    [Senate Hearing 111-1183]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 111-1183

                            EPA'S ROLE IN PROMOTING

                              WATER USE EFFICIENCY
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON

                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 31, 2009

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys

                                      ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    94-025 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      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 ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

                        Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
                     Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
                                  ----------

                       Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife

                     BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex
    BARBARA BOXER, California (ex            officio)
        officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 MARCH 31, 2009
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland     1
    Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho...........     1
    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California,
      prepared statement.............................................    36
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
      prepared statement.............................................   125

                                   WITNESSES

    Shapiro, Michael H., Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency....................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Cardin...........................................    27
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    29
    Davis, Martha, Executive Manager for Policy Development, Inland
      Empire Utilities Agency........................................    37
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
    Dickinson, Mary Ann, Executive Director, Alliance for Water
      Efficiency.....................................................    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........    76
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........    78
    Shannon, Mark A., James W. Bayne Professor, Director of the
      Center of Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water and
      Systems, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign............    83
        Prepared statement...........................................    85
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........   104
    Mehan, G. Tracy III, Principal, The Cadmus Group, Inc............   107
        Prepared statement...........................................   109
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........   117

                  EPA'S ROLE IN PROMOTING WATER USE EFFICIENCY

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2009

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                            Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Cardin
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Cardin, Crapo, Whitehouse, and Udall.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on
    Water and Wildlife for the Environment and Public Works
    Committee will come to order.
        I first want to acknowledge this being our first
    Subcommittee hearing on an extremely important subject dealing
    with water efficiencies. I want to acknowledge the support of
    Senator Boxer for allowing the Subcommittee to move forward
    with this first hearing on water efficiency, and thank her for
    her leadership on water and wildlife issues.
        We are going to deviate for a moment. Senator Crapo, who is
    the Ranking Republican on the Committee, and we appreciate his
    attendance, has about three other places that he is supposed to
    be right now, including a markup on some very important
    legislation. So I am going to yield to Senator Crapo, and then
    we will move forward with the hearing.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

        Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate your accommodation.
        As things would have it, not only do I have this first
    hearing that is very, very important for me to work with you
    on, but I have a markup on legislation where I have one of the
    key amendments that I need to go propose, plus the Finance
    Committee is having a hearing, but the beginning of that
    hearing is going to be a tribute to Senator Baucus for his 30
    years of service. So I am expected to be there, too. So I
    appreciate you understanding my time constraints.
        I will just submit my opening statement for the record, but
    wanted to say publicly how much I appreciate working with you.
    We have sat down and had discussed the agenda items that this
    Committee could and should be focusing on, and you and I are in
    agreement on the importance of these issues and the agenda
    which we will follow. I look forward to working with you.
        To our witnesses, I have reviewed your testimony, and I
    hope I can get back for some question and answer period, but no
    matter how it turns out, I again want to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for your friendship and for working with me on this
    Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:]

                  Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator
                            from the State of Idaho

        Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing today.
        Before I speak on the topic of today's hearing and welcome
    our witnesses, I would like to briefly say that I have enjoyed
    our recent discussions on this Subcommittee's agenda for the
    111th Congress and I look forward to our continued work
    together. I might also add that the only thing I am looking
    forward to more than a field hearing on the Chesapeake Bay is
    having one in Idaho, particularly near one of our many
    beautiful rivers with lots of fish.
        Today's hearing will focus on promoting water use
    efficiency and how the Environmental Protection Agency can work
    with local communities in furtherance of that important
    mission. As such, I am pleased that we are being joined today
    by Dr. Michael Shapiro, the Acting Assistant Administrator for
    the Office of Water at EPA. I also welcome our other
    witnesses--Mr. Mehan, Dr. Shannon, Ms. Dickinson and Ms. Davis.
    I look forward to hearing your testimony and discussing this
    important issue with you.
        A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discussed how
    some power companies are beginning to look at ways to meet
    energy needs while using significantly less water than had been
    used in the past, due to increasing concerns about water
    availability and its use. The article details how some
    companies are halting plans to build traditional power plants
    that require significant amounts of water because, in some
    States, water is a very limited resource. We know this all too
    well in the West, where water is considered the lifeblood of
    many local communities and economies and where population
    growth and increasing needs are making efficient use of this
    precious resource all the more important.
        Issues of water efficiency are critical in Idaho, and
    throughout much of the Country. In Idaho's case, limited water
    availability, drought and wildfires make efficient use of water
    highly important. It will only become more of a priority as
    emergencies, needs and populations continue to grow and States
    and local governments continue to be hard-pressed by the
    economic situation that we face. As such, it is all the more
    important that States and localities are able to receive help
    from the EPA, and that the agency understands and is willing to
    help address the needs of State and local governments without
    implementing unreasonable, costly, one-size-fits-all mandates.
        I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the innovative
    and important work being done by water systems, product
    manufacturers, the public sector, universities, and the
    American people to meet the challenges of making more do with
    less. Innovation continues to be led by those most closely
    involved in the provision and use of the service, and it is
    critical that public policies are framed in a permissive way
    rather than in a command-and-control fashion. We should
    continue to provide the resources to the EPA and others to
    undertake research and development into water efficiency
    technologies, but we should also recognize that system
    operators and their customers know best what can and will work
    in their own situations. This has been the guiding policy of
    this committee for many years in the crafting of legislation in
    this arena.
        Finally, we should take a moment to applaud the investments
    and steps taken by the end-use customers to be good stewards of
    the finite resource of water. Efforts to encourage and reward
    water use management have great promise to build on the
    progress and gains made by the consumer, who we must never
    forget is the focus of our activities and this hearing today.
        Mr. Chairman, I know that the Committee is more interested
    in listening to the witnesses than in listening to me, so I
    will save the rest of my views for questions to the witnesses.
    Again, thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward to
    the testimony.

