[Senate Hearing 111-619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-619
WATER AND POWER LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 745 H.R. 1120 S. 1138 H.R. 1393 S. 1573 H.R. 2265 S. 3099 H.R. 2442 S. 3100 H.R. 2522 H.R. 325 H.R. 2741 H.R. 637
__________
APRIL 27, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-558 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Brookshier, Ed, City Manager, City of Hermiston, Hermiston, OR... 23
Brownback, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas.................... 6
Finkler, Kira, Deputy Commissioner, External and
Intergovernmental Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of
the Interior................................................... 7
Quinn, Timothy, Executive Director, Association of California
Water Agencies................................................. 18
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator From Michigan................ 1
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 5
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 33
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 43
WATER AND POWER LEGISLATION
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie
Stabenow presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Good afternoon. I call this subcommittee
to order. I welcome each of our witnesses today. It's my
pleasure to have the opportunity to chair this meeting because
it's a very important meeting on water use, of course, which is
incredibly important as we think about the future of
development and economic growth in the United States and how we
properly manage our limited water resources.
We're seeing an increased demand for a finite existing
supply of water, and how we manage that supply is a very
important question for all of us today.
We'll be looking at several bills to authorize new projects
under the Bureau of Reclamation's Water Reuse and Recycling
Program, otherwise known as Title XVI, and other bills that
emphasize the need to conserve water. The bills today
demonstrate the popularity of Reclamation's Title XVI water
recycling program. Communities of all sizes in several
different States are working very hard to improve water
efficiency in order to address their long-term needs.
The bills we're looking at today involve projects in
Oregon, California, Utah, Arizona, and Texas, and cover a wide
range of innovative ways to conserve water, from efforts to
clean up chemical contamination in Utah to stretching municipal
supplies in drought-stricken California, to obtaining an
additional supply of water for agricultural purposes in Oregon.
The Bureau of Reclamation plays an important role in assessing
the feasibility of each of these projects and we look forward
to hearing from the Bureau today.
With regard to the next steps for these bills, the
subcommittee's goal will be to ensure that the bills we move
forward are consistent with the criteria required by the
legislation authorizing Title XVI programs. Accordingly, we'll
be looking for projects that are technically and economically
viable. I look forward to learning more about the proposed
water recycling projects during our hearing today.
In addition, we have two bills on the agenda related to
renewal of hydro licenses in Idaho. We will not be receiving
any oral testimony today. We have received views from the
Federal Regulatory Energy Commission on those bills. That will
be made part of the record.
[The information follows:]
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 3099
Dear Chairman Bingaman: This letter is in response to your request
for my views on S.3099. That bill would require the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to reinstate, and grant a three-year extension of
the commencement of construction deadline of, the license for the
proposed 1.5-megawatt Lateral 993 Hydroelectric Project No. 12423, to
be located at the juncture of the 993 Lateral Canal and the North
Gooding Main Canal, northwest of the town of Shoshone, in Lincoln
County, Idaho.
The Commission issued an original license for this project, to
American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 and Big Wood Canal, on
September 26, 2003. The license provided that the company was required
to commence project construction within two years of the date of the
license, the maximum period permitted by section 13 of the Federal
Power Act. The Commission subsequently granted a two-year extension of
the commencement of construction deadline, again the maximum authorized
by section 13. Construction had not commenced when that deadline
expired, on September 26, 2007. Section 13 provides that, when
construction has not timely commenced, the Commission must terminate
the license. The Commission terminated the license by order dated
August 3, 2009.
I and the last several Commission Chairmen have taken the position
of not opposing legislation that would extend the commencement of
construction deadline up to 10 years from the date that the license in
question was issued. Where proposed extensions would run beyond that
time, there has been a sense that the public interest is better served
by releasing the site for other public uses. Because S. 3099 authorizes
the Commission to grant a three-year extension from the date of the
bill's enactment, assuming that the bill is enacted by September 26,
2010, thus extending the commencement of construction deadline to ten
years from when the license was issued, I do not oppose the bill.
If I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other
Commission matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Jon Wellinghoff,
Chairman.
RE: S. 3100
Dear Chairman Bingaman: This letter is in response to your request
for my views on S.3100. That bill would require the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to grant a three-year extension of the
commencement of construction deadline for the proposed 1.5-megawatt
Little Wood River Ranch II Hydroelectric Project No. 12063, to be
located on the Little Wood River, near the town of Shoshone, in Lincoln
County, Idaho, and to reinstate the project license if necessary.
The Commission issued an original license for this project, to
William Arkoosh, on March 17, 2006. The license provided that the
company was required to commence project construction within two years
of the date of the license, the maximum period permitted by section 13
of the Federal Power Act. The Commission subsequently granted a two-
year extension of the commencement of construction deadline, again the
maximum authorized by section 13, Construction had not commenced when
that deadline expired, on March 16, 2010. Section 13 provides that,
when construction has not timely commenced, the Commission must
terminate the license. The Commission has not yet taken any steps to do
so.
I and the last several Commission Chairmen have taken the position
of not opposing legislation that would extend the commencement of
construction up to 10 years from the date that the license in question
was issued. Where proposed extensions would run beyond that time, there
has been a sense that the public interest is better served by releasing
the site for other public uses. Because S. 3100 authorizes the
Commission to grant a three-year extension from the date of the bill's
enactment, thus (assuming enactment during this session of Congress)
extending the commencement of construction deadline to less than eight
years from when the license was issued, I do not oppose the bill.
If I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other
Commission matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Jon Wellinghoff,
Chairman.
Senator Stabenow. Senator Brownback will be joining us as
my ranking member in a few moments. But in the mean time, I
want to thank Senator Wyden for his leadership on these and so
many other issues and turn it to Senator Wyden for any
comments.
[The prepared statements of Senators Feinstein and Hatch
and Representative Edwards follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator From
California, on S. 1138, H.R. 637, and H.R. 2522
introduction
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for conducting hearings on S.1138, the
Bay Area Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009; H.R.637, the
South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act; and H.R.2522, the
Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project. I speak in
support of these three bills because collectively they will help
relieve California's water shortage by providing federal funding to
water treatment, recycling, and distribution facilities across the
state.
California's ongoing water crisis requires our urgent attention,
and authorizing federal participation in, and funding for, water
recycling, is key to providing a secure and reliable water supply for
California.
why these bills are important
Water supply remains a perennial challenge for California's
leaders. Much of our population resides in areas with low rainfall, and
a series of factors, including drought, climate change, federal water
use restrictions, and the ever-increasing water needs of California's
growing urban and agricultural centers, exacerbate California's chronic
water shortage problem.
Although California may appear to be emerging from the recent
three-year drought, water shortages persist. Our work is not yet
complete. To help homes, businesses, and municipalities survive future
drought crises, it is critical that we develop solutions to help
conserve and secure new water supplies.
California has taken steps to do both. To illustrate, in 2009, Los
Angeles imposed water use restrictions and increased rates for water
use. This year, municipal and industrial water users south of the Delta
have been restricted to 40 percent of their contractual water
allocations from the State Water Project.
The federal government has long been involved in Western water
issues. With these bills, we now can help California provide water for
reliable and drought-proof water supply by helping communities reclaim
and reuse water.
what these bills do
The first bill pending before the Subcommittee, called the Bay Area
Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009 (S.1138), will provide
the Bay Area greater water management flexibility and help it meet its
water needs.
This legislation will enable the San Francisco Bay Area Recycle
Water Coalition, a group of regional water providers, to build six new
projects and complete two previously authorized projects by authorizing
federal funding for up to 25 percent of the costs of these water
management projects.
Not only will this bill help to generate more than 8,000 acre-feet
per year of new sustainable water supply, it will also help protect the
local environment by generating a new sustainable water supply that
reduces both wastewater discharges and the demand for fresh water from
the Delta.
The second piece of legislation, called the South Orange County
Recycled Water Enhancement Act H.R.637, supports the Moulton Niguel and
Santa Margarita Water Districts in their collaborative effort to
improve water recycling, water storage, and water treatment in South
Orange County.
Their plans include constructing water facilities and 25,000 feet
of pipes to store and deliver recycled water throughout San Juan
Capistrano and San Clemente, as well as expand the existing Recycled
Water Treatment Plant from 2.2 million gallons per day to 4.4 million
gallons per day, and construct related infrastructure. These projects
will help reduce the amount of reusable water that is discharged to the
ocean, create new sources of water, and relieve the heavy water demand
that this region places on the California Aqueduct and Colorado River
Basin. The new water supply for the City of San Juan Capistrano will be
1,500 acre-feet of recycled water annually--about 16 percent of San
Juan Capistrano's average total annual water demand.
With its increasing population and increasing water consumption,
South Orange County needs water management systems that will help it
provide and transport new sources of water. This legislation authorizes
federal funding of up to 25 percent of the costs of these water
management projects to help this region meet its water needs.
The third and final bill, the Calleguas Municipal Water District
Recycling Project H.R.2522, is another bill that will help alleviate
California's water shortage. This bill authorizes federal funding of up
to 25 percent of costs for a 26-mile extension of a pipeline to collect
salty water generated by groundwater desalting facilities and to move
excess recycled water for reuse elsewhere. With the pipeline extension,
Calleguas will be able to develop 43,000 acre-feet of new, local,
reliable water supply. Funding this project will improve the water
supply quality and quantity for 650,000 people in Ventura County.
conclusion
In California, water is precious, competition for water is fierce,
and conservation is critical.
Accordingly, California must increase the reliability, quantity and
quality of its water supply. Now is the time to invest in new water
technologies, such as water recycling, to meet increasing needs. These
initiatives will allow partnerships of local water managers to treat
wastewater and use the clean, recycled water for landscape irrigation
and other uses, including golf courses, schools, city parks and other
municipal facilities. These bills will undoubtedly help California meet
its water needs.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, U.S. Senator From Utah,
on S. 745
Madam Chairwoman, I want to thank you and the members of this
subcommittee for holding this hearing today on S. 745, the Magna Water
District Water Reuse and Groundwater Recharge Act of 2009. The city of
Magna is plagued by perchlorate-contaminated wells resulting from
decades of government sponsored rocket motor production. To reverse
this contamination, the district has developed a bio-destruction
process which combines wastewater and desalination brine. This
innovative technology dramatically reduces the cost and time associated
with perchlorate cleanup operations. Once proven at Magna, the
technology will accelerate the cleanup of many other perchlorate sites
throughout the United States.
This bill, Madam Chairwoman, would provide a federal match of 25
percent of the total cost of the project. The district has already
invested a significant amount of its own funds and hopes the federal
government will contribute its share to help solve a problem which
resulted from a government sanctioned activity.
This project is critically important to the citizens of Magna for a
number of reasons. Besides cleaning the water supply, it will allow the
water district to reduce the use of high quality drinking water for
irrigation, and it will showcase a new technology to attack a problem
currently plaguing water districts throughout the U.S.
Madam Chairwoman, I understand that some members of this committee
also have perchlorate contamination in their states. Promoting this
technology will no doubt bring about a much swifter and cost effective
solution to all of our nation's perchlorate-contaminated sites. Again,
I thank you and the members of this committee for holding this hearing
and urge you to report this proposal to the full Senate. Thank you,
Madam Chairwoman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chet Edwards, U.S. Representative From
Texas,
on H.R. 1120
I would like to thank Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Brownback
and the honorable Senators of the subcommittee for both holding today's
hearing and for the for the opportunity to submit my statement
regarding HR 1120, the Central Texas Water Recycling Act of 2009.
Our communities and nation have a responsibility to be good
stewards of our water resources. That is why I introduced H.R. 1120,
the Central Texas Water Recycling Act of 2009 that passed the House
last year. The wise use of our water resources is something we should
be investing in across the U.S. Encouraging water conservation is
simply smart government. Central Texas often experiences periodic
drought and it is important to promote water conservation measures that
reduce our need for increased water supply.
This bill will authorize federal funding so that the Bureau of
Reclamation is able to partner with city efforts to build an innovative
water recycling program in partnership with my hometown of Waco, Texas
and several neighboring communities. It supports efforts to manage
water resources efficiently in McLennan County by strategically
locating regional satellite treatment plants that will not only provide
for conservation of our community's water supply but will also reduce
cost to the taxpayers.
The initial projects under this legislation can provide up to 10
million gallons per day of reuse water, reducing the water supply
demand of several cities that rely on Lake Waco as a primary source of
drinking water. Instead of wasting valuable drinking water for use in
factories and on golf courses, we will be able to use lower cost
recycled wastewater for those purposes and save enough drinking water
for over 20,000 households.
The bottom line is this. By being good stewards of our water
supply, we will reduce water costs for businesses, save Central Texas
taxpayers millions of dollars, and encourage economic growth in our
area. Central Texas often experiences periodic drought and it is
important to promote water conservation measures that reduce our need
for increased water supply.
I want to thank Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings and the
members of the House Natural Resources Committee for their key role in
this bill's passage. This legislation has passed the House three times
and when it becomes law, is the kind of bipartisan effort that shows
what Congress can do when we work together on a bipartisan basis.
I also want to thank the mayors, City council and staff from the
cities of Waco, Lorena, Robinson, Hewitt, Woodway, Bellmead and Lacy-
Lakeview for their cooperative efforts that brought us here today.
Finally, I want to extend special credit to Waco's City Manager,
Larry Groth, for his extraordinary leadership on this bill. Without his
leadership, hard work and professionalism, we would not be here today,
and as a citizen of Waco, I am grateful for his outstanding service to
my hometown.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the
chance to come. You are a passionate and knowledgeable issue--
knowledgeable advocate on what I think is the issue of the
future, and that's water. These are so important and it's just
great to have a chance to be with you.
The bill that you're looking at, of course, S. 1573,
legislation to authorize the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to
participate in the construction of the city of Hermiston water
recycling project, it's a green project and I'm hoping that it
can get the green light to proceed. The farmers like it. It's
good for the fish. The city has completed a feasibility report.
The Bureau of Reclamation has formally concluded that the
project meets the requirements of Title XVI. You can just kind
of look at all the bases that the city of Hermiston has
touched. The regional office of National Marine Fisheries has
approved it. The House is in support of it. The Confederated
Tribes in Eastern Oregon are on record. Ed Brookshier's going
to give you more details on the project today, but I just want
my constituents to know I think they've done a great job
dotting the i's and crossing the t's to literally get
practically everybody imaginable for the project.
One last comment, and that is that the Bureau of
Reclamation is going to come today and offer what I call the
classic Catch 22 that our local jurisdictions face. In effect,
the Bureau of Reclamation says that it won't support the
authorization of the project at the same time that it proposes
new funding criteria that only allows authorized projects to be
considered.
So you just kind of scratch your head and say: OK, the city
of Hermiston went out and completed every major requirement,
including the feasibility studies by the Bureau, and now it's
being told that even when you complete all the requirements,
you still can't get authorized, and of course you can't get
funded, as we know, if your project isn't authorized.
So locked in this Catch 22 are the good people of Hermiston
and, with your leadership and particularly your knowledge about
water policy, I'm hopeful that we can extricate Hermiston today
and get this project approved.
So thank you very much and I look forward to working with
you on this, as we have worked together on so many matters.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden, and
congratulations to a community who has worked together to bring
all the parties together. So that's I know a lot of hard work
to be able to do that.
We will call on Senator Brownback when he joins us, but I
think in the mean time we'll go ahead. We have one panel of
witnesses today and we very much appreciate your time, and we
appreciate all of your expertise as well. First we'll hear from
Ms. Kira Finkler, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Reclamation
and who will speak to the Reclamation bills on today's agenda.
We welcome you back to the committee. It's always good to see
you and appreciate your work on public lands issues over the
years.
In addition, we have Tim Quinn with us, the Executive
Director of the Association of California Water Agencies, who
will testify regarding the bills involving California.
We appreciate your joining us today. We're also pleased to
have Edward Brookshier, the City Manager from the city of
Hermiston in Oregon, here to testify regarding S. 1573,
sponsored by Senator Wyden. We look forward to hearing about
the city of Hermiston's plans to utilize recycled water.
So we thank you all of you for being here and look forward
to your testimony, and appreciate that we have two of our
witnesses who have flown here from the West Coast, a little bit
longer travel time to get here, so we appreciate that.
But first I would ask if Senator Brownback would like to
make any comments before we turn to our witnesses.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, U.S. SENATOR
FROM KANSAS
Senator Brownback. I don't, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you
very much. My apologies for being late. I look forward to the
testimony. I've got an opening statement and will submit it for
the record, but in the interest of time I'd be just
appreciative of hearing from our testifiers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator From Kansas
Senator Stabenow, it's a pleasure to be here today, and I thank you
for chairing this important hearing.
I am pleased to join you in welcoming the witnesses and members of
the public.
The bills we have under consideration this afternoon intend to
address a very serious issue facing certain regions of this country--
the supply and availability of our water resources.
As drought is expected to persist in the Southwest, it is of the
utmost importance that we put in place infrastructure and other
measures that will reclaim and recycle this precious resource.
Almost 20 years ago, while faced with drought in the West, the
102nd Congress passed the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Studies and Facilities Act.
Title 16 (XVI) of this law authorized the Bureau of Reclamation
to--among other things--assist in the construction of facilities to
reclaim and reuse wastewater.
All of the bills before us today are at different stages in the
process, and I hope that we can determine their practicality. In
addition, we should continue to ask what other options are available to
ensure that we can continue to increase our opportunities for improving
water supply and security, not only in the West, but also throughout
the country.
Also on the docket today are two bills introduced by Senator Risch
to extend the commencement of two hydroelectric facilities in Idaho.
While none of these pieces of legislation directly affect my home
state, the ability to access clean, abundant sources of water is an
issue that transcends physical boundaries.
The United States government and its agencies should recognize
water resources are the purview of the individual state, and the
citizens and groups within that state, for allocation decisions and
recommendations on all water resources projects and their management.
Each federal agency, including the Bureau of Reclamation, should
recognize and work within the state's own water resources planning
structure.
In Kansas, and most states in our region, there are multiple
federal agencies with a role in water issues. These agencies,
unfortunately, are often not well coordinated in their efforts. In
fact, in some cases there are statutory or regulatory prohibitions
preventing those agencies from being able to cooperate and share
resources. This fact is limiting the ability of my state to adequately
address issues within its borders. If the states are truly to lead
planning and management of water resources, federal agencies must be
willing and able to work cooperatively with each other and those states
seeking assistance. Otherwise, significant time and funding is expended
to overcome artificial and unreasonable barriers to cooperation.
While there have been significant impediments to more robust water
development and modernization, there are definite areas of progress
that have moved our region of the country towards greater utilization
of this most valuable natural resource. Hopefully, today's hearing will
provide us with more cooperative ideas in continuing our nation's
progress in providing adequate water resources to every citizen within
our borders.
