[Senate Hearing 112-268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-268
DOMESTIC AND GLOBAL WATER SUPPY ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
HEAR TESTIMONY ON OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES TO ADDRESS DOMESTIC AND
GLOBAL WATER SUPPLY ISSUES
__________
DECEMBER 8, 2011
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-894 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon MIKE LEE, Utah, Ranking
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington DANIEL COATS, Indiana
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Castle, Anne, Assistant Secretary of Water and Science,
Department of the Interior..................................... 4
Gleick, Peter H., President, Pacific Institute, Oakland, CA...... 26
Hansen, L. Jerry, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Installations, Energy, and Environment, U.S. Army.............. 11
Keppen, Dan, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance............ 66
Lee, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Utah........................... 1
Meeker, Melissa L., Executive Director, South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, FL....................... 49
Salzberg, Aaron, Special Coordinator on Water Resources, Bureau
of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs, Department of State................................... 16
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire............ 1
Stanley, Thomas, Chief Technology Officer, GE Power and Water,
Water and Process Technologies, Trevose, PA.................... 38
Stewart, Harry T., Director, Water Division, New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH.............. 55
Willardson, Anthony, Executive Director, Western States Water
Council, Murray, UT............................................ 42
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 67
DOMESTIC AND GLOBAL WATER SUPPY ISSUES
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:10 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne
Shaheen presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Good afternoon, everyone. I apologize for
starting late. I knew if we had a subcommittee hearing today,
we would have both at the same time. So, I should have expected
that.
Let me begin by thanking our panelists for being here. I'm
going to also recognize Senator Bingaman, who chairs the full
Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We're delighted to have
him here for however long he can stay. Senator Lee has another
engagement and has to leave. So, what I would like to do,
Senator Lee, is ask you to go ahead and make your opening
remarks, and then I will make mine, and introduce the
panelists.
So, if the panelists are OK with that, Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you so much, Senator Shaheen. I
appreciate your accommodating my schedule. I also want to thank
our witnesses for joining us today.
I've been looking forward to this hearing and the different
perspectives and opportunities before us as we look at our
domestic and our global water supplies. I'm encouraged that our
committee's looking at opportunities to further ensure that we
have continued access to clean and reliable sources of water.
It's my intent, it has been my intent, as we've been
approaching this meeting, to address a myriad of issues in
connection with this hearing, to ensure that we've got these
water resources for the next century, and to ensure that we
respect the primacy of the States and their role, their
historic and constitutional role in the allocation of water.
Although the allocation of water is and long has been a
State-driven process, the Federal Government has been involved
in the development of water for more than a century,
particularly in the West. Projects have been built to store and
to manage water, to produce power, and reduce the impacts of
floods, provide for navigation, and to help develop irrigation.
Most of these Federal projects were built with the support
of local communities under the prevailing State water laws. The
regulation and appropriation of water resources are and should
remain within the purview of a State-driven process. As we
proceed with this hearing, I want to be clear, the allocation
of water is a State responsibility, fundamentally, and not a
Federal one. I believe every State in this Nation faces similar
challenges relating to the supply and the quality of water
resources.
First, with limited fresh water supplies, how can we assure
and ensure that we have an adequate and safe water supply for
urban and rural communities? How do we develop affordable
options to treat and further develop our finite supplies of
water? I hope that our witnesses today can describe some
options that are available to address these 2 questions.
Water, as it has served for the last century, will continue
to be the backbone of our economy in many respects. Safe,
reliable, and cost-effective supplies for water will continue
to be a critical driver of all sectors of the American economy,
including agriculture, industry, recreation, and that water
that's used for domestic and culinary purposes.
I encourage our witnesses today to think outside the box on
options to expand our water supply through new resources and
through conservation efforts. In so doing, I'd also encourage
our witnesses to think outside the box on how the Federal
Government can best assist the States with meeting their water
supply challenges.
So, I look forward to the extent that I'm able to remain
for the next few minutes to hearing some of these, and--and
will follow-up with my own questions in--in writing inasmuch as
I'll be unable to remain for the duration of the meeting.
I want to recognize and thank Tony Willardson, who is the
Executive Director of the Western States Water Council. He's
from my home State of Utah, from Salt Lake City. I want to
thank him especially for being here.
Finally, in closing, I want to acknowledge that--I
understand that the EPA is embarking on the preparation of a
report to address the value of water to the U.S. economy. I'll
be following up with some questions in writing on--on how
various entities that we'll be discussing today may have
contributed to this study or be involved in it, and how we can
follow up on that. So, with that, I'll turn it back to you,
Senator Shaheen. Thank you again for accommodating my schedule.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Lee.
As Senator Lee suggested, we're here today to explore the
opportunities and challenges facing domestic and global water
supplies. It is a very broad topic, but it's also one that
deserves our ongoing attention, because water is critical. Yet,
most of us really don't pay very much attention to the water
that we use, where it comes from, where it goes after we finish
using it.
Many of us in the United States take water for granted, but
globally, 800 million people do not have access to safe
drinking water. The figures on water use are astounding. The
U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Americans use about 100
gallons of water per day. The majority of our daily water use
helps generate electricity at our country's power plants, with
over 200 billion gallons of water used in this sector alone.
Globally, agricultural water use accounts for nearly 70
percent of all water withdrawals. When we consider that the
world's population is expected to grow from 7 billion to 10
billion people by 2050, we quickly realize the--the successful
management of our water resources is critical. The State
Department reports that in just 2 decades the world's demand
for fresh water is expected to exceed supply by 40 percent.
There's increasing recognition that water scarcity raises
tensions between Nations and may be a driver of armed conflict.
Coupled with our changing climate, the future of our water
supplies, both here in the U.S. and around the world, is a
cause for grave concern.
In my home State of New Hampshire, the fastest growing of
all the New England States, we're projected to add 260,000 new
residents by 2030. While we're fortunate in New Hampshire to
have abundant water supplies, we face our own challenges from
increased flooding and aging infrastructure.
I'm very pleased to be able to acknowledge Harry Stewart,
who is from New Hampshire, and is joining us from New
Hampshire's Department of Environmental Services, where he
heads the Water Resources Division, to provide the perspective
from not only New Hampshire, but from the Northeastern States.
While we've seen great strides in technology to overcome
water challenges, including desalinization, we don't yet have a
silver bullet to overcome water scarcity. At the same time,
there are innovative ways to reduce water consumption, using
existing technologies. Our Armed Forces have often been
trailblazers in figuring out how to do more with less. The
Army's Net Zero Initiative for water is an impressive example
from which we can all learn. Mr. Hansen, we're all very anxious
to hear what you have to tell us.
I'm pleased to welcome our witnesses today, and look
forward to hearing from them about the state of the existing
technologies, the future of technological innovation, and what
else we can do as a society to ensure we have adequate supplies
of water for future generations.
I want to recognize our first panel, the Honorable Anne
Castle, who is Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, with
the Department of the Interior. Thank you for being here. Mr.
Jerry Hansen, who's the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Installation, Energy, and Environment, with the U.S. Army.
Good afternoon. Mr. Aaron Salzberg, who's the Special
Coordinator for Water Resources with the U.S. Department of
State.
Before I turn it over to Ms. Castle, let me just ask
Chairman Bingaman if he would like to make any remarks at the
start.
The Chairman. I really didn't have any opening statement.
I'm very glad to be here to learn what I can from these
witnesses. I think it's a very important issue, and one that we
need to understand much better. Thank you for having the
hearing.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ms. Castle.
STATEMENT OF ANNE CASTLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WATER AND
SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Shaheen, Senator Bingaman.
Thank you very much for inviting me to be here today to talk to
you about the Department of the Interior's undertakings and
accomplishments with respect to water scarcity, both
domestically and globally.
I'll be talking specifically about the Bureau of
Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey, the 2 agencies that
I work most closely with. While it is States that allocate
water supplies and control administration of use, the Federal
Government has a very important role to play in leading the way
to sustainability of water resources, and providing the tools
that we need to get there.
The USGS is best known in the world of water for the over
7,000 stream gauges that it operates, deployed all across the
country. Those stream gauges provide us with real-time stream
flow information that is accessible to anyone who goes online.
That information is really essential to the National Weather
Service, to FEMA, to the Army Corps of Engineers, and to just
about any water manager.
USGS also helps us with water imbalances, by telling us
exactly how and where water is being used across the country.
Every 5 years, USGS produces a report on the overall water use
in the United States, and tells us what water withdrawals are
used for, and what volume of water is being used for those
purposes.
USGS is also drilling down on particular watersheds, and
doing very detailed supply and demand inventories in existing
river basins. For example, Senator Shaheen, as you know, I'm
sure, USGS recently completed 2 reports on water supply and
demand in the seacoast area in New Hampshire. One was looking
at current and future surface water demand, based on growing
population and climate change. The other was a groundwater
model that was looking at projected groundwater depletions,
based on both withdrawals and climate change as well.
Reclamation also has a very key role to play. It's the
largest wholesaler of water in the United States, and the
second largest producer of hydroelectric power. We provide
drinking water to over 31 million people, and irrigation water
supplies to 10 million acres of land.
Reclamation's role has really evolved over the years from
being solely a constructor and operator of dams and reservoirs
to being one of the co-managers of the ecosystems in which
those reservoirs exist. We now know that we have to pay
attention to downstream resources if we're going to fulfill our
mission of providing reliable supplies of water and power.
Interior's signature initiative to lead the way toward
sustainability of water supplies is our WaterSMART program.
Reclamation is a key player in WaterSMART. We know that we need
to develop better strategies for managing our own water
supplies, but we also recognize that we have a role to play in
facilitating new technology, in incentivizing conservation and
reuse, and encouraging innovation for all types of water users.