        Senator Cardin. Well, Senator Crapo, let me acknowledge the
    fact that our staffs have had a chance to meet, we have had a
    chance to meet. I think both of us understand the importance of
    the jurisdiction of our Subcommittee in protecting the waters
    of our Nation for the environment and for safe drinking and
    supply, and I look forward to working with you.
        I do have a few issues in the Senate Finance Committee, so
    I hope that you will get there quickly and establish a
    relationship that perhaps our friendship will help me get those
    bills out of the Finance Committee.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Crapo. You got a deal.
        Senator Cardin. Without objection, your opening statement
    will be made part of the record.
        Senator Crapo. Thank you.
        Senator Cardin. I would ask unanimous consent that the
    testimony of Patricia Mulroy, General Manager of the Southern
    Nevada Water Authority be included in the record, at the
    request of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada.
        Without objection, that statement will also be made part of
    the record.
        [The referenced document follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. First, let me say that today's hearing will
    focus on the role the Environmental Protection Agency must play
    in making our Nation more efficient in the way we use our
    water. For so many of us, we can turn on the tap or the washing
    machine or the dishwasher and have all the water we need to
    drink, to wash, and to water our lawns. We don't think about
    how much water we use in our daily lives, let alone the vast
    amount of water it takes to grow our food, to manufacture the
    goods we depend upon, or to produce the energy we need to power
    our Nation.
        Water seems to be so abundant, in fact, that we often
    forget how precious it is and what a limited resource we have.
    EPA data shows how much water we use. The agency reports that
    water use in the United States is increasing every year. Since
    1950, the United States' population has increased nearly 90
    percent, yet our use of water has increased 209 percent.
    Americans now use on average 100 gallons of water per day every
    day per person.
        This increased use is placing pressure on our water supply.
    In the last 5 years, nearly every region of the Country has
    experienced water shortages. At least 36 States are
    anticipating local, regional or statewide water shortages by
    2013. In my own State of Maryland, we are one of those States.
    Population growth and changing growth patterns are placing
    increased pressure on water resources across my State.
        In central and western Maryland, the Maryland Department of
    the Environment has found that there is not enough water for
    some of the planned growth activities. Water level in the
    aquifers in southern Maryland and the eastern shore are
    declining at a significant rate, with water levels in some
    being tens to hundreds of feet below their original levels.
        Drought is intensifying these shortages in regions across
    the Country. We know in California, Governor Arnold
    Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency this February due
    to drought, and the State is considering mandatory rationing.
    NOAA reports that the Great Lakes, which supply drinking water
    to more than 40 million U.S. and Canadian residents, are
    experiencing record low levels. The southeast is again
    suffering from drought. This is Texas's driest winter since
    records began in 1895.
        According to a 2006 NOAA report, drought in the United
    States is estimated to result in average annual losses of
    between $6 billion to $8 billion across the sectors of our
    economy.
        Climate change-related effects are predicted to place even
    greater stress on water resources in many areas of the Country.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 assessment
    projects that declining amounts of water stored in glaciers and
    snow covers will reduce the water available to one-sixth of the
    world's population.
        The IPCC also predicts droughts will become more severe and
    longer lasting in a number of regions. The 2007 Ohio State
    University study projects that coastal communities could lose
    up to 50 percent more of their fresh water supplies than was
    previously thought. As sea levels rise, salt water will move
    inland and turn underground fresh water supplies brackish and
    undrinkable.
        Water shortages aren't the only reason we should be looking
    at ways to be more efficient with our water. Our current water
    use system based largely on centralized infrastructure that
    pipes in clean water and pipes away wastewater is inefficient
    and expensive. Our massive network of water pipes are broken
    and leaking. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our
    water infrastructure at D-minus and estimates a 5-year
    investment need of $255 billion.
        A survey conducted in 2000 suggests that more than 85
    percent of Maryland water systems lose at least 10 percent of
    the water they produce, with the estimated average between 15
    percent to 20 percent. In a needs survey released just last
    week, EPA estimates it will cost $5.4 billion over the next 20
    years to repair and retain Maryland's drinking water
    infrastructure alone.
        Plus, our system is increasingly energy intense. It is
    estimated that 10 percent of our Nation's imported energy goes
    to treating and pumping water.
        So we can make huge progress here, not only on the supply
    of water, but the supply of energy. In recent years,
    fluctuating gas prices, the threat of climate change, and our
    vulnerability to parts of the world that don't like us much has
    made most of us realize that we have to change the way that we
    deal with energy. We realize with growing clarity that we have
    to move more toward greater energy efficiency and renewable
    technologies.
        But too many of us don't yet see that we need also to
    change the way we use water. With better investment in research
    and development, with public education, with better incentives
    to use water-efficient technologies, we can begin to change
    public perception and change the way we use water.
        I want to acknowledge that many of our States are leading
    us in this direction by offering incentives for water
    efficiencies in appliances and products. Water efficiency in
    green technology and demonstration projects are also helping us
    explore ways in which we can be more water efficient.
        EPA's WaterSense project has also been effective in
    bringing public attention to water efficiencies. And the House
    of Representatives recently passed H.R. 631, which I think is a
    bill that we need to take a look at, which puts a spotlight on
    water efficiency through research and demonstration projects.
        We can make sure we have the water we need to maintain our
    standard of living and ensure future economic growth. We can
    seize an economic opportunity to become an exporter of a new
    approach to water, and the technologies that go with it, to the
    rest of the world, but we have got to be more aggressive and
    with a greater sense of urgency if we are going to be able to
    accomplish these goals.
        I look forward to this hearing from our distinguished
    panelists today in helping us figure out how we can move
    forward with this vision for America.
        With that, we will turn to our first witness. I am very
    pleased that we have Michael Shapiro here, the Acting Assistant
    Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency. We appreciate you being here. Your entire statement
    will be made part of the record for all of our witnesses today,
    and you now may proceed as you see fit.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]

              Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator
                           from the State of Maryland

        Today's hearing will focus on the role the Environmental
    Protection Agency must play in making our Nation more efficient
    in the way we use our water. For so many of us, we can turn on
    the tap, or the washing machine, or the dishwasher, and have
    all the water we need to drink, to wash and to water our lawns.
    We don't think about how much water we use in our daily lives,
    let alone the vast amounts of water it takes to grow our food,
    to manufacture the goods we depend on and to produce the energy
    we need to power our economy. Water seems so abundant, in fact,
    that we often forget it's a precious and limited resource.
        EPA data shows how much water we use. The agency reports
    that water use in the United States is increasing every year.
    Since 1950, the United States population increased nearly 90
    percent. In that same period, public demand for water increased
    209 percent. Americans now use an average of 100 gallons of
    water per person each day.
        This increased use is placing pressure on our water supply.
    In the last 5 years, nearly every region of the Country has
    experienced water shortages. At least 36 States are
    anticipating local, regional, or statewide water shortages by
    2013.
        Maryland is one of those States. Population growth and
    changing growth patterns are placing increased pressure on
    water resources across the State.
        In central and western Maryland, the Maryland Department of
    the Environment has found that there is not enough water for
    some planned growth. Water levels in the aquifers of southern
    Maryland and the Eastern Shore are declining at a significant
    rate, with the water level in some being tens to hundreds of
    feet below their original levels.
        Drought is intensifying these shortages in regions across
    the Country. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
    declared a State emergency this February due to drought and the
    State is considering mandatory water rationing. NOAA reports
    that the Great Lakes, which supply drinking water to more than
    40 million U.S. and Canadian residents, are experiencing record
    low levels. The southeast is again suffering from drought. This
    is Texas' driest winter since records began in 1895.
        According to a 2006 NOAA report, drought in the U.S. is
    estimated to result in average annual losses of between $6
    billion to $8 billion across all sectors of the economy.
        Climate change related effects are predicted to place even
    greater stress on water resources in many areas of the Country.
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 assessment
    projects that declining amounts of water stored in glaciers and
    snow cover will reduce the water available to one-sixth of the
    world's population. The IPCC also predicts droughts will become
    more severe and longer lasting in a number of regions. A 2007
    Ohio State University study projects that coastal communities
    could lose up to 50 percent more of their freshwater supplies
    than was previously thought. As sea levels rise, the saltwater
    will move inland and turn underground freshwater supplies
    brackish and undrinkable.
        Water shortages aren't the only reason we should be looking
    at ways to be more efficient with our water. Our current water-
    use system, based largely on centralized infrastructure that
    pipes in clean water and pipes away wastewater, is inefficient
    and expensive. Our massive networks of water pipes are broken
    and leaking. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our
    water infrastructure a D^ and estimates a 5-year investment
    need of $255 billion.
        A survey conducted in 2000 suggested that more than 85
    percent of Maryland water systems lose at least 10 percent of
    the water they produce, with the estimated average between 15
    percent and 20 percent. In a needs survey released just last
    week, EPA estimates it would cost $5.4 billion over the next 20
    years to repair and retain Maryland's drinking water
    infrastructure alone. Plus, our system is incredibly energy
    intensive. It's estimated that 10 percent of our Nation's
    imported energy goes to treating and pumping water.
        In recent years, fluctuating gas prices, the threat of
    climate change, and our vulnerability to parts of the world
    that don't like us much have made most of us realize that we
    have to change the way we get our energy. We realize with
    growing clarity that we've got to move toward greater energy
    efficiency and renewable technologies. But too many of us don't
    yet see that we also need to change the way we use water.
        With better investment in research and development, with
    public education, and with better incentives to use water-
    efficient technologies we can begin to change public perception
    and change the way we use water.
        We can make sure we have the water we need to maintain our
    standard of living and ensure future economic growth. We can
    seize an economic opportunity to become an exporter of a new
    approach to water--and the technologies that go with it--to
    rest of the world. But we have got to move aggressively and
    with a greater sense of urgency.
        I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists
    today on what steps EPA can take and this Congress can take to
    make that vision a reality.

           STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. SHAPIRO, ACTING ASSISTANT
     ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                 AGENCY