Once again, I thank the witnesses for your presence and thank you,
Senator Stabenow, for conducting this hearing.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
So we'll turn to Ms. Finkler. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF KIRA FINKLER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EXTERNAL AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Ms. Finkler. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Senator
Brownback. I am Kira Finkler, Deputy Commissioner at the Bureau
of Reclamation, and I'm pleased to provide the Department's
views on the 8 Reclamation bills before the subcommittee today.
Seven of the eight Reclamation bills being considered concern
authorizations under the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act, also known as Title XVI. Written
statements have been submitted, so I will just summarize the
Department's position on these seven.
Currently the Department cannot support these bills. As a
general matter, please know that the Department does support
the Title XVI program. The fiscal year 2011 budget requests $29
million for the program as part of the Water Smart program and
that's a 113 percent increase over the 2010 enacted level. As
part of this total, the Department is requesting $20 million
for Title XVI projects that would be selected using criteria to
identify activities most closely aligned with the statutory and
program goals.
On March 15 we posted an announcement inviting comments on
draft funding criteria and the comment period closed on April
16. Once the comment review is completed and the criteria are
finalized, we will prepare a funding opportunity announcement.
Of course, the funds available will be subject to the fiscal
year 2011 Congressional appropriations.
We recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in
stretching the limited water supplies in the West and we
believe that our budget request, along with the $135 million in
Recovery Act funding that we allocated to Title XVI,
demonstrates the high priority that the administration places
on this program. However, we cannot support new Title XVI
authorizations at this time because these projects would
compete for funds with other needs within the Reclamation
program, including other Title XVI projects currently under
construction.
Reclamation has, however, continued to work with project
sponsors to evaluate the completeness of their feasibility
studies. Specifically, the seven Title XVI bills pending today,
which authorize a total of 11 new projects, are at varying
stages in the feasibility process, which I will briefly
summarize now.
S. 745, the Utah project, has a complete study--I'm sorry--
was certified as having a complete feasibility study back in
July 2009. S. 1138, which authorizes a total of six new Title
XVI projects in California as well as a cost ceiling increase
for two already authorized projects, we have not certified any
of the 6 new projects as having complete feasibility studies.
S. 1573, the Oregon bill that was mentioned earlier, was
certified as having a complete feasibility study earlier this
month. H.R. 325, we have not yet received material sufficient
to determine the completeness of the feasibility study for this
proposed project in Arizona.
H.R. 637, In 2006 the city of San Juan Capistrano submitted
its project study material for review. We determined that the
material was not complete and requested additional material,
and we haven't received any additional information since that
time. Separately, the city of San Clemente, California, has not
submitted any feasibility materials or other information for
its portion of this project.
H.R. 1120, Reclamation certified the city of Waco's project
in Texas as having a complete feasibility study in October
2009; and H.R. 2522, Reclamation certified this project as
having a complete feasibility study in April 2000.
Separately, the last bill we will provide testimony on
today is H.R. 1393, which would authorize an additional 19
water conservation projects under the existing Lower Rio Grande
Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act
program. Our fiscal year 2011 budget request for this program
is $50,000. However, with the need to direct resources toward
ongoing projects and to operate, maintain, and rehabilitate
existing projects, we cannot support this bill at this time.
First established by law in 2000 and as amended in 2002,
the current program authorizes construction of 19 projects,
with $55 million authorized to be appropriated. To date,
Reclamation has approved 16 project reports and 13 of the
projects have begun construction. In general, the construction
activities have outpaced appropriated funds. To date,
approximately $21 million of project reimbursements have been
requested by the districts and about $17.9 million has been
paid. Given the large amount of funding still under the
existing ceiling, as well as the factors cited previously, the
Department cannot support this bill at this time.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my remarks. I'm pleased to
answer any questions the subcommittee may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Finkler follow:]
Prepared Statements of Kira Finkler, Deputy Commissioner, External and
Intergovernmental Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the
Interior
s. 745
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kira
Finkler, Deputy Commissioner for External and Intergovernmental Affairs
at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the
views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 745, the
Magna Water District Water Reuse and Groundwater Recharge Project. For
reasons I will discuss below, the Administration cannot support the
bill.
S. 745 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study
and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.),
commonly called Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to participate in the design, planning, and construction of permanent
facilities needed to establish recycled water distribution and
wastewater treatment and reclamation facilities in the Magna Water
District in Salt Lake County, Utah.
S. 745 authorizes a $12 million (25 percent) Federal cost share for
the project. The proposed project has an estimated total project cost
of $51 million and would reduce the District's reliance on high quality
potable water by 580 million gallons (1,780 acre-feet) per year,
currently used for non-potable water supply. Reclamation completed a
review of the Magna Water District's Feasibility Study in July 2009,
and made a finding that the District's report met the requirements of a
feasibility study as defined under Section 1604 of Title XVI.
S. 745 would authorize the project under Title XVI for Federal
funding not to exceed 25 percent or $20 million, whichever is less.
While the Department supports efforts to increase local water
supplies and increase recycled water use, this project would compete
for funds with other needs within the Reclamation program, including
other Title XVI projects currently under construction. In general, the
Department supports the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The
2011 budget proposal includes funding for the Department's WaterSMART
Program, and Title XVI is an important element of that program.
Specifically, the 2011 budget proposal includes $29 million for the
Title XVI program, a 113% increase over the 2010 enacted level.
As part of this total, the Department is requesting $20 million for
Title XVI projects to be selected using criteria to identify activities
most closely aligned with Title XVI statutory and program goals. On
March 15, 2010, Reclamation posted an announcement inviting comment on
draft funding criteria for Title XVI projects. After these criteria are
finalized with comments received up through April 16, Reclamation will
review and rank Title XVI project proposals received based on those
criteria subject to appropriations in fiscal year 2011.
Separately, in July of 2009, the Department announced the
allocation of approximately $135 million in grants for specific
authorized Title XVI projects using funds from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA. We recognize that water reuse is an
essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies in the West,
and I believe the FY 2011 Budget request on top of the ARRA funding has
demonstrated the emphasis placed by this Administration on this
Program. However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects or extensions of existing authorized cost
ceilings at this time.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the completeness of feasibility studies of their projects.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on S. 745. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
s. 1138
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kira
Finkler, Deputy Commissioner for External and Intergovernmental Affairs
at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the
views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 1138, the
Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP) Expansion Act of
2009. For reasons I will discuss below, the Administration cannot
support the bill.
S. 1138 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.),
commonly called Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to participate in the design, planning, and construction of six new
permanent facilities needed to reclaim, reuse, and treat groundwater
and wastewater in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. The legislation
would also increase the Federal cost share for two previously-
authorized Title XVI projects in the same area from $10.5 million to
$16.3 million. S. 1138 would increase the number of BARWRP projects
from eight to fourteen. These new projects are being implemented by the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, the Dublin San Ramon Services
District, the City of Petaluma, the City of Redwood City, the City of
Palo Alto, and the Ironhouse Sanitary District. The Federal cost share
increases would be for the Delta Diablo Sanitation District and the
Santa Clara Valley Water District.
New Projects
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's Concord Recycled Water
Project feasibility report has been reviewed by Reclamation; a
feasibility certification is expected to be made in April 2010.
The Dublin San Ramon Services District's Central Dublin Recycled
Water Distribution and Retrofit Project's feasibility materials were
determined complete in December 2009.
The City of Petaluma's Petaluma Recycled Water Project, Phase 2A,
2B, and 3 has not been determined to have a complete feasibility study.
The City expects to submit feasibility materials by June 2010.
The City of Redwood City has not submitted a complete feasibility
report, financial capability information, or a NEPA compliance document
for Reclamation's review and determination for the Central Redwood City
Recycled Water Project. The City is currently updating its city-wide
General Plan; it is planned to be adopted by City Council in summer of
2010. Planning for the Central Redwood City project, including
preparation of a feasibility report will begin after adoption of the
General Plan.
The City of Palo Alto's Recycled Water Pipeline Project has not
been determined to have a complete feasibility study. The City has not
submitted financial capability information. The City anticipates
submitting feasibility study materials by June 2010. The City continues
to work on a NEPA compliance document.
The Ironhouse Sanitary District has not submitted a feasibility
report, financial capability information, or a NEPA compliance document
for Reclamation's review and determination for the Antioch Recycled
Water Project. The District anticipates their recycled water master
plan will be completed by the end of summer 2010. This plan will be the
basis of the feasibility report that will be submitted in 2011. NEPA
related work is also anticipated for 2011.
Previously Authorized Projects--Increased Cost Share
Delta Diablo Sanitation District's Antioch Recycled Water Project
is authorized for construction, has been determined to have completed
the necessary feasibility studies; it is financially capable under the
Title XVI program, and is NEPA compliant.
Santa Clara Valley Water District's South Bay Advanced Recycled
Water Treatment Facility is authorized for construction, has been
determined to have completed the necessary feasibility studies; it is
financially capable under the Title XVI program, and is NEPA compliant.
S. 1138 would authorize these projects under Title XVI for Federal
funding with project-specific maximum Federal cost shares that do not
to exceed 25 percent of the estimated total project cost.
While the Department supports efforts to increase local water
supplies and increase recycled water use, these projects would compete
for funds with other needs within the Reclamation program, including
other Title XVI projects currently under construction. In general, the
Department supports the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The
2011 budget proposal includes funding for the Department's WaterSMART
Program, and Title XVI is an important element of that program.
Specifically, the 2011 budget proposal includes $29 million for the
Title XVI program, a 113% increase over the 2010 enacted level.
As part of this total, the Department is requesting $20 million for
Title XVI projects to be selected using criteria to identify activities
most closely aligned with Title XVI statutory and program goals. On
March 15, 2010, Reclamation posted an announcement inviting comment on
draft funding criteria for Title XVI projects. After these criteria are
finalized with comments received up through April 16, Reclamation will
review and rank Title XVI project proposals received based on those
criteria subject to appropriations in fiscal year 2011.
Separately, in July of 2009, the Department announced the
allocation of approximately $135 million in grants for specific
authorized Title XVI projects using funds from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA. We recognize that water reuse is
an essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies in the West,
and I believe the FY 2011 Budget request on top of the ARRA funding has
demonstrated the emphasis placed by this Administration on this
Program. However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects or extensions of existing authorized cost
ceilings at this time.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the feasibility of their projects.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on S. 1138. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
s. 1573
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kira
Finkler, Deputy Commissioner for External and Intergovernmental Affairs
at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the
views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 1573, the
City of Hermiston, Oregon, Water Recycling and Reuse Project. For
reasons I will discuss below, the Administration cannot support the
bill.
S. 1573 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.),
commonly called Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to participate in the design, planning, and construction of permanent
facilities needed to reclaim and reuse wastewater in the City of
Hermiston, Oregon. The project is being implemented by the City of
Hermiston.
The City of Hermiston, located in north central Oregon, is one of
the largest communities within Reclamation's Umatilla Project area. The
project proposed by the City includes upgrades and construction at
their existing wastewater treatment facility and construction of a
delivery system that would deliver recycled water to the West Extension
Irrigation District. The recycled water would be used by the District
to irrigate agricultural lands. By 2031, it is estimated this proposed
project would provide the District with an approximate 2,034 acre-feet
of drought resistant water supply during the irrigation season. The
current total estimated cost for this project is approximately $25.8
million.
In January 2010, the City of Hermiston submitted their feasibility
report to Reclamation for review under the Title XVI program. In April
2010, Reclamation's review team completed the review and made the
certification that the proposed project ``Meets Requirements'' as
defined under section 1604 of Public Law 102-575, as amended.
The City and Reclamation's Pacific Northwest Region are continuing
to coordinate on actions that are necessary to be complete prior to
implementation of the proposed project. This includes activities such
as the determination of the project sponsor's financial capability,
completion of Federal environmental compliance actions, water
contracts, water rights, and entering into a land use agreement since
the delivery pipe is to cross Reclamation land.
S. 1573 would authorize the City of Hermiston's project under Title
XVI for Federal funding not to exceed 25 percent of the total cost of
the project.
While the Department supports efforts to increase local water
supplies and increase recycled water use, this project would compete
for funds with other needs within the Reclamation program, including
other Title XVI projects currently under construction. In general, the
Department supports the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The
2011 budget proposal includes funding for the Department's WaterSMART
Program, and Title XVI is an important element of that program.
Specifically, the 2011 budget proposal includes $29 million for the
Title XVI program, a 113% increase over the 2010 enacted level.
As part of this total, the Department is requesting $20 million for
Title XVI projects to be selected using criteria to identify activities
most closely aligned with Title XVI statutory and program goals. On
March 15, 2010, Reclamation posted an announcement inviting comment on
draft funding criteria for Title XVI projects. After these criteria are
finalized with comments received up through April 16, Reclamation will
review and rank Title XVI project proposals received through a public
funding opportunity announcement based on those criteria subject to
appropriations in fiscal year 2011.
Separately, in July of 2009, the Department announced the
allocation of approximately $135 million in grants for specifically
authorized Title XVI projects using funds from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA. We recognize that water reuse is an
essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies in the West,
and I believe the FY 2011 Budget request on top of the ARRA funding has
demonstrated the emphasis placed by this Administration on this
Program. However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects or extensions of existing authorized cost
ceilings at this time.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the completeness of feasibility studies of their projects.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on S. 1573. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
h.r. 325
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kira
Finkler, Deputy Commissioner for External and Intergovernmental Affairs
at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 325, the Avra/Black
Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project Act. For reasons I
will discuss below, the Administration cannot support the bill.
H.R. 325 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.),
commonly called Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to participate in the design, planning, and construction of permanent
facilities needed to reclaim, reuse, and treat groundwater and
wastewater in the Black Wash Sonoran Desert ecosystem, west of the
metropolitan Tucson area in Arizona. The project is being implemented
by Pima County.
Pima County is expanding the 1.5 million gallon per day (mgd)
wastewater treatment facility to a capacity of 5 mgd. Currently,
treated effluent is not reused. The proposed project would provide
tertiary treatment and establish procedures to recharge the reclaimed
water in ponds and the Black Wash. The treated effluent that was
previously evaporated would instead recharge the aquifer, and state law
would allow this recharge to be measured and stored as credits to be
pumped at a later date. By recharging the water in the channel of Black
Wash, riparian and wildlife habitat will be created, preserved and
protected. The project includes plans to provide baseline ecological
reconnaissance for monitoring of diversity and ecological health of the
site.
Reclamation has been working with Pima County to review the
technical, regulatory and contractual issues involved in the project
but discussions have been preliminary. To date, the steps necessary to
prepare a feasibility report that meet the requirements for feasibility
of a Title XVI project have only briefly been discussed. Because the
technical studies are not complete, the feasibility, environmental
impacts and cost effectiveness for this project cannot be determined.
H.R. 325 would authorize the project under Title XVI for Federal
funding not to exceed 25 percent of the total project cost or $14
million, whichever is less.
While the Department supports efforts to increase local water
supplies and increase recycled water use, this project would compete
for funds with other needs within the Reclamation program, including
other Title XVI projects currently under construction. In general, the
Department supports the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The
2011 budget proposal includes funding for the Department's WaterSMART
Program, and Title XVI is an important element of that program.
Specifically, the 2011 budget proposal includes $29 million for the
Title XVI program, a 113% increase over the 2010 enacted level.
As part of this total, the Department is requesting $20 million for
Title XVI projects to be selected using criteria to identify activities
most closely aligned with Title XVI statutory and program goals. On
March 15, 2010, Reclamation posted an announcement inviting comment on
draft funding criteria for Title XVI projects. After these criteria are
finalized with comments received up through April 16, Reclamation will
review and rank Title XVI project proposals received based on those
criteria subject to appropriations in fiscal year 2011.
Separately, in July of 2009, the Department announced the
allocation of approximately $135 million in grants for specific
authorized Title XVI projects using funds from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA. We recognize that water reuse is an
essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies in the West,
and I believe the FY 2011 Budget request on top of the ARRA funding has
demonstrated the emphasis placed by this Administration on this
Program. However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects or extensions of existing authorized cost
ceilings at this time.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the completeness of feasibility studies of their projects.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 325. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
h.r. 637
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kira
Finkler, Deputy Commissioner for External and Intergovernmental Affairs
at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the
views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 637, the
South Orange County Recycled Water Enhancement Act. For reasons I will
discuss below, the Administration cannot support the bill.
H.R. 637 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.),
commonly called Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to participate in the design, planning, and construction of permanent
facilities needed to reclaim, reuse, and treat wastewater in the
southern part of Orange County, California. The project is being
implemented by the cities of San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente.
Reclamation has very little information regarding these two water
recycling projects. Neither city has been in contact with Reclamation
recently regarding these projects, and Reclamation does not have any
information regarding the current project descriptions.
In 2006, during the CalFed/Title XVI review that was completed
pursuant to P.L. 108-361, the City of San Juan Capistrano submitted
project study materials for review. Reclamation's review determined
that the report did not meet 6 of the 9 criteria that were required for
a complete feasibility report. The City has not provided any additional
information since that time. The City of San Clemente has not submitted
any study materials or other information for review.
H.R. 637 would authorize the projects under Title XVI for Federal
funding not to exceed 25 percent or $18.5 million for the San Juan
Capistrano project or $5 million for the San Clemente project,
whichever is less.
While the Department supports efforts to increase local water
supplies and increase recycled water use, this project would compete
for funds with other needs within the Reclamation program, including
other Title XVI projects currently under construction. In general, the
Department supports the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The
2011 budget proposal includes funding for the Department's WaterSMART
Program, and Title XVI is an important element of that program.
Specifically, the 2011 budget proposal includes $29 million for the
Title XVI program, a 113% increase over the 2010 enacted level.
As part of this total, the Department is requesting $20 million for
Title XVI projects to be selected using criteria to identify activities
most closely aligned with Title XVI statutory and program goals. On
March 15, 2010, Reclamation posted an announcement inviting comment on
draft funding criteria for Title XVI projects. After these criteria are
finalized with comments received up through April 16, Reclamation will
review and rank Title XVI project proposals received based on those
criteria subject to appropriations in fiscal year 2011.
Water conservation is a laudable goal and is becoming increasingly
important in the arid West. As such, it is critical that the
competitive Title XVI grants be directed at those projects that will do
the most to reduce present or anticipated water conflicts. Also, when
looking at proposed Title XVI projects, the full range of benefits and
costs should be assessed. The Administration supports those
conservation projects that achieve water savings while not being overly
energy intensive or creating adverse environmental or health effects.
Separately, in July of 2009, the Department announced the
allocation of approximately $135 million in grants for specific
authorized Title XVI projects using funds from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA. We recognize that water reuse is an
essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies in the West,
and I believe the FY 2011 Budget request on top of the ARRA funding has
demonstrated the emphasis placed by this Administration on this
Program. However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects or extensions of existing authorized cost
ceilings at this time.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the completeness of feasibility studies of their projects.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 637. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
h.r. 1120
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kira
Finkler, Deputy Commissioner for External and Intergovernmental Affairs
at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased provide the
views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 1120, the
Central Texas Water Recycling Act of 2009. For reasons I will discuss
below, the Administration cannot support the bill.