One of the ways that WaterSMART does that is providing
cost-share grants to help fund water conservation and reuse
measures and to incentivize technological breakthroughs. A
great example of a WaterSMART grant is in Senator Lee's State,
a grant that we made to the Uinta Water Conservancy District,
$300,000 to fully automate its water delivery system. That's
going to enable water savings of over 1,800 acre feet, and also
contribute to better water sustainability in the important
energy resource development of the Uinta basin of eastern Utah.
Another example of information that we provide to assist in
water supply management is through USGS's earth-observing
satellite system, the Landsat series of satellites. Landsat
gives us remotely sensed land imagery over the entire globe,
but it also allows us to very accurately estimate consumptive
use of water from vegetation and crops. So, it gives us a
better tool for more quickly and inexpensively estimating water
use through evapotranspiration. That's a very important
component of water balance.
My written testimony describes our other work, our
international work in the Middle East and North Africa. It also
describes our efforts to estimate the impacts of climate change
on water supplies, and assess how to improve that information.
Finally, I've described our incubation of new technologies
for accessing unconventional supplies of water, like seawater,
or brackish groundwater, or other impaired sources, so that we
can actually increase the availability of water.
As water scarcity increases, which we have every reason to
believe that it will, we're trying to use a multipronged
approach to create the platforms and the tools that water
managers and planners need to adapt to changing conditions, and
to create security for the future.
I look forward to talking with you further about this
important question and to answer any of your questions. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Castle, Assistant Secretary of Water and
Science, Department of the Interior
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Anne Castle, Assistant Secretary of Water and
Science at the Department of the Interior (Department). I am pleased to
report on the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) and the U. S.
Geological Survey's (USGS) accomplishments as they relate to the
opportunities and challenges to address domestic and global water
supply issues. These are areas of priority and special study at the
Department and I appreciate the opportunity to share with you
information on the many activities we have underway.
The USGS and Reclamation play key roles with respect to meeting our
Nation's water supply challenges. Water is one of six science mission
areas of the USGS and has been an essential part of the USGS mission
for more than 120 years. USGS is known throughout the country for its
operation of our national system of stream gauges. The USGS installed
its first stream gauge in Embudo, New Mexico in 1889 and today, a
network of more than 7,000 stream gauges operated in cooperation with
local, state, and Federal agencies, provides real-time data important
to the National Weather Service, FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and other Tribal, state, and local partners. Streamflow information is
used for interstate and international transfers, river forecasting,
water budgets, and other purposes. Stream gauge information is
essential to effective and sustainable water management, as it provides
necessary data to make decisions concerning the water supply.
Founded in 1879, the USGS is the Nation's largest water, earth, and
biological science and civilian mapping agency. The USGS collects,
monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural
resource conditions, issues, and problems. The USGS provides impartial
scientific information on the health of our ecosystems and environment,
the natural hazards that threaten us, the natural resources we rely on,
the impacts of climate and land-use changes, and the core science
systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and useable information.
With a diversity of scientific expertise, the USGS carries out large-
scale, multi-disciplinary investigations and provides scientific
information to resource managers, planners, and other customers.
Reclamation owns and operates water projects that promote and
sustain economic development within the 17 western States. The mission
of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related
resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public. Since it was established in 1902,
Reclamation has constructed more than 600 dams and reservoirs including
Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and Grand Coulee on the Columbia
River. Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the country,
delivering water to more than 31 million people, and providing one out
of five western farmers with irrigation water for 10 million acres of
farmland across the United States. Reclamation is also the second
largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, and
provides significant amounts of renewable energy to customers
throughout the West.
The Department's WaterSMART Program Contributes to Water Supply
Security
On February 10, 2010, Secretary Ken Salazar signed a Secretarial
order establishing the Department 's WaterSMART Initiative. The
``SMART'' in WaterSMART stands for ``Sustain and Manage America's
Resources for Tomorrow.'' The WaterSMART Program includes WaterSMART
cost share grants (Water and Energy Efficiency Grants, System
Optimization Review Grants, Advanced Water Treatment and Pilot and
Demonstration Project Grants, and Grants to Develop Climate Analysis
Tools), Reclamation's Basin Studies, Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives, West-Wide Climate Risk Assessments, the Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Recycling program, the Cooperative Watershed Management
Program, the Water Conservation Field Service Program, USGS's Water
Availability and Use Assessments, and the WaterSMART Clearinghouse.
Through the WaterSMART Program, the Department works with states,
tribes, local governments, and non-governmental organizations to secure
and stretch water supplies for use by existing and future generations
to benefit people, the economy, and the environment and will identify
measures needed to address climate change and future demands.
Rapid population growth, depletion of groundwater resources,
impaired water quality, water needed for human and environmental uses,
and climate variability all play a role in determining the amount of
fresh water available at any given place and time. Water shortage and
water-use conflicts have increasingly become commonplace in many areas
of the United States. As competition for water resources grows--for
irrigation of crops, growing cities and communities, energy production,
and the environment--the need for information, tools, and technology to
aid water resource managers also grows.
Through the Basin Study Program, Reclamation and its partners are
conducting studies of the supply and demand for water in 12 basins
throughout the West, including the Colorado River Basin, the Yakima
River Basin, and the St. Mary and Milk River Basins. Subsequent West-
Wide Climate Risk Assessments will provide hydrologic projections that
water managers can utilize to adapt to climate change and other
resource management challenges.
Reclamation's Title XVI Program provides opportunities to reclaim
and reuse wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface water in
the 17 western States and Hawaii, providing flexibility during water
shortages by reusing water typically available during drought periods.
Recent examples of Title XVI projects that use technology to create new
drought resistant sources of water include the Santa Clara Valley Water
District's South Bay Advanced Water Treatment Plant. The plant will use
microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultra violet disinfection
techniques to produce up to 10 million gallons per day of recycled
water from wastewater to help meet the Silicon Valley's future water
demands. Similarly, the Long Beach Water Department is using the Title
XVI Program to develop and test a new double-pass nanofiltration system
to desalinate seawater to drinking water quality. The demonstration
phase has been completed, and the process has been shown to result in
energy savings when compared to reverse osmosis processes.
USGS's WaterSMART program includes the ongoing Water Census Program
which is designed to provide a comprehensive examination of water
availability in the United States. An initial Water Census pilot
project for the Great Lakes Basin was completed in 2011 (http://
water.usgs.gov/wateravailability/greatlakes/). The pilot provides an
indication of the detailed information that will be generated through
the Program. In general, USGS's water programs provide information
designed to quantify water availability, understand ecological needs
for water, and improve the ability to accurately measure consumptive
uses.
The Department's Actions to Address Water Supply Uncertainties Relating
to a Changing Climate
The Department has released two reports this year as called for by
Sections 9503 and 9506 of the SECURE Water Act, P.L. 111-11, which was
enacted to develop tools to help resource managers secure adequate and
safe supplies of water. Reclamation's Section 9503 Report synthesized
existing peer-reviewed literature on climate change and included an
original assessment of climate change implications for snowpack and
natural hydrology in eight major Reclamation river basins (http://
www.usbr.gov/climate/SECURE/docs/SECUREWaterReport.pdf). Projections of
future precipitation indicate that the northern and north-central
portions of the United States may gradually become wetter while the
southwestern and south-central portions may gradually become drier.
Projections also suggest that warming and associated loss of snowpack
will persist over much of the western United States. This loss of
snowpack storage is expected to result in a decrease in the amount of
reliable water supply in areas where snow has been a major component of
the hydrologic system.
The Section 9506 report, titled Strengthening the Scientific
Understanding of Climate Change Impacts on Freshwater Resources of the
United States, was prepared by a Federal interagency panel led by the
USGS and developed in concert with the Council on Environmental
Quality, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. The report reviews the state
of existing science and identifies strategies for improving systems to
collect climate-related data and water monitoring information. The
recommendations are intended to help water managers predict, respond
and adapt to the effects of climate change on the Nation's freshwater
supplies so that they can help ensure adequate water quantity and
quality. Recommendations include a need to strengthen the Nation's
water monitoring systems, including both ground-and space-based
systems.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/
loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=260567
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's River Restoration Activities and Species Recovery
Programs Enhance Water Supply Security
In addition to developing tools to address uncertain climatic
conditions, an important aspect of Reclamation's mission is to ensure
reliability of water supplies through its river restoration programs.
In order to continue to deliver water and generate power, Reclamation
must address the environmental effects associated with its projects.
These ongoing restoration efforts provide certainty to water users,
enhancement to the environment, and economic benefits to the
surrounding communities. A 2009 economic report prepared for the
Department concludes that every one million dollars we invest in
ecosystem restoration yields approximately 30 jobs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/
loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=22612
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USGS provides scientific expertise and support to restoration and
species recovery programs and is an active participant in major
ecosystem restoration programs that protect drinking water supplies,
irrigation and industrial water uses, and maintain a healthy
environment. USGS conducts research and monitoring to develop and
convey a fundamental understanding of ecosystem function and
distributions, and to evaluate the physical and biological components
of freshwater, terrestrial, and marine ecosystems and the human and
biotic communities they support.
Landsat Imagery Contributes to Our Understanding of Water Use and
Availability
An additional example of technology that assists water supply
management is USGS's Earth-observing satellite, called Landsat, which
has been providing sustained remotely-sensed land data for the entire
planet since 1972. One of the many valuable uses of Landsat is to
enable water managers to ``see'' evapotranspiration and estimate
consumptive water use from irrigation. The States of Idaho and Arizona
use this satellite data for this purpose, which has proven to be much
cheaper than traditional methods of measuring consumptive use.