        Mr. Shapiro. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
    to be here and I thank you for your leadership on this
    important issue.
        I will be discussing EPA's efforts to promote increased
    water conservation and efficiency. My full statement will be
    made available for the record. I will summarize briefly a few
    key points.
        Too often, we take for granted a system that provides
    reliable and safe water, as you have pointed out. Headlines
    about water crises in different parts of the U.S. and the world
    have raised the collective awareness about this precious
    resource.
        States and communities across the Nation are facing
    difficult challenges in meeting their water resource needs. A
    report by the Government Accountability Office in 2003
    indicated that 36 States projected water shortages by 2013.
    Continued population growth and the impacts of climate change
    are likely to further challenge our ability to provide reliable
    and safe water.
        Improving water efficiency is one of the most effective
    ways for communities to manage their supplies. Moreover,
    increased water use efficiency will reduce utility operating
    and maintenance costs and reduce the need for expensive new
    infrastructure.
        EPA is working to foster a national ethic of water
    efficiency so that water is valued as a limited resource that
    should be used wisely. In June 2006, we announced WaterSense,
    an innovative partnership program that helps American
    consumers, businesses and governments make smart choices that
    save money and maintain high environmental standards, without
    compromising performance or requiring lifestyle changes.
        Products with the WaterSense label use at least 20 percent
    less water and perform as well or better than conventional
    models. In developing specifications, EPA works with voluntary
    consensus standard organizations, utility research committees,
    trade groups, and universities to develop information on
    product efficiency and performance. To earn the label, products
    must be independently tested and certified by a third party to
    meet EPA's criteria for efficiency and performance. This
    distinctive approach has been identified as a key strength of
    the WaterSense program by many stakeholders.
        In less than 3 years and with the help of more than 1,000
    partners nationwide, WaterSense has become a national symbol
    for water efficiency. The label can now be found on more than
    700 varieties of water-efficient faucets and accessories and
    over 250 models of high-efficiency toilets.
        EPA has developed a WaterSense certification program for
    irrigation designers, auditors, and installation/maintenance
    professionals that focuses on water-efficient landscape
    irrigation techniques.
        We are also developing a New Homes label that is designed
    to reduce water consumption by setting criteria for both indoor
    and outdoor water use and by educating homeowners about water
    efficiency. This year, we plan to issue final specifications
    for high efficiency flushing urinals that will use 50 percent
    less water than standard models, and we will also develop a
    draft specification for high efficiency shower heads.
        Water efficiency doesn't only result in water savings, as
    you have pointed out. Delivering water to homes requires a
    great deal of energy. The potential for preserving our water
    supply for future generations and reducing energy demand
    through this voluntary program is significant, and WaterSense
    will continue working on other residential and commercial
    products.
        As I mentioned earlier, our efforts to promote water
    efficiency depend upon a national network of partners who help
    us with our product specifications, marketing, and consumer
    education. For example, the Alliance for Water Efficiency is
    establishing a water efficiency information clearinghouse that
    will complement EPA's activities.
        We are also coordinating with EPA's Energy Star program,
    the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program, and the
    National Association of Home Builders' Green Building program
    to incorporate WaterSense criteria into these broader energy
    efficiency and green building initiatives.
        Additionally, EPA's sustainable infrastructure efforts look
    more broadly at water efficiency and asset management. We are
    working with public officials and utility managers and their
    professional organizations to identify strategies and tools for
    reducing water loss from systems, especially in the
    distribution system.
        Clearly, it is important to carefully consider how the
    water resources of this Nation are used and how we can
    effectively manage into the 21st century. We have come a long
    way in a very short time with our WaterSense and sustainable
    infrastructure programs. As the stresses on our water resources
    grow, the need for the products and services we are developing
    through WaterSense will become even more important.
        We look forward to working with our stakeholders and
    Congress as we look to expand EPA's efforts in these areas.
        I ask that my full statement be submitted for the record
    and I look forward to addressing any questions you may have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Well, first, Mr. Shapiro, let me compliment
    you on sticking exactly to 5 minutes.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Shapiro. We worked hard on that.
        Senator Cardin. Let me thank you for your testimony, and
    thank you for your leadership on these issues.
        Unlike the Energy Star program, the WaterSense program does
    not have formal authorization. Would formal authorization by
    Congress help in what you are trying to do with the WaterSense
    program?
        Mr. Shapiro. Well, I think it would be beneficial in a
    couple of ways. First, direct recognition by Congress of the
    importance of the program and its role I think would further
    support our efforts at outreach and communication, and give the
    program additional visibility.
        Also, as I understand it, there are, although in general we
    have been fairly successful to date in launching the WaterSense
    program, there are certain bounds as to how far we can go, for
    example, in endorsing products with the WaterSense label
    because we don't have a separate authorization that would allow
    it as the Energy Star program does.
        So there I think are areas where a specific authorization
    would add some benefits to our existing program.
        Senator Cardin. Could you give a little bit more detail as
    to what are the standards for WaterSense? I particularly want
    you to comment, if you would, on the IG's findings in regards
    to Energy Star that there have been, at least at times,
    products that have been given the rating that have not fully
    complied with the standards. So are you concerned that we might
    be running down a path in which we are giving a stamp of
    approval when in fact that's not the case?
        Mr. Shapiro. Well, I think that in the case of the
    WaterSense program, we have a program design that really I
    think limits the ability to misrepresent products. The
    manufacturers themselves cannot claim that they meet a
    WaterSense standard unless their products have been tested and
    certified by an independent third party, and that third party
    itself is authorized through a process that meets international
    standards for independent certification programs.
        So in order to maintain that certification, the
    manufacturer or service provider has to continually demonstrate
    that they are conforming with the standard. The standards that
    we developed are done as collaboratively as possible so that we
    build wherever possible on standardized testing techniques and
    measures that have already been approved or supported by
    national consensus bodies.
        So we think we have put a program in place that limits the
    ability for misrepresentation because of the third party
    certification process, and we certainly feel that once the
    manufacturers invest in this process, they will certainly be on
    the look out for folks that are trying to evade the system and
    misrepresent their products as well.
        Senator Cardin. Now, I strongly support the WaterSense
    program and applaud you for the initiative, and personally
    believe it would have more legitimacy if it were authorized.
    There is a real concern about getting more public interest and
    knowledge about the importance of water efficiencies, so I
    think it makes sense for Congress to act in this area.
        The IG, though, pointed out that at least in the energy
    program there as not much opportunity for oversight for those
    who used the label to find out whether in fact they were
    complying with the standards. It is one thing for a
    manufacturer to say that they have used third party
    verification. It is another thing in fact that their products
    meet what they say they meet.
        So are we going to be creating a problem if we have an
    authorized program for WaterSense in monitoring and making sure
    that in fact the products that are labeled WaterSense meet what
    the manufacturer says it is going to meet. How do we oversee
    that?
        Mr. Shapiro. Well, again the certification process includes
    testing the products as they come off the manufacturing line on
    a periodic basis. So again, you can't be 100 percent sure, and
    I think at the end of the day if products are not performing,
    we will have a responsibility, and we do have a responsibility,
    to identify those manufacturers who aren't playing by the rules
    and take appropriate measures to deal with them.
        However, again our experience to date has been that the
    process that is designed, which again is built on models where
    there is independent verification of certification, will give,
    should give the consumers a lot of confidence that the products
    bearing the label in fact will perform as certified and as
    tested.
        Senator Cardin. Your testimony points out the importance of
    green infrastructure. I would like to explore that a little bit
    more as to how EPA can be more helpful in promoting green
    infrastructure. Are there things that Congress should be
    looking at to give you more tools to move forward in this area?
        Mr. Shapiro. Well, I think at this point we have the tools.
    Green infrastructure, as you know, generally involves applying
    concepts of natural hydrology to deal with stormwater
    management, so we look at naturalistic systems for increasing
    infiltration, for reducing the peak surge flows that occur as a
    result of storms in areas with traditionally a lot of
    impervious pavement, and encourage evapotranspiration as ways
    of managing the stormwater runoff. And in many cases, helping
    to recharge groundwater.
        I think there is a lot of understanding about how many of
    these systems, such as infiltration swales and bioretention
    facilities and rain gardens work on an individual basis. What
    we need to do and we have begun to do is research to help us
    understand how these individual approaches can operate within
    an entire watershed to manage the water resource on a more
    integrated basis.
        Again, progress is being made in that area. There is a lot
    of good work being done. So our tools and techniques are
    improving dramatically. I think there has traditionally been a
    reluctance to, on the part of water utilities, to adopt some of
    these measures. We are beginning to overcome that through the
    provision of information and technical training. And certainly
    the stimulus bill and the provision for a 20 percent setaside
    for green projects, which include green infrastructure, I think
    will provide additional incentives for water utilities to begin
    to look at these tools more frequently as they are making
    design choices.
        Senator Cardin. Well, I visited a green building in Howard
    County not too long ago, Howard County, Maryland, which is I
    think a model for a company that is innovative in green
    technology, building a building to operate that reflects that
    commitment, where they do have the rain gardens and they do
    recycle the stormwater and they do, I think, put it all
    together in a way that it should be, reflective of saving
    energy, being friendly toward our environment, and conserving
    water. All that is built into the technology.
        Now, that is done in partnership with a local government,
    which has been a supportive partner. The EPA has programs that
    will allow you to participate in these types of ventures, but
    you don't have a separate research arm devoted toward water
    efficiencies. The House bill tries to do something about that
    by establishing an authorization for, and a person to deal with
    water efficiency research, and then allows for demonstration
    programs.
        Would that be useful for you to spotlight the water
    efficiency issue? Or should we continue down the path of
    strengthening EPA's ability to deal in a broader sense,
    expecting that there would be attention paid to water
    efficiency issues?
        Mr. Shapiro. Well, I think there are sort of multiple
    questions in there. As you know, the Administration hasn't
    taken a position on that House bill. I think that bill focuses
    specifically, as you say, on research relating to water
    efficiency. I think there are some areas of research within EPA
    today, especially relating to green infrastructure and the
    detection and correction of leaks in grey infrastructure that
    we are working very hard on.
        At the moment, EPA doesn't have a research component that
    focuses on especially consumer and commercial water-using
    products and appliances. There are a number of external
    organizations to EPA that we rely on today to get the
    information that we use to develop our WaterSense criteria. And
    I think in looking at where to put funding in different areas,
    I think Congress would have to judge whether opening up an
    additional focus area for EPA's research versus other
    organizations that may already be playing in that area is the
    best use of money for water efficiency purposes.
        Again, I think the overall needs for research and
    information to support a more efficient and sustainable water
    infrastructure is significant overall.
        Senator Cardin. Well, that was a very fine, diplomatic
    answer considering the agency has not taken a position. That
    was as positive of a response that I think you could have
    given. I thank you for that.
        Here is our dilemma. Let me tell you why I think we do need
    legislation similar to what the House has passed. We may want
    to take a look at it and see whether we can't improve upon
    that. But we have huge problems in this Country, and as we look
    in Baltimore, we have aging pipes that need to be replaced. We
    are in the process of replacing some. The cost is well beyond
    the capacity of the local governments, and they are under court
    orders because of environmental violations.
        But we really haven't taken a focus as to the cost benefit
    ratios on water efficiencies, which I think would be very
    helpful to have that type of information available as we make
    decisions on how to proceed locally, as well as a national
    strategy.
        So I think having the information base, and President Obama
    talked frequently about having decisions made by best science
    and best information, it would be useful to be able to know the
    cost benefit ratios on dealing with water efficiency issues.
    And I don't think you really have that capacity today within
    EPA. You do look at these issues, but it is not the center
    focus. It becomes perhaps the byproduct of other research that
    you are doing.
        So I think what Congressman Matheson was doing in the House
    bill has merit for us to take a look at here. And the reporter
    doesn't show those nods, so we will just reflect the fact that
    there was a friendly smile at the Chair.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cardin. Again, let me thank you for your testimony.
    We look forward to working with you on this issue. Obviously,
    this is the first hearing of our Subcommittee, but the first
    hearing I think Congress has had, the Senate has had on this
    issue. And I know that the Chairman is interested in this and
    other Members are interested in this, and we will be getting
    back to you I think for specific additional information that we
    may need from you.
        Mr. Shapiro. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        I would also ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer's
    statement be made part of the record. She is on the Senate
    floor this morning working on an amendment to the budget
    resolution, and asked me to welcome our witnesses from her home
    State of California on her behalf.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