H.R. 1120 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.),
commonly called Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to participate in the design, planning, and construction of permanent
facilities needed to reclaim and reuse water in McLennan County. The
project is being implemented by the City of Waco.
The City of Waco (City) has projected a 12,000 acre-foot per year
water deficit in 2060. The Brazos River Basin Regional Water Group,
which includes the City of Waco and which reports water management
recommendations to the State of Texas, recommended water reuse as an
important management strategy in meeting this need. The City has
identified numerous customers in the area with a total expected reuse
demand of 3.0 million gallons per day. The City proposes to construct
infrastructure to convey treated effluent to these customers.
The City submitted Title XVI feasibility materials to Reclamation
on September 3, 2009, and an agency review team collaborated with the
City on revising the report to meet Reclamation's Title XVI feasibility
report requirements. Reclamation's team completed its review of the
revised feasibility report and compared it to the criteria established
in P.L. 102-575, as amended and Reclamation's Directives and Standards.
Based on this review, the team recommended that the Great Plains
Regional Director and the Policy and Administration Director concur
that the feasibility report is complete. The Regional Director and
Director of Policy and Administration provided concurrence on October 8
and October 13, 2009, respectively.
H.R. 1120 would authorize the project under Title XVI for Federal
funding not to exceed 25 percent of the total project cost or $20
million, whichever is less.
While the Department supports efforts to increase local water
supplies and increase recycled water use, this project would compete
with other Reclamation programs for funding, including other Title XVI
projects currently under construction. In general, the Department
supports the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2011 budget
proposal includes funding for the Department's WaterSMART Program, and
Title XVI is an important element of that program. Specifically, the
2011 budget proposal includes $29 million for the Title XVI program, a
113% increase over the 2010 enacted level.
As part of this total, the Department is requesting $20 million for
Title XVI projects to be selected using criteria to identify activities
most closely aligned with Title XVI statutory and program goals. On
March 15, 2010, Reclamation posted an announcement inviting comment on
draft funding criteria for Title XVI projects. After these criteria are
finalized with comments received up through April 16, Reclamation will
review and rank Title XVI project proposals received based on those
criteria subject to appropriations in fiscal year 2011.
Separately, in July of 2009, the Department announced the
allocation of approximately $135 million in grants for specific
authorized Title XVI projects using funds from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA. We recognize that water reuse is an
essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies in the West,
and I believe the FY 2011 Budget request on top of the ARRA funding has
demonstrated the emphasis placed by this Administration on this
Program. However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects or extensions of authorized existing cost
ceilings at this time.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the completeness of feasibility studies of their projects.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1120. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
h.r. 1393
Madam Chairman, I am Deputy Commissioner Kira Finkler, Deputy
Commissioner for External and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Bureau
of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to present the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 1393, a bill to amend
the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources Conservation and
Improvement Act of 2000 (Act) to authorize additional projects and
activities. For reasons I will discuss below, the Administration cannot
support the bill.
H.R. 1393 authorizes an additional 19 water conservation projects,
which include the replacement of canals and laterals with pipelines,
the lining of canals and laterals, the installation of water
measurement and telemetry systems, the renovation and replacement of
pumping plants, and other activities that will result in the
conservation of water. The legislation would enable the Secretary to
fund up to 50% of the total cost of these projects once they meet the
review criteria and project requirements in the Act. The purpose of
this bill is to provide water saving measures to areas in Texas that
continue to suffer from drought.
The Department lauds local and state efforts to improve and
encourage water efficiency and to responsibly manage water quantity in
the border region. The Department testified in general support (with
some suggested revisions) of the original legislation that became P.L.
106-576 and of the subsequent amendment (P.L. 107-351). Together, these
laws authorized 19 projects with a cost ceiling of $47,000,000. The
amendments offered in H.R. 1393 appear to maintain the intent of the
existing bill while authorizing an additional 19 projects with a cost
ceiling of $42,356,145. Reclamation's Fiscal Year 2011 appropriations
request for this program is $50,000, which does not include non-Federal
funds. However, with the need to direct resources toward constructing
ongoing projects, and to operate, maintain, and rehabilitate existing
projects, we cannot support adding additional projects to the long list
of already authorized projects awaiting Federal funding.
Implementation of P.L. 106-576
Since late December of 2000, when P.L. 106-576 was enacted,
Reclamation has been working successfully and cooperatively with local
entities in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Texas Water Development
Board, and the Texas Agricultural Extension Service of Texas A&M
University. The first requirement of the public law was issuance of
criteria by which Reclamation would administer the law and determine
project eligibility for federal funding. These criteria were prepared,
shared with state, local and other federal entities, and issued in late
June 2001, within the six month timeframe required by the law.
Next, the irrigation districts involved with the 19 currently
authorized projects and the Texas Water Development Board worked with
Reclamation to begin planning, designing and construction of authorized
projects. To date, Reclamation has approved 16 Project Reports and 13
of the projects have initiated construction, eight of which are
substantially complete and under operation.
Project Scope and Cost
The emphasis placed by the Act on the initial 19 authorized
projects is primarily on a project's scope, not upon its costs. For
example, the scope of each authorized project is defined by the
language in the Act itself and in the cited engineering report. In some
cases, the specificity of this language has limited the authorization
of (and therefore Reclamation's participation in) a project to only a
portion of what an irrigation district has proposed to construct. The
total project costs of each of these projects are not, however,
specified in the legislation or in the cited engineering reports, but
are determined once the authorized components are sufficiently
developed in the Project Report and a project budget developed. In
accordance with Section 4(b) of the Act, the Federal share of each
project is then determined to be 50 percent of this total project cost.
In contrast, the emphasis that would be placed by H.R. 1393 on the
second 19 projects considered for authorization would be on the
project's cost, not upon its scope. Without changing the conditions for
implementation of the first 19 projects, H.R. 1393 imposes different
conditions for implementation on the proposed 19 projects. For example,
unlike the previous two bills, Section 2(b) of H.R. 1393 would amend
the Act to authorize virtually any project component that would result
in the conservation of water or an improved supply of water, whether or
not this component lies within the scope of the cited engineering
report for that project. Also unlike the Act, H.R. 1393 would identify
a maximum total cost for each project, half of the sum of which equals
the identified ceiling. Furthermore, Section 3 of H.R. 1393 maintains
separate ceilings for each of the groups of projects; namely,
$47,000,000 (2001 dollars) for projects 1 thru 19, and $42,356,145
(2004 dollars) for projects 20 thru 38.
These differences, while not affecting the requirements for project
qualification, would require somewhat different treatment of projects
with regard to determining scope and cost, depending upon specific
project authorizations.
Cost Indexing
After the budget authority for these 19 projects is given, H.R.
1393 includes the phrase ``2004 dollars'' in parentheses. This is
similar to the language included in Section 4 (c) of the original Act,
as amended. To eliminate any question about Reclamation's authority to
index costs for either group of 19 projects, Reclamation recommends
that Section 4 (c) of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water Resources
Conservation and Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-576; 114 Stat.
3067) be amended by replacing these two phrases with the following:
``plus or minus such amounts, if any, as may be justified by reason of
ordinary fluctuations in construction costs as indicated by engineering
cost indexes applicable to the types of construction involved herein.''
Project Planning
The proposed legislation pre-authorizes projects that have had
limited, if any, involvement from the Bureau of Reclamation in the
project planning and development process, and which have not undergone
Administration review. Although the Administration supports the efforts
of local project beneficiaries to address their local water needs, we
cannot support authorization nor provide funding for projects that have
not undergone rigorous Administration review.
Conclusion
Madam Chairwoman, we recognize the importance of improving the
efficiency of use and delivery of water in this part of the country.
However, given the numerous other requirements on Reclamation's budget,
such as funding the ongoing operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation
of our existing projects and funding for ongoing authorized rural water
projects and Native American settlements, we are unable to fund the
activities that are already authorized. . The Federal government
strives to leverage its resources to those projects that have benefits
that exceed costs and foster locally-based solutions that do not
require Federal investment in perpetuity.
In addition to the specific provisions identified in this
testimony, Reclamation would be happy to work with the Committee to
address any questions that may arise through the legislative process.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. I am pleased to
answer any questions.
h.r. 2522
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kira
Finkler, Deputy Commissioner for External and Intergovernmental Affairs
at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the
views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 2522, a
proposal to raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the
Calleguas Municipal Water District (District) Recycling Project. For
reasons I will discuss below, the Administration cannot support the
bill.
H.R. 2522 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.),
commonly called Title XVI, to increase the ceiling on the Federal share
of the costs of the Calleguas project to $60 million. This project is
authorized by Section 1616 of Title XVI, and the Federal share of this
project is currently limited to 25 percent of the total cost, or a
maximum contribution of $20 million.
The District submitted a feasibility study as required by the Title
XVI statute, and it was certified as complete in April of 2000. The
feasibility study included nine distinct components: five wastewater
reclamation and reuse projects, three brackish groundwater recovery
projects, and a regional brine disposal project. A cooperative
agreement was executed in September 2000, to provide Federal funding
for one of the wastewater reclamation and reuse projects known as the
Conejo Creek Diversion Project. This project was completed in
September, 2003, and is currently producing about 9,000 acre-feet of
recycled water annually. The total Federal share for this component was
almost $1.7 million.
In January, 2003, a cooperative agreement was executed to provide
federal funding for the Regional Brine Line component. To date,
Reclamation has provided about $10 million to the District as the
federal share of costs for this facility, which will provide a means to
dispose of brine wastes from facilities such as brackish groundwater
recovery projects throughout Ventura County. In addition, Reclamation
has executed a cooperative agreement with the District to provide about
$5 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for a
specific reach of the Brine Line.
The Regional Brine Line is being constructed in three phases,
starting with Phase 1 near the coast, and progressing inland. The
current estimated cost of Phase 1, which includes an ocean outfall, is
about $76 million. The 25 percent federal share of Phase 1 would be $19
million, which would obviously be reduced slightly because Reclamation
has already provided $1.7 million for the Conejo Creek Diversion
Project. The last reach of Phase 1 is the ARRA-funded section, which is
scheduled to be completed in 2011, after which this reach will be
placed in operation.
Due to the current ceiling, there would be no additional Federal
funds available for Phases 2 and 3, which together are estimated to
cost about $145 million; nor for any of the remaining seven projects
that were identified in the feasibility study due to the current
ceiling.
H.R. 1219 would authorize an additional $40 million for the
Calleguas project under Title XVI, which would establish the Federal
funding as not to exceed 25 percent or $60 million, whichever is less.
While the Department supports efforts to increase local water
supplies and increase recycled water use, this project would compete
for funds with other needs within the Reclamation program, including
other Title XVI projects currently under construction. In general, the
Department supports the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The
2011 budget proposal includes funding for the Department's WaterSMART
Program, and Title XVI is an important element of that program.
Specifically, the 2011 budget proposal includes $29 million for the
Title XVI program, a 113% increase over the 2010 enacted level.
As part of this total, the Department is requesting $20 million for
Title XVI projects to be selected using criteria to identify activities
most closely aligned with Title XVI statutory and program goals. On
March 15, 2010, Reclamation posted an announcement inviting comment on
draft funding criteria for Title XVI projects. After these criteria are
finalized with comments received up through April 16, Reclamation will
review and rank Title XVI project proposals received based on those
criteria subject to appropriations in fiscal year 2011.
Separately, in July of 2009, the Department announced the
allocation of approximately $135 million in grants for specific
authorized Title XVI projects using funds from the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA. We recognize that water reuse is an
essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies in the West,
and I believe the FY 2011 Budget request on top of the ARRA funding has
demonstrated the emphasis placed by this Administration on this
Program. However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects or extensions of existing cost ceilings at
this time.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the completeness of feasibility studies of their projects.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 2522. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Dr. Quinn, welcome.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY QUINN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES
Mr. Quinn. Thank you very much. Madam Chairwoman, Senator
Brownback, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear
here today.
I want to commend you for holding these hearings. Your
timing is certainly right from a California perspective. My
name is Tim Quinn. I'm the Executive Director of the
Association of California Water Agencies. I represent 450
public agencies that deliver about 90 percent of the water in
California. They are highly diverse. They all believe investing
in these sorts of resources is essential for California's
future and for water policy in the country.
I've been asked to address 3 bills in particular that
affect California. To do so, I don't pretend to be an expert on
how you get water reclamation done. I have spent my career
forging water policy in California, responding to crises, and
what I'd like to do is summarize for you the policy context in
California and why we believe that what you're considering here
so well fits the policies that we need to go into the 21st
century in California.
In particular, to get to the 3 bills, ACWA strongly favors
your favorable action to move through the process the 3 bills
that affect California water reuse, and they are illustrative
of the many different ways in which water reuse and more
efficient use of water can play a role in western water
management.
S. 1138 and H.R. 2442 will increase water reuse in
communities throughout the Bay Area up near San Francisco. H.R.
637 would increase water reuse in coastal Orange County,
specifically in the cities of San Juan Capistrano and San
Clemente. H.R. 2522 will allow additional stages of
construction of a brine line in northwest Los Angeles County to
allow them to extend considerably their efforts to clean up
contaminated groundwater and return that to useful use,
therefore reducing demands for imported water from northern
California.
All sorts of different types of projects, the same theme:
How are you more efficient about using water as part of a
comprehensive program to right the ship in California? It
certainly needs to be righted. We're managing water, in part
due to drought, more due to increased, very aggressive
implementation of the Endangered Species Act in my home State.
The fact that we're in crisis is well understood, I think,
by people in the Federal Government. Recently Secretary Salazar
noted in an interview with the editorial board of the Los
Angeles Times, he said that California economy could, quote,
``go to hell in a handbasket,'' end quote--pardon the
Secretary's language, but I don't think he's overstating the
case--unless we do something about the water crisis in the
State of California. The Secretary went on to likening our
water situation to, quote, ``a ticking time bomb,'' end quote.
Two weeks ago, on the House side Assistant Secretary Anne
Castle testified before the House Energy and Water Subcommittee
on Appropriations and said, quote: ``The situation in
California's Bay Delta ecosystem is a full-blown crisis that
requires all hands on deck.''
To meet that crisis, the California legislature in November
2009 passed a comprehensive set of legislation, controversial
but still broadly supported. I'd like to briefly describe that
for you and then let you understand how we think the action
before you today fits that policy more or less like a glove, or
at least one of the fingers of the glove.
The legislation passed by the California legislature and
subsequently signed by Governor Schwarzenegger contained four
policy bills and a bond, a water bond to help finance the
public's portion of a very aggressive, comprehensive solution
for California. From a policy perspective, those bills focused
California on what they call coequal goals, that is managing
the system to reflect the fact that water supply reliability
and ecosystem restoration are equally important as a matter of
policy in the State of California.
The bills include new governance institutions for how
decisions are made about our Delta, where the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Rivers come together. They also include for the
first time statewide requirements for locally controlled
groundwater monitoring and for enhanced enforcement of water
rights provisions in the State of California, and for very
aggressive conservation and local resource development as the
backbone of our water supplies in the future.
From a physical perspective, the future that is embodied in
this legislation, think of it as a 3-legged stool and each leg
is as important as the other. We're looking to invest heavily
in 3 broad areas of investment. The first one is new
infrastructure. We need a better conveyance system in our
Delta. We need more storage to manage the system, both for
fishery purposes and for water supply purposes, and those are
contained in this policy.
The second leg of the stool are habitat, investments in
habitat and watersheds, which many in my community have thought
that's where they found the pork in previous proposals. But if
you truly believe in coequal values you have to invest in the
habitat while you're investing in water supply reliability.
The third leg of that stool is a very aggressive program to
invest in local resources--recycling, desalination, watershed
improvements, any place you can find to get more out of your
local water supplies, to reduce demands on the imported
systems. That is a central tenet, a central component of
California's vision of its physical future, and it's in that
context that this hearing is very welcomed because to us it's
responsive to the government, the Federal Government, offering
a partnership with the State government to implement one of the
crucial legs of that 3-legged stool that California needs to
operate its system for coequal environmental and economic goals
in the future.
I still have a few minutes. I want to emphasize the
importance of the local resources, particularly the Title XVI
program. I hear the administration, they seem to be saying, why
don't you people slow down to our pace. But from California's
perspective, it's imperative that we ask them to hurry up and
catch up to us, because we don't have a lot of time. We need to
accelerate the investments in local resources, not slow them
down. So we would certainly urge you to move these bills and
encourage the Obama administration to start supporting at least
$75 million annually in its Title XVI program.
Let me close by emphasizing that California is prepared to
pay its portion of this comprehensive program in partnership
with the Federal Government. I mentioned that the four policy
bills that the legislature moved were accompanied by a water
bond, only one of a series that the voters in California have
approved. This will go to them in November. Very briefly, this
bond is for $11 billion. That 11 breaks down into 3 pretty easy
to understand pieces, a 4, a 4, and a 3, that are designed to
fit the comprehensive policy.
There's $4 billion from various chapters of the bond for
local resource development, from drought relief to groundwater
contamination cleanup to recycling and conservation efforts.
That's the largest commitment in the history of California to
local resource development as a part of a comprehensive plan.
The second 4 is $4 billion for habitat improvements and
watershed programs. The last 3 is $3 billion continuously
appropriated to a California Water Commission for distribution
to projects, storage projects that can be constructed and help
the system operate, not only for water supply, but for
temperature flow and diversion requirements that will help
recover our fisheries.
It's a comprehensive package and we're very pleased that
the Federal Government is willing to partner with us on one
important leg of that 3-legged stool.
I would be glad to answer any questions at the appropriate
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quinn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Quinn, Executive Director, Association of
California Water Agencies, on S. 1138, H.R. 637, and H.R. 2522
Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, The Association of
California Water Agencies (ACWA) appreciates this opportunity to
present testimony on the California water bills that are part of
today's agenda and comment on their important role in helping
California address its ongoing water crisis, the worst in our state's
history. My name is Tim Quinn and I am the Executive Director of ACWA.
ACWA is the largest coalition of public water agencies in the country.
Its nearly 450 public agency members are collectively responsible for
90% of the water delivered to cities, farms and businesses in
California.
ACWA is pleased to favor S. 1138/H.R. 2442, to amend the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to
expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other
purposes; H.R. 637, to authorize the Secretary, in cooperation with the
City of San Juan Capistrano, California, to participate in the design,
planning, and construction of an advanced water treatment plant
facility and recycled water system, and for other purposes; and H.R.
2522, to raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the
Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project, and for other
purposes. These bills are sponsored by members from both sides of the
California delegation and demonstrate our state's overall broad and
strong support for the Title XVI Program.