One thing that makes Landsat unique is its temporal resolution,
which is a measurement of how often it takes an image of each square
meter of the Earth's surface. Until recently, Landsat captured an image
about once every 8 days which is useful for evaluating the ongoing
changes to the western landscape and patterns of water use. In November
of this year however, one of the two Landsat satellites (Landsat 5)
became inoperative after breaking records for longevity, and the
temporal resolution was cut in half. An eighth Landsat is scheduled to
launch in early 2013 and critical steps are being taken to plan for the
next satellite. Maintaining the continuity of the data is essential to
water managers that rely on it.
Research and Development Activities Help Develop Tools to Address Water
Supply Challenges
In addition to recognizing the importance of gathering information
and developing strategies to better manage water supplies, the
Department recognizes that technology, efficiency, and innovation will
be central to maximizing water supplies in the years ahead. Federal
investments in the research, development and demonstration of water
conservation and reuse technologies can be catalysts in the creation of
U.S. jobs, and can strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. industries in
a global economy. Federal investments in research, development and
demonstration projects can lead to breakthroughs in science and
engineering, which can create foundations for new industries, new
companies and new jobs. For example, Reclamation has been engaged in
funding research, development and demonstration technologies to address
water shortages which have been instrumental in facilitating the
expansion of the U.S. market for water conservation technologies.
Through its Desalination and Water Purification Research and
Development Program, Reclamation has provided grant money to a
consortium of U.S. membrane manufacturers to evaluate a ``standard''
diameter for large reverse osmosis elements. The consortium developed a
16-inch standard diameter element that has been adopted for large
capacity plants such as Singapore's 2.6 million gallon per day Power
Seraya project and the new 108.5 million gallon per day desalination
project in Sorek, Israel, which may also be used elsewhere.
Similarly, Reclamation's Advanced Water Treatment grants Program
for strategic, targeted water management improvements, encourages the
use of innovative technologies that address water supply
sustainability. Loving County, Texas is using WaterSMART Grant funding
this year to begin a field-installed pilot project to evaluate the
viability of using wind powered vapor compression technology to treat
brackish groundwater. In California, the Richvale Irrigation District
is implementing an online Geographic Information System and irrigation
flow-event recording system using WaterSMART Grant funding. The project
will enable the district to improve flow management, reduce leaks and
spills, and conserve water by providing continuous feedback on water
consumption to growers and is projected to save 11,500 acre-feet of
water annually.
The Department has a history of supporting research and development
efforts to create and improve water purification technologies to
encourage new water supplies, including highly purified brackish water,
seawater, and wastewater. The Department recognizes the growing
importance of unconventional water sources and that research and
development must be a priority now in order to make these options more
certain and sustainable for the future. The USGS's Water mission are
includes the National Research Program which develops technology and
insights regarding varied and complex hydrologic and ecological
processes that are important for protecting and enhancing the Nation's
water resources and the ecosystems they support. USGS scientists are
conducting a wide variety of research and development activities to
study water scarcity. A few examples are discussed below.
Purification of water using solar energy--An example of new
technology that directly addresses water scarcity is the solar
distillation loop (US Patent No. 7,108,769). This invention
provides a low-energy, inexpensive process for water
purification and is designed to help solve the complex problems
associated with water scarcity, increasing water conveyance
costs, and regional accumulation of salts in soils resulting
from irrigation.
Changes in snowpack runoff--The western United States
depends heavily on runoff from snowpack melt to store
wintertime precipitation into the drier spring and summer
months. USGS scientists have been conducting research to
document the shift towards earlier runoff that is caused by (1)
more precipitation falling as rain instead of snow and (2)
earlier or faster snowmelt. Results of this work will impact
the manner in which water is managed in the West.
Water sustainability in the Southwest United States--The
USGS has investigated the potential effects of specific levels
of climate warming on streamflow in the Colorado 6 River basin
using a water-balance model. This work supports both WaterSMART
activities, as well as Reclamation's Colorado River Basin
Study.
Drought--Climate, droughts and streamflow patterns are all
interdependent. USGS research is documenting regional,
national, and global spatial patterns of drought. Coping with a
prolonged drought is anticipated to be difficult, particularly
in the arid and semi-arid West, where water demand has
increased significantly and water supplies are likely to be
insufficient for demand. Severe drought conditions have also
affected the East in recent years. Understanding drought
frequency, duration, and severity are key to meeting water
demands.
Reclamation conducts research and development of technologies such
as membranes and advanced treatment for water reuse and desalination
represents innovation in an area that may be one of our best
opportunities to create `new' water supplies that benefit both inland
and coastal areas here in the U.S. and around the world. In 2008, the
National Academy of Sciences released a two-year study, sponsored by
Reclamation and the Environmental Protection Agency, which looked at
the role of desalination in contributing to the Nation's water supply.
The study resulted in recommendations for two overarching goals: 1) to
understand the environmental impacts of desalination and develop
approaches to minimize these impacts relative to other water supply
alternatives; and 2) develop approaches to lower the financial costs of
desalination so that it is an attractive option relative to other
alternatives in locations where traditional sources of water are
inadequate. The recommendations form the basis for Reclamation's
advanced water treatment technology initiatives.
Reclamation has a number of initiatives that develop and apply
advanced water treatment technologies in water scarce regions with
involvement that ranges from funding and partnerships for laboratory
studies, to prototyping new concepts, to assisting other federal
agencies and organizations around the world. One Reclamation project
that incorporates advanced water treatment and technology research is
the Yuma Desalting Plant in Arizona and its adjoining Water Quality
Improvement Center.
The Yuma Desalting Plant was constructed under the authority of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 to recover
agricultural return flows that bypass the Colorado River. Due to budget
constraints as well as sufficient water supplies on the lower Colorado
River prior to the current drought, the plant has been maintained, but
not operated except for brief periods. Working with the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD), Southern Nevada Water
Authority (SNWA), and Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD), the Colorado River Basin states and other parties, in March
2011 Reclamation concluded a successful pilot run of the plant under
budget and ahead of schedule to recycle approximately 30,000 AF of
irrigation return flow water that was used to help meet the U.S.'s 1944
Water Treaty to deliver Colorado River water to Mexico and to provide
flows for the Cienega de Santa Clara (Cienega), a wetland in Mexico.
The Cienega is now home to more than 350 bird species and habitat for
thousands of migratory and resident birds--an accomplishment that has
set the stage for future collaboration with Mexico.
In October 2011, Reclamation announced a number of awards under its
Desalination and Water Purification Research Program, using $1.5
million of Federal funds to support nearly $2.8 million for use in
research projects, including five new projects and two projects that
are receiving continuing funding for their second phase. The projects
help to reduce environmental impacts, integrate renewable energy,
reduce long-term costs, expand scientific understanding, and test pilot
and demonstration-scale projects. Examples include a project to design
and test a pressure regulation subsystem for a wave-driven desalination
system being carried out by a company in Boston, Massachusetts. This
system will be used in conjunction with a seawater reverse osmosis
system powered by ocean wave energy to create a clean and cost-
effective alternative to diesel-driven desalination systems.
A number of projects are also being carried out at Reclamation's
Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility in
Alamogordo, New Mexico. New Mexico State University with the Office of
Naval Research is funding students and faculty to work with General
Electric and their researchers on electrodialysis, to develop a more
affordable desalination system for small users. Additionally, the
University of Texas at El Paso with Veolia Water Systems received a
second year of demonstration funding to continue the commercialization
of a brackish desalination system that would recover approximately 98%
of the brackish water rather than the conventional 70%.
Addressing the Energy/Water Nexus
There is no dispute that water shortages can affect energy
production and energy production can impact water supplies. Through the
WaterSMART Program, the Department is committed to integrating energy
and water policies to promote the sustainable use of all resources,
including incorporating water conservation criteria and the water/
energy nexus into the Department's planning efforts. WaterSMART
specifically recognizes that water and energy are inextricably linked
and that water conservation can yield significant energy conservation
benefits too. For example, Reclamation's Water and Energy Efficiency
grant program recognizes the connection and has prioritized funding for
projects that include energy savings in addition to water savings. The
most recent grant awards included 25 projects that included energy
savings in addition to water savings.
USGS plays an integral role with respect to understanding the
constraints and impacts involved in the relationship between energy and
water. For example, USGS evaluates water consumption of thermoelectric
power plants as part of its water use assessments and is working with
industry and the U.S. Energy Information Administration to evaluate the
water uses associated with different technologies. USGS expects to have
a report completed in 2012 regarding classifications of various cooling
technologies and methodologies for estimating consumptive uses. USGS
also conducts water quality and quantity monitoring in connection with
oil and gas development. This subcommittee recently heard testimony
from USGS relating to shale gas production and water resources in the
eastern United States. USGS is currently coordinating with other
agencies, including the Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agency to address human and environmental health and safety
concerns in the development of shale gas resources. In the West, USGS
is working with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on groundwater and
surface water monitoring in oil and gas development areas in Colorado
and Wyoming. USGS is also working with BLM on evaluating impacts
relating to renewable energy development such as solar power in the
southwest to ensure that development plans address water supply
constraints.
Efforts to Address International Water Supply Issues
Though Reclamation's efforts are primarily focused in the 17
western states, what is learned in one part of the world is rapidly
transferred to other regions with similar needs. As one example of
Reclamation's international efforts, in coordination with the
Department of State, Reclamation worked toward the creation and
operation of the Middle East Desalination Research Center (MEDRC) in
Muscat, Oman as a tangible part of the Middle East Peace Process. This
year, Reclamation participated with the State of Israel in an audit of
MEDRC policies and procedures. Reclamation recently updated an
Interagency Agreement with the Department of State to provide technical
assistance to MEDRC as well as to provide technical assistance as `new'
water infrastructure is developed by the Palestinians, Jordanians, and
Israelis utilizing desalination and water reuse. Through the same
agreement, Reclamation has been providing preliminary advice on the Red
Sea Dead Sea mega desalination and energy project.