                 Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator
                          from the State of California

        We are here today to review EPA's efforts to promote water-
    use efficiency.
        I would like to extend a special welcome to my fellow
    Californian, Martha Davis from the Inland Empire Utility
    Agency. Ms. Davis will be testifying about her agency's
    innovative efforts to better use California's precious water
    resources.
        The topic of today's hearing is very important to me and to
    my home State of California, and I would like to thank the
    Subcommittee Chair, Senator Cardin, for holding this hearing.
        In California, we are currently in the third year of one of
    the worst droughts in the State's history. Reservoirs are at
    historically low levels, dozens of water agencies have already
    ordered water rationing, and just last month, the Governor
    declared a State-wide water emergency.
        But California is not alone in the water problems that we
    face. A 2003 GAO survey of State water managers showed that 36
    States expected water shortages by the year 2013.
        The pressures on our water resources will increase in the
    future. Population in the U.S. is expected to grow 30 percent
    by 2030. And global warming is predicted to increase the
    occurrence of drought and reduce the reliability of water
    supplies.
        There are a number of options that can be implemented now
    to deal with today's water crises and prepare for a future of
    growing demand and less water. Water reclamation and recycling,
    groundwater cleanup and more water efficient products are all
    technologies that are currently available.
        I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on how EPA
    can help communities implement these environmentally beneficial
    water infrastructure projects.
        There are also emerging technologies, such as lower energy
    desalination and innovative water recycling systems, that show
    great promise. We should invest in research and development to
    help ensure that good water management ideas like these are
    available to address this growing problem.
        I believe that today's hearing will help us to better
    understand EPA's role in addressing this challenge.

        Senator Cardin. We will now go to the second panel, which
    includes Martha Davis, the Executive Manager for Policy
    Development, Inland Empire Utilities Agency; Mary Ann
    Dickinson, Executive Director, Alliance for Water Efficiency;
    Mark A. Shannon, the James W. Bayne Professor, Director of the
    Center of Advanced Materials for the Purification of Water With
    Systems, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; and G.
    Tracy Mehan, III, Principal, The Cadmus Group, Inc.
        Welcome all of you, and particularly those who are from
    California from our Chairman, welcomes you, and I am supposed
    to make sure that you are well taken care of in the Committee.
        So Ms. Davis, you are from California, I take it?
        Ms. Davis. Actually, I was [remarks off microphone].
        Senator Cardin. Well, under those circumstances, you can go
    first.
        [Laughter.]

        STATEMENT OF MARTHA DAVIS, EXECUTIVE MANAGER FOR POLICY
              DEVELOPMENT, INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY

        Ms. Davis. Thank you, sir. I will try to emulate Mr.
    Shapiro's brevity.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present
    testimony [remarks off microphone].
        My agency is located in San Bernardino in Southern
    California. We are a wholesale water district formed in 1950 to
    distribute imported water supplies and we are a member of the
    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
        We also provide regional wastewater treatment for over
    850,000 residents and we are proud to provide three products to
    our community: recycled water, compost and renewable energy.
        Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am supplying an updated
    corrected copy of my statement. I would like to emphasize three
    points from my testimony. First, these are challenging times
    for all water managers. As you pointed out in your opening
    statement, our Nation's population continues to grow, there are
    increasing conflicts over existing water supplies, which in
    California and many other places have led to court rulings and
    regulatory developments that constrain these deliveries.
        Climate change adds an entirely new variable as rising
    temperatures will increase water demands at the same time that
    rainfall patterns shift and droughts become both more severe
    and more erratic.
        Water agencies throughout the Nation are responding by
    implementing water efficiency programs. Last year, California's
    Governor Schwarzenegger called for a 20 percent mandatory
    reduction in per capita water usage by 2020, which translates
    into a potential 1.74 million acre feet of additional water
    supplies for the State of California.
        The State water plan, which has just been released,
    recognizes water use efficiency as a central element of the
    State's strategy to enhance water supply reliability, restore
    ecosystems and respond to climate change.
        Clearly, improving the efficiency of appliances both
    indoors and outdoors so that we can structurally build in water
    savings is a vital part of transforming the Nation's water use.
    I have had an opportunity to review Ms. Dickinson's testimony
    and concur with the recommendations put forward for expanding
    the WaterSense program. There are many synergies with the very
    successful Energy Star program, and opportunities to combine
    the two should be implemented.
        Second, many of our water projects throughout the Nation
    were designed decades ago and were built around the concept of
    using water once and then discharging it. Yet if water is
    recycled and reused, it stretches out water supplies with three
    primary benefits.
        First, recycled water is drought proof, which means it is
    available when other supplies are not. Second, the reliability
    of recycled water means that it is a core supply that agencies
    can rely upon to help adapt to climate change impacts. And
    third, having recycled water as part of an agency's supply
    enables our agencies to optimize the delivery of potable
    supplies and non-potable supplies to the appropriate use. What
    we want to do is reserve the best quality water for drinking
    water purposes.
        Similarly, the development of local resources--capture of
    stormwater, rainwater, conjunctive use of our groundwater
    basins, desalination--all are parts of a comprehensive strategy
    to improve water supply reliability. The EPA's State Revolving
    Funds program is a core source of funding for water reuse and
    other local water supply infrastructure, as well as for water
    efficiency.
        So all of these projects--water efficiency, recycling,
    local stormwater capture--all these projects that make improved
    use of existing water supplies, should be recognized as green
    infrastructure, and the funding priority established for these
    projects similar to what occurred under the American Recovery
    and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
        Third, preparing for climate change, both through
    adaptation and mitigation strategies is something our water
    agencies have to start doing now. Our agency participated in a
    National Science Foundation grant that was conducted by the
    RAND Corporation 2 years ago, which concluded that the
    development of a multifaceted strategy, increased water
    efficiency, recycled water, stormwater capture, reclaiming of
    poor quality groundwater supplies, was the most cost-effective
    utility strategy for meeting the impacts of future climate
    change.
        We also know, as you pointed out in your opening statement,
    that the use of water is very energy intensive, with 18 percent
    of the Nation's electricity used to pump, treat and deliver
    water supplies. And we also know that the energy generation
    required to provide this power creates high levels of carbon
    emissions.
        Use of water supplies that have a lower embedded energy
    requirement can significantly contribute to the reduction of
    greenhouse gases, and I provide an example in my testimony
    comparing the use of our recycled water to imported water,
    which is our most energy-intensive water supply because it has
    to be pumped up and over the Tehachapis to come into Southern
    California.
        We can save an estimated 7,500 kilowatt hours per million
    gallons of recycled water used. In real terms, we are on track
    to be able to use 50,000 acre feet of water per year in our
    service area within the next 3 years. And if we do this, this
    is roughly equivalent to taking 6,500 cars off the road every
    single day.
        So clearly, more information is urgently needed to document
    the energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits from
    water efficiency and from the development of local supplies
    that can replace more energy-intensive water supplies.
        In closing, we believe that the U.S. EPA has a core role to
    play in helping to develop information and technologies to
    improve water efficiency and the development of local water
    infrastructure. In my testimony, I called out H.R. 631 as the
    type of legislation that I think is the right approach. Quite
    frankly, it is a modest investment, a down payment if you will,
    on the development of information that will help guide all of
    our water agencies and our Nation to figuring out how to do a
    better job of increasing water efficiency and developing water
    supply reliability, and actually meeting the climate change and
    water supply reliability challenges of the future.
        And I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you for
    this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Davis follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Ms. Dickinson.