The projects in these bills are designed to provide important
benefits. S 1138, which builds on the success of last Congress, will
enable the San Francisco Bay Area Recycle Water Coalition (BARWC) to
build six new projects and fully fund two previously authorized
projects. The regional Coalition is a partnership of fourteen public
agencies committed to developing highly leveraged, locally managed
recycled water as a longterm, sustainable solution for communities that
will help ensure the security of water supplies in the Bay-Delta for
years to come. In the past two years, the coalition partners have
started or finished construction on 4 projects that have received
federal appropriations, and 3 more projects are approaching
construction. The six new projects requesting authorization today in S
1138 will generate over 8,000 acre-feet per year of new sustainable
water supply. It will reduce wastewater discharges to aquatic
environments, and reduce the demand for limited fresh water from our
fragile Bay-Delta system. Additionally, the Bay Area Recycle Water
Coalition is requesting that the bill be amended to include three BARWC
projects that joined the coalition since the House companion bill HR
2442 was introduced a year ago. These three projects will yield 12,400
AFY. With funding assistance, these projects can approach construction
within 24 months. When added to the current projects in S 1138, the
near-term yield is over 20,000 AFY of water, which is over 6.6 billion
gallons per year or 18.2 million gallons per day. That's enough water
to meet the needs of approximately 60,000 homes. Finally, the Bay Area
coalition requests that the bill be amended to include the same
language inserted in H.R.2442 at the request of the Congressional
Budget Office, to clarify that funding in the bill is subject to
appropriations.
Another important Project, H.R. 637--the South Orange County
Recycled Water Enhancement Act--authorizes the Bureau to participate in
the design, planning, and construction of an advanced water treatment
plant facility and recycled water system. This Project supports state
efforts to improve water supply and reliability by reducing the amount
of reusable water being discharged to the ocean, while creating a new
source of water that does not place a burden on the limited imported
water supply from the California Aqueduct System and the Colorado River
Basin. The Project is critical to expanding water supply reliability.
In partnership with local Cites and water districts, the Project would
provide recycled water for non-potable and irrigation consumers. The
resultant recycled water will lessen local demand on imported water and
is a significant step towards creating a local sustainable water
supply.
H.R. 2522 will authorize Bureau of Reclamation support for Phases 2
and 3 of the Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project. The
Calleguas project has been found feasible by the BOR. The Project is
vital to Ventura County's water reliability as imported supplies become
increasingly vulnerable to drought, climate change, catastrophic levee
failures from flood and/or seismic events, and regulatory shutdowns of
pumping facilities for habitat protection. The Project will improve
water supply reliability and reduce dependence on imported water
supplies by making it possible to put local brackish water supplies to
beneficial use. By treating groundwater to remove salts and moving
those salts away from surface waters and groundwater, water agencies in
Ventura County solve a water quality problem, while improving local
water supply reliability. Completion of Phases 2 and 3 of the Project
will facilitate the reclamation and reuse of about 43,000 acre-feet per
year of water.
Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of
ACWA's Board of Directors, I want to commend you for convening this
hearing. The hearing is especially timely. California is experiencing
an immediate and urgent crisis in water supply as a result of the
combined effects of drought and increasingly stringent regulation under
the Endangered Species Act. In March, Secretary of the Interior Ken
Salazar, in an interview with the editorial board of the Los Angeles
Times said, ``I would say that the people of California recognize that
water is the lifeblood of their communities. . .and the economy is
going to go to hell in a hand basket in California unless something
happens that is credible with respect to the water supply issues--
north, south and the bay delta. So I would just say California. . .
You're sitting on a ticking time bomb, and you better get your act
together, because otherwise the bomb's going to go off.'' (L.A. Times,
March 22, 2010)
And two weeks ago, Anne Castle, the Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science, Department of Interior, testified to the House Energy and
Water subcommittee on appropriations that ``The situation in
California's Bay-Delta ecosystem is a full-blown crisis that requires
all hands on deck.''
In November 2009, the state of California passed historic
legislation to tackle the water crisis head-on. The legislative
package, which includes four policy bills and a proposed water
resources bond, makes it the policy of California to achieve the
``Coequal goals. . .of providing a more reliable water supply for
California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta
ecosystem.''
To accomplish the coequal goals, the legislation calls for the
implementation of an aggressive, comprehensive water management program
that requires investment in three broad areas:
1) New infrastructure, including improved conveyance in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and new surface and groundwater
storage;
2) Habitat restoration and watershed improvements to help
restore natural functions in the ecological system; and
3) Local water resource development projects, including water
recycling, brackish and sea water desalination, water use
efficiency and other projects to increase local water supply
resources and thereby reduce demands for imported water.
This hearing provides assurances that Congress recognizes the
urgency of the California water crisis and is acting to support the
implementation of key elements in the California comprehensive water
management strategy. Recycling projects like those in northern and
southern California under consideration here today are an extremely
important source of new supply from ACWA's statewide perspective. They
are vital to meeting growing water demands in a manner consistent with
the state's new comprehensive water management strategy. To the extent
their implementation can be significantly accelerated, these projects
can help combat the immediate crisis in California arising from
drought, and excessively restrictive regulations on water supply under
the Endangered Species Act.
In her testimony, Secretary Castle said Interior ``continues to
aggressively pursue a comprehensive water supply and restoration plan''
for California. Part of this plan is their newly announced WaterSMART
program. Interior is requesting $29 million in Fiscal Year 2011 to fund
projects such as the ones we are discussing today through the Title XVI
program. ACWA welcomes Interior's support for increased funding for the
Title XVI program but recommends at least $75 million each year should
be requested by the Department to help reduce the large backlog of
unfunded authorized projects. This could leverage at least $225 million
per year of local dollars into the program.
ACWA also commends the proposal by Rep. Grace Napolitano, Chair of
the House Water and Power subcommittee that the Obama Administration
commit to establishing a $200 million Title XVI Program foundation with
a goal of creating up to 1 million acrefeet of water within a timeframe
of the next 48 to 60 months.
California is more than prepared to pay its share of the costs of
this urgently needed comprehensive program. In the past decade,
California voters and water rate payers have invested billions for
better water management and ecosystem improvements in our state. The
recent legislation includes not only four policy bills, but also an $11
billion bond. If approved by the voters in November, the ``Safe, Clean,
and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010'' would provide the
largest financial boost in history--more than $4 billion for local
resource development including additional water recycling. The
remaining funds in the bond would help finance habitat restoration in
the Delta watershed improvements statewide (about $4 billion), and
public benefits from new storage infrastructure ($3 billion).
The California bills before you today are one important part of the
comprehensive solution that ACWA's members are seeking. ACWA believes
the projects contained within S 1138, HR 2522, and HR 637 can provide
vital water supply and other benefits. If fully appropriated, these
projects combined would leverage $116.7 million in federal funding with
$371.1 million in local funding. And perhaps most importantly, as the
WateReuse Association has previously testified to this subcommittee,
other significant project benefits could include: ``Environmental
benefits realized through the conversion of treated wastewater into a
valuable new water supply; Reduction of the quantity of treated
wastewater discharged to sensitive or impaired surface waters; Reduced
dependence on the Colorado River and on the Bay-Delta System,
especially during drought years when conflicts on both of these water
systems are particularly intense; Creation of a dependable and
controllable local source of supply; Reduced demand on existing potable
supplies; and Energy benefits realized by the replacement of more
energy intensive water supplies such as pumped imported water with less
energy intensive water sources like recycled water.''*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Testimony The Bureau of Reclamation's Reuse and Recycling
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you again
for the opportunity to present testimony today. In summary: ACWA is
pleased to favor the California bills before you today as one important
part of a comprehensive solution to achieving the co-equal goals of
restoring environmental health and providing a more reliable water
supply to California. This completes my statement. At the appropriate
time, I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brookshier, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ED BROOKSHIER, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF HERMISTON,
HERMISTON, OR
Mr. Brookshier. Thank you, Chairwoman Stabenow, Senator
Brownback. Thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me
to testify in support of S. 1573 that will authorize the Bureau
of Reclamation to participate in the construction of the city
of Hermiston's water recycling project. My name is Ed
Brookshier and I am the City Manager for the city of Hermiston,
Oregon.
I want to publicly thank Senator Ron Wyden for his time
today and for introducing this important piece of legislation
that is crucial to the city's reclamation and reuse of its
municipal wastewater. This reclamation effort will provide high
quality class A recycled water for reuse as a source of
irrigation supply.
The city's recycled water production is estimated to be
3600 acre-feet annually, of which half will go to toward
supplying irrigation and half will be discharged to the
Umatilla River, which is a quality-controlled salmonid stream
in the winter. This new partial source of drought-proof
irrigation water will provide an added supply to the Bureau of
Reclamation-owned and locally operated West Extension
Irrigation District.
A comprehensive feasibility study has been completed on the
project and the Bureau of Reclamation has certified that it
meets the requirements to be eligible for the Bureau's Title
XVI water rycycling program.
Hermiston, Oregon, is a progressive, growth-oriented urban
center in the northeast part of Oregon with a total trade
population of approximately 300,000 people. We are located in a
relatively dry section of the State, positioned between the
Cascade Mountains to the west and the Blue Mountains to the
east. Hermiston is placed in a unique geographical area that
offers an extended growing season and a variety of agricultural
crops and products.
The benefits of developing a high-quality source of
recycled water, followed by its use as a source of irrigation,
are numerous and extend to the West Extension Irrigation
District, the city of Hermiston, the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the region as a whole.
The West Extension Irrigation District benefits from this
project by obtaining an additional source of supply which is
both high in quality and drought-proof. Since water is
delivered to the district, energy required for pumping is also
reduced by approximately $13,000 a year annually. In addition,
the 1800 acre-feet of irrigation water provided annually will
supply water to 600 acres, reducing the demand for the
district's surface water supplies. Finally, this added supply
source of irrigation water improves the district's operational
flexibility.
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
will also benefit from development of high-quality recycled
water throughout the year. These benefits include a significant
improvement in the quality of recycled water discharged to the
Umatilla River in winter, further protecting sensitive salmonid
habitat during summer when the recycled water is used for
irrigation.
The region as a whole benefits from treatment that develops
high-quality recycled water. This water source is protective of
the environment in both summer and winter and provides an added
source of irrigation supply to agriculture, which is the
backbone of the Hermiston economy.
Madam Chairwoman, while I understand and appreciate the
strict budgetary limitations that your committee and Congress
as a whole are faced with, I believe that the Hermiston
recycled water facility is a worthwhile Federal investment due
to the numerous Federal objectives that will be advanced
through this project. Combined with the serious regulatory
issues which the city of Hermiston faces and the need for
additional drought-proof sources of recycled water for
irrigation, it is essential that we complete construction of
this project in a timely manner. Federal participation in this
endeavor is vital to assure that this becomes a reality.
This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brookshier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Brookshier, City Manager, City of Hermiston,
Hermiston, OR
Chairman Stabenow and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
holding this hearing and allowing me to testify in support of S.1573,
that will authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the
construction of the City of Hermiston Water Recycling Project. My name
is Ed Brookshier and I am the City Manager for the City of Hermiston,
Oregon. I wish to publicly thank Senator Ron Wyden for introducing this
important piece of legislation that is crucial to the City's
reclamation and reuse of its municipal wastewater. This reclamation
effort will provide a high quality recycled water for reuse as a source
of irrigation supply. The City's recycled water production is estimated
to be 3,600 acre-feet annually, of which 1,800 Acre-feet will supply
irrigation and 1,800 acre-feet will be discharged to the Umatilla River
in winter. This new partial source of drought proof irrigation water
will provide an added supply to the Bureau of Reclamation owned and
locally operated West Extension Irrigation District. A comprehensive
feasibility study has been completed on the project and the Bureau of
Reclamation has certified that it meets the requirements to be eligible
for the Bureau's Title XVI Water Recycling Program.
Hermiston, Oregon is a progressive, growth-oriented urban center
with a total trade area population of 320,900. Located in a relatively
dry section of the state of Oregon, positioned between the Cascade
Mountains to the west and the Blue Mountains to the East, Hermiston is
placed in a unique geographical area that offers an extended growing
season and a variety of agricultural crops and products. The immediate
Hermiston area has been able to diversify its economy with food
processing, cold storage and warehousing and distribution facilities.
The benefits of developing a high quality source of recycled water
followed by its use as a source of irrigation are numerous and extend
to: The West Extension Irrigation District, the City of Hermiston, The
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the region
as a whole.
The West Extension Irrigation District benefits from this project
by obtaining an additional source of supply, which is both high in
quality and drought proof. Since water is delivered to the District,
energy required for pumping is also reduced by approximately $13,000
annually. In addition, the 1,800 acre-feet of irrigation water provided
annually will supply water to 600 acres, reducing the demand on the
District's surface water supply sources. Finally, this added source of
partial irrigation water improves the District's operational
flexibility.
The City of Hermiston benefits primarily through meeting its
upcoming National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
(NPDES). This permit requires the City to both develop a high-quality
recycled water and remove its discharge from the Umatilla River
continuously from April 1 to October 31 of each year. The West
Extension Irrigation District provides the long term, multi-farm
discharge option that allows the City to remove its discharge from the
River during this period of each year. If the City is unable to
discharge to the District it will be in continuous violation of current
temperature standards and periodic violation of the ammonia standard
contained within the City's NPDES Permit. Secondary benefits to the
City include a reduction in energy cost from reduced pumping, estimated
to be $42,000 annually, and the certainty that this solution, though
expensive, will provide service for decades to come.
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation will
also benefit from development of high-quality recycled water throughout
the year. These benefits include a significant improvement in the
quality of recycled water discharged to the Umatilla River in winter,
further protection of sensitive salmonid habitat during summer when the
recycled water is used for irrigation in lieu of River discharge,
increased environmental monitoring at the recycled water treatment
facility and the long-term nature of this solution.
The region as a whole also benefits from treatment that develops
high-quality recycled water. This water source is protective of the
environment in both summer and winter and provides an added source of
irrigation supply to agriculture, which is the backbone of the
Hermiston economy. The Hermiston Water Recycling Project is estimated
to be completed and online in 2 \1/2\ years. This effort will have an
immediate economic impact to our local economy as much needed jobs will
be created through an infrastructure project of this size. More
importantly, the addition of the new and reliable water source created
by this project will have a profound long-term impact to the farming
industry in our area which faces an uncertain future due to dwindling
water supplies.
Madam Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the strict
budgetary limitations that your Committee and Congress as a whole are
faced with, I believe that the Hermiston Recycled Water facility is a
worthwhile federal investment due to the numerous federal objectives
that will be advanced through this project. Combined with the serious
regulatory issues the City of Hermiston is faced with and the need for
added drought proof sources of recycled water in the Hermiston Area for
irrigation, it is essential that we complete construction of this
project in a timely manner. Federal participation in this endeavor is
vital to ensure that this becomes a reality.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
We'll now open for questions. First I would ask Ms.
Finkler. In the testimony, you're indicating that the
administration supports efforts to increase local water
supplies through recycled water use and that Reclamation has
increased funding for Title XVI for the next fiscal year, but
that you can't support the authorization of new Title XVI
projects at this time. So in the face of increasing concerns
about water availability, whether due to drought, climate
change, environmental needs, population increases, what else do
you think can be done to help address the funding backlog that
exists for these projects?
Ms. Finkler. Thank you, Senator. I think that the criteria
that we are currently working on we hope will help address the
backlog by providing some useful metrics that we can review and
rank and prioritize proposed projects that will give us the
best bang for our buck, that would be the most cost effective,
and, hopefully coupled with the additional resources in the
2011 budget, as you mentioned, along with the Recovery Act
money, that will help us address the backlog that exists.
Senator Stabenow. I know you've received comments regarding
the new criteria. Have you had a chance to really synthesize
that? I'm wondering if you're anticipating any major revisions
to the criteria and, if so, when would you anticipate that
coming out?
Ms. Finkler. Thank you, Senator. My understanding is that
right now we're just continuing to go through the comments. We
received about 18--comments from about 18 different entities.
Most of the comments were minor tweaks and we expect to have
the final criteria posted some time in June.
Senator Stabenow. During a recent workshop in California,
Reclamation and other Federal agencies announced a proposal to
initiate some water use and recycling test cases. Have there
been any further developments regarding those proposed test
projects?
Ms. Finkler. Yes, thank you, Senator. This is part of the
administration's effort to really have an ``all hands on deck''
attitude and working toward the California challenges. There
has been a regional team put together of Department of
Agriculture, Department of the Interior, EPA, as well as the
relevant State agencies to take the information that we
received at the roundtable in Sacramento and, based on that and
sharing of information about how best we could cooperate and
coordinate our programs, that they would come up with some
draft proposals.
Then we have committed to a public meeting later this
summer where we can share those draft proposals and get some
feedback from the public.
Senator Stabenow. Dr. Quinn, did you have any comments
related to that? I don't know if you would want to comment at
all on the test projects that they're talking about?
Mr. Quinn. Not at this time, thank you.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Great.
Then regarding S. 1573 related to the project in Hermiston,
which involves the use of the Title XVI program to create
recycled water that can be used in irrigation, municipal and
tribal purposes, is this a project--is this a good example of
the wide variety of projects that can be funded through Title
XVI?
Ms. Finkler. I think so, yes. The fact that you're using
the water to irrigate agricultural lands is a great way to
diversify the uses of Title XVI, as well as here there are
multiple benefits, as you mentioned, that there would be
benefits for the ag land, for the community, and also for the
environment.
Senator Stabenow. Let me ask, Dr. Quinn. Several of the
projects you testified about have yet to receive a feasibility
determination from the Bureau of Reclamation, which makes it
difficult for the committee to determine which one of those
should move forward at this point. Are you aware of any
problems those project proponents are experiencing in obtaining
the feasibility determinations?
Mr. Quinn. I don't have specific knowledge of that. I can
certainly check with the project proponents. As I indicated,
I'm not here so much as an expert on those individual projects
as I am for how they fit into the broader policy framework
we're trying to develop in California.
Senator Stabenow. Sure, I understand.
Does the Association of California Water Agencies support
Reclamation's efforts to develop criteria to assist in
prioritizing funding? What comments did the agency submit
regarding the proposed criteria?
Mr. Quinn. We do support their efforts, subject to the
important caveat that we would like to see it be part of
accelerating implementation of these projects instead of a
reason for not implementing such projects. Like a lot of
others, we have specific concerns, but are more than willing to
work in good faith with Reclamation to deal with those specific
comments, and can certainly see the value of having a well
thought out set of criteria to guide those dollars to projects
quicker so that we can get projects out there sooner.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
My time is up. I'll turn it to Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thanks, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Finkler, how much of the $135 million in grants
authorized under the ARRA for Title XVI projects has been spent
and how much has been obligated?
Ms. Finkler. Thank you, Senator. To date $93.4 million has
been obligated and $3.4 million has been spent.
Senator Brownback. So you've got still roughly what, $42
million that hasn't been obligated?
Ms. Finkler. That's right. Also, just to provide a little
bit more information on the actual money that's spent, the
proponents are really in the driver's seat once the money has
been obligated to get to the next point of it actually being
spent or have us writing the check. We would wait for them to
submit their cost to us and then we reimburse those costs.
