively Understand and Responsibly Enhance Water
Act (SECURE Water Act, S. 2156), the Environmental Working Group would
like to provide you with some critical information on water subsidies
to inform your decisions on water management for multiple uses. EWG
urges you to ensure that federal subsidies are distributed to those
truly in need of the funds and that the benefits of these programs flow
to the public at large and not into the pockets of a few large farmers
in the Westlands Water District and other large irrigation districts in
the Central Valley Project.
EWG has extensive expertise in analyzing and tracking water issues
as they impact the West, with a particular focus on the largest
taxpayer-funded federal irrigation system in the country, the Central
Valley Project (CVP), and the Westlands Water District, in California.
At a time when western water is scarce and expensive, taxpayers are
subsidizing, at well over $500 million a year, a project that has led
to a host of problems, including: inefficient use of water; devastation
of fish and wildlife habitat; severe toxic pollution and the
subsidization of artificially cheap irrigation water for large
agribusiness operations at the expense of local communities.
EWG's analyses of the Central Valley Project found:
Subsidies are distributed unfairly and are not benefiting
small family farms. In 2002, the largest 10 percent of the
farms got 67 percent of the water, for an average subsidy worth
up to $349,000 each. Twenty-seven large farms received
subsidies each worth $1 million or more at market rates,
compared to a median subsidy for all recipients of $7,076.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Environmental Working Group. 2004. California Water Subsidies.
15 Dec 2004. Available online at: http://archive.ewg.org/reports/
Watersubsidies/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of agribusinesses are double-and triple-dipping
from U.S. taxpayers' pockets. Agribusinesses receive water to
grow surplus crops that the government subsidizes a second time
with price supports. In 2002, almost one in five CVP farms
received water subsidies worth an estimated $121.5 million and
crop subsidy checks totaling another $122.3 million. Some
operations are triple dippers, receiving water subsidies to
grow corn, for which they receive crop subsidies, then feeding
the corn to cattle, who produce dairy products that are also
subsidized.
The rock-bottom rate the CVP charges agribusinesses for the
power neded to move water through the system amounts to an
energy subsidy worth more than $100 million a year, at the same
time that a volatile energy market has caused brownouts in the
state's major cities and spurred a push to build new power
plants.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Environmental Working Group. 2007. Power Drain. 29 May 2007.
Available online at: http://www.ewg.org/reports/powersubsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive water rerouting and pumping has severely impacted
area fish populations, bringing the fragile ecosystem of the
San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin Delta to the point of collapse.
Billions of dollars have already been spent trying to repair
ecosystem damage.\2\
Recipients of federally subsidized water often sell their
excess water to the state for environmental restoration, or to
local utilities at rates well above what they opaid for the
water.
Despite these economic, ecological, and equity concerns, the
federal government is poised to increase the amount of
taxpayer-subsidized irrigation water by 43 percent over the
next 25 years, well beyond what the state's infrastructure can
reliably supply, leading to pressure to build expensive new
dams and reservoirs, which in turn cause further environmental
damage.
In fashioning future water proposals, EWG urges Congress to:
Encourage water and power conservation and fairness by
ensuring contracts are based on prices closer to their actual
market price.
Ensure that recipients of taxpayer-subsidized water are not
allowed to profit from resetting their unneeded water back to
governments or private utilities at elevated prices.
Prohibit double-and triple-dipping of subsidies for crops,
energy and water.
We hope that you will find this information useful and look forward
to working with you on developing water policies that protect our water
and our communities. Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Sincerely,
Bill Walker,
Vice President/West Coast Office.
______
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
Executive Office,
Los Angeles, CA, December 6, 2007.
Hon. Jeffrey Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, SD-304
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: I want to take this opportunity to thank
you for including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California as part of your Legislative Hearing next week on S. 2156.
Although prior commitments in California prevent me from delivering
MWD's testimony in person, I am pleased to inform you that Jon Lambeck,
Metropolitan's Systems Operations Manager, will be presenting testimony
on our behalf.
Again, Metropolitan's Board and management greatly appreciates your
leadership in moving forward with this important legislation and we
look forward to providing you and your staff with any comments and/or
resources that you may find useful in this regard.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Kightlinger,
General Manager.