     STATEMENT OF MARY ANN DICKINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE
                          FOR WATER EFFICIENCY

        Ms. Dickinson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    the opportunity to come and testify.
        I represent the Alliance for Water Efficiency, which is a
    North American nonprofit organization composed of diverse
    stakeholders with significant experience in cost-effective
    water conservation programs and policies.
        We represent water utilities, plumbing and appliance
    manufacturers, the irrigation industry, government agencies,
    retailers, academic researchers. We have a list of our
    representatives on the board in our testimony.
        Our mission is to promote the efficient and sustainable use
    of water, to promote the cost-effective measures that you have
    mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, that will reduce wasteful
    consumption, reduce the need for additional drinking water and
    wastewater capacity, and provide multiple energy, economic and
    environmental benefits.
        And in that mission, we work closely with the staff at the
    Environmental Protection Agency, as the Nation's steward of
    ambient water quality as well as safe drinking water. They have
    been a very strong promoter of water efficiency's many
    benefits. Programs have existed at EPA for well over 20 years
    in the Office of Water and Wastewater, albeit modestly funded
    and staffed.
        But the limited focus began to grow within EPA with the
    launching of the WaterSense program in 2006. Like it Energy
    Star cousin, WaterSense is aimed at product efficiency, product
    labeling, and consumer messaging. And unlike its Energy Star
    cousin, it is funded at a very modest level, $2.4 million
    annually, 20 times less than the Energy Star program.
        So what we are recommending, as WaterSense being an
    important flagship program with very visible links to the water
    utilities, the private sector and the public, we are
    recommending that that funding level be measurably increased.
    WaterSense has made extraordinary strides in the past 3 years,
    launching a nationwide program, testing and labeling hundreds
    of products such as high efficiency toilets and faucets.
        Their effort in rolling out the program quickly has been
    truly remarkable and commendable. However, it must be
    acknowledged that that quick success was primarily possible
    because important work had already been done in the water
    efficiency community to help pave the way. Now that other
    product specifications need to be fully researched and tested,
    it is critical that WaterSense be provided sufficient funds to
    carry out the mission and to keep its partners engaged.
        The private sector also strongly supports the WaterSense
    program and has demonstrated its desire to be participating
    partners, to see faster progress, and to see the labeling of
    more product categories. By comparison, WaterSense has so far
    been able to label fully three product categories versus Energy
    Star's 60, so there is quite a bit of work to do.
        WaterSense also has some important differences. No label
    goes to a product that isn't 20 percent more efficient than the
    national efficiency standard for that product. And as we have
    already discussed, it is third-party verified. So it provides,
    the label provides the consumer with not only a guarantee of
    water efficiency, but a guarantee of superior performance. So
    the double-flushing toilet of the past will not be returning.
        So to continue this work, we recommend that WaterSense be
    authorized by Congress, to be given official status, not only
    to ensure its longevity, but to signal important policy
    approval from this current Administration. We recommend that
    its funding be increased to at least $10 million annually,
    which is still only one-quarter of the Energy Star program.
        If you leave it at its current annual funding level of $2.5
    million, they will only be able to label one to two product
    categories a year, which is not sufficient to meet the true
    needs that are now in the marketplace. There are literally
    dozens of products waiting to be considered, both in the
    commercial as well as residential sectors. And so addressing
    the largest water use, which is urban irrigation, is a critical
    need that WaterSense must spend considerable time working on
    and working in cooperation with the stakeholder community.
        We also have a number of detailed recommendations for the
    WaterSense program that are contained in our testimony. We have
    also developed very specific recommendations for funding of
    State Revolving Loan Funds and continuing the 20 percent set-
    aside that was instituted in the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act. We would like to see that 20 percent set-
    aside continued, and we would like to see it continued in a way
    that perhaps required planning and water efficiency performance
    improvements in the water utilities that are applying for those
    funds. So we have recommendations in our testimony on that.
        And I would like to conclude by saying that our testimony
    also has a list of water efficiency research needs that were
    developed in response to earlier drafts of Congressman
    Matheson's bill, H.R. 631. We have developed a list of about
    $31 million worth of projects which are just the beginning of
    what we have identified as research opportunities in the United
    States. So clearly, as Martha mentions, $100 million would be a
    very minimal amount to devote to this topic.
        Successfully reducing water consumption requires careful
    examination of products, programs and practices, and the
    research that we are recommending is applied research. It is
    not technical or theoretical. It is applied research that
    guarantees the water savings and documents those cost-effective
    benefit cost savings.
        So we want to thank you for the opportunity for this
    testimony, and I encourage you to take a look at the detailed
    recommendations that we have provided. And I am happy to answer
    any questions you may have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dickinson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Shannon.

        STATEMENT OF MARK A. SHANNON, JAMES W. BAYNE PROFESSOR,
         DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER OF ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR THE
     PURIFICATION OF WATER AND SYSTEMS, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT
                            URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

        Mr. Shannon. Thank you so much for having me, Mr. Chairman.
    I am really excited to be here to talk to you about these
    issues.
        I again am going to hit just some really quick points. We
    passed the 300 million mark and we are growing in population.
    This graph is just to show, if you look at the top graph, the
    top curve there, the green one, that is showing that if we stay
    on the current path of consumption that was outlined actually
    by the Texas Commission, we are going to have to grow our water
    supply by 62 percent by 2040 because of population growth.
        The bottom one is if we conserve, and really conserve. That
    bottom growth details a 60 percent drop in domestic use, 30
    percent in energy, and 20 percent in agriculture. We are still
    going to have to grow water supplies by 29 percent.
        So we are going to have to conserve and we are going to
    have to be efficient with water, and we have to come up with
    new ways to do it. And it is not just averages. This next graph
    projects water use, using the projections from the same Texas
    Commission report for the United States, versus population
    growth, and local areas are going to see dramatic increases in
    demand on water.
        And this is going to be very expensive to try to be able to
    do it, as you noted in your opening remarks about using just
    the current infrastructure approach. It is just going to be
    amazingly expensive.
        So we need new ways to think about this problem. And that
    is what our Center is really trying to do. It is trying to
    understand how we can tackle some of these problems.
        But along with demand, at the same time as you heard
    comments already, we are seeing declines in the actual supply
    because of primarily mining of aquifers and loss of snowpack
    storage. So we are seeing this perfect storm of increasing
    demand and decreasing supply at the same time.
        So rather than just getting morose about this, I really
    like to think about the fact that there are lots of really good
    opportunities out here. We are really far from the natural law
    limits, which means we can do things and separations that we
    haven't done before.
        And we in the United States are really one of the best
    innovators in the world in these types of technologies and
    types of science that we can change the equation fundamentally
    about how we can save large amounts of water and conserve large
    amounts of water. So I think it is very important that we look
    at doing this.
        One of the things you have heard discussed many times now
    is about this connection between water and energy. Well, in
    wastewater there is a huge amount of energy in wastewater that
    we spend a huge amount of energy to destroy currently, with our
    techniques of pumping air and using ozone and chlorine. I mean,
    when you think about it, we burn up, I just calculated, 100
    million kilowatt hours a year just to destroy the energy that
    is in there. And we have new technologies that can recover this
    in a very distributive fashion so that one can put it in like
    in the Solara Building in New York city, where they have put
    these types of treatment right in their basement. They don't
    even discharge it as sewage, and they have cut their water use
    by 50 percent. We can go all the way to 80 percent and not have
    a drop in the standard of living.
        So we don't have to think that water-conservation equation
    means you have to deal with less. That is not necessary.
        So one of those things that I would like to point out is
    that there is a water innovation imperative occurring across
    the world right now. It is very exciting, but unfortunately it
    is not happening in the United States. It is happening in
    Singapore. It is happening in Switzerland, the Netherlands,
    China, India. It is not happening here. Large investments are
    being made. The companies are going there, GE, Siemens, and
    they are investing large dollars there.
        I think we need to lead this imperative here so that we can
    have U.S. companies, U.S. workers help develop these
    technologies that can really fundamentally change our water
    equation.
        So just some quick recommendations. I think we need to
    increase the investment in water R&D to provide these
    technologies so that U.S. companies and workers can do this,
    and all types that you heard discussed here, plus increasing
    water efficiency and energy efficiency at the same time,
    getting low energy reuse and desalination technologies that can
    really fundamentally change the equation. So we don't have to
    sit there and say we can't make up water demand without extra
    supply.
        And I think the EPA would be a perfect place for looking at
    how you can test that, verify it, to diffuse it into the
    marketplace, because we need that diffusion in the marketplace
    to be successful.
        We could create national centers that could focus on
    efforts coming out of our universities and our labs and
    companies so we can make this change. So it is really at many
    different levels that we have to do this. And I think the
    Federal Government can reinvigorate this sector in a way that
    hasn't been seen since, say, the 1960s when they made those
    really early initial investments that we are still benefiting
    from today, those investments in membranes and desalt
    technologies that are now the state of the art. It came out of
    the U.S. It came out of Federal investment, and it would be a
    great opportunity.
        So I want to thank you very much, and I hope that you can
    read my full testimony.
        Thanks.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shannon follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. We have. Thank you very much. Appreciate
    it.
        Mr. Mehan.