Senator Brownback. I guess the point I want to make sure
that I get to, if you've got $42 million that's unobligated at
this point, but you're opposed to all of these projects based
on funding, I take it, where's that $42 million going to go?
Ms. Finkler. That's a good question. We went through a
process once the Recovery Act funding was made available to set
up criteria based on the Recovery Act, so how quickly you can
get the money out the door. Then there are a series of steps
that need to take place before the project is ready to go for
construction, such as completing the feasibility study, making
sure all the NEPA and other environmental clearances are done.
There has to be an approved determination of financial
capability, and then finally completing the cooperative
agreement for financial assistance.
So my guess is--and I can find out for certain and provide
this for the record if that's all right--my guess is that those
are still completing that process.
Senator Brownback. Of these projects that you're opposed to
today?
Ms. Finkler. No. The ones that would be funded with the
Recovery Act are ones that have already been authorized by
Congress.
Senator Brownback. I guess maybe I'm a bit confused. You're
opposing all these on funding grounds. You've got $42 million
that's unobligated, but you're saying these are too far back in
the approval process, they need more work before they can
qualify for the $42 million?
Ms. Finkler. We have actually--the whole backlog for the
Title XVI authorized projects is about $620 million. So the
Recovery Act will help us with the backlog, but even with the
$40 million, as you mentioned, there's still a large backlog of
the ones that have already been authorized by Congress. The
ones before us today are ones that actually have not been
authorized by Congress, so they are further behind in the
queue. Does that make sense?
Senator Brownback. Yes, that helps me a lot.
Dr. Quinn, you said that the Endangered Species Act is
hitting water problems in California in a major way? Did I get
your statement right on that?
Mr. Quinn. Yes, you did, sir.
Senator Brownback. Can you quantify that for me?
Mr. Quinn. In terms of the water supply? Let me give you
just one example.
Senator Brownback. Yes, just how much water is the
Endangered Species taking out of the system for California to
be able to use?
Mr. Quinn. During an 8-week period from the middle of
January to the middle of March, the Endangered Species Act
restrictions on the system cost water suppliers south of the
Delta 478,000 acre-feet of water.
Senator Brownback. 478,000 acre-feet of water?
Mr. Quinn. That's almost the amount of water that the
entire city of L.A. would use for a year.
Senator Brownback. Wow.
Mr. Quinn. We are talking very large volumes. We are
struggling with very high levels of conflict between what the
species need and water supply needs, and it has risen to truly
crisis proportions.
Senator Brownback. Nearly half a million acre-feet of water
pulled out of the system, is that correct?
Mr. Quinn. In an 8-week period. That was water that was
previously, before the biological opinions we're operating
under now, you could have pumped that water and today we were
not allowed to pump that water. Oftentimes, because of rules to
protect fisheries, we were highly skeptical that the fisheries
were actually getting much protection.
Senator Brownback. Is there an appeal going on about that?
Mr. Quinn. We went for 10 years without suing each other in
California. We've gotten past that now and there are some--
there are dozens and dozens of lawsuits. In particular, there
are before a Federal court in Fresno, there are cases involving
both the Delta smelt biological opinions and the salmon
biological opinions.
Senator Brownback. Should we be considering amendments in
Congress on this to give some alleviation? Because I think it's
pretty obvious, if you've got $600 million in projects ahead of
you and we've got $42 million allocated, I don't see a whole
lot of likelihood that number's going to tenfold increase for
you. It doesn't look like this is going to be very likely to
move any time soon--Ms. Finkler, you can correct me on this--
and otherwise you're just going to be left where you are.
Mr. Quinn. Let me answer it this way. It has been suggested
that part of the solution is changes in the act here in the
Congress. My organization has not taken a position one way or
another on that legislation. With that said, we believe it's
imperative that we change how we're implementing the Endangered
Species Act in California, probably elsewhere, to get better
results both for water supply and for the species we're trying
to protect.
ACWA also strongly believes that aggressive implementation
of local resources like the Title XVI project, let's accelerate
them, get them implemented faster. We believe that too can be
part of a solution to manage the system in the near term as
well as the long term.
Senator Brownback. It seems like some flexibility here
might be prudent, at least for a period of time, to figure out
some of these localized solutions that can address the
endangered species need, but also the clear water needs, too.
Mr. Quinn. We believe the Interior Department has the
flexibility to work with us to come up with better ways to
manage the system.
Senator Brownback. Good.
Thank you, chairwoman.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
Just one follow-up question, Dr. Quinn, on that. It sounded
like from your formal testimony in the beginning that this was
implementation, California implementation as it relates to the
Endangered Species Act; is that right or no?
Mr. Quinn. I don't think so.
Senator Stabenow. OK.
Mr. Quinn. If I said that, I misspoke.
Senator Stabenow. OK. That's what I was trying to clarify
for sure, because that is a Federal statute.
Mr. Quinn. We have a State Endangered Species Act that's
playing a role here as well.
Senator Stabenow. It is also playing?
Mr. Quinn. We get to wrestle with both.
Senator Stabenow. OK, thank you.
Mr. Brookshier, have you done a calculation of how much the
recycled water produced by the project that you're sponsoring
will cost as compared to the current water supply for
irrigation uses? I guess I would say if it's more expensive, is
it important to have an alternative supply because the existing
supply is insufficient or unreliable?
Mr. Brookshier. The existing supply may not be expanded, so
in a sense the value of this added water may not be calculated.
I think if you put it on a per-acre-foot basis versus the cost
of the project, $500--$700, $700 per acre-foot. But again, to
emphasize that there is no--the district there does not have
any other source of water, and actually they're in a position
where they may be calling in some other rights in the area that
would be quite detrimental to the general agricultural economy
in the area.
We estimate that this project in ag retention represents
several hundred jobs, because that's how critical it is for the
district that we're working with on this.
Senator Stabenow. So it really is a question of
insufficient?
Mr. Brookshier. Yes, yes.
Senator Stabenow. You don't have the water.
Mr. Brookshier. There simply is no more water, that's
correct.
Senator Stabenow. Does the city receive compensation from
the West Extension Irrigation District for the recycled water?
Mr. Brookshier. No, no. This will be provided at no cost to
them. Actually, it's still a benefit to us. It's a gravity
system. We will save on our current pumping costs, so there's
some energy savings involved here. Again, it meets our
temperature needs that we have to adhere to during summer
months because of the salmonid issue. So it's an excellent,
excellent situation for the city as well as the district, and
the tribal government as well, in terms of their salmonid
interests.
Senator Stabenow. You mentioned the tribes, so I assume
there are agreements in place with the Consolidated Tribes?
Mr. Brookshier. Yes. We have--in fact, I think it's been
introduced into the letter or into the record--a recommendation
in support of the project from the tribes. I think they
recognize--I know they recognize it as the best answer to
summer temperature issues while providing a very, very, very
high quality of recycled water into the streams during winter
low flow months. So they do consider it of benefit.
Senator Stabenow. Could you explain in more detail how the
city plans to use the recycled water to help meet the
requirements of the city's national pollutant discharge
elimination system, which is authorized by the Clean Water Act?
Mr. Brookshier. Right, right. Those are primarily
temperature issues. Between April and October of each year,
under our forthcoming permit we will not be--we simply cannot
meet temperature requirements during those months. One way or
the other, we have no choice but to get out of the river during
that period. The opportunity to put that to reuse with our
irrigation community that so much needs the supply is a win-win
for both of us.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
Dr. Quinn, S. 1138 is supported by the Bay Area Recycling
Coalition. I wonder if you might speak a little bit about the
benefits for having a regional basis, a regional agreement?
What are the examples of the positives that you've found in
working together on a regional basis?
Mr. Quinn. Just by way of background, before I came to my
current job I worked for the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, which is of course a regional water
manager that gets good advantage out of economies of scale in
developing these kinds of projects. What's happening in
northern California is something like that. There are 14
agencies, cities and public water agencies that have formed a
coalition, the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition.
What's before you now is one of the steps that they're
trying to take to cooperate to build themselves to a scale
where you might not have a demand for the water, but your
neighbor might have a demand for the water coming out of your
recycling plant, so by combining together they can get to much
better economics, much broader application of recycling water
and efficiencies.
I commend them for going through the hard work to develop
these regional alliances, because it's not always easy to
overcome some of the provincial boundaries of individual local
agencies.
Senator Stabenow. Sure, absolutely.
How does the development of more water recycling projects
in southern California decrease the need for imported water
from the California Bay Delta or the Colorado River System?
Mr. Quinn. It's pretty much an acre-foot for acre-foot.
Think of it as a recycling project allows you to get much more
use, much more efficiency, out of that imported acre-foot of
water. So instead of using it once and letting it run down the
Santa Anna River and out to the ocean, you're using it multiple
times, which reduces the number of acre-feet that you need to
move over the Tehachapi Mountains or from east to west through
the Colorado River Aqueduct.
Recycling projects are the No. 1 way in which southern
California will reduce its demands for imported water in the
future, and they're absolutely committed to do that. They know
they need to fix the import system, particularly in the Bay
Delta, to lower conflict between water supply operations and
what the fisheries need. But southern California is absolutely
committed to their growth being met through increased
efficiencies and local resource development. So it's vital in
that regard.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you.
Finally, you've talked about the fact that your
organization supports at least $75 million per year in funding
for Title XVI. Yet, given all the projects that we're looking
at, we're still looking at tremendous needs at this point that
wouldn't be addressed by that, and several years of efforts
before we could truly address those.
From your perspective, is there anything else that should
be done at this point, or is it all a matter of resources?
Mr. Quinn. I'm not sure exactly how to answer that
question. If I'm not hitting the mark, please ask it again. My
organization, my State, believes we have to have a
comprehensive solution. We think it's appropriate to ask for
some assistance from Washington through the Title XVI program,
but the vast amount of money to be spent on this comprehensive
solution is going to come in California, in part from bonds and
in major part from water rates going up.
Virtually all of my member agencies are struggling with
their local publics because they're having to raise water rates
to cope in the 21st century to accomplish coequal goals. So we
have no choice but to strive to aggressively implement a
comprehensive program, of which these recycling projects are an
important part. As I said, I think our strategy has to be to
say to the administration, please catch up to us, don't ask us
to slow down to you.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much. We appreciate very
much both of you traveling to be here today.
Ms. Finkler, H.R. 1393 is a bill to authorize additional
water conservation projects as part of the Lower Rio Grande
Valley Water Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of
2000. Your testimony indicates that the administration can't
support authorization or funding for those projects that have
not undergone rigorous administration review. What should the
project sponsors do to obtain the necessary review? Are there
standards in place that would guide them regarding the review
process?
Ms. Finkler. Thank you, Senator. The original law in 2000
that created this program actually required us to come up with
some criteria for the original 19 projects. So we would
implement, if this bill were enacted into law, implement in the
same way, using that same criteria. It's similar criteria to
feasibility studies for Title XVI, the Title XVI program. So I
would think that the project proponents of these additional
projects would--should look to that criteria that we've been
using for the original projects.
Senator Stabenow. Regarding an additional project, H.R.
325, your testimony notes that the Bureau has not yet prepared
a feasibility report for the Avra/Black Wash Project in Arizona
and that the necessary technical studies have not been
completed. Similar testimony was also provided about this
project in 2008. Has Pima County done any technical work which
has been submitted to the BOR for review, and does the Bureau
know the basis for the $14 million authorized for the project?
Ms. Finkler. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, I don't know the
basis for their estimated cost. Since we last testified in
2008, we haven't received any additional substantive
information from the county with respect to any engineering or
technical information that would allow us to proceed forward.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. I believe that at this point
I've completed the questions that I have and we'll conclude for
the day. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Ed Brookshier to Questions From Senator Brownback
Question 1. How much ARRA funding has Oregon received to help
finance Title XVI projects?
Answer. Oregon has received no ARRA funding to help finance Title
XVI projects. Citations: http://recovery.doi.gov/press/bureaus/bureau-
of-reclamation/title-xvi-projects/ http://www.waterandwastewater.com/
www_services/news_center/publish/article_001757.shtml
Question 2. Beyond the certification of the feasibility study,
where in the process is the city and the BOR for determining federal
environmental compliance actions, water contracts, determination of the
project sponsor's financial capability and so on?
Answer. The City has completed the environmental compliance process
for funding under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program.
The CWSRF environmental process was modeled after the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Because the CWSRF is
federally funded by the U.S. EPA and disbursed by the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ), EPA has consulted with several federal
agencies regarding the City's proposed project. Results included a
Final Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and an informal consultation letter from US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Based on our discussions with the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) staff the NEPA process is anticipated to be completed
quickly and will be based largely on significant work completed for the
CWSRF process. Based on the strength of the CWSRF review we do not
anticipate that additional reports or data will be required to complete
the NEPA process.
The City will be required to apply for and obtain Removal-Fill
permits from the Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) and from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Phase II in-water portion of the
project necessary to install the winter outfall to the Umatilla River.
The Endangered Species Act consultation completed in March 2010
provides the materials and guidance necessary to obtain both permits.
The City and West Extension Irrigation District (WEID) have
developed and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishing
the mutual value of working to develop a recycled water discharge to
WEID for the future. Based on the strength of the MOU, both are
actively engaged with BOR in developing the operating agreement for
delivery of this Class A recycled water to WEID's distribution canal.
The operating agreement is expected to be finalized within three
months.
Determination of the project sponsor's financial capability is
expected to be completed within one month.
______
Association of California Water Agencies,
Sacramento, CA, May 20, 2010.
Hon. Chairwoman Stabenow,
Hon. Ranking Member Brownback,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
Water and Power, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Stabenow and Brownback: Thank you for the opportunity
to respond to your additional questions regarding my testimony before
the Subcommittee on April 27, 2010. As you know, ACWA's 450 public
water agency members supply over 90 percent of the water delivered in
California for residential, agricultural and industrial uses. I am
providing you with our Association's broader observations based upon
the hearing as well as specific answers from the project sponsors.
General Observations
1) The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) strongly
believes the Title XVI program does not require a project to obtain
feasibility certification prior to obtaining congressional
authorization. Rather, a project must be authorized, secure a
feasibility determination, complete NEPA compliance, and satisfy
financial capability before it can receive appropriations for
construction. Requiring feasibility determinations to be complete prior
to securing congressional authorization has not been required for past
authorizations and would substantially delay implementation of
worthwhile projects.
Congressional authorizations for Title XVI projects give
Reclamation the official authority ``to participate in the design,
planning, and construction of facilities to reclaim and reuse water.''
It is during the planning process that project sponsors work with
Reclamation to secure a feasibility determination, as well as complete
NEPA. Once that is complete, then the project sponsor and Reclamation
have the ability to pursue appropriations that can fund up to 25% of a
project cost with a cap per project of $20 million.
Reclamation allows a six month review period of a feasibility study
prior to making a determination. The project sponsor spends several
months or more before this submittal developing and gathering the study
materials, and additional time to address Reclamation review comments.
Therefore, the timeline for a project to complete feasibility seems to
be taking a minimum of a year. Obtaining authorization has typically
been a two-year process. These processes should run in parallel, not
series, so that ready-to-go water projects are not unnecessarily
delayed an additional two to three years.
2) ACWA believes the project sponsors are making good faith efforts
to partner with Reclamation throughout the Title XVI process and have a
solid track record of responsiveness and complying with all statutory
requirements. For example, the City of San Juan Capistrano will now be
working with the Bureau of Reclamation to begin the feasibility study
for the City's recycled water project. The study will provide an
outline on the City's existing water supply that would be supplemented
with recycled water for non potable use. In addition, the study will
analyze the main project components, provide a detailed overview of the
project purpose and need and examine all project alternatives. The
feasibility study is expected to take no longer than a year to
complete.
3) ACWA would again like to commend you for holding a hearing on
Title XVI bills. By doing so, you have provided assurances that
Congress recognizes the urgency of the California water crisis and is
acting to support the implementation of key elements in the California
comprehensive water management strategy. Recycling projects in northern
and southern California are an extremely important source of new supply
from ACWA's statewide perspective. They are vital to meeting growing
water demands in a manner consistent with the state's new comprehensive
water management strategy. To the extent their implementation can be
significantly accelerated, these projects can help combat the immediate
crisis in California arising from drought, and excessively restrictive
regulations on water supply under the Endangered Species Act.
Thank you again for this opportunity to answer your additional
questions. The following answers are provided by ACWA in collaboration
with the project sponsors.
Sincerely,
Timothy Quinn,
Executive Director.
[Enclosure.]
Responses to Questions From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. Please describe the efforts made by the project
proponents in S. 1138 and H.R. 637 to ensure that the statutory
requirements for moving forward with a Title XVI project have been met,
including, but not limited to, obtaining a feasibility determination
from Reclamation.
Answer. S. 1138: The 14 agency Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition
projects have a solid track record of complying with all statutory
requirements for Title XVI projects. The Coalition meets monthly with
Reclamation staff at the Mid-Pacific Region to discuss project needs
and review status. Each agency pursues reimbursable agreements with
Reclamation to further engage staff for guidance on feasibility study
development and in-depth environmental review. To date, seven projects
authorized in 2008, and two of the nine Bay Area projects seeking
authorization have secured feasibility determinations and the remaining
feasibility determinations are in process and will be completed prior
to the construction phase. It is incumbent on each agency to respond
quickly to Reclamation requests to help avoid delays and potential loss
of momentum. The regular monthly meetings with Reclamation staff have
helped to minimize delays.
A feasibility determination is not required prior to project
authorization. Congressional authorizations for Title XVI projects give
Reclamation the official authority ``to participate in the design,
planning, and construction of facilities to reclaim and reuse water''.
It is during the planning process that project sponsors work with
Reclamation to secure a feasibility determination, as well as complete
NEPA. The Bay Area projects in S. 1138 and H.R. 2442 have been working
with Reclamation on project planning, and are seeking authorization to
further solidify the partnership with Reclamation and complete the
Title XVI requirements (i.e., including environmental compliance and
financial capability) Federal funds will not be approved for the
construction phase of the projects until feasibility determinations and
environmental reviews are complete.
Additionally, it is very strategic to move the authorization
process in parallel with the feasibility determination project in order
to realize project benefits quicker. For example, of the seven BARWC
projects that were authorized in May, 2008 (P.L. 110-229), only three
had received feasibility determinations prior to authorization. By not
requiring feasibility determinations prior to authorization, all seven
projects have successfully secured all approvals and moved to
construction. In fact, three of those projects have now completed
construction, two are under construction, and two will begin
construction this year. Had all the projects been required to obtain
feasibility before authorization, the projects would still be on the
shelf instead of progressing to construction to provide the delivery of
an estimated 8,700 acre-feet per year (AFY) and the associated benefits
much needed in California. Because the previous projects had been
authorized in a timely manner, several qualified as ``shovel ready''
and were therefore eligible to pursue and secure American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. Those projects are providing the jobs
intended by the ARRA.