______
National Water Resources Association,
Los Angeles, CA, December 11, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the membership of the National
Water Resources Association, I am writing to express our strong support
for 5.2156, the SECURE Water Act.
NWRA represents water and power users throughout the Western United
States. We applaud your new initiative and look forward to working with
you and the Committee to perfect this important legislation. In that
regard, a regionally diverse task force of our members has reviewed
S.2156 and provides the following recommendations for your
consideration:
1. Recognizing that this is an authorization bill and that
the Committee cannot obligate the Appropriations Committee, we
are concerned that expenditures under this authorization not
adversely impact annual appropriations for operations and
maintenance, projects and other Bureau of Reclamation programs.
2. Integration of potential impacts of climate change into
supply scenarios is now a major feature of most Western water
districts long-term local and regional planning. We would
recommend that climate change be added to the findings section
of the bill.
3. In the next decade, we believe, that one of the most
critical problems facing the Bureau of Reclamation and many
water districts throughout the West is maintaining the existing
water and power infrastructure at peak operational efficiency.
Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation does not have a program
which enables water users to modernize or rehabilitate their
projects and payoff those costs over time under reasonable
terms and conditions. The water supply and power infrastructure
build over the last century by the Bureau of Reclamation
remains vitally important to the West and the nation as a
whole. We would recommend that new and innovative federally-
enhanced financing tools be established under S. 2156 to
address this critical need.
4. In light of the potential impacts of climate change and
unprecedented population growth in the West, we would recommend
that the Bureau of Reclamation not only ``ensure the continued
existence of sufficient quantities of water'', but also be
directed to enhance water supplies in order to meet these
challenges.
5. With regard to assessing the status of surface water and
groundwater resources in the United States, we believe it is
important to recognize the important work some states have
already accomplished. While some provisions in the bill only
require ``consultation and coordination'' with state and local
water resource agencies, we would recommend a stronger
relationship between the states and the federal agencies
through direct partnerships be promoted in the bill.
6. The bill currently recognizes the importance of input from
water users and many other constituents; we would suggest the
inclusion of input from power marketing authority customers and
their associations.
Again, NWRA strongly supports 5.2156 and stands ready to assist the
Committee in any manner it deems appropriate. We deeply appreciate the
opportunity to submit our recommendations and hope that the Committee
finds them helpful.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas F. Donnelly,
Executive Vice President.
______
Western States Water Council,
Midvale, UT, November 20, 2007.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, United States Senate, The
Capitol, Room S-I31, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Byrd: On behalf of the Western States Water Council,
representing the governors of eighteen western states, I am writing to
again reiterate and express our strong support for maintaining a
thermal infrared (TIR) instrument on Landsat 8, as part of NASA's
Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM). Attached is a previous letter
from the Western Governors' Association that also supports funding.
NASA's recent LDCM ``Request for Offer'' to build the Landsat 8
spacecraft (under the existing Rapid II contract) does not preclude the
addition of a thermal instrument. The selected contractor will design,
build, qualify the spacecraft and integrate the Government-furnished
instruments. However, NASA has not requested or otherwise found funding
to build the TIR instrument. It is estimated that a total of about $90
million is needed for the TIR instrument, including $35 million now.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has directed that NASA report
as to how it intends to continue providing TIR data in the future, and
eight Senator recently wrote the Administrator asking that NASA take
immediate action to ensure this capability is not lost. A copy of that
letter is attached.
Given this congressional interest, NASA has left open the
possibility for a TIR instrument to minimize the impact to LDCM
development of adding the instrument to the satellite at a late stage
in its development. While the instrument is included in the
``preliminary design,'' without additional funding, Landsat 8 will be
deployed without it. Adding TIR may delay deployment by an estimated
eight months. However, losing this capability would seriously degrade
our future ability to measure, monitor and manage our increasingly
scare water resources, particularly during shortages, such as drought.
It would also compromise our ability to observe changing
evapotranspiration rates over large areas, due to increasing climate
variability, at a scale useful to many decision-makers that will need
to prepare and implement appropriate adaptation strategies.
We would respectfully request that you support a specific provision
in any CJS appropriation bill, any continuing resolution, or any
supplemental FY 2008 appropriation to begin work immediately on a TIR
instrument. Further, this should be a vital element in the FY 2009 CJS
appropriations bill. Again, we urge you to take whatever steps are
necessary to insure that our 25-year investment in Landsat thermal data
is preserved and this increasingly valuable tool is not lost.