USGS works with the Department of State and the Department of
Defense in many countries, including Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Haiti,
India, Iraq, Pakistan, and Sudan, to support local and national efforts
to better understand and manage water resources. USGS's international
efforts include a focus on the ability to exchange water data across
nations and to interpret the data with common protocols. A summary of
USGS's International Water Resources Branch activities is found at:
http://water.usgs.gov/international/. USGS is actively participating in
the work of the Open Geospatial Consortium jointly with the World
Meteorology Organization to develop and apply standards for describing
and distributing water data from any database (whether local, national
or International) such as those of the USGS National Water Information
System. In 2010, the USGS released the results of a collaborative
effort with the Afghanistan Geological Survey and the Afghanistan
Ministry of Energy and Water, and supported by the United States Agency
for International Development, to study water resources in the Kabul
Basin. Because of the decades-long gap in the record of hydrologic and
climatic observations due to war and civil strife, the investigation
made use of remotely sensed data and satellite imagery, including
glacier and climatic data, in addition to recent geologic
investigations, analysis of streamflow data, groundwater-level
analysis, surface-water-and groundwater-quality data, and estimates of
public-supply and agricultural water uses.
Other international examples include work in Iraq, where the USGS
recently provided training on groundwater assessment methodologies and
helped to develop basin wide water availability methodologies using
remote sensing techniques. In addition, since 1988 the USGS, at the
request of the U. S Embassy, has been partnering with the National
Drilling Company of the Abu Dhabi Emirate to collect information on the
ground-water resources of the Emirate, to conduct research on the
hydrology of the arid environment, to provide training in water-
resources investigations, and to document the results of the
cooperative work in scientific publications.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as water scarcity increases throughout the world,
the Department of the Interior's efforts to create and utilize new
technologies are helping to firm up water supplies for agricultural,
municipal, industrial, and environmental needs. State governments
administer water use within their borders and state law determines
allocations and allowable uses. But the Federal government has a
responsibility to provide leadership and tools to address the
challenges of imbalance between supply and demand. We can provide
incentives to encourage water conservation and reuse, leadership in new
technology to increase usable supplies, and assistance for ecosystem
restoration efforts that increase the certainty of water supplies for
the future. All of these efforts depend on partnerships with local
utilities, states, tribes, and foreign allies. The Department aims to
continue generating positive, concrete results from these efforts and
to help communities in managing opportunities and challenges for a
secure water future.
I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee may
have.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen.
STATEMENT OF L. JERRY HANSEN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. ARMY
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, ma'am.
Madam Chairwoman, Senator Bingaman, it's a pleasure today
to appear to discuss water scarcity and how the Army's water-
related programs, and particularly our efforts to create net
zero installations and reduce water requirements in contingency
operations that are part of the solution. We're especially
grateful for this committee's interest in the Army's energy and
water reduction programs. We believe the committee's ongoing
efforts, coupled with the President's vision for
sustainability, will help our installations accomplish their
worldwide missions now and into the future without disruption.
The Army faces significant manmade and natural threats to
our energy and water supply requirements, both at home and
abroad. Just this past year, Army installations have faced a
tsunami, earthquake in Japan, tornadoes in the South, and
droughts in the West. We must address these threats and work to
ensure that the Army of tomorrow has the same access to
resources as the Army of today.
Addressing sustainability is operationally necessary,
financially prudent, and essential to mission accomplishment.
We are creating a culture that recognizes the value of
sustainability, measured not just in terms of financial
benefits, but benefits to maintaining mission capability,
quality of life, relationships with local communities, and the
preservation of options for the Army's future.
The Army's proud to lead the way in meeting water intensity
reductions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Our installation
of water intensity has dropped from 57.6 gallons per gross
square foot in 2007 to 48.8 in 2010.
The centerpiece of our program, to appropriately manage our
natural resources, is our net zero program. A net zero water
installation limits the consumption of fresh water resources
and returns water back to the same watershed, so as not to
deplete the groundwater and surface water resources of that
region in quantity and quality over the course of a year. We
have pilot installations identified and net zero energy and net
zero waste, as well as net zero water.
The net zero water strategy balances water availability and
use to ensure a sustainable water supply for years to come.
This concept is of increasing importance, and scarcity of clean
potable water is quickly becoming a serious issue in many
areas.
The continued drawdown of major aquifers results in
significant problems for--for our future. Strategies such as
harvesting rainwater and recycling discharge water for reuse
will reduce our need for municipal water and also reduce our
discharges of storm water or treated wastewater.
In addition to the net zero initiative, our water security
mission makes water a consideration in all Army activities. To
increase efficiency, reduce demand, seek alternative sources,
and create a culture of water accountability, while sustaining
or enhancing operational capabilities.
For example, Installation Management Command will be
holding users accountable to modernize facilities, install new
technologies, and leverage partnerships that can provide an
increased level of water security. This will lead to increased
sustainability, a more resilient water-related infrastructure,
and enhance mission assurance.
The Army has identified 8 installations as net zero water
pilot sites. Let me highlight just 2 examples of interest to
committee members. First, is Camp Rilea, Oregon. This 281,000-
acre installation is striving to reach net zero water by
successfully redesigning their water supply and wastewater
capability, so that they can operate independent of the
existing municipal supply, if needed, to keep the North Coast
Energy Operation Center operable 24/7.
Camp Rilea also recently installed several rapid
infiltration basins to simultaneously supplement their existing
reclaimed water reuse capabilities, and comply with regulatory
requirements for wastewater discharge.
Second, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, in Washington. Joint Base
Lewis-McChord has requested funding for replacing an aging and
obsolete wastewater treatment plant at their installation. The
proposed new plant will generate class A reclaimed water, which
can then be reused as part of the net zero initiative. The
project is designed to reduce or eliminate storm water
discharges into a creek and reuse it. Joint Base Lewis McChord
is including storm water in its net zero goals. The
installation has been meeting the EO--Executive Order 135104
required water use reduction of 2 percent per year, mostly
through water conservation projects, reducing the amount of
water used for irrigation.
In parallel to net zero water, the--the Army is also
implementing solutions to reduce water use in our contingency
operations. Reducing water use directly decreases the threats
to our convoys, because 70 to 80 percent of our resupply weight
or convoy weight is fuel and water.
Less water means fewer convoys, which means fewer soldiers
are placed at risk. Deploying technology at our contingency
bases, such as the Shallow Water Reuse System, makes the Army
more efficient and directly enhances the mission. The magnitude
of water savings associated with the Shower Water Reuse System
deployed at a 600-man force provider tent city are pretty
impressive. In many cases, the system produces a simple
economic payback for less than a week of use. From the net zero
water pilots and contingency base initiatives, we'll be
collecting best management practices and lessons learned, and
we will share these as widely as possible.
Madam Chairwoman, this completes my statement. Thank you
again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'll look
forward to your questions. I also have an Army vision for net
zero folder, 2 pages, that I'll be happy to provide for the
record, if you'd like.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Prepared Statement of L. Jerry Hansen, Princinpal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Installations, Energy, and Environment, U.S. Army
introduction
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss the Army's water related programs,
particularly our efforts to create net zero installations. We are
especially grateful for this Committee's continued support for the
Army's energy and water reduction programs. The Committee's on-going
efforts, coupled with the President's vision for sustainability, marked
by increased energy and water efficiencies, and reductions in the
generation of solid waste, will ensure that our installations are able
to accomplish their world-wide missions now and into the future without
disruption.
background
The Army's vision is to appropriately manage our natural resources
with a goal of net zero installations. Today, the Army faces
significant threats to our energy and water supply requirements both at
home and abroad. Addressing sustainability is operationally necessary,
financially prudent, and essential to mission accomplishment. The goal
is to manage our installations not only for water efficiency, but also
energy efficiency, and solid waste reduction. We are creating a culture
that recognizes the value of sustainability measured not just in terms
of financial benefits, but benefits to maintaining mission capability,
quality of life, relationships with local communities, and the
preservation of options for the Army's future. The Army is making
investments on our installations by improving efficiencies in energy,
water, and reducing waste for the benefit of the Nation and, provide
current and future Soldiers with the maximum amount of flexibility
possible to address the Nation's security needs.
army installation water program
In addition to our installation to become net zero initiative, our
water security mission makes water a consideration in all Army
activities in an effort to increase efficiency, reduce demand, seek
alternative sources, and create a culture of water accountability while
sustaining or enhancing operational capabilities. For example, in the
Installation Management Command, which manages the majority of Army
installations one of their strategic goals is to maintain water
efficiency by holding users accountable to modernize facilities,
install new technologies, and leverage partnerships that can provide an
increased level of water security. This will lead to increased
sustainability, a more resilient water-related infrastructure, and
enhanced mission assurance. The trend in our installation water
intensity (Gallons/Gross Square Foot), 2007--57.6, 2008--54.0, 2009--
58.2, and 2010--48.8, has decreased over the last four years for which
data are available. The Army is a leader amongst all Federal Agencies
in regards to meeting the water intensity reductions in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. In fact, based on data from the Federal Energy
Management Program, were it not for the Army's superior performance
with water intensity reductions in the last two years, the Federal
Government as a whole would not have met its Congressionally mandated
water intensity targets.