    STATEMENT OF G. TRACY MEHAN, III, PRINCIPAL, THE CADMUS GROUP,
                                  INC.

        Mr. Mehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My name is Tracy Mehan. I am Principal with the Cadmus
    Group, an environmental consulting firm. Prior to that, I was
    Assistant Administrator for Water at EPA through 2003.
        Before I start, in my written testimony I mention the
    classic paradox of diamonds and water that Adam Smith
    identified, that we view diamonds, which are purely for
    adornment and decorative use, as priceless, but water we hardly
    put a value on it. That paradox as to the value or lack of
    value we place on water is something we need to address, and
    which I think everyone's testimony here is part of that
    response or that answer.
        When I was at EPA, we came out with the Four Pillars of
    Sustainable Infrastructure, which included full-cost pricing
    and water efficiency, which will be the focus of my testimony
    today. I am pleased to see the progress on the water efficiency
    front. Mary Ann Dickinson is here with the Alliance, which is
    part of the fruits of that effort, as is the WaterSense
    program, both efforts of which I am big fans and supporters and
    urge your continued support of all those efforts.
        I am here basically just with one message to sort of
    supplement all the tremendous things we have heard here today
    and all the worthwhile ideas for research priorities at EPA
    relating to water efficiency, and that has to do with the
    economics and other social sciences which can basically provide
    drivers or incentives to adopt all these wonderful new water
    efficiency technologies, as well as traditional low-tech
    responses such as taking a shorter shower or not watering your
    lawn all night.
        It seems to me that in order to really drive these
    projects, these practices, these technologies into the water
    sector, pricing and water rates are important part of this
    process. At the most basic level, the impetus for water
    efficiency and conservation comes either from just absolute
    scarcity in the real world, or from pricing structures which go
    beyond just mere replacement costs of the hard, grey
    infrastructure.
        In truth, both full-cost pricing for infrastructure and
    water conservation pricing can be complementary or mutually
    reinforcing. Scarcity, of course, is usually the result of
    human need, but we can also experience scarcity in terms of
    ecological function. We can be meeting human needs while
    destroying ecological functions because of unsustainable water
    use.
        So again, these are the kinds of issues I think we can
    address through some economic techniques and certainly through
    rate and price design.
        Many water managers traditionally, and for understandable
    reasons given their professional training, emphasize demand
    management as an engineering problem, rather than economic one.
    They tend to resort to non-price options as they should, in
    many cases, to reduce water use, rather than looking at the
    rate structure or the price increases.
        Again, this is understandable, but not necessarily
    sufficient, and again I think both responses, the engineering
    and the economic, are required. And of course, one barrier we
    have to adopting something like conservation-based pricing of
    demand-based pricing is the fact that we are not really doing a
    cost recovery just for the hard infrastructure right now. Our
    price structure is well below where it should be just to put in
    capital structure, maintain it, operations and maintenance, as
    well as replace it. My paper deals with that issue in some
    detail.
        Traditionally, demand management focused on restrictions
    such as water uses, rationing, promotion of water-efficient
    technologies and fixtures, all of which will continue, all of
    which is important. And these non-price demand management
    actions were favored, again as I say, because managers did not
    believe that consumers necessarily changed their water
    consumption habits in response to changing prices.
        Without spending a lot of time on it, my paper gets into
    greater detail regarding the economic literature on the whole
    issue of the elasticity or inelasticity of response to prices
    in the water realm. I think it is sufficient to say that it is
    an issue that has to be addressed and it is an area for
    fundamental and increased research, again in the economics
    profession and the social sciences generally.
        It comes down to the sophistication of the design of the
    rates, and we get into that in much more detail in the paper.
    Again, a lot of economists will note that all things being
    equal, price elasticity can be expected to be greater under
    higher prices. In other words, behavior will change in relation
    to higher prices.
        Although it is difficult to estimate, elasticities are
    higher with non-linear increasing block prices or pricing than
    they are under linear uniform prices. It has been estimated
    that as of 2000, and this is the last study I have been able to
    find, one-third of residential water customers were already
    under an IBP regime, but that is really a far cry from where we
    need to get as a Country.
        IBPs may simply make prices more salient to consumers. In
    other words, they see it and they feel it in their pocketbook.
    Improvements in the presentation of water price information on
    water bills has shown to increase consumers' price
    responsiveness, and IBPs seem to provide a similar signal.
        That said, price structure, income, demographics, rainfall
    and weather, seasonal factors including evapotranspiration
    rates appear to influence price responsiveness. That is, again,
    the elasticity of demand. Thus, when setting conservation
    prices or rates, it is important to use background elasticity
    information from local studies, regional studies and the like.
        All this is to say a lot more research is required for this
    to make sense. Of course, equity must be reconciled with
    efficiency. The sophistication of these new price structures
    must deal with poor people, low income people. We need to
    guarantee a household what they need to survive and to prosper
    as a household. But when you move up the scale to greater
    consumption, you know, watering your lawns with electronic
    devices, using swimming pools, drought conditions, the price
    should reflect the scarcity of the resource.
        Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mehan follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
        We will start this round of questioning with Senator
    Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And let me thank you on being the first of our class out of
    the block to chair a subcommittee hearing and get it organized
    and together. It is an honor to be here with you and I salute
    you on being the first to go.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. For the witnesses, my question is about
    bottled water. When you are talking about the waste associated
    with water use, it is hard to overlook the extraordinary waste
    of energy and oil and everything associated with bottle water.
    Many people will walk by a tap that at the flick of a wrist
    will produce better quality water than the water that has been
    sitting in that plastic bottle for however long, or at least as
    good.
        How is it that we begin to attract Americans back to the
    tap, assure them that the quality of water that they are
    drinking is as good, if not better than the bottled water, and
    reduce the energy waste associated with bottled water?
        I am told that every time you pick up a bottle of water, if
    you can imagine it being one-quarter filled with oil, that is
    about how much it takes to get that water to you in order to
    drink that bottle of water.
        I would be interested in hearing the panel's thoughts on
    that question.
        Ms. Davis. It is an extraordinary phenomenon and an
    interesting marketing question. The United States, the water
    quality here, is the envy of the world.
        Senator Whitehouse. I am the son of a Foreign Service
    family. I grew up in places where you actually couldn't drink
    the water, so it is particularly astounding.
        Ms. Davis. Exactly. And yet, what we have developed in the
    United States is a market of convenience where the bottled
    water has met a need in the sense that people that are, oh, I
    want a glass of water, will then go to the market and buy
    something that is cold. And I don't think they realize the full
    cost of that water, both in terms of the cost of the bottling
    of the water, which is no different.
        It is just tap water that has in most cases been put in the
    bottle. There is no difference in quality. It is the same
    quality, except for the fact that you do have issues related to
    when you open up the plastic bottles and then you get heat and
    that kind of a thing. You can end up with some water quality
    issues.
        I think at the end of the day, there is an interesting
    campaign going on in California where a citizen group is now
    distributing the new special water bottles that don't have any
    kind of degradation problem. And they are distributing it and
    calling it Take Back the Tap, with the notion that if it is a
    matter of convenience, we can supply that convenience by the
    right container and trying to get the container in the hands of
    people so they can refill them easily and therefore have the
    convenience of having drinking water when they want it.
        Senator Whitehouse. Anyone else, in a minute and a half?
        Ms. Dickinson. Yes, I would like to comment on that. I
    think the phenomenon of bottled water has arisen primarily
    because of two reasons. One, the consumer doesn't necessarily
    trust the taste factor coming out of the tap. It is the
    chlorine residual that often is not very attractive from a
    taste perspective. And when I worked for a water utility in
    Connecticut, near Rhode Island, we did a bottle-your-own
    campaign where we actually encouraged people to take the glass
    bottles that we gave them and refrigerate the water, because
    once the water was refrigerated over a period of time that
    chlorine residual would no longer be noticeable in a taste.
        And that was one factor, was the taste issue that we
    noticed. That was why people were drinking a lot of bottled
    water.
        But the second one is really very simple. We have lost the
    public drinking fountain. It has become, you know, a scuzzy
    disgusting facility that, for the most part, people will not
    want to drink from anymore. And from a technology perspective,
    there are ways to fix that problem and we should think about
    how we can make public water supplies available on a public
    fountain basis that is sanitary, that is going to provide the
    measure of comfort level to the user.
        I am a tap water drinker and I struggle to find public
    fountains in airports and other public places. They are just
    disappearing, largely disappearing from our buildings. And so I
    think that is part of what we need to also look at, is how we
    provide the substitute for the consumer that wants to make that
    switch.
        Senator Whitehouse. More infrastructure, Mr. Chairman.
    Infrastructure.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. I thank the witnesses.
        Senator Cardin. Senator Udall.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, very much. And
    congratulations to you also for being the first in your class
    to hold a hearing. I served with you in the House and we have
    always known you were a great leader, and you are once again
    leading out, and you beat Sheldon to the punch. That is the
    thing I like.
        Senator Cardin. Your class is coming soon.
        Senator Udall. OK, OK, as soon as you get me one of those
    chairmanships.
        Senator Cardin. Right.
        Senator Udall. But I'd like to put my opening statement in
    the record and just go directly to questions.
        [The referenced material was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Cardin. Without objection, all Members of the
    Committee will have the opportunity to include opening
    statements. We have heard from Senator Inhofe who had planned
    to be here, will not be able to be here, and his opening
    statement will also be included in the record.
        Senator Udall. There was some discussion early on about
    through the panel, and thank you all for being here; we very
    much appreciate your testimony, on the issue of desalination.
    And that is a big issue in the west, because we are seeing an
    interest in getting into these brackish underground aquifers
    and bringing them up and desalting them.
        And developers are looking at different ways to get water
    supply there. But it is my understanding there are several
    concerns. First, the process is very energy intensive, so in
    order to desalinate water on large scales, we would be forced
    to consume large amounts of new power, the equivalent of
    several very large power plants.
        Second, these inland saline aquifers, unlike freshwater
    aquifers or the ocean, are nonrenewable and may not recharge
    naturally. As a result, the price for desalinated water is much
    higher than from freshwater resources.
        I would like to ask you, any of you, to comment on this. If
    all the desalination research we talked about, the projects,
    the research, we push the envelope on it, how realistic are the
    efforts on a large scale in the near term, say 5 years? And how
    much can we expect to bring the costs down, if you talk about
    where the cost is now and how far we would bring it down?
        Mr. Shannon. OK. I would like to weigh in on this. I think
    this is a fantastic question you asked, Senator, and it is
    something that we spend lots of our time thinking about.
        Right now, there are efforts around the world to bring the
    cost of energy use and desalinization way down. In fact, we are
    being funded by groups out of the EU and Saudi Arabia to do
    just this, to be able to use solar-powered desalination of both
    sea water and inland.
        And so there is a group that is now working on cogenerating
    energy, generating energy at the same time you are generating
    water, and having the brine so concentrated at near zero