Sincerely,
Duane A. Smith,
Chairman.
______
September 10, 2007.
Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Hon. James A. Nussle,
Director, Office of Management & Budget, Eisenhower Executive Building,
Washington, DC.
Regarding: STREAMGAGE SUPPORT IN FY-2009
Dear Secretary Kempthorne and Director Nussie: The undersigned
organizations support the US Geological Survey's Cooperative Water
Program (CWP) and National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) and
urge your support for full implementation of the NSIP beginning in FY-
2009 and for stronger funding of the CWP at approximately $70 million.
Full implementation of the NSIP would require $110 million in FY-2009,
substantially more than the $16.2 million appropriated in FY-2007.
Our members rely extensively on the trustworthy data and science
that these two programs produce and many are active, financial partners
(``Cooperators'') in the Cooperative Water Program. Nationwide, our
need for a well-informed understanding of streamflow, groundwater,
tidal surge, precipitation and other water resource attributes
continues to increase as a function of our growing population, economy,
land uses and ecological awareness.
The NSIP and CWP have proven to be a source for reliable,
scientific information concerning America's water resources,
information that is required by decision makers in both the public and
private sectors for a wide variety of planning, design and management
functions. Unfortunately, their capacity has not kept up with America's
growing needs despite the strong, national cost-share partnership with
over 1,400 Cooperators.
NSIP and CWP data are needed on a regular basis by many federal,
state, tribal, and local government agencies, and by many businesses,
landowners, public interest organizations and individuals for many
essential decisions, including the:
monitoring compliance with federal treaty, compact and
Native American trust responsibilities;
designing of bridges, dams and other infrastructure;
forecasting of storm surge, flood and drought conditions and
issuing emergency advisories;
identifying flood-prone areas to protect lives and property
and reduce disaster relief expenses;
administration of water rights and management of hydropower
generation, environmental and navigation releases from
reservoirs;
monitoring and protecting water quality, fisheries, wetlands
and endangered species;
providing for public recreation safety;
analysis of climate change; and
projecting future water needs and availability for
agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses.
The NSIP and CWP inform and guide vital programs and diverse
interests in all 50 states. but they do not have the capacity to
support future water resource and infrastructure decisions necessary to
keep our communities and businesses safe and prosperous. Since 2001,
when the NSIP was authorized by Congress, the USGS streamgaging network
has depended for more than 80% of its operation and maintenance on
funds appropriated for the CWP, which has a distinct and highly
valuable role to serve.
The CWP has served us well for more than 110 years as a federal/
non-federal partnership funded through 50/50 cost-share agreements.
Today, however, less than one-third of the cost is borne by the USGS
because of the need to sustain the NSIP. From the combined network of
about 7,400 streamgages nationwide, more than 775 have been
``discontinued'' in the last 10 years due to inadequate funding; many
of them had over 30 years of continuous record, which gives their loss
even greater significance. More than 175 streamgages were discontinued
between 2004 and 2005 and another 174 gages in 24 states are currently
identified as being at risk or recently discontinued.
Concern for the long-term continuity and reliability of our
national streamgaging data led the USGS to propose the NSIP in 1999.
Unlike the CWP, the NSIP was designed as a federally funded
``backbone,'' supporting a national communications framework and the
subset of approximately 4,770 streamgages and tidal gages necessary to
meet five specific national purposes. The National Research Council's
Committee on Water Resources Research evaluated the NSIP design in 2004
and concluded that it will provide ``a sound, well-conceived program
that meets the nation's needs for streamflow measurement,
interpretation, and information delivery.'' However, of the 4,770
streamgages needed to meet the specified national goals, at least 425
have never been installed, more than 970 need to be reactivated and
approximately 2,550 are funded (wholly or partially) with CWP funds;
most of them need to be ``flood hardened'' and updated with real-time
communications equipment in order to provide reliable flow forecast
data.
With severe flooding and drought recently causing loss of life and
property affecting so many states, including Alabama. Arizona,
Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Indiana,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North
Dakota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Wisconsin and Wyoming, reliable science to support sustainable water
resource management has never been more important.