To meet the challenges of limited and stressed potable water
sources, we will continue to plan and implement, particularly net zero,
that recognize water as a strategic resource. Enhancing water
conservation and management, and creating awareness are basic
responsibilities of every Army Soldier and civilian. Success depends on
individual and organizational accountability for improved performance
through implementation of solutions to meet current and future water
security challenges. Changing our behavior in how we view and use water
is central to our continued success.
net zero water
Earlier this year, we asked for nominations from throughout the
Army for installations that were interested in being becoming net zero
energy, water, and/or waste pilot. We received applications from 60
installations. For net zero water, we evaluated 23 applications from
across the U.S. and across multiple Army commands. A total of eight
installations were identified as net zero water pilots including
Aberdeen Providing Ground, Maryland; Camp Rilea, Oregon; Fort
Buchannan, Puerto Rico; Fort Riley Kansas; Joint Base Lewis McChord,
Washington; Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania; Fort Carson, Colorado;
and Fort Bliss, Texas and New Mexico. While each installation is unique
and has specific needs based on their location and function, the net
zero water pilot initiative brings them together to share information
and strategies, and will provide a model for other installations that
are working on their own sustainability efforts.
The net zero water strategy balances water availability and use to
ensure a sustainable water supply for years to come. This concept is of
increasing importance since scarcity of clean potable water is quickly
becoming a serious issue in many areas. The continued draw-down of
major aquifers results in significant problems for our future.
Strategies such as harvesting rain water and recycling discharge water
for reuse is reducing the need for municipal water, exported sewage, or
storm water.
To achieve a net zero water installation, efforts begin with
conservation followed by efficiency in use and improved integrity of
distribution systems. Water is re-purposed by using gray water
generated from sources such as showers, sinks, and laundries and by
capturing precipitation and storm water runoff for on-site use.
Wastewater can be treated and reclaimed for other uses or recharged
into groundwater aquifers. Several Army installations are already well
down the path to reaching net zero water goals.
multi-agency collabroation
While the Army possess a significant amount of in-house expertise
in water, including offices within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
that we are working with including the Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory in Champaign, Illinois, and the U.S. Army
Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, Alabama, there is
considerable expertise elsewhere in the federal government that we are
also drawing on.
We have reached out to the federal Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Research and Development to assist the Army with the
net zero initiative. Ms. Katherine Hammack, the ASA(IE&E) and Dr. Paul
Anastas, the EPA's Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development, and the Science Advisor to the Administrator, signed a
Memorandum of Understanding on 28 November 2011 to formalize the
collaboration. We will work jointly to advance the development of new
applications and technologies that can be used as we strive towards net
zero energy, water, and waste. We will explore technologies and
approaches that (1) increase efficiency and recovery of energy, water,
and materials, (2) incorporate design and use of Green Infrastructure,
(3) address the energy/water nexus, (4) addresses social and behavioral
components, (5) aid in our understanding of water, energy, and material
flows and interactions, and (6) incorporate water and energy security
and climate-ready solutions.
We are also working with the Department of Energy's Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) within the context of the
Department of Defense and Department of Energy's Memorandum of
Understanding to draw on PNNL's expertise in water efficiency. PNNL
will begin by performing a water balance assessment for each of the net
zero water pilots. A water balance (Figure 1*) compares the total water
supplied to the installation to the actual water consumed by equipment
and processes such as industrial, landscaping, and residential use. The
water balance will identify the largest water consumers and assist in
identifying problem areas such as high leak rates in the water
distribution system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All figures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background information will be collected on an installation's
overall water supply, wastewater discharge, and building inventory.
This information provides historic installation water use trends and
specific trends in water use at the building level. Following the
background information collection, building and process walk-through
audits will be conducted to provide information to estimate water use
by end-use. These data are then used to develop the water balance
providing an estimate of water use by major end-use category.
Based on results from the water balance, a strategic project road
map will be created (Figure 2). The road map will identify net zero
water projects that will have the greatest affect on overall water
demand reduction and will move the installation towards net zero.
Projects will include a mix of efficient technologies and projects that
target alternate water sources, such as gray water, that will replace
the use of freshwater resources, such as those that draw raw water from
rivers or lakes. There will be an emphasis on demand reduction and then
alternate water source projects. After completion of the economic
analysis of the net zero water projects, the road map will provide a
list of projects to be programmed into the Army budgets and will assist
in identifying other possible funding sources. Each installation's
master planning activity will be part of the creation of the road map
so that the installations current master plans are well integrated into
their net zero water program.
contingency base water
In parallel to the net zero water pilot initiative, the Army is
also examining ways to reduce water use in contingency operations.
Reducing water use directly decreases the threats to our convoys
because 70 to 80 percent of our resupply weight or convoy weight is
fuel and water. Less water means, fewer convoys which means fewer
Soldiers are placed at risk. As with our U.S. based installations, we
know that our budgets are going to be coming down and we are
strategizing how to do more with less. Deploying technology at our
contingency bases that makes the Army more efficient, such as the
Shower Water Reuse System (SWRS), demonstrates our commitment to use
resources more efficiently and directly enhances the mission. The SWRS
works by taking waste or graywater and recycling it for future use. To
accomplish this, the SWRS takes the soiled shower water and runs it
through a series of filters, membranes, and chemicals. The water
distributed from this system is within potable quality standards,
although while technically potable, the Surgeon General has only
approved it for reuse within the shower.
The SWRS can treat up to 12,000 gallons of water per day and
returns 75 percent of it for reuse. When the system is used at full
capacity, 9,000 gallons of water are saved per day. Spread over an
entire year, the Army could recognize a potential savings of more than
3.2 million gallons of water in just one shower facility.
Most contingency bases are not near accessible water supplies and
need to be constantly resupplied. The cost of water per gallon in a war
zone is extremely high. Once all factors are added up, one gallon of
water delivered to a base in Afghanistan can cost anywhere from $5 to
$30. This is what makes the SWRS such a force multiplier. By
drastically reducing the amount of water needed to be resupplied, it
returns more Soldiers to the field and lessens the burden on combat
forces due to the coming drawdown.
The SWRS is currently undergoing additional field testing at the
Army's recently opened Base Camp System Integration Laboratory (SIL) at
Fort Devens, Massachusetts. The SIL is designed to enable the Army and
the joint services to evaluate future technologies in a live Soldier
environment, providing solutions to reduce the energy and water demand
and logistical burden on base camps in Afghanistan.
The four-acre SIL is fully instrumented to measure water, fuel, and
power use, forging the path for increased energy efficiency and base
camp commonality. While the SWRS has already undergone two years of
mission testing, evaluation at the SIL will be slightly different. We
are currently working with Pennsylvania State University to create a
way to filter laundry water in the same water reuse unit. If
successful, the laundry water filter will be added on to the SWRS in
the field. By Spring 2012, 54 SWRSs will be fielded to units in
Afghanistan. Each SWRS system costs roughly $170,000. If used at its
full capacity, the Army could realize a potential savings of millions
of dollars per unit each year. It is this type of innovation that the
Army is implementing to enhance capability and do more with less.
conclusion
Through our installation water goals, the net zero initiative, and
technologies such as the Shower Water Reuse System, the Army is
researching innovative technological solutions coupled with changes in
culture to achieve greater efficiencies in water. Thus, throughout the
Army, we are focused on identifying ways to decrease the Army's water
footprint across its entire global mission. From the net zero water
pilots and contingency basing initiatives, we will be collecting best
management practices and lessons learned throughout and will seek to
share these across the Army, other Services, other federal agencies,
and any other organizations that might find these practices useful for
their own sustainability programs.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. Thank you again for
the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. We would like that
very much for the record. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.
Mr. Salzberg.
STATEMENT OF AARON SALZBERG, SPECIAL COORDINATOR ON WATER
RESOURCES, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Salzberg. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Bingaman. I,
too, appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
As Secretary Clinton has noted, perhaps there's no 2 issues
are more important to human health, economic growth, and peace
and security than access to basic sanitation and sustainable
supplies of water. Yet, as you pointed out, today, over 884
million people lack access to safe drinking water, and over 2-
1/2 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. Each day,
nearly 4,000 people, most children under 5, die from
preventable diarrheal diseases caused by contaminated water.
Not surprisingly, women and girls are most affected.
In addition to the health impacts, water will affect our
ability to protect the environment, achieve food and energy
security, and respond to climate change. Competition for water
and the lack of access to basic water and sanitation services
may become a source of conflict and a contributing factor to
State fragility and failure.
While these statistics are grim, there is hope. In most
places, there is enough water to meet demands. What's lacking
is a commitment to sound water resources management and to
meeting the basic water and sanitation needs of the people. To
address these challenges, the United States is working
internationally to help countries achieve water security. This
means ensuring that people have reliable and sustainable access
to the water they need, when they need it, where they need it,
while reducing the risks from extreme hydrological events.
To achieve this goal, the United States is working to
increase access to safe drinking water and sanitation, improve
water resources management, and mitigate the tensions
associated with shared waters.
Last year, Secretary Clinton outlined 5 primary areas of
action for our work on water. First, to build and strengthen
institutional and human capacity at the local, and national,
and regional levels. Countries and communities must take the
lead in securing their own water future. We need to help build
their capacity so they can do so.
Second, increase and better coordinate our diplomatic
efforts. We need to work to raise international awareness, to
encourage developing countries, to prioritize water and
sanitation, and national plans and budgets, and to integrate
water into global food security, health, and climate change
initiatives.
Third, mobilize financial support. This is going to require
resources. In many cases, there is capital within developing
countries. We need to work to mobilize these resources toward
water and sanitation infrastructure by strengthening local
capital markets, providing credit enhancements, and exploring
other avenues for support.