    discharge that you can get at that inland issue. There are key
    issues that one can do there, and I think the costs can be
    brought down considerably from where it is currently at.
        That is one of the things that we talk about. We are not
    near the natural law limits, and when people think about it,
    they think about known technologies. And known technologies are
    very energy intensive that are currently being used.
        The other issue is that if you are trying to transport
    water long distances, this is one of the things that people
    don't really compare, as discussed, taking the water over the
    Tehachapis. That takes just as much energy as it takes to
    desalinate water from sea water, so one needs to compare those
    two costs.
        But there is research going on. Unfortunately, not a lot in
    this Country, but a lot of research going on overseas and large
    companies are looking at developing new technologies. We should
    see the energy drop by a factor of two to four over current
    technologies, and being able to do this recovery.
        If you couple it with the reuse factor, where you can then,
    after it has been desalinated and use the non-potable water,
    you can then drop the total water needed by a factor of four as
    well.
        So I think it does become quite possible in these arid
    regions to be much more efficient about use of water. These
    deepwater aquifers that you are referring to, many places are
    already getting to that point. Outside of El Paso, Texas, the
    water is so deep that they are now desalinating and spending a
    lot of water to re-inject it down into the deep oil wells.
        So the technologies are here, but they can be made much
    better, I guess, is the take-home message.
        Mr. Mehan. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with Dr.
    Shannon's remarks completely. I would also maybe call your
    attention, Senator, to a recent report by the National Research
    Council on desalt technologies. It is a very good report. It
    does point to just the cost dropping like an anchor, and that
    is going to continue. But there are residuals. There are issues
    that require further research.
        I think there are some good American companies working in
    this area like G.E. and Dow, and they would be very pleased to
    come in and tell you how the technologies are improving and the
    costs are dropping.
        So it is part of the solution. I am not one that thinks
    that technology will save us. That is why I believe in full
    cost pricing and conservation pricing and water efficiency. But
    it is definitely a bright spot on the horizon. And when you
    look at the application of those same technologies to water
    reuse and recycling, tremendous opportunities.
        Ms. Davis. If I might add just one point, I agree with the
    foregoing comments, and I just would add that desalination,
    particularly in the interior areas, needs to be looked at. And
    an integrated water management strategy, which is exactly what
    we are doing within the Chino Basin. We have two desalters that
    are operating now that are helping us to reclaim water that
    otherwise would not be usable. We are integrating that water
    supply into treated water into our water supplies.
        So we are generating right now about 26,000 acre feet of
    new water supplies from the treatment of brackish groundwater
    that otherwise would not be available. We were able to
    integrate the project with renewable energy development of
    biogas from a digester. We actually did a partnership with the
    agricultural community. So we are taking dairy manure and
    treating it and producing the biogas that then runs the
    generation at the desalter.
        And then we are also looking at recharge strategies with
    recycled water, where because we are taking the salts out of
    the groundwater basin, our regional board under the Clean Water
    Act is enabling us to go ahead and use recycled water as part
    of the replenishment cycle, along with stormwater and imported
    water, to manage the groundwater basin.
        So in a bigger picture, how do we fit all of these
    different water strategies together? And I would also concur
    that we are really very low on the learning curve of really how
    to do this and to figure out ways in which our local water
    supplies can be optimized, maximized in order make these
    strategies really work and drought-proof our economies.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Cardin.
        We have, as you know, hearings at the same time. I would
    love to stay at this the entire time, but I am going to have to
    get over to the Commerce Committee.
        Senator Cardin. We appreciate your being here.
        Senator Udall. Thank you.
        Senator Cardin. We certainly understand that.
        One of the things that is different between the Senate and
    the House that Senator Udall and I both experienced. In the
    House, we serve on one or two committees. In the Senate, they
    put us on four or five committees. So I think they try to keep
    you out of trouble by having you at hearings all day long.
        Professor Shannon, you pointed out in your charts and in
    your comments the benefits from research in the area of water
    efficiency. Could you just comment how the Federal Government
    compares in its commitment to supporting research for water
    efficiency with perhaps what is happening in other countries or
    in the private sector?
        You heard EPA testify earlier. We do have research
    programs. They are not centered only on water efficiency, but
    they do cover water efficiency. How do we compare to what is
    happening around the universe on water efficiency research?
        Mr. Shannon. Well, thank you very much.
        I actually have been traveling the world trying to answer
    this exact question. I went to Switzerland because Switzerland,
    you know, is a country of 7.7 million people. And they are
    spending about $400 million a year on it right now. And you are
    saying, well, why would they be doing this? This is a water-
    rich country. It is beautiful.
        It is because they are a net-exporting energy nation in
    electricity and their snowpack storage and glacial storage is
    decreasing. And so they have decided to become very efficient
    about water, and moved to a lot of reuse, looked at low water
    footprint technologies for energy and other applications, so
    that they can become self-sustaining when this snowpack storage
    disappears.
        Singapore is investing some $300 million over 5 years and
    getting concurrent investments by, unfortunately, U.S.
    companies. On March 19, G.E. just announced they are investing
    $100 million in the effort in Singapore. And unfortunately, it
    is not coming to the United States.
        The Netherlands, a country of 16 million, also invests on
    the order of $100 million a year on water reuse and
    conservation technologies. China, it is very difficult to tease
    where China is, but China is spending lots of money at this
    point, as well as India.
        So we are seeing this resurgence around the Country. And so
    much so that our students that we are graduating with Ph.D.s
    are being literally taken away and given great salaries, and we
    are seeing a reverse brain drain, leaving this Country, which
    is very disturbing to me, particularly when one thinks about it
    and projects it out into our future.
        So, you know, in comparison, our investments are quite
    modest in total, not even comparing against population. I think
    our needs, actually, are quite high. So I think there is a
    mismatch in our investments versus other countries.
        Senator Cardin. One of the strategies we have tried to use
    on energy efficiency and renewables is that it is good economic
    sense for Americans. Our technology and jobs should stay here.
    I think same thing is true with water efficiency, that we are
    losing an economic opportunity here that we need to figure a
    strategy to deal with.
        That leads me, Mr. Mehan, to your point about pricing of
    water, which would be a rather controversial issue if we tried
    to put the true cost of water on the users. It wouldn't be a
    popular decision by those who have to run for office locally.
        But you raise a very good point. I want to take it to a
    different level, though. You say you then reward water
    efficiency, which I agree. Use less, you are rewarded on the
    price structure. But it seems to me that with volume purchases,
    you might work counter to that.
        Have you thought about how you deal with the volume issue,
    with efficiency, so that we use less, but still have a pricing
    mechanism that reflects true cost?
        Mr. Mehan. Absolute key issue, Senator. Unfortunately, I
    didn't have time to get to it in my testimony, my oral
    testimony. But in my paper testimony submitted, I discuss the
    whole issue of decoupling, which is not a new issue in the
    energy field, but it is still a new issue in the water sector.
    Decoupling, in other words, pricing of revenue for the water
    system from volumetric sales.
        Certainly, California I think has done this I think on
    energy, and ahead of that. But we haven't really begun to
    explore the kinds of price structures that would allow us to
    take the incentive out of selling a lot of water. I don't know
    how many corporate environmental officers I have talked to who
    have said you know, we have put in this really wonderful water
    efficiency program in our plant. We cut our water use, and then
    our water rates went up. And as I remember, one officer from
    Coca-Cola in particular said that sends a very mixed signal.
        And I think that points to the problem and the need to
    explore decoupling between volumetric sales and a legitimate
    rate of return for the water system. Key issue, and one that
    could use a lot of research work, and I cite my written
    testimony.
        Senator Cardin. Well, I appreciate that. I think that can
    be very helpful to us.
        Ms. Davis, what are the major obstacles in the way of
    utility companies adopting water efficiency types of
    improvements?
        Ms. Davis. You know, for a long time, they have been
    willing to move along with programs that supported their
    customers in being more efficient. And so it has been dominated
    over the last decade or so with a focus on provision of rebates
    for more water efficient devices, like the ultra-low flow
    toilets. And quite frankly, they have been very successful.
        The city of Los Angeles today announces that it is using
    the same level of water supplies as they did in 1990, even
    though their population has grown by over 1.5 million to 2
    million people. They credit back to simply the programs of
    switching out toilets and putting in, building in structural
    water efficiency.
        What is happening in California and I think some of the,
    you will see the same issues carrying across the Nation, is how
    do you take the next step in building in efficiency? And I
    think there has always been a fear factor that in part in
    asking people to be more efficient, that maybe you are asking
    them to change their lifestyle or to make choices that they
    don't want to make.
        And I think we see this debate in the outdoor sector very
    visibly exposed, where people are saying, if you ask me to
    reduce my outdoor landscaping, does that mean I get to keep a
    lawn?
        And I think what we are seeing now emerging, but there is a
    lot more work to be done on it, is how we can encourage people
    to have very attractive outdoor landscaping that is water
    efficient, that has these other benefits.
        And for most water agencies, it is a new frontier of
    getting into recommendations that would go so foundationally
    into the way that people have structured their landscapes and
    their communities.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you for that.
        Ms. Dickinson, I appreciated your comments on the
    WaterSense program. You did something which is kind of unusual.
    You gave us a specific number, $10 million. I am curious how
    you arrived at that number.
        Ms. Dickinson. Well, I came up with $10 million because I
    wanted to at least get within shooting range of the Energy Star
    funding. So that is one-quarter of the Energy Star funding. It
    would be wonderful to have even more than $10 million, but that
    is already a fourfold increase over their current levels, and I
    thought maybe more than $10 million might not be easily
    justified.
        But clearly, I believe that additional investment in the
    WaterSense program will yield a lot more results, which will be
    positive in the marketplace.
        Senator Cardin. Well, I agree. We are going to have to take
    a look at that. I don't think there is any disagreement about
    the need to center in on greater acknowledgment of water
    efficiency issues and WaterSense helps us in that. We need more
    research. We certainly need to concentrate on the cost-benefits
    of water efficiency that the pricing issues, I think, point
    out.
        The difficulty is do we take it out of existing,
    reprioritize, or do we add additional resources? And in a tough
    economic period that we are in now on budgets, it is going to
    be very difficult to see new funds made available.
        So one of the challenges to all of us is whether we can
    reprioritize within the resources that are currently being
    used. That may be a matter for another day's discussion, but I
    think you all have made a very convincing case that we need to
    get the right public attention on water use and the concerns
    about water supply in America and international, and the fact
    that we can do a much better economic job for our Nation in
    better use of energy and better use of our natural resources.
        Our challenge will be how the U.S. Senate and Congress can
    work with this Administration to develop policies that will
    move these issues forward. Your testimony here today has
    certainly helped us in giving us the information necessary to
    move forward. So I thank all of you for your testimony. This
    will be a continued interest for our full Committee. I know
    Chairman Boxer is very interested in moving forward in this
    area, and we will take the information from today and move
    forward.
        Thank you all very much.
        Our Subcommittee will stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]

                Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
                           from the State of Oklahoma

        Today we are focusing on a very small piece of a very large
    issue: water efficiency. Our Nation currently has hundreds of
    billions of dollars of needs in both clean water and drinking
    water infrastructure. Many of our systems are reaching the end
    of their lifetimes and are going to need replacement and repair
    in the future. Using water more efficiently is one way we can
    help extend the life of current systems and is important for
    planning for the future. Additionally, we can help address this
    need through a continued commitment to infrastructure. I am
    looking forward to working with Chairman Cardin and Ranking
    Member Crapo on the water infrastructure bill.
        Consumers understand the importance of saving energy.
    Energy prices have risen around the Country and many people
    have chosen to cut their energy costs by purchasing products
    that save them money, such as more energy efficient appliances.
    EPA's Energy Star program has been a great example of a public-
    private partnership that relies on market based principles to
    drive technology forward. EPA is working to do the same thing
    with its Water Sense program. Using the market and public-
    private partnerships along with education, water efficiency
    programs can be widely successful in saving water for
    communities and money for consumers.
        Using water more effectively helps reduce strain on
    existing water treatment plants and can help areas like
    Oklahoma, which has had to deal with drought conditions for
    several years, better use the water that is available. In
    addition to helping stretch our water resources further, water
    savings also saves energy. EPA estimates that 4 percent of the
    Nation's electricity consumption is used moving or treating
    water and wastewater. In homes with electric water heaters, 25
    percent of their electricity consumption is used to heat water
    for cleaning and cooking.
        I know there is a great interest in using water more
    efficiently. Currently, my home State of Oklahoma is doing a
    comprehensive State water plan. One of their main objectives is
    to focus on ways to improve water efficiency and water
    conservation. Additionally, the State legislature created a
    grant program last year to assist communities to implement
    pilot water conservation projects in Oklahoma communities.
    These projects will serve as models for other communities and
    result in significant water efficiency improvements and water
    savings. I believe that projects like these will demonstrate
    new cost-effective technologies and help spur new markets.
        I am looking forward to hearing from EPA what they are
    currently doing to promote and improve water use efficiency,
    what research and development initiatives they have begun and
    how they are reaching out to the public to educate them about
    opportunities to improve their water efficiency. I am also
    interested in discerning what some of the current barriers are
    with assisting and encouraging people to become more water
    efficient and if there is a role for Congress to play.

                               [all]