As the NSIP is fully implemented, funding for the CWP streamgages
and investigations at $70 million (about 10% more than FY-2007) will be
necessary to reverse the decade of erosion that deficient federal
support has caused and to restore the planning, water rights
administration, project operation and flow forecasting capabilities
that so many people, businesses and agencies depend upon nationwide.
Federal support has been far less than the $138 million contributed
annually by Cooperators since FY-2004 and cutting funds from the CWP
budget to enhance the NSIP has not helped.
The Interior Department and USGS should commit themselves to full
implementation of the NSIP plan as soon as possible and we urge you to
seek an appropriation of $110 million in FY-2009 for that purpose. This
represents an appropriate increase, considering the magnitude of our
ongoing disaster emergency expenses and the federal responsibilities
and programs that depend on information from the NSIP streamgages. Full
funding for the NSIP would reverse the loss of long-term streamgages
and provide essential information needed to assess water quality and
climate change, forecast floods (including storm surge) and droughts
and provide emergency warnings, manage interstate water supplies and
monitor compliance with federal treaty, compact and Native American
trust responsibilities.
We urge you and the Administration to give a higher priority to
these vital programs until they are both fully implemented and the
cost-share agreements are fully matched.
Sincerely,
Pamela S. Dillon, Executive Director, American
Canoe Association; Antonius Laenen,
President, American Institute of Hydrology;
Rebecca R. Wodder, President, American
Rivers; W. F. Marcuson III, Ph.D., P.E.,
President, American Society of Civil
Engineers; Gerald Galloway, President,
American Water Resources Association; Tom
Curtis, Deputy Executive Director, American
Water Works Association; Mark Singleton,
Executive Director, American Whitewater;
Kenneth D. Kimball, Director of Research,
Appalachian Mountain Club; Chako John,
President, Association of American State
Geologists; Lori Spragens, Executive
Director, Association of State Dam Safety
Official; Al Goodman, President,
Association of State Floodplain Managers;
Linda Eichmiller, Executive Director,
Association of State & Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators; Katherine
Andrews, Executive Director, Coastal States
Organization; James H. Steele Jr, Tribal
Council Chairman, Confederated Salish &
Kootenai Tribes; Carol R. Collier,
Executive Director, Delaware River Basin
Commission; Mary E. Kelly, Sr. Attorney,
Co-Director, Land, Water and Wildlife
Program Environmental Defense; R. P.
VanGytenbeek, CEO, Federation of
Flyfishers; Tim A. Eder, Executive
Director, Great Lakes Commission; Roger L.
Gauthier, Interim Executive Director, Great
Lakes Observing System; John Seebach,
Chair, Hydropower Reform Coalition; Hal
Beecher, President, Instream Flow Council;
Sue Lowry, Chair, Interstate Council on
Water Policy; Deborah Hamlin, Executive
Director, Irrigation Association; Derek
Guthrie, President, National Association of
Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies;
John M Johnson, Executive Director,
National Association of State Boating Law
Administrators; Joe Garcia, President,
National Congress of American Indians; John
Duchouquette, President, National Flood
Determination Association; Thomas F.
Donnelly, Executive Vice President,
National Water Resources Association; David
R. Conrad, Sr. Water Resource Specialist,
National Wildlife Federation; Larry M.
Feazell, Executive Director, Ohio River
Basin Commission; Mathew E. Menashes,
Executive Director, Paddlesports Industry
Association; Don Eider, President/CEO,
River Network; Paul O. Swartz, Executive
Director, Susquehanna River Basin
Commission; Ann Yakimovicz, President,
Texas Floodplain Management Association;
Brian Richter, Co-Leader, Global Freshwater
Team, The Nature Conservancy; Chris Wood,
Vice President for Conservation, Trout
Unlimited; Holly Stoerker, Executive
Director, Upper Mississippi River Basin
Association; Mohamed F. Dahab, President,
Water Environment Federation; Duane Smith,
Chairman, Western States Water Council.
______
October 16, 2007.
Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Regarding: STREAMGAGE SUPPORT IN FY-2009
Dear Secretary Kempthorne: The undersigned officials support the US
Geological Survey's Cooperative Water Program (CWP) and National Stream
flow Information Program (NSIP) and urge your support for full
implementation of the NSIP beginning in FY-2009 and for stronger
funding of the CWP at approximately $70 million. Full implementation of
the NSIP would require $110 million in FY-2009, substantially more than
the $16.2 million appropriated in FY-2007.