Fourth, promote science and technology. Madam Chair, you're
right, there is no silver bullet. That said, science and
technology can have a huge impact. We need to work hard to
incentivize the development of technologies that can make a
difference at scale, and to share U.S. experience and knowledge
with the rest of the world.
Finally, fifth, build and sustain partnerships. We, the
U.S. Government--we cannot solve this problem alone. As you've
already heard, there's a great deal of knowledge and experience
that lies within the U.S. technical agencies, the private
sector, the U.S.-based non-profit community. We need a whole-
of-government, a whole-of-America approach, and stronger
partnerships with the non- governmental community.
I'll stop here, but I'll leave you with a quote from
Secretary Clinton. She said, ``It's not every day that you find
an issue where effective diplomacy and development will allow
you to save millions of lives, feed the hungry, empower women,
advance our national security interests, protect the
environment, and demonstrate to billions of people that the
United States cares, cares about you and your welfare. Water is
that issue.''
We look forward to continuing our work with the members of
the subcommittee, USAID, other U.S. Government agencies, and
interested stakeholders to improve water resources management
and to get safe water and basic sanitation to the billions of
people who are currently without.
Madam Chair, with your permission, I would like to submit
my full remarks for the record, and thank you again for the
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of State.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salzberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Aaron Salzberg, Special Coordinator on Water
Resources, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific, Department of State
Chairperson Shaheen and other Members of the Water and Power
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the global water challenge. As Secretary Clinton has noted,
perhaps no two issues are more important to human health, economic
growth and peace and security than basic sanitation and access to
sustainable supplies of water.
The Challenge of Water
Both at home and abroad, water security is becoming one of the
great challenges of our time. Today, an estimated 884 million people
lack access to an "improved" drinking water source. (Improved drinking
water sources include piped water, a borehole, or a protected dug well.
We don't know how many people lack access to ``safe'' water--drinking
water quality is not measured globally.) More than two and a half
billion people lack access to basic sanitation. While we are making
some progress--particularly in increasing access to improved drinking
water sources - over 1 billion people still defecate in the open. Each
day, nearly 4,000 people die from diarrheal diseases which remain the
second leading cause of death in children under five worldwide. Many of
these deaths are preventable: increased access to safe drinking water,
sanitation and hygiene (WASH) can reduce diarrheal disease by 30-40%.
These interventions can also reduce or eliminate morbidity associated
with water-related neglected tropical diseases such as Guinea worm
disease, trachoma, and schistosomiasis.
Women and children are disproportionately impacted by these issues.
Women and girls often bear the primary responsibility for meeting the
water needs of the family--they often spend hours every day collecting
water, with the consequence of foregoing other economic and educational
opportunities. Similarly, the burden of tending to family members
sickened by diarrheal diseases falls primarily on women. In some areas,
collecting water consumes up to five hours per day and involves walking
more than two miles carrying over 40 pounds of water. Collecting water
can often involve walking through isolated, unsafe areas that expose
women and girls to health and safety risks. Girls are also more likely
to stop attending school when appropriate sanitation facilities are not
available.
Water will have a great impact on food security. On a worldwide
basis, more than 70% of the water used globally goes towards
agriculture; in some developing countries, it's over 90%. As demand for
food increases and countries shift to foodstuffs that require more
water--such as beef--already scarce water resources will be under
greater pressure. To expand food production we will need to improve the
productivity of water (our ability to get more ``crop per drop'') and
work to ensure reliable access. This means expanding irrigated
agriculture, using new technologies to reduce the water used in certain
applications such as drip irrigation and drought-tolerant crop
varieties. It means using natural and man-made systems to store and
manage supplies. We will also have to take steps to protect our
freshwater and coastal ecosystems. Fish are a significant source of
protein for more than two and a half billion people in developing
countries. Overfishing, pollution and poor management have led to a
decline in many freshwater fish species and will undermine food
security. Finally, children who suffer from chronic diarrhea have
difficulties absorbing the nutrients they need and are therefore more
likely to be malnourished.
Water will also play a key role in achieving energy security. Water
needs to be brought to its point-of-use, and it is heavy. The pumping
and transport of water can, in many cases, be one of the leading
consumers of energy. Conversely, water can be a source of clean,
renewable, energy. Dams can play a key role in meeting future energy
needs and along with natural infrastructure can be critical to managing
and mitigating the impacts of floods and droughts. But dams can also
have an impact on people and the environment. Stakeholder involvement
and sound management will be essential to ensuring the interests of
people and the environments are protected. We also need to be sensitive
to the impacts of new energy development on existing water resources.
Water is becoming an increasing threat to peace and security.
Within countries, water availability and access to basic drinking water
and sanitation services may be a source of local conflict and a
contributing factor to state fragility or failure. Among countries that
share water, tensions are likely to rise as demands grow. Today, over
40% of the world's population lives in river basins shared by two or
more countries. Disagreements are inevitable. The key is to keep these
disagreements from escalating into violent conflict. At the same time,
water can be unifying. Water can provide a platform for building trust
and cooperation between countries. Water user groups, and increased
transparency and accountability between the people and service
providers, can both increase access and advance democratic values.
While history is not necessarily a good predictor of our future, it is
true that water is more often a source of cooperation than it is of
conflict.
Climate change will exacerbate many of these challenges. In many
regions, wet regions may get wetter; dry regions may get drier;
glaciers will recede; and sea levels will rise. Greater variability in
rainfall will increase the likelihood of floods and droughts in some
regions. Rising sea levels, storm surges, flood damage, and saltwater
intrusion will threaten freshwater supplies in many areas. Extreme
weather (floods and droughts) is likely to increase in certain places -
threatening both people and economies. Greater water run-off from more
frequent and more intense precipitation events is likely to carry more
pollutants into water systems. All these will put greater pressure on
our ability to manage water holistically across a broad range of
competing needs.
In sum, by 2025, experts predict that nearly two-thirds of the
world's population will be living under water stressed conditions,
including roughly a billion people that will face absolute water
scarcity (a level that threatens economic development as well as human
health). Water scarcity and poor water quality will increase disease,
undermine economic growth, limit food production, and become an
increasing threat to peace and security.
There is hope. Some regions are truly water scarce. In those cases,
countries will have to work hard to reduce demand and better manage
supplies through proper pricing, improved water storage, conservation,
and water reuse. But in most places, there is enough water to meet
demands. What is lacking is a commitment to sound water resources
management and to meeting the basic water and sanitation needs of the
people.
The U.S. Approach
The goal of U.S. efforts on water internationally is to help
countries achieve water security. This means that people have reliable
and sustainable access to the water they need, when they need it, where
they need it, while reducing the risks from extreme hydrological
events. To achieve this goal, the United States is working to increase
access to safe drinking water and sanitation, improve water resources
management, increase the productivity of water resources, and mitigate
tensions associated with shared waters. We are also working to better
integrate water and sanitation considerations into our efforts on food
security, climate, and health. In other words, we cannot have food
programs failing because the sustainability of the water resources was
not considered; we cannot undermine children's health or education by
failing to ensure they have safe water to drink or appropriate
sanitation facilities; and we need to improve the management of water
if we are going to effectively manage the projected impacts of climate
change.
Secretary Clinton has outlined five primary areas of action for our
efforts on water:
Build and strengthen institutional and human capacity at the
local, national and regional levels--Countries and communities
must take the lead in securing their own water futures. We need
to help them build capacity at all levels so as to better
enable communities and countries to understand and respond to
water and sanitation challenges. This includes strengthening
regional cooperative mechanisms for managing shared water
resources.
Increase and better coordinate our diplomatic efforts--We
need to work with donor countries and international
organizations to raise international awareness and to address
critical needs; to encourage developing countries to prioritize
water and sanitation in national plans and budgets; and to
integrate water into global food security, health, and climate
change initiatives. We need to help countries establish a
precedent for early action rather than letting the issue grow
until it can no longer be ignored. Perhaps the greatest
impediment we face is the lack of political will. The fact that
countries themselves fail to prioritize meeting the basic water
and sanitation needs of their own people is a major impediment
to moving forward. We have seen a number of cases where, with
the right political leadership, a country has turned itself
around and made significant progress in meeting the water and
sanitation needs of their people.
Mobilize financial support--Managing water issues requires
resources. Even if all of the world's official development
assistance were directed towards water and sanitation it would
still not be enough to meet developing country needs. In many
cases, there is significant capital within developing countries
to fund water projects. We need to focus our support on
mobilizing those resources by strengthening local capital
markets, providing credit enhancements, and exploring other
avenues for support.
Promote science and technology--There is no technological
silver bullet. That said, science and technology can make a
huge impact. We need to work harder to incentivize innovation
on technologies that can make an impact in the water sector and
to share U.S. expertise and knowledge with the rest of the
world.
Build and sustain partnerships--We cannot solve this problem
on our own. There is a great deal of knowledge and experience
that lies within the U.S. technical agencies, the private
sector, and the U.S.-based non-profit community. We need a
whole-of-government approach and stronger partnerships with the
non-governmental community.
The United States remains one of the largest bilateral donors to
water and sanitation efforts. Together, the United States Agency for
International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers invested over $950 million in fiscal year
2010 (the last year for which we have complete data) for all water
sector and sanitation-related activities in developing countries. Of
this amount, USAID and MCC invested over $898 million in drinking
water, sanitation and hygiene activities. As a result of USAID's
activities, some 2.8 million people received improved access to safe
drinking water and 2.9 million received improved access to sanitation
in 2010. You can find additional details in our 2011 Report to Congress
on the implementation of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act
(www.state.gov/g/oes/water ).