Requiring that all projects in S. 1138 secure feasibility
determinations prior to authorization will at a minimum stall the
projects for two years or more. In some cases, such a delay could put
at risk hard-fought financing that is now available but could be put at
jeopardy by significant delays. Moving forward with the requested
authorization would authorize nine new projects that could proceed to
construction within the next two years, helping to support over
9,750\1\ jobs, and producing 35,000 AFY of new water that will provide
direct benefits to the Bay-Delta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on 2007 FHWA estimate that $1 billion in Federal funds
supports 27,800 jobs, using total project costs of $352 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR 637: The City of San Juan Capistrano will be working with the
Bureau of Reclamation to begin the feasibility study for the City's
recycled water project. The study will provide an outline on the City's
existing water supply that would be supplemented with recycled water
for non potable use. In addition, the study will analyze the main
project components, provide a detailed overview of the project purpose
and need and examine all project alternatives. The feasibility study is
expected to take no longer than a year to complete.
Question 2. Please summarize the ongoing efforts in California to
implement the legislation adopted in late 2009 to address water supply
reliability and restore the Sacramento/San Joaquin/Bay-Delta ecosystem.
For example, ACWA is co-sponsoring a series of forums on the
legislation. Are other efforts ongoing to gain support for the
initiatives?
How will the state of California implement the goals described in
your testimony to develop a comprehensive water management program, if
the required $11.14 billion bond initiative is not approved by the
voters this fall?
Answer. The Legislature enacted a comprehensive water package in
November 2009 aimed at improving the state's water supply reliability
and restoring Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta ecosystem. The package
included four policy bills and an $11.14 billion general obligation
bond targeted for the November 2010 ballot. The legislative package
makes it the policy of California to achieve the ``Coequal goals. . .of
providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting,
restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem.''
To accomplish the coequal goals, the legislation calls for the
implementation of an aggressive, comprehensive water management program
that requires investment in three broad areas:
1) New infrastructure, including improved conveyance in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and new surface and groundwater
storage;
2) Habitat restoration and watershed improvements to help
restore natural functions in the ecological system; and
3) Local water resource development projects, including water
recycling, brackish and sea water desalination, water use
efficiency and other projects to increase local water supply
resources and thereby reduce demands for imported water.
Critical work is ahead in 2010 as the legislative package moves
into the implementation phase. State agencies have initiated several
implementation processes on a fast track toward decisions later in
2010.
ACWA is co-sponsoring a series of informational forums on the
comprehensive water package. The forums are aimed at educating local
elected officials, opinion leaders and the general public on key
elements of the legislative package.
key 2010 processes
Delta Governance
The package established a new governance structure for the Delta
and a framework for achieving the co-equal goals of providing a more
reliable water supply and restoring the Delta ecosystem.
The governor and the Legislature have announced appointments to the
Delta Stewardship Council, a major component of the new governance
structure created to manage the Delta. The council is tasked with
developing a Delta Plan to guide state and local actions in the Delta
in a manner that furthers the co-equal goals. The first meeting of the
council was held on April 1.
On May 14, the Governor announced the administration's appointments
to the California Water Commission, which will establish procedures to
allocate funds to competitive storage projects, and to the Delta
Conservancy, which will implement major environmental restoration
projects in the Delta. Changes in the governance of the Delta
Protection Commission, which has land use authority in the Delta and is
responsible for the development of a Delta economic sustainability
plan, were enacted earlier this year.
Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
The legislative package requires local agencies to monitor and
report on the elevation of groundwater basins to help better manage the
resource during both normal water years and drought conditions.
ACWA is working closely with member agencies and the Department of
Water Resources to develop a strategy / action plan (using to the
fullest extent possible existing local programs) for meeting the
requirements of the legislation and to satisfy the needs of all
parties.
Conservation
The 2009 legislative package established a statewide water
conservation program that requires a 20% reduction in urban per-capita
water use by 2020. It also requires development of agricultural water
management plans by Dec. 31, 2012.
The legislation identifies multiple pathways for compliance with
the urban conservation requirements, including an incentive-based
Option 4 to be developed by the Department of Water Resources by Dec.
31, 2010.
ACWA is working with member agencies and the DWR to define the best
way to develop and implement Option 4.
Statewide Flow Criteria
The legislative package requires the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) to develop new flow criteria for the Delta ecosystem to
protect public trust resources. The California State Water Resources
Control Board began a series of hearings on March 22 to develop the new
flow criteria.
Informational Forums
ACWA is co-sponsoring a series of informational forums on the
comprehensive water package. The forums are aimed at educating local
elected officials, opinion leaders and the general public on key
elements of the legislative package. Presenters include water experts,
state and local leaders and others involved in developing and
implementing the package. Forum hosts include the California Latino
Water Coalition, ACWA and the State of California. Local sponsors also
are providing support.
The Water Bond Campaign
As public agencies, ACWA's members cannot directly engage in the
campaign to pass the water bond. Campaign organizations are being
developed for both the passage and defeat of the water bond. For more
information on these efforts, contact Water for California, which has
been organized to pass the bond.
State Strategies if Bond Fails
The policy bills passed by the legislature in November are now in
effect and will remain so regardless of a decision on the water bond by
voters in November 2010. Consequently, if the bond should fail, the
statutory commitment remains for a comprehensive water policy of
coequal goals, local resource development, infrastructure investments,
and habitat enhancement. The bond would appropriately provide public
funding for perhaps one-quarter of the total investment of the package
with the remainder coming predominantly from water users through their
water agencies. While ACWA believes that the prospects for passage of
the water bond are good, if the bond fails it will be necessary to
develop alternative means of providing the public cost share for
implementation of the package.
Responses to Questions From Senator Brownback
Question 1. In addition to $5 million for a specific reach of the
Regional Brine Line, how much ARRA funding has California received to
help finance Title XVI projects?
Answer. Including the $5 million dollars for the Regional Brineline
for the Calleguas Municipal Water District, the state of California was
appropriated approximately $132 million in ARRA funding for Title XVI
projects.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Bureau of Reclamation--Title XVI Projects''. Department of
Interior, January 13, 2010. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the past year, the Bay Area Recycle Water Coalition has
secured approximately $35 million in Title XVI funds through fiscal
year and ARRA appropriations (only authorized projects were eligible
for Title XVI ARRA funding). That funding has allowed seven new
projects to move into construction (i.e. three projects have now
completed construction, two are in construction and two more are
scheduled to begin construction this year). Those projects will produce
over 8,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of new water that will provide
direct water supply relief benefits to the Bay-Delta. The Bay Area is
proposing to build on that success and authorize nine new projects that
have the potential to add an additional 35,000 AFY of new water, which
is the equivalent of the water supply needed for 105,000 homes. If the
Title XVI funds are not available to move the program forward, the
local match money will likely be shifted to other priorities. If
authorized now, the nine new projects could proceed to construction
within the next two years, supporting over 9,750 jobs, and producing
35,000 AFY of new water that will provide direct benefits to the Bay-
Delta.
Question 2. Regarding S. 1138, why has the Bureau of Reclamation
only certified the feasibility of one of the six proposed projects?
Have you been given any indication of when the additional feasibility
studies will be complete?
Answer. The 14 agency Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition projects
have a solid track record of complying with all statutory requirements
for Title XVI projects. The Coalition meets monthly with Reclamation
staff at the Mid-Pacific Region to discuss project needs and review
status. Each agency pursues reimbursable agreements with Reclamation to
further engage staff for guidance on feasibility study development and
in-depth environmental review. To date, seven projects authorized in
2008, and two of the nine Bay Area projects seeking authorization have
secured feasibility determinations and the remaining feasibility
determinations are in process and will be completed prior to the
construction phase. It is incumbent on each agency to respond quickly
to Reclamation requests to help avoid delays and potential loss of
momentum. The regular monthly meetings with Reclamation staff have
helped to minimize delays.
A feasibility determination is not required prior to project
authorization. Congressional authorizations for Title XVI projects give
Reclamation the official authority ``to participate in the design,
planning, and construction of facilities to reclaim and reuse water''.
It is during the planning process that project sponsors work with
Reclamation to secure a feasibility determination, as well as complete
NEPA. The Bay Area projects in S. 1138 and H.R. 2442 have been working
with Reclamation on project planning, and are seeking authorization to
further solidify the partnership with Reclamation and complete the
Title XVI requirements (i.e., including environmental compliance and
financial capability) Federal funds will not be approved for the
construction phase of the projects until feasibility determinations and
environmental reviews are complete.
Additionally, it is very strategic to move the authorization
process in parallel with the feasibility determination project in order
to realize project benefits quicker. For example, of the seven BARWC
projects that were authorized in May, 2008 (P.L. 110-229), only three
had received feasibility determinations prior to authorization. By not
requiring feasibility determinations prior to authorization, all seven
projects have successfully secured all approvals and moved to
construction. In fact, three of those projects have now completed
construction, two are under construction, and two will begin
construction this year. Had all the projects been required to obtain
feasibility before authorization, the projects would still be on the
shelf instead of progressing to construction to provide the delivery of
an estimated 8,700 acre-feet per year (AFY) and the associated benefits
much needed in California. Because the previous projects had been
authorized in a timely manner, several qualified as ``shovel ready''
and were therefore eligible to pursue and secure American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. Those projects are providing the jobs
intended by the ARRA.
Requiring that all projects in S. 1138 secure feasibility
determinations prior to authorization will at a minimum stall the
projects for two years or more. In some cases, such a delay could put
at risk hard-fought financing that is now available but could be put at
jeopardy by significant delays. Moving forward with the requested
authorization would authorize nine new projects that could proceed to
construction within the next two years, helping to support over
9,750\3\ jobs, and producing 35,000 AFY of new water that will provide
direct benefits to the Bay-Delta.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Based on 2007 FHWA estimate that $1 billion in Federal funds
supports 27,800 jobs, using total project costs of $352 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. In addition to authorizing the Secretary of the
Interior to participate in these water recycling projects, S. 1138
would increase the federal funding authorization for two previously
authorized projects in your state. What are the reasons for the
increase in funding, and why should these projects receive additional
funding above the 25% federal contribution limit set forth in the
Reclamation Wastewater Act.
Answer. These two projects within S. 1138 that are requesting an
increase in authorization are not seeking funding above the 25% federal
contribution limit. Rather, the initial cost estimates for the entire
projects have changed since the authorization, and the projects are
seeking an increase to cover 25% of the revised project cost. The 25%
Federal share reimbursement is still the limit and would not be
exceeded for these or any BARWC projects.
In Public law 110-229, $8.25M is authorized for the South Bay
Advanced Treatment Project. This was based on a 6 million-gallon per
day (MGD) microfiltration and reverse osmosis advanced treatment
facility, with UV disinfection. The projected cost for this facility
was $33M, and the 25% Federal share for such a facility was $8.25M.
This project is being developed in cooperation with the City of San
Jose. Since 2008, as the design was being finalized, both project
proponents concurred that they would secure greater benefits should the
facility be upsized, and built as a 10 MGD microfiltration facility
with 8 MGD reverse osmosis and with 10 MGD ultra-violet disinfection.
This is the project, now ready to be built in late Summer, and
estimated at $53M. Seeking a Federal share of 25% of this $53M would be
$13.25M. With the previous authorization of $8.25M, now an additional
$5M is sought to help bridge the local funds and make this project a
reality. Both project proponents recently executed a 40-year agreement
to expand recycled water. This advanced recycled water treatment
facility is a critical piece in their recycled water expansion
strategies.
The Antioch Recycled Water Project, authorized in Public law 110-
229, began the planning process in 2005, completing a facilities plan
in 2007 and obtaining Feasibility Determination from Reclamation on
December 28, 2007. The authorization amount requested at that time
reflected the estimated costs based on the approved facilities plan.
This plan identified the direct reuse of an existing pipeline, which in
a subsequent design phase was determined to need restoration and
relining since the existing line turned out to be in worse condition
than was originally assumed. This along with a few other minor design
changes caused an increase in costs and the need to seek a higher
authorization amount to recover the 25% Federal share for project
planning, design and construction from $2,250,000 to $3,125,000.
Question 4. In lieu of authorizing a larger federal share,
approximately, how much of a dollar increase in water rates for
Californians would it take to pay for the projects authorized under the
legislation being considered today?
Answer. The requested increase in authorization for the two Bay
Area projects is not a request to increase the federal share higher
than the 25% allowed for in the Title XVI program (see answer to
question 3). The cost to convert an existing potable water supply to a
sustainable recycled water supply can cost as much as three to four
times the existing water rates paid by local residential and commercial
water users (e.g. $500 per acre-foot to $1500 per acre-foot). The 25%
Federal funding assistance planned and pursued by these projects is
critical for them to move forward.
For example, the Antioch Recycled Water Distribution Project has
half of the capital costs of the project funded through Federal and
State grants, and the other half is financed through a loan to be
repaid by the City of Antioch. Without the financial assistance, it
would take 44 years for the recycled water costs to break even with
current potable water costs; with this assistance, the breakeven point
is realized within one year.
In these difficult economic times, the City of Antioch is not
unique as many public agencies continue to be challenged with
decreasing revenue and increasing expenditures. Without the Federal
partnership, the City simply could not afford the cost to convert its
water supply to recycled water. Thus, this modest Federal investment
plays a significant role in promoting recycled water development and
will provide benefits for years to come. Once the system is changed
from a fresh water system (in this case supplied directly from the Bay-
Delta) to a recycled water system and the capital is paid off, it is
very unlikely that the water supply will ever change back to a fresh
water system; i.e. it becomes a sustainable fresh water alternative.
Question 5. How much of an increase in water rates will California
implement to help pay for these projects?
Answer. Water rates in California will increase dramatically over
time because of many factors, including increasing environmental
regulations, climate change and additional requirements to produce
cleaner water for human consumption. One strategy that California is
taking to address its water supply needs is to invest in recycled water
development. By treating and reusing water that has already been
diverted from a waterway and used once, less fresh water will need to
be diverted from the Bay-Delta and Colorado River systems. However, the
cost to convert an existing potable water supply to a sustainable
recycled water supply can cost as much as three to four times the
existing water rates paid by local residential and commercial water
users (e.g. $500 per acre-foot to $1500 per acre-foot). The 25% Federal
funding assistance planned and pursued by these projects through the
Title XVI program is critical for them to move forward. The remaining
75% funding comes either from some combination of local and state
funding sources. By securing the federal and state partnerships, local
project sponsors are able to reduce the cost increases to construct a
recycled water facility to its customers from a doubling of rates to a
more modest increase of 10-25% increase. The bottom line is that
developing recycle water facilities provides benefits at the local
state and federal levels. When the investment costs can be shared
amongst the beneficiaries, projects will move forward. Without that
partnership, projects have historically stalled.
Question 6. Please describe what quality of water these recycling
projects develop. For what purposes is this water used?
Answer. In California, recycled water must meet Department of
Health Services standards in Title 22, which specifies quality and
suitable uses including irrigation, cooling water, and other industrial
and commercial purposes. BARWC projects benefit California and the
Federal Government through the preservation of State and Federal
reservoir supplies for higher uses. Every gallon of recycled water that
goes towards these uses is a gallon of water that doesn't need to be
withdrawn from the Bay-Delta.
These projects provide regional and local benefits which include
preservation of declining water supplies from the Sierra and Delta for
higher uses; drought-proof assistance for the region; a sustainable and
reliable source of water as climate change occurs; environmental
enhancement opportunities; and reduction in wastewater discharges to
the sensitive Bay-Delta environment.
______
Responses of Kira Finkler to Questions From Senator Stabenow
Question 1. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in March 2010 issued
draft criteria to be used in allocating funding to authorized Title XVI
projects. Several of the criteria are identical or similar to criteria
included in ``Guidelines for Preparing, Reviewing, and Processing Water
Reclamation and Reuse Project Proposals under Title XVI of Public Law
102-575, as Amended'' (Guidelines).
How will implementation of the proposed funding criteria
differ from evaluation under the earlier ``Guidelines''
document?
Answer. The Guidelines for Preparing, Reviewing, and Processing
Water Reclamation and Reuse Project Proposals under Title XVI of Public
Law 102-575 (Guidelines) is a Reclamation handbook created in 1998. The
Guidelines were meant to aid project sponsors and Reclamation staff in
evaluating the completeness of a Title XVI project feasibility study,
which is a pre-requisite for any Federal funding for project
construction. In 2007, new Reclamation Manual Directives & Standards
(WTR 11-01, Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Feasibility
Study Review Process) were developed to describe in detail the
requirements for a Title XVI feasibility study.
The draft criteria published in March 2010, on the other hand, are
a set of ranking criteria intended for use in making funding allocation
decisions among eligible projects in Fiscal Year 2011 and beyond. Each
project seeking Federal funding will be assessed against criteria so
that projects can be ranked for funding. While the draft criteria award
points in some categories included in the Guidelines document, the
draft criteria also address areas such as the water-energy nexus and
use of renewable energy as well as the extent to which a project
employs a watershed perspective.
Question 2. The draft funding criteria are described as ``part of
Reclamation's effort to prioritize projects for funding.''
What are the priorities or objectives that the
Administration is trying to achieve through implementation of
the Title XVI program?
Answer. The Department implements the Title XVI Program with the
objective to promote sustainable water management and water
conservation in the 17 Western states. The Title XVI Program is part of
the Department's efforts through WaterSMART to secure and stretch water
supplies for use by existing and future generations.
What are the metrics of success for the Title XVI program?
How do the metrics for the draft funding criteria compare to
these metrics?
Answer. The Department is developing a set of internal measures and
milestones to monitor and track achievement of High Priority
Performance Goals such as Water Conservation, of which Title XVI is a
critical part. Progress in these areas will be reported and reviewed
throughout the year by the Deputy Secretary's Operations Planning Group
to identify and address any need for enhanced coordination or policy
measures to address barriers to achievement of the Water Conservation
High Priority Performance Goal. The draft criteria are intended to
identify projects that most effectively contribute to that goal and
other program objectives.
Once each project has received a score, how will Reclamation
distribute available funds across the projects? Will it rank
funding for all projects based on scores and allocate funds
based on the rankings, or will a limited number of the top
ranking projects be identified for funding, or will some other
process be used?
Answer. The answer to this question will depend on the number of
applicants, and final appropriations available for Title XVI projects.
Stakeholder comments on the ranking criteria, received through April
16, 2010, are still being incorporated. Once criteria have been
finalized, Reclamation will develop a funding opportunity announcement
for FY 2011 that will inform applicants of details such as project
funding limitations and will also provide an overview of the review and
selection process.
Question 3. Criterion 2b of the draft funding criteria awards
``points'' to a project or phase that is ``ready to proceed.''
Why is criterion 2b not an eligibility requirement?