Our agencies rely extensively on the trustworthy data and science
that these two programs produce and most are active, financial partners
(``Cooperators'') in the Cooperative Water Program. Nationwide, our
need for a well-informed understanding of streamflow, groundwater,
precipitation and other water resource attributes continues to increase
as a function of our growing population, economy, land uses and
ecological awareness.
The NSIP and CWP have proven to be a source for reliable,
scientific information concerning America's water resources,
information that is required by decision makers in both the public and
private sectors for a wide variety of planning, design and management
functions. Unfortunately, their capacity has not kept up with America's
growing needs despite the strong, national cost-share partnership with
over 1,400 Cooperators.
NSIP and CWP data are needed on a regular basis by our agencies and
other state, tribal, local and federal government agencies, and by many
businesses, landowners, public interest organizations and individuals
for many essential decisions, including the:
monitoring compliance with interstate treaty, compact and
Native American trust responsibilities;
designing of bridges, darns and other infrastructure;
forecasting of storm surge, flood and drought conditions and
issuing emergency advisories;
identifying flood-prone areas to protect lives and property
and reduce disaster relief expenses;
administration of water rights and management of hydropower
generation, environmental and navigation releases from
reservoirs;
monitoring and protecting water quality, fisheries, wetlands
and endangered species;
providing for public recreation safety;
analysis of climate change; and
projecting future water needs and availability for
agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses.
The NSIP and CWP inform and guide vital programs and diverse
interests in all 50 states, but they do not have the capacity to
support future water resource and infrastructure decisions necessary to
keep our communities and businesses safe and prosperous. Since 2001,
when the NSIP was authorized by Congress, the USGS streamgaging network
has depended for more than 80% of its operation and maintenance on
funds appropriated for the CWP, which has a distinct and highly
valuable role to serve.
The CWP has served us well for more than 1 10 years as a federal/
non-federal partnership funded through 50/50 cost-share agreements.
Today, however, less than one-third of the cost is borne by the USGS
because of the need to sustain the NSIP. From the combined network of
about 7,400 streamgages nationwide, more than 775 have been
``discontinued'' in the last 10 years due to inadequate funding; many
of them had over 30 years of continuous record, which gives their loss
even greater significance. More than 175 streamgages were discontinued
between 2004 and 2005 and another 174 gages in 24 states are currently
identified as being at risk or recently discontinued.
Concern for the long-term continuity and reliability of our
national streamgaging data led the USGS to propose the NSIP in 1999.
Unlike the CWP, the NSIP was designed as a federally funded
``backbone,'' supporting a national communications framework and the
subset of approximately 4,770 streamgages and tidal gages necessary to
meet five specific national purposes. The National Research Council's
Committee on Water Resources Research evaluated the NSIP design in 2004
and concluded that it will provide ``a sound, well-conceived program
that meets the nation's needs for streamflow measurement,
interpretation, and information delivery.'' However, of the 4,770
streamgages needed to meet the specified national goals, at least 425
have never been installed, more than 970 need to be reactivated and
approximately 2,550 are funded (wholly or partially) with CWP funds;
most of them need to be ``flood hardened'' and updated with real-time
communications equipment in order to provide reliable flow forecast
data.
Water rights administration, flood protection, infrastructure
design, water quality protection, fisheries and wetlands conservation
and recreation are vital concerns in every state. With severe flooding
and drought recently causing loss of life and property affecting so
many states, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, rndiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, New Mexico,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee. Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming,
reliable science to support sustainable water resource management has
never been more important.
As the NSIP is fully implemented, funding for the CWP streamgages
and investigations at $70 million (about 10% more than FY-2007) will be
necessary to reverse the decade of erosion that deficient federal
support has caused and to restore the planning, water rights
administration, project operation and flow forecasting capabilities
that so many people, businesses and agencies depend upon nationwide.
Federal support has been far less than the $138 million contributed
annually by CWP Cooperators since FY-2004 and cutting funds from the
CWP budget to enhance the NSIP has not helped.