We contribute annually to UN organizations and multilateral
development banks through our dues and through special multi-donor
trust funds related to water projects. More than twenty U.S. government
agencies are engaged on international water challenges sharing their
knowledge and expertise with developing country partners to help build
international capacity to address the global water challenge. The
United States also remains active in a number of transboundary water
basins throughout the world including the Nile and Mekong river basins.
As Secretary Clinton said, ``It's not every day you find an issue
where effective diplomacy and development will allow you to save
millions of lives, feed the hungry, empower women, advance our national
security interests, protect the environment, and demonstrate to
billions of people that the United States cares, cares about you and
your welfare. Water is that issue.'' We look forward to continuing our
work with Members of the Committee, USAID, other U.S. government
agencies, and other interested stakeholders to improve water resources
management and get safe water and basic sanitation to the billions who
are currently without.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before this
subcommittee on behalf of the Department of State.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Let me begin with you, Ms. Castle, because Senator Lee
talked about this in his statement, about the fact that
currently States control much of the regulation policy around
water. I certainly know that, as a former Governor.
But, should we do more at the national level to address
water supply issues in this country? Do we need a national
water policy, or do we have one, and we just don't know about
it?
Ms. Castle. I don't think we have one--sorry. I don't think
we have one and don't know about it. I think that the best
thing that we can do at the Federal level is to more fully
integrate and coordinate--as Mr. Salzberg said, take advantage
of all the expertise that exists in individual agencies, and to
make sure that we're maximizing our use of resources. Because I
do think there's a very important Federal role in providing
leadership and providing the tools to get to water
sustainability.
But, I also think that, not just because the States control
water allocation and use, but also because water issues are so
regional and local. They're different in every watershed. The
best solutions are those that come from the ground up. It's the
kind of thing that the Cooperative Watershed Management Program
was designed to facilitate. Getting people together in the
community is developing sustainable water plans, rolling those
up into river basins, and into State plans. I think that is the
best mechanism that we have to create solutions that are going
to last. Because solutions to watershed conflict have to have
widespread support. They cannot be top down, in my opinion.
So, the concept of Federal-level water planning, I don't
think is one that is best designed to succeed. I think, rather,
it should come from the ground up.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. You mentioned technology and
the importance of technology. I think you all actually
mentioned that, in some respects. But, given that we haven't
seen any real major technological leaps in the recent past, are
there more R&D efforts that we ought to be engaging in and
promoting through Federal policy, to encourage those kinds of
technological breakthroughs?
Ms. Castle. Senator Shaheen, I think that there has been
good progress made in advancing technology with respect to
making new sources of water available. Desalination technology
has advanced. A very significant problem with desalinization
has been the energy requirements. Those have actually come down
significantly over the past 20, 25 years. So, we're seeing some
successes there.
Some of the kinds of advance technologies that Reclamation
is funding, both through its desalinization research program
and through the WaterSMART grants, is in the category of using
renewable energy to power desalinization processes. Wind,
solar, even wave energy. I think that's a very significant
avenue for additional research and development.
I do think we have to concentrate on R&D. I think that's an
area where Federal coordination would be really welcome,
because there are a lot of different agencies who are putting
effort into those kinds of projects. I also think we can learn
from countries around the world, like Israel and Australia, who
have made significant leaps forward in desalinization and use
of impaired water sources.
Senator Shaheen. In the 25 seconds that I have left, can
you just describe one of the projects that's been funded
through the water and energy efficiency grant program, and how
it's been effective?
Ms. Castle. I can. You know, we've made probably close to
60 or 70 grants under the water and energy efficiency program.
This past year, we had $24 million available that was spread
over about 52 projects. Of those, 24 had energy efficiency,
energy savings incorporated into the water conservation
project. I can give you a specific example that's
representative.
In Oregon, the Three Sister's Irrigation District had a
project to line an irrigation canal to reduce seepage and
reduce the diversion requirement from the river. When you
encase the irrigation canal, that gives you the opportunity to
put hydropower generation on the conduit. That's what they did.
So, the project included generation of hydroelectric power
that they could then use for their own power needs, and had
enough left over to sell power into the grid to partially pay
for the conservation project.
We've seen several projects like that, with the enclosure
of formerly unlined canals, and hydroelectric power generation
tacked onto it. It's a really good system. It's very
sustainable and low impact environmentally.
Senator Shaheen. Great. Thank you. Senator Bingaman.
The Chairman. Thank you all for your testimony. I guess
each of us approaches this problem based on where we're from
and in our own experience. The State I represent is an arid
State. New Mexico. In our State, I believe I'm right, that by
far the largest use of water is agriculture. Accordingly, the
largest opportunity for reducing water use is agriculture. It
strikes me that all of the things you're talking about are
useful, but we do not do enough to assist, and incentivize, and
require that agriculture be more sensitive to water use and
waste in this country.
I don't know if any of you have views on that, but I don't
know the extent to which the Department of Agriculture has
focused on this as a priority in their work with farmers who
are dependent upon large amounts of waters for the crops they
grow.
Particularly, this is an issue in my State, because the
water that is being used by agriculture in many cases is
groundwater, and it is being depleted. We are not going to have
it 10, 20, 30 years from now to use. So, if any of you have
comments on that. Ms. Castle, maybe you'd want to start, to
give any thoughts you have on that.
Ms. Castle. Senator Bingaman, the way in which the Bureau
of Reclamation gets involved in agricultural efficiencies is
primarily in the delivery systems. I mentioned to Senator
Shaheen kinds of projects where we're facilitating the lining
or enclosure of formerly unlined canals. We also provide
WaterSMART grant funding for automation of delivery systems to
avoid spills and over deliveries, and again, cutting down on
the need for diversions.
We do less in the area of actual consumptive use by crops.
It's my understanding that the Department of Agriculture and
the Natural Resource Conservation Service does quite a bit of
work in that area, and provides information on best practices,
with respect to drip irrigation systems, and control
technologies that allow testing of the soil moisture, so that
you're not over applying the irrigation water supply. I know
less about that area, though.
The Chairman. Mr. Salzberg, did you want to make a comment?
Mr. Salzberg. Sure. Just quickly, Senator. You know, you're
exactly right. This is certainly one of the most pressing
issues that we face internationally. Many developing countries
around the world dedicate well over 70 percent of their water
for irrigation purposes. In fact, I was looking at one country
this morning where over 99 percent of its water goes for
agricultural purposes, an almost impossible figure. So, any
gains that we can make in that sector is important to our being
able to use water for other purposes in those countries.
So, there's no question that our trying to focus on moving
a country away from flood irrigation toward those technologies,
like drip irrigation, that can minimize the water applied to
the crops, land management practices that can help retain
moisture, both on the field, but also in adjacent areas, that
can hopefully offer long-term support and drought protection,
low-water consuming crops, and crops that can grow on brackish
water are things that we need to be thinking about.
Of course, management and policy changes that incentivize
sound water use. So, even the pricing of water in some cases,
establishing water user groups that can help ensure that
farmers understand that these things are do have a cost to
them, and that they need to be--manage them wisely. This is a
critically important area for us to work on.
The Chairman. Let me ask about one other issue. In the
West, historically, control of water and management of water
has been a State issue, and the Federal Government has
assisted. But, in the case where we've got rivers running
across different States, from one State to another, the States
have dealt with that issue by entering into compacts.
Where we have 2 States sharing an underground aquifer, that
hasn't happened. We've got the circumstance, which has been a
long-term source of irritation in Eastern New Mexico, that we
share the Ogalala Aquifer with a lot of States, but
particularly with West Texas. They have a very, what I would
characterize as a very irresponsible set of water laws in
Texas, which basically allows you to pump and use as much water
as you've got equipment for, whereas in our State, we have
tried to limit water use make it much more orderly. But, the
frustration, of course, on our side is that the water level in
the aquifer continues to drop because of the excessive water
use on the Texas side of the border. As I say, we've got 2
straws in one aquifer that is straddling the State line.
Is there any idea as to how the Federal Government could
try to play a more constructive role in this? The problem is,
there's no incentive on the part of Texas to do anything other
than what they're doing until they run out of water, in which
case they're going to have to move out of West Texas into other
parts of Texas, I guess. But Ms. Castle, maybe you have some
thoughts on how we solve this problem.
Ms. Castle. That's a tough problem, Senator Bingaman. I
would first say that one of the best weapons in any sort of
groundwater dispute is good information, and that's sometimes
lacking, in groundwater, particularly. So, I know that USGS has
been doing some work to characterize that aquifer and to look
at rates of depletion, and the stresses on the aquifer. I think
that that's going to be a necessary component of any solution.
You know, frequently, I think these interstate groundwater
disputes get dealt with in the form of the surface water
compacts that they're attached to. But when that doesn't exist,
it poses a more difficult problem. But I can see ultimately
that there would need to be a groundwater compact between New
Mexico and Texas, with allocation and safe withdrawal rates.
You're absolutely right, when one State has the rule of
capture, and the other one doesn't, it doesn't create equal
footing as a basis for negotiations.
I do think the Federal Government's role can be to supply
good information. I need to give some additional thought to
what else we might be able to do.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Mr. Hansen, one of the things
that has impressed me about the efforts that have been
undertaken by the Army, but I think by the Navy as well, and
the military, in general, has been the effort not just to
address water, but also energy. I wonder if you could talk
about how you, the Army, looks at those 2 issues, and the nexus
between the 2, and why--and thinking about how to address them,
you decided that it needed to be a joint effort.
Mr. Hansen. Yes, ma'am. Part of it was that we were both
looking at the same challenges at the same time, and that was a
marriage of convenience. But we also are connected to the joint
bases and have connections there that drove us in that
direction. We've also shared some personnel and personnel
turnover, which we shared between the 2 agencies. So, that's
further cooperation.