Answer. Criterion 2b is intended to assess an applicant's progress
in meeting pre-requisites without excluding applicants that have not
yet met all requirements at the time of application. For example, final
environmental compliance typically involves work between the project
sponsor and Reclamation once Federal funding has been identified. The
criterion will assess the applicant's progress toward environmental
compliance and other requirements. In addition, both construction and
pre-construction activities (such as feasibility study development,
financial capability preparation, and environmental compliance) will be
eligible to receive funds under the draft criteria
Could a project or phase receive funding if it meets other
points requirements but is not ``ready to proceed?''
Answer. Yes, such a project would require high scores on other
draft criteria sections. Readiness to proceed is one of seven different
scoring sections in the draft criteria, and represents 30 out of 175
points, or 17 percent of the total draft scoring pool.
Question 4. Criterion 1 e notes that performance measures ``will be
considered'' but does not provide additional information on what is
expected or required under this subsection.
Please elaborate on how points associated with ``performance
measures'' under criterion 1 e will be awarded. For instance,
will measurable performance goals receive additional points?
Will performance measures be compared across projects?
Answer. The funding opportunity announcement for FY 2011 funding
will provide details for applicants, including suggested performance
measures that each project sponsor can use to assess results once the
project phase has been completed. The intent of this criterion is to
assess the applicant's plans for measuring such benefits as water
yield; energy efficiency; use of renewable energy; water quality
improvement; habitat created; progress toward meeting minimum flow
requirements in rivers or streams; service to rural or economically
disadvantaged communities; progress toward meeting Indian water rights;
river restoration or court orders binding upon the project sponsor or
the Department, or other considerations.
Question 5. Criterion 4a asks about quantified expected benefits
for renewable energy components, but does not ask for a comparison of
these benefits with the expected costs to incorporate a renewable
component.
Why are costs not considered under this criterion?
Answer. Reclamation is considering revisions to these draft
criteria based on comments received and will consider assessing the
costs associated with renewable energy as well as the energy efficiency
of each project.
Has the Administration considered using a metric for
comparing the energy-environment footprint of the projects
(e.g., fossil fuel energy use per unit of reused water)?
Answer. The emphasis in the draft criteria on renewable energy
seeks to incentivize a reduction in the energy-environment footprint of
Title XVI projects. However, the Department is not equipped to analyze
the relative energy use per unit of reused water across all Title XVI
projects. Among the complicating factors for this analysis would be the
widely variable sources of the waste streams that are used by Title XVI
projects, and the variety of energy sources that are used by the local
municipalities who operate water recycling facilities.
Question 6. The economics criteria under 5b is cost per acre-foot
of water created or Annualized Life Cycle Cost per average annual
volume of water created. However, the costs of the full suite of water
conservation and supply augmentation alternatives is location specific.
In other words, reused water at $300 per acre-foot may or may not be
the least cost alternative available in a specific location.
Who is expected to complete the economic analysis described
in the draft funding criteria, Reclamation or the project
sponsor?
Answer. Once criteria have been finalized, the funding opportunity
announcement for FY 2011 funding will explain in detail the information
necessary from each project sponsor. Each project sponsor will be asked
to describe project benefits, with review of the data and analysis by
Reclamation.
Has Reclamation already collected data on the per acre-foot
cost or Annualized Life Cycle Cost($) per average annual volume
of water that will be created for completed or already
authorized Title XVI projects? If so, please provide the
Committee with information on the range of Title XVI water
costs per acre-foot or the Annualized Life Cycle Cost per
average annual volume of water created.
Answer. Reclamation compiles estimates of the number of acre-foot
of water made available by each project using information provided by
the project sponsors who own and operate the actual facilities, along
with total Federal funding provided for each project to date.
Reclamation's most current compilation of this information is attached.
Note that many projects, including those funded under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, have received Federal funding for
construction that is currently underway and that will lead to
additional acre-feet of water once complete.
How does this economic evaluation differ from, improve upon,
or duplicate requirements for an economic analysis contained in
the D&S?
Answer. Reclamation Directives and Standards (WTR 11-01) require an
analysis of the proposed project relative to other water supply
alternatives as part of a complete feasibility report and describe in
detail the information required from each project sponsor. Required
information includes the conditions that exist in the area;
contributions that the plan could make toward alleviation of economic
problems and the meeting of future demand; and a cost comparison of
alternatives that would satisfy the same demand as the proposed Title
XVI project. The economic evaluation as part of draft funding criteria
is intended to provide a basis for comparison among projects seeking
funding. Reclamation is considering revisions to these draft criteria
based on comments received and will consider including the cost of
water supply alternatives (i.e., the location specific conditions
referenced above) as part of the assessment.
Responses of Kira Finkler to Questions From Senator Brownback
Question 1. What are the average current water rates per capita for
residents of California? How do these rates compare to average water
rates for Kansans?
Answer. Reclamation does not track this information for any states.
However, we are aware that water rates per capita vary considerably
within most Western states due to a variety of factors.
Question 2. In lieu of authorizing a larger federal share,
approximately, how much of a dollar increase in water rates for
Californians would it take to pay for the projects authorized under the
legislation being considered today?
Answer. The total amount of additional Federal funding that would
be authorized by the three California-specific Title XVI bills under
consideration by the Subcommittee at this hearing is $101.6 million.
Reclamation does not collect the information necessary to track all of
the financing options available to Title XVI project sponsors, which
likely vary from project to project and would have to be considered in
determining any rate increase. Moreover, given the variables related to
any rate increase in individual districts or systems, Reclamation does
not have the information that would be needed to make this calculation.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Londres Uso, Mayor, City of San Juan Capistrano, on H.R.
637
Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, The City of San
Juan Capistrano appreciates this opportunity to present testimony on
the California water bill that is part of today's agenda and comment on
its important role in helping South Orange County, California address
its ongoing water crisis, the worst in our state's history. My name is
Dr. Londres Uso and I am the Mayor of San Juan Capistrano, CA, a city
of 37,000 residents, nestled in a dense residential region of southern
California.
San Juan Capistrano readily supports H.R.637, the South Orange
County Recycled Water Enhancement Act, which supports the Moulton
Niguel and Santa Margarita Water Districts in their collaborative
effort to improve water recycling, water storage, and water treatment
in South Orange County. Their plans include constructing water
facilities and 25,000 line feet of pipes to store and deliver recycled
water throughout San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente. These projects
will help reduce the amount of reusable water that is discharged to the
ocean, create new sources of water and relieve the heavy water demand
that this region places on the California Aqueduct and Colorado River
Basin. The new water supply for the City of San Juan Capistrano will be
1,500 acre-feet of recycled water annually--an average 16% of San Juan
Capistrano's total annual water demand.
Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
City of San Juan Capistrano, I want to commend you for convening this
hearing at such a critical period in California's water supply history.
Recent drought conditions and increased regulations under the
Endangered Species Act have made water supply the main topic in most
California cities, especially in the area of south Orange County. With
its increasing population and increasing water consumption, south
Orange County needs water management systems that will help it provide
and transport new sources of water. This bill authorizes federal
funding of up to 25% of the costs of these water management projects to
help this region meet its water needs.
conclusion
Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you again
for the opportunity to present testimony today. In summary: The City of
San Juan Capistrano is pleased to support the California bill H. R.
637, which is before you today, in order to improve water recycling,
water storage, and water treatment in South Orange County. This
completes my statement.
______
Statement of Donald R. Kendall, General Manager, Calleguas Municipal
Water District, on H.R. 2522
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony on H.R. 2522, which would raise the
ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the Calleguas Municipal
Water District Recycling Project.
My name is Donald Kendall and I am the General Manager for
Calleguas Municipal Water District, which provides water to about 75
percent of the population of Ventura County, or 650,000 people, about
50 miles northwest of Los Angeles, California.
Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas) is a public agency
created in 1953 to provide southeastern Ventura County with a reliable
supply of high quality supplemental water. The District serves an area
of approximately 350 square miles that includes the cities of
Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Thousand Oaks, and Simi
Valley, as well as surrounding unincorporated areas. Calleguas' service
area faces serious water supply and water quality challenges.
Calleguas' imported water supply is dwindling. Calleguas imports
about 120,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the State Water Project
(SWP), a system of reservoirs, aqueducts, and pumping facilities that
conveys water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta in northern
California to southern California. The ability of the SWP to convey
reliable water supplies has been hampered by an on-going drought and
regulatory decisions which have mandated that significantly more water
remain in the Bay-Delta for habitat needs. Climate change is expected
to further reduce available supplies as precipitation decreases and
less water is stored in snowpack. Calleguas needs to develop additional
water supplies if it is to reliably sustain its existing residents,
businesses, and agriculture. Water conservation alone cannot provide
sufficient savings to avert potential future water supply shortages.
The quality of the region's local water supplies is deteriorating.
Calleguas' service area generally overlies the Calleguas Creek
Watershed. Calleguas Creek and many of its tributaries are listed as
``impaired'' for salinity under the Clean Water Act. The Calleguas
service area has experienced increasing salinity levels since its water
supplies were first put to use by farmers in the 1880s. Contributing
factors include naturally occurring minerals, agricultural runoff, and
lack of surplus water to flush salts from the environment. Salinity
levels have increased with each cycle of urban use for municipal and
industrial purposes. Groundwater over-draft along the coastline has led
to seawater intrusion into coastal groundwater basins, impairing the
quality of freshwater aquifers. Much of the local groundwater is too
saline for use as drinking water and is harmful to the County's billion
dollar a year agricultural industry, primarily for sensitive crops like
berries and avocados. High salinity levels in soils and surface water
can also be detrimental to sensitive habitat. Without a means of
removing salt, the area will continue to experience long-term increases
in salinity levels as the salts are cycled and concentrated.
Solutions to these supply and quality problems are being
implemented through a collaborative process. Beginning in 1996, a broad
coalition of local property owners, water and wastewater agencies,
environmental groups, agricultural parties, governmental entities, and
other private interests joined together to develop the Calleguas Creek
Watershed Management Plan, which is centered around implementation of
the Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project (Project).
The Project will improve water supply reliability and reduce
dependence on imported water supplies by making it possible to put
local brackish water supplies to beneficial use. The only way to remove
salinity from water is through a membrane treatment process, such as
reverse osmosis, which produces a highly saline waste concentrate which
must then be managed and disposed. If the concentrate were to be
discharged to wastewater or creeks, it would perpetuate the cycle of
salt build up.
The Project is a regional pipeline that will collect salty water
generated by groundwater desalting facilities and excess recycled water
and convey that water for reuse elsewhere. Any surplus supplies will be
safely discharged to the ocean, where natural salt levels are much
higher. The Project is being built incrementally in phases, as shown on
the attached map.* Phase 1 is largely complete, with one pipeline
section and an ocean outfall currently under construction. Once
complete, the cost for Phase 1 will cause Calleguas to reach the $20
million cap in their federal authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Map has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the local wastewater is treated to a high level of
bacteriological quality but is too saline for discharge to local
creeks. The Project will either provide a means for that wastewater to
be demineralized for use as a high quality irrigation supply or a means
of conveying that wastewater to potential users near the coast which
can tolerate saline water. Potential uses include wetlands restoration,
irrigation of salt-tolerant crops (such as sod), and coastal game
preserves.
The use of this non-potable water source will help reduce
groundwater pumping and imported water use. The Project will also
export salts out of the watershed to help achieve compliance with
regulatory requirements for salts in local groundwater and surface
water resources. Additionally, the Project will facilitate the
development of new, local water supplies through treatment of brackish
groundwater.
The Project is vital to the region's water reliability as imported
supplies become increasingly vulnerable to drought, climate change,
catastrophic levee failures from flood and/or seismic events, and
regulatory shutdowns of pumping facilities for habitat protection.
The Project will improve surface water and ground water quality by
moving salts out of the watershed. Salt will be removed from
groundwater and the concentrate from the treatment process sent to the
Project. Tertiary treated wastewater which is too saline for discharge
to local streams will be sent to the Project during wet periods when it
is not needed for irrigation. Ventura County has abundant sources of
groundwater, but much of the water is too high in salts for municipal
and agricultural use. By treating groundwater to remove salts and
moving those salts away from surface waters and groundwater, water
agencies in Ventura County solve a water quality problem, while
improving local water supply reliability.
In addition to its water supply and water quality benefits, the
Project will also benefit the environment by improving the quality of
flows in local creeks, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by using less
energy-intensive local water resources instead of imported sources
which require substantial pumping, and reducing dependence on imported
water from the sensitive Bay-Delta ecosystem in Northern California.
Phase 1 of the project was authorized by P.L. 104-266, Section 2,
and will be completed at an estimated cost of $83.576 million (maximum
Federal share of $20 million). Phase 1 includes 48 inch diameter pipe
extending nine miles through the cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme and
unincorporated areas of Ventura County, and also includes a 30 inch
diameter ocean outfall extending 4,500 feet into the ocean. Phase 1
will facilitate the reclamation and reuse of about 15,000 acre-feet per
year of water.
H.R. 2522 will authorize Bureau of Reclamation support for Phases 2
and 3 of the Project, which will extend the 18-inch through 30-inch
diameter pipe an additional twenty-six miles through the cities of Simi
Valley, Moorpark, and Camarillo, and unincorporated areas of Ventura
County. Completion of Phases 2 and 3 of the Project will facilitate the
reclamation and reuse of about 43,000 acre-feet per year of water.
Federal support for these phases of the project through the Bureau
would be limited to the lesser of $40 million or 25 percent of the
construction costs.
The Project is the only truly reliable, environmentally-sensitive,
and cost-effective solution to the water supply and water quality
issues in the Calleguas service area. Implementation of the Project
will facilitate recycled water use, reduce the demand on imported
water, remove existing salts, reduce salinity loadings, facilitate
restoration of coastal wetlands, help sustain important agricultural
operations in Ventura County, and provide overall benefits to Ventura
County and the State of California.
Calleguas Municipal Water District takes its role as water supply
manager for the County very seriously. Calleguas, local cities and
retail water agencies, and the local community, are all looking for
water supply and water supply reliability solutions. Local brackish
groundwater and recycled municipal wastewater are good solutions. HR
2522 can be the tool that enables us to achieve this water supply and
we very strongly urge your support for this legislation.
Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee
for your consideration of H.R. 2522.
______
Statement of Gary W. Darling, General Manager, Delta Diablo Sanitation
District, Antioch, CA, on behalf of the Bay Area Recycled Water
Coalition, on S. 1138
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to provide this statement for the record on behalf of the
Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition (BARWC), a partnership of fourteen
San Francisco Bay Area regional water recycling agencies, in strong
support of S. 1138, the ``Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program
Expansion Act of 2009.'' BARWC is committed to pursuing highly
leveraged, locally-managed projects that will help ensure the security
of water supplies in the Bay-Delta for years to come.
The Coalition respectfully seeks the Subcommittee's support for S.
1138, which builds on the success of the last Congress, enabling us to
build six new projects and to fully fund two more. These six new
projects will produce over 8,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of
sustainable water supply. They will reduce wastewater discharges to
aquatic environments, and reduce the demand for limited fresh water
from our fragile Bay-Delta system.
Additionally, we are requesting that the bill be amended to include
three new BARWC projects, which will yield an additional 27,000 AFY.
With funding assistance, these projects can approach construction
within 24 months. When added to the current projects in S. 1138, the
near-term yield is over 35,000 AFY of water, which is enough water to
meet the needs of approximately 105,000 homes. We also request that the
bill be amended to include the same language inserted in H.R.2442, the
House companion bill, at the request of the Congressional Budget
Office, to clarify that funding in the bill is subject to
appropriations.
New projects included in the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling
Program Expansion Act of 2009 include the Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District-Concord Recycled Water Project; the Central Dublin Recycled
Water Distribution and Retrofit Project; the Petaluma Recycled Water
Project; the Central Redwood City Recycled Water Project; the Palo Alto
Recycled Water Pipeline Project; and the Ironhouse Sanitary District
Recycled Water Project. The three new projects seeking to be included
in this bill by amendment include the Hayward Recycled Water Project,
Mid-Coastside Region Water Recycling Project, and the Bay Area Water
Supply Replacement and Reliability Project. Constructing these projects
will enable more cities across the Bay Area to install new advanced
water treatment facilities, pump stations, piping, treatment and
storage tanks. This will directly result in reduced demand from Bay
Area communities on scarce fresh water from the Bay-Delta.
Pursuing a Title XVI Federal-Local partnership is a significant
investment of time and money for the local project sponsor. The sponsor
has committed to securing a 75% non-federal share, and completing Title
XVI requirements which include feasibility determination, NEPA
compliance, and financial capability. Additionally, these projects must
still obtain congressional authorization and appropriation for the
Federal 25% share. These requirements ensure that there is little risk
for the Federal Government, and significant return on their investment.
The nine new BARWC projects mentioned above are invested in this
process. Two have currently secured their feasibility determinations
from Reclamation, two have submitted information and five are
generating the information.
Reclamation allows a six month review period of a feasibility study
prior to making a determination. The project sponsor spends several
months or more before this submittal developing and gathering the study
materials, and additional time to address Reclamation review comments.
Therefore, the timeline for a project to complete feasibility seems to
be taking a minimum of a year. Obtaining authorization has typically
been a two-year process. These processes should run in parallel, not
series, so that ready-to-go water projects are not unnecessarily
delayed an additional two to three years.
Madam Chairwoman, in the hearing, Deputy Director Finkler stated
that Reclamation could not support S. 1138 because it had not certified
any of the six new projects in the bill as having completed feasibility
studies. This statement is inaccurate and also appears to demonstrate
what seems to be a classic catch-22 wherein Reclamation will not
support projects that are not authorized, and at the same time they
will not support new authorizations. We want to set the record straight
on the issue of feasibility determination and authorization. Title XVI
does not require a project to obtain feasibility certification prior to
obtaining authorization. Rather, a project must be authorized, secure a
feasibility determination, complete NEPA compliance, and satisfy
financial capability before it can receive appropriations for
construction. Congressional authorizations for Title XVI projects give
Reclamation the official authority ``to participate in the design,
planning, and construction of facilities to reclaim and reuse water''.
It is during the planning process that project sponsors work with
Reclamation to secure a feasibility determination, as well as complete
NEPA. Once that is complete, then the project sponsor and Reclamation
have the ability to pursue appropriations that can fund up to 25% of a
project cost with a cap per project of $20M.
Requiring feasibility determinations to be complete prior to
securing a congressional authorization was not required for past
authorizations of Bay Area recycled water projects. For example, of the
seven BARWC projects that were authorized in May, 2008 (P.L. 110-229),
three had received feasibility determinations and four had not. Three
of those projects have now completed construction, two are under
construction, and two will begin construction this year. Had they been
required to obtain feasibility before authorization, the three newest
projects would still be on the shelf instead of progressing to
construction this year to provide the delivery of an estimated 8,700
AFY and the associated benefits much needed in California. The
``feasibility'' argument Deputy Director Finkler put forth in the
hearing has never been made before. Had that position prevailed in the
past, most of the Title XVI bills that have become law would never have
been enacted.
