[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]