But we are going for net zero energy, as well as water, as
I mentioned. With net zero energy, meaning that we're
attempting at an installation level to produce as much energy
at the installation as we consume. This is over s period of a
year. So, for instance, with solar, we may be producing more
than we need during the day, and drawing from the grid at
night, but--and then, certain seasons are--so that would be
more so than others.
But we also recognize for every energy project that there's
a water component. So, for instance, with solar, if we're using
PV, there is a certain amount of water, and we predict--project
that out to about a third of year timeframe to makes sure that
we have a sufficient amount. That's considered in our NEPA work
as well.
If we want to use a--a more efficient concentrated solar
solution, for instance, it's going to require more water. So,
that becomes more of a challenge. So that is--that could be a
limiting factor in--in using certain types of technologies.
So, the 2 are very interrelated, and we think that they're
equal challenges to our sustainability for the future and
they're--we're really joined at the hip with those 2, and
that's why we manage them out of the same office.
Senator Shaheen. Can you talk a little bit about how you
are coordinating with other Federal agencies, to the extent
that you are, and how that's working.
Mr. Hansen. Yes, ma'am. As you know, the Department of
Defense and Department of Energy have an MOU that we're very
involved with the DOE labs. We currently have a senior
executive from the Department of Energy that's helping us with
our renewable energy initiatives, the partnership initiatives.
We're using Pacific Northwest National Lab, for instance, to do
our water survey audits at installations that help us map out
what we're currently using, establishing a baseline for that.
We've also recently established an MOU with the EPA, and
are working closely with them in a number of areas. We are
involved in interagency land use coordinating committee, with
the Department of Interior and other agencies that are looking
at withdraw lands issues and others, particularly in the West,
where there are a number of challenges to long-term leases and
other types of energy projects that we might want to enter into
with the private sector.
So, we really are trying to partner with everyone who's
interested in the same topic. We've reached out, and a lot of
them have reached out to us. I think that's continuing to grow.
Senator Shaheen. Good. That's encouraging. I also--you were
talking about some of the efforts to look at how--how much
water individuals are using. I remember one time, when I was in
college, we had a water shortage for a while, and so we were
all instructed to make sure we turned off the faucets as we
were brushing our teeth, you know, limit showers, all of those
sort of very easy standard kinds of things. But are there
lessons that you think you have learned, as you're looking at
personal habits and how we change those personal habits around
water usage? Because clearly, that's a place where we in the
United States have not been very careful about our water use.
Mr. Hansen. Yes, ma'am. I think changing the culture for
water is similar to changing the culture for energy. Both are
very definitely needed, and we're approaching that at
installation level by metering, and by getting feedback,
whether it's through a mock bill or an actual bill to the
family housing areas, to make people more aware and more
visible of what their use actually is.
We're encouraging the use of filters for the water to
reduce the pressure to a reasonable level, and limit the amount
of usage. That's not an official policy yet, but we've got a
lot of discussions on how we can change habits that have really
lead to inefficient use of both energy and water over the
years, and which really have to be changed.
We find that the younger generation is very much more akin
to this, and do some of those things more naturally than some
of us that are the older cohorts. We're attacking that at all
levels of our education systems, too. For instance, the West
Point, the United States Military Academy is very involved in a
number of these projects, and--and passing that along. We're
sharing all of our best practices with all our installations. I
think that while culture change is not an overnight phenomena,
that I'm very encouraged by the amount of change I've seen just
in the last year or so.
Senator Shaheen. That's encouraging. Mr. Salzberg, you
mentioned the impact, globally, of water use on women, in
particular. It's something that I hadn't really thought about
until I started going through the briefing for this hearing,
and recognizing that empowering women and girls in other
countries around the world has been very important to
stability, to economic prosperity. Can you talk about what the
impact of water scarcity is on women and girls, and if it's not
addressed, what the prospects are for the future?
Mr. Salzberg. It's a very important question, of course.
You know, we see in some places, if you look at Sub-Saharan
Africa, there are women that spend 6 hours a day collecting the
water for their families. So, you can imagine that they have to
forego other economic-generating opportunities, other things
that they might be doing for the family and for the community.
At the same time, the lack of safe water, and in
particular, sanitation in schools is a reason why girls, when
they reach a certain age, become very uncomfortable in
attending some of these schools, and is accountable for some of
the dropping out that we see in many schools internationally.
So, it's important for a whole bunch of reasons.
Women are also responsible, of course, often for taking
care of members of the family who are sick or ill. Diarrheal
disease being the leading illness among children would be a
main reason for women having to stay home, and, again, not
being able to engage in other economic opportunities. So, it
really does affect women and girls at all levels of
development.
Senator Shaheen. As we're looking at the effects of climate
change, particularly in Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, but seeing
some of those effects here, are there ways that we're looking
at planning for the water effects of climate change globally?
Is that--have there been discussions about this in Durban this
week that you've been following?
Mr. Salzberg. Start with the last question first. Yes,
water is the subject that's certainly be discussed out in
Durban. I know that there's many events on the margins of the
major meetings, talking about these kinds of issues.
First is collecting data. It's just trying to get an
understanding of the resources that we have, and how they'll be
impacted by some of these changes. Ms. Castle pointed out to a
number of activities that we're doing domestically. The same
exact kinds of things that we need to be doing internationally.
We then need to translate that data into some sort of
useable form for consumers. We need to generate information
that will be meaningful to our consumers. That means both those
people who can help generate some of the solutions to these
challenges, but also those people who will be most impacted by
these kinds of challenges. So, we have a data management issue
there.
Then from an action standpoint, we really do need to focus
our work on building flexible structures. In other words,
infrastructure that can be altered, and respond, and adapt to
changing conditions over time. Flexible institution----
Senator Shaheen. Like, give me an example.
Mr. Salzberg. When we start thinking about dams, large-
scale infrastructure. How do we ensure that we can operate
those under a wide range of different conditions. If we know
that we have glaciers upstream that will be melting, and so, it
will be changing the timing of seasonal flows down a particular
river, then how do we ensure that we've got infrastructure that
will be able to change and manage those changes over the next
30-100 years. Because that's how long we hope that this
infrastructure will be in service for. So, it's a large, large
issue in many places throughout the world.
How do we build flexible institutions, and flexible
contractual agreements, and legal agreements? When you look
across the world, when you have legal agreements, they're based
on country X gets this amount of water, country Y gets this
amount of water. If the amount of water is going to be changing
over time, you can imagine it's going to be very difficult to
enforce those types of agreements. So, we need to build very
robust institutions that allow the countries to work together,
to--on an annual, 5-year, 10- year, whatever's appropriate
basis, to reevaluate the data, and to re-optimize the
management of shared resources for the benefit of all the
people within the basin.
So, the key really is going to be building in flexibility
into many of the institutions and arrangements that we have.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I feel like this is a
conversation that we're just beginning here at this hearing,
but because we have another panel to present, I'm going to
thank the 3 of you very much for your testimony. We will have
some questions, I think, submitted for the record, which we may
ask you to respond to. Hopefully, from this hearing, we will
generate some additional actions and continue this
conversation. So, thank you all very much. I'm going to ask the
second panel if they would come forward.
While they're doing that, I will just point out that the
Senate is out for the weekend, so some of the Senators who
might have come today have--obviously are getting on earlier
flights. But I view this as just more time for me to ask
questions. So again, I want to thank each of our panelists for
joining us this afternoon. I will introduce you briefly. We
will then begin.
Dr. Peter Gleick is President of the Pacific Institute, in
Oakland, California. Thank you for joining us. Mr. Thomas
Stanley is the Chief Technology Officer for General Electric.
Tony Willardson is the Executive Director of the Western States
Water Council. Melissa Meeker is the Executive Director of
South Florida Water Management District, in West Palm Beach.
Harry Stewart is the Director of the New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services, Water Division. So again, thank you
all very much for being here. Dr. Gleick, I'm going to start
with you.
STATEMENT OF PETER H. GLEICK, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC INSTITUTE,
OAKLAND, CA
Mr. Gleick. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for the
opportunity to come and speak to the committee and the
subcommittee about opportunities and threats on national and
global fresh water issues. My written testimony has been
submitted for the record. It's far more detailed in both the
issue of threats facing us and some of the solutions and
opportunities that I'll be able to talk about today. But it's
there for the record.
Theodore Roosevelt said a hundred years ago, quote, The
Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as
assets, which it turns over to the next generation increased
and not impaired in value, end of quote. I would just start by
noting that we're failing to do that for water. We are not
turning over our water resources in a better condition than we
found them.
There are a wide range of global and national water
challenges, as you've heard already partly from the previous
panel. I would say they fall into 2 basic categories. The first
is challenges over water availability and use. The second is
challenges over the quality of water resources. I might add a
third that is, perhaps, challenges with the way we manage
water, and with the institutions that we create to deal with
water.
My written testimony addresses a wide range of challenges.
I'll just mention a few of them. Some have already been touched
on. Our water quality is threatened with new contaminants, with
old contaminants that we failed to remove. We are failing to
invest adequately in maintaining and upgrading our water
infrastructure, precisely at a time when governments are
cutting back on all sorts of expenditures.
Water disputes are growing over the allocation and use of
water. Senator Lee made the comment at the beginning that
States typically have the responsibility for allocating water.
That's not entirely correct, of course. In fact, Utah and
Nevada have a challenge over groundwater resources, as Senator
Bingaman noted, that has not adequately addressed, and may not
be adequately addressed at the State level. Often when States
have a challenge that they can't resolve among themselves, they
require the Federal Government to step in.
The health of natural ecosystems is degrading. The natural
ecosystems that use the