California has serious water supply challenges. Increasing
population and agricultural demand, coupled with decreasing
precipitation and Sierra snowpack, make it imperative that we actively
seek conservation and water recycling programs to withstand the effects
of climate change and drought. Currently two-thirds of the San
Francisco Bay Area's water supply is imported. As our State's need for
water continues to grow, so too does our responsibility to secure long-
term sustainable water options. Water recycling and reuse enables us to
address these challenges.
Federal support enables us to stretch limited water supplies and
protect precious ecosystems to the benefit of citizens in a far broader
geography than simply the communities our agencies serve. Our
Coalition's objective of working together in collaboration, rather than
pursuing individual agency interests, is successfully producing water
reuse projects focused on creating long-term sustainability and
drought-tolerant water supplies. Projects have been undertaken by
Coalition members resulting in over 22,000 acre feet of recycled water
being supplied to Bay Area communities. There are many more
opportunities for us to be active leaders in addressing the growing
issues of water conservation and reuse; but we can't do it alone.
Federal funding and support is the strongest foundation we have to
guarantee the successful adoption and implementation of water reuse
technologies and practices, and is critical to moving these projects
forward. For example, the Antioch Recycled Water Distribution Project
(authorized in P.L. 110-229) is currently halfway through construction
and will supply the City of Antioch with almost 500 acre-feet of
recycled water replacing water presently supplied from the Central
Valley Project diverted from the Delta. Half of the capital costs of
the project are funded through Federal and State grants, and the other
half is financed through a loan. Without the financial assistance, it
would take 44 years for the recycled water costs to break even with
current potable water costs; with this assistance, the breakeven point
is realized within one year. In these difficult economic times, the
City of Antioch is not unique as many public agencies continue to be
challenged with decreasing revenue and increasing expenditures. Without
the Federal partnership, the City simply could not afford the cost to
convert its water supply to recycled water. Thus, this modest federal
investment plays a significant role in promoting recycled water
development and will provide benefits for years to come.
As Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar indicated during his visit
to the Delta last year, ``It is time to modernize, it is time to make
hard choices and it is time for the Federal government to reengage in
full partnership with the 21st century water system for the State of
California.'' Water recycling and reuse technology must be a large
component of this new system, and this should occur without further
delay. Authorizing these projects provides the Federal partnership
needed to move these projects forward.
These water projects help to answer President Obama's call to
ensure the safety of our environment and to rebuild our economic
vitality for future generations with investments now. When we protect
our resources, we protect our future.
I ask the Subcommittee to join with our Coalition once again and
support S. 1138, which will benefit millions of Californians and the
Bay-Delta ecosystem. These projects are mutually beneficial for the
Federal government and the local project sponsor. They offer the
Federal government an opportunity to leverage Federal funds for
significant benefit. These projects help achieve the objectives of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the Bay Delta Conservation
Plan, and the December, 2009 Interim Federal Action Plan for the
California Bay-Delta. Investing in the work being undertaken by our
Coalition will result in advanced technologies which protect the health
of our communities and environment, while providing long-term economic
benefits.
Your support for S. 1138 will build on an already progressive and
proven partnership between the Federal government and local communities
to expand the successful regional water recycling program across the
San Francisco Bay Area. Accordingly, the Coalition urges support for S.
1138. Thank you.
______
Statement of J. Tom Ray, PE, D.WRE, Water Resources Program Manager, on
behalf of the City of Waco, TX, on H.R. 1120
On behalf of the City of Waco, I appreciate the opportunity to
submit this written testimony in support of HR 1120, the Central Texas
Water Recycling Act of 2009. This Committee's continued interesting and
leadership with regard to the water reuse issue and in the Central
Texas Water Recycling Act of 2009 is deeply appreciated. I want to
express my sincere gratitude to Congressman Edwards for introducing
this legislation. Congressman Edwards has been very supportive of water
resources initiatives in Central Texas, and we certainly appreciate his
continued work on this legislation.
The City of Waco and the member cities of the regional wastewater
system known as the Waco Metropolitan Regional Sewerage System or
WMARSS, have moved forward on two critical components of this Act
contributing substantial local funding and complying fully with the
Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program requirements for an approved
Feasibility Study.
1. Title XVI Program Requirements Satisfied: The Feasibility
Report of the Flat Creek Reuse Project: Component of the
Central Texas Water Reuse and Resources Management Plan was
approved on October 13, 2009.
2. Substantial Local Funding Committed and Components
Constructed: A major component of the Reuse Project, the eight-
mile 20-inch reuse (purple pipe) pipeline has been designed,
found compliant with NEPA requirements, financed and
constructed. The local WMARSS cities have invested $2,915,300
in the construction of the reuse pipeline, which is now
complete. The local investment makes implementation of the
Reuse Project with federal support a strong reality. The total
project cost is estimated at $9,565,000--the WMARSS, local
sponsors, have invested to date just under $3,000,000. The
approved Feasibility Study project has a cost-share of
$4,987,743 local funding and $1,662,581 federal share. For the
total project, both the completed and approved Title XVI
proposed for construction, the WMARSS, local sponsor, will
contribute $7,900,000, reducing the federal investment to 17%
of the total project cost.
Significant process has been completed; HR 1120 represents the
federal partnership to move to final implementation and operation. The
federal contribution to this project will not only provide for
conservation of our community's water supply but will also reduce cost
to the taxpayers and provide benefits to the environment as treated
effluent is not dumped into river but is used to sustain habitat in our
parks and recreational areas.
Recycling of highly treated wastewater provides an additional
valuable resource for a large number of identified reuse applications,
including golf courses, landscape irrigation, industrial cooling water,
and other industrial applications. The initial projects eligible for
funding under this legislation could provide up to 10 million gallons
per day of reuse water; thereby, reducing the water demand on Lake
Waco. This is enough water supply to meet the needs of over 20,000
households.
Other keys to the Central Texas Recycling Program and specifically
the Flat Creek Reuse Project for the Committee's consideration:
Provides for recycling of treated effluent from the Waco
Metropolitan Area Regional Sewerage System (WMARSS)
Local sponsor (WMARSS) has invested approximately $3.0
million for the design and construction of 45,000 feet of 20-
inch reuse pipeline
Bureau of Reclamation approved the Flat Creek Water Reuse
Feasibility Study in October 2009
Reuse pipeline is under construction and nearing completion,
financed by the local cities
Waco/WMARSS Cities have invested approximately $3,000,000
and will invest another $5,000,000 of the future reuse
facilities (Title XVI federal share is $1,662,000 or 17% of the
total reuse project cost)
NEPA compliance has been addressed for the Flat Creek Reuse
pipeline and facilities
Strong support among potential reuse users located in the
Waco industrial district and elsewhere
Title XVI funding to support pumping and terminal facilities
needed for distribution
Plans developed to serve industrial, commercial and
municipal customers
Conserves the limited Central Texas water supply
Allows use of less expensive reuse supplies instead of
expensive treated supplies
Flat Creek system is Component #1 of the Central Texas Reuse
Program, a comprehensive plan to conserve the water resources
of Central Texas; the Components include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Description Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Flat Creek IntInterceptor and Reuse Line under
Pipeline and Appurtenances Construction; Source, termination and
delivery pending funding & design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2 WMARSS Central Plant Reuse to Under construction
Power Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 Bull Hide Regional Plant Reuse Potential Future Project
Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Description
The Flat Creek project originates at the WMARSS Wastewater
Treatment Plant (Central Plant) and will terminate about 6,000 feet
west of IH-35. Approximately eight miles of 20'' Class 165 C-905 purple
pipe. The system also includes a 1.5 million gallon ground storage tank
and pump station at the WMARSS Central Plant and potentially 6,700 feet
of 12'' reclaimed waterline to service the Cottonwood Creek Golf Course
and other potential users.
Project Cost
$2,915,315. . . . .20-inch Reuse Pipe (6,000 feet installed)
Completed and financed by local Waco/WMARSS Cities
$6,650,324. . . . .Future facilities at Central WWTP and
Termination
Local share $4,987,743
Federal share $1,662,581
background
Waco is the urban center of a rapidly growing McLennan County. Waco
and the surrounding cities of Bellmead, Hewitt, Lacy-Lakeview, Lorena,
Robinson, and Woodway have a long-history of cooperative and regional
efforts on water resources, including the joint ownership and operation
of the WMARSS. Waco and McLennan County are fortunate to have a vibrant
economic with growing population and excellent quality of life for
residents. However, with growing population there is an increasing
demand for water. Many of the surrounding communities rely on nearby
Lake Waco in the Bosque River basin as the primary water supply source.
Several cities also have groundwater sources from the Trinity Aquifer.
Electric power generation is another critical factor of the economy of
Central Texas and is an important component of the Central Texas Reuse
program.
The Waco and McLennan area is within the IH-35 corridor. Population
growth within this corridor continues to significantly outpace state-
wide growth rates. The regional water plan for central Texas states
that population growth in counties within the IH-35 corridor ``has been
rapid since 1970, averaging 3.9% annual.'' For this area, the future
water demand is about 51% of the central Texas region's total demand in
the year 2000, and it is expected to keep growing at a rapid rate.
Within McLennan County, all cities are expected to experience sustained
growth over the period from 2010 to 2060. Waco is expected to grow by
about 26% during this period from a 2010 population of 121,355 to a
2060 population of 152,715. Cities surrounding Waco will grow even more
rapidly: the City of Hewitt is expected to growth from a 2010
population of 11,085 to a 2060 population of 19,170 or a 51.3 percent
increase.
In addition to growth and industrial development, Central Texas
must respond to drought conditions and the seasonal demands that
drought imposes on our water supplies. With the recent heavy rains, the
memory of severe drought conditions be grow faint; but, in fact, we
know from experience that drought conditions will reoccur in Central
Texas and that recent droughts have actually been more severe than in
the past.
The water supply storage available from Lake Waco to Central Texans
is fixed; the groundwater supplies must be limited to wise use that
protects our underground aquifers. With growth and drought in Texas
driving the need for more water supply in the future, how we use our
limited, existing supplies is decisive. Every existing water resource
that has the potential to augment our water supplies must be conserved
and used efficiently. This is recognized on a statewide basis by the
Texas Water Conservation Association that has emphasized the value of
water reuse throughout the State. Recently adopted Statewide water
plans, under the direction of the Texas Water Development Board, have
identified water reuse as a critical component of future strategies to
meet water shortages in each of thel6 planning areas of the State. In
Central Texas, and particularly among the cities located in McLennan
County, reuse is a major component of our current plans. Reuse of
treated wastewater effluent is included in the current expansion of the
area's regional wastewater treatment system.
Cities in Central Texas have invested significant local funds in a
number of supply enhancement and water treatment projects in recent
years. These costly efforts include water quality protection programs
for our major surface water and groundwater resources, enlargement of
the conservation pool of Lake Waco, and investments in advanced water
treatment processes to meet and exceed federal and state standards as
well as to remove taste and odor. All of these investments are
substantial for the citizens of McLennan County and Central Texas. As a
result, the cities are actively pursuing the means to maximize those
investments and to conserve our valuable water resources. Water
recycling and reuse of reclaimed wastewater effluent is therefore a key
component of this effort. H.R. 1120 will help us to succeed in this
effort to replace the use of costly, treated water supplies for uses
such as irrigation, cooling water and other industrial uses.
Reuse supplies will help us cope with seasonable demands and peak
water use. With temperatures in Central Texas that typically reach over
100 degrees during the summer, we must respond to the seasonal effects
on water use and water demands. To help address the spikes in demand
due to seasonal water use, the community of cities in McLennan County
is incorporating reuse into the current plans to expand the regional
wastewater treatment system. As opposed to expanding the central
wastewater treatment located in a remote, downstream area, the
expansion will be accomplished with ``satellite'' wastewater treatment
plants that will be located in areas near the high growth corridors.
This growing areas that include industrial, commercial, and residential
as well as park lands and golf courses owned by the cities, will have
the opportunity to reduce dependence on the use of costly treated water
by having high quality, wastewater effluent available for irrigation
and industrial uses. The reuse of treated wastewater effluent is the
priority component of the ``Central Texas Reuse Program.''
The Central Texas Reuse Program is multi-dimensional consisting of
a number of efforts-reclamation and reuse, conservation, water quality
protection, environmental restoration-organized into a series of
projects or components to provide optimal use and proper management of
the limited water resources available to the Central Texas community.
The need for proper water resources management to optimize the use of
the limited surface and ground water supplies in Central Texas has been
recognized by the City of Waco and the cities comprising the Waco
Metropolitan Area Regional Sewerage System. Working together these
cities support the Central Texas Reuse program, which is a
comprehensive program to optimize on a regional basis the area's water
resources through conservation, reuse and recycling projects. The
efforts will include municipal, industrial and electric power
generation customers. The Central Texas Water Recycling Act will help
support the efforts to provide sustainable water supplies in this area
of Texas.
With this background, let me summarize the specific need for and
benefits of the reclamation and water recycling project. Today, the
growth areas of the regional wastewater collection facilities are
hydraulically overloaded. In addition, the Central Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which currently treats all wastewater generated by the serves
all of the six cities that comprise the regional wastewater system is
nearing its permitted discharge capacity. The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality is requiring plans for the expansion of the
existing wastewater treatment capacity.
A comprehensive engineering solution to this wastewater challenge
is the construction of a satellite wastewater reclamation plants and
facilities to in part provide benefits from the reuse of the reclaimed
effluent. The benefits of satellite plants are significant, in addition
to avoiding expensive relocation of infrastructure and downstream
conveyance improvements (estimated at $2.1 million), the plants will
provide capacity for future growth in the ``high growth'' corridor, and
significantly, the reclaimed water produced at the proposed reclamation
plant can be readily delivered to dozens of end users within the nearby
vicinity. Not only would this reclaimed water be a revenue generator,
it would also help reduce the summertime peak water demands at the
regional water treatment plant.
In summary, this legislation will not only provide for conservation
of our community's water supply but will also reduce cost to the
taxpayers and provide benefits to the environment as treated effluent
is not dumped into river but is used to sustain habitat in our parks
and recreational areas. Recycling of highly treated wastewater provides
an additional valuable resource for a large number of identified reuse
applications, including golf courses, landscape irrigation, industrial
cooling water, and other industrial applications. The initial projects
eligible for funding under this legislation can provide up to 10
million gallons per day of reuse water; thereby, reducing the water
demand on Lake Waco. This is enough water supply to meet the needs of
over 20,000 households.
______
Statement of Edwin Hansen, Magna Water District (Utah), on S. 745
My name is Ed Hansen, and I am the General Manager of the Magna
Water District, which encompasses a population of approximately 28,000
people, and serves a district wide area of Magna Township, north
western areas of West Valley City, and a portion of southwestern Salt
Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah.
I want to thank Senator Hatch for sponsoring this bill along with
Representatives Jason Chaffetz, Jim Matheson and Rob Bishop in the
House.
Through this Title XVI project now before the committee, the Magna
Water District has a unique opportunity to restore a drinking water
supply by removing perchlorate and arsenic from our groundwater sources
while implementing a water reuse and groundwater recharge project. Over
the past century, the historic uses of the nearby land, copper mining
and rocket fuel production, have necessitated an aggressive response by
our district.
A new electrodialysis reversal (EDR) facility is currently
operating under the final start up and testing phases for removal of
perchlorate and arsenic from our ground water sources. As a result, two
products: high quality drinking water and a concentrated waste stream,
are being produced.
The drinking water will be pumped directly into the District's
potable water system while the waste stream will flow by gravity to the
existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) where the District's
patented ``green'' bio-destruction technology is being employed using a
series of bioreactors to destroy perchlorate and remove arsenic from
the waste stream leaving no residual contaminants.
The bioreactors will produce high quality effluent that can be
disinfected along with the effluent from the existing WWTP. This
effluent will used for irrigation through a reuse and secondary water
irrigation system, thus eliminating the need to use high quality
drinking water for outdoor irrigation uses.
The existing WWTP effluent is currently discharged into the Great
Salt Lake where it is unrecoverable by the District. There is synergy
in the proposed system where as the areas being irrigated are also
within the recharge zone for groundwater recovery wells that provide
water for the District's expanding secondary water irrigation system.
As a whole, this reclamation project will result in substantially
greater energy and other cost efficiencies. i.e. a projected immediate
annual reduction of 580 million gallons (1,780 acre-feet (AF)) of high
quality, potable project water used for outdoor irrigation with a
projected future demand reduction of 5,792 AF of water per year.
Magna Water District is seeking funds, on a matching basis, to
implement this project that will generate several benefits to its water
users:
1) It will reduce the current use of treated high quality
project water thus cutting operating costs,
2) It will preserve an 8 cubic feet second (cfs) or a 5,792
AF water right located at the WWTP outfall, and
3) It will preserve and sustain our valuable water resources,
and to promote water conservation.
Utah ranks as the second driest state in the nation following
Nevada, but is number one in per capita water use (municipal and
industrial) at about 300 gallons of water per person per day. The
residents of Magna are willing to invest a portion of the project that
they know will benefit the District as well as other surrounding
communities.
In fact, as a part of this reclamation project, the District and
its water users are investing more than $20 million in treatment
facilities to remove perchlorate and arsenic and from the water supply.
The high cost of water treatment has forced the District to
evaluate water usage and to investigate possibilities for reducing non-
potable water use. In 2004, recognizing the demand for high quality
drinking water for outdoor irrigation in their existing system, the
District planned, designed and installed the first phase of a secondary
water system.
Phase I of this system targets all of the District's large water
users such as schools, churches, golf courses, and parks.
As a result of the secondary water system planning and
implementation efforts, District reports show a dramatic drop in
potable usage for those using the secondary system. Private residences
that connected to the secondary water system showed similar results; in
most cases, nearly a 98% reduction in potable water usage for outdoor
watering was achieved.
The District continues to master plan to address the growing needs
of its population by maximizing the use of its potable water supply for
domestic, in-home uses and using expansion of the secondary water
system for outdoor purposes thereby preserving its valuable potable
water resources.
A key element of this Phase II is to utilize the high quality
product (reuse) water from the bioreactors at the District's wastewater
treatment facility to increase the supply of water available for
outdoor use. Reuse of water from the District's bioreactors will
control potable water capital and operating costs and enhance water
conservation efforts.
In addition, all new development within the District boundary is
currently required to install secondary water piping and infrastructure
that complies with District standards to further maximizes the
District's ability to preserve potable water resources. This policy
allows funding for this system to primarily benefit existing users and
requires new development to bear the cost of secondary and reuse
systems that are to its benefit.
The total cost of the project is estimated to be approximately $51
million. Project funding sources include approximately $3 million in
Federal funding and $36 million funded by the District. Passage of this
legislation will allow the District to fund the remaining $12 million
through the Bureau of Reclamation's Water Reclamation and Reuse (Title
XVI). When this happens, the citizens of Magna and our larger service
area will be able to rely on a sustainable water supply that continues
to be clean, safe and dependable. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify. I would be happy to answer any questions.