The Interior Department and USGS should commit themselves to full
implementation of the NSIP plan as soon as possible and we urge you to
seek an appropriation of 6110 million in FY-2009 for that purpose. This
represents an appropriate increase, considering the magnitude of our
ongoing disaster emergency expenses and the federal responsibilities
and programs that depend on information from the NSIP streamgages. Full
funding for the NSIP would reverse the loss of long-term streamgages
and provide essential information needed to assess water quality and
climate change, forecast floods and droughts and provide emergency
warnings, manage interstate water supplies and monitor compliance with
federal treaty, compact and Native American trust responsibilities.
We urge you and the Administration to give a higher priority to
these vital programs until they are both fully implemented and the
cost-share agreements are fully matched.
Sincerely,
For WYOMING, John Corra, Director, Dept of
Environmental Quality; Patrick T. Tyrrell,
State Engineer; Michael K. Purcell,
Director, Water Development Commission.
For WISCONSIN, Todd L. Ambs, Water Division
Administrator, Department of Natural
Resources.
For WASHINGTON, Jay J. Manning, Director,
Department of Ecology.
For UTAH, Dennis J. Strong, Director, Division of
Water Resources; Jerry Olds, State
Engineer.
For TEXAS, E.G. Rod Pittman, Chairman, Water
Development Board; Glenn Shankle, Executive
Director, Commission on Environmental
Quality.
For OKLAHOMA, Duane Smith, Director, Water
Resources Board.
For NORTH DAKOTA, Dale L. Frink, State Engineer.
For NORTH CAROLINA, John N. Morris, Director,
Division of Water Resources.
For NEW MEXICO, John R. D'Antonio, Jr., P.E., State
Engineer.
For NEBRASKA, Ann Salomon Bleed, Director,
Department of Natural Resources.
For MISSOURI, Michael D. Wells, Deputy Director,
Dept of Natural Resources.
For KANSAS, Tracey Streeter, Director, Kansas Water
Office; Adrian Polansky, Secretary of
Agriculture; David Barfield, Acting Chief
Engineer.
For IOWA, Wayne Gieselman, Administrator,
Environmental Services Division, Dept of
Natural Resources.
For ILLINOIS, Gary R. Clark, P.E., Director, DNR
Office of Water Resources.
For IDAHO, Hal Anderson, Administrator, Department
of Water Resources.
For COLORADO, Dan McAuliffe, Acting, Director,
Water Conservation Board; Steve Gunderson,
Director, Water Quality Control Division;
Kenneth W. Knox, Acting State Engineer.
For ARKANSAS, J. Randy Young, P.E., Executive
Director, Natural Resources Commission.
For ARIZONA, Stephen A. Owens, Director, Department
of Environmental Quality.
______
Association of California Water Agencies,
Sacramento, CA, December 7, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
703 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: ACWA Support for S. 2156
Dear Senator Bingaman: The Association of California Water Agencies
(ACWA) is please to write in support of your Secure Water Act, S.2156.
ACWA's 447 public agency members are collectively responsible for 90
percent of the water delivered in our state for residential and
agricultural purposes.
ACWA is concerned about the potential impact of climate change on
our nation's water supply. Increases in average annual temperatures
could have a significant impact on California's water resources and
ACWA's blueprint, ``No Time To Waste'', highlights this issue.
California's mountain snowpack serves as a natural reservoir that
is fundamental to our water supply, but is also particularly sensitive
to climate variability and change. Predictions by the California's
Department of Water Resources and others indicate climate change will
likely result in a significant reduction in the Sierra Nevada snow
pack. Less snowpack means less natural water storage. Since much of the
state is highly dependent on existing reservoir storage and snowpack
for water supply and flood management, this trend would strain our
complex and already stressed water management system.
The SECURE Water Act will finally enable the Bureau of Reclamation
and other federal agencies including the U.S. Geological Survey and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to better determine how climate change
scenarios will affect Bureau projects and identify ways the projects
can be operated and augmented to adapt to future challenges. It will
also help States and local governments develop long term plans to
assess their future water needs. Additionally, the bill strengthens the
USGS National Streamflow Information Program so that water managers
will have more information on which to base future decisions.
ACWA is pleased to support this legislation and would like to thank
you for your leadership on thisissue.
Sincerely,
David Reynolds,
Director of Federal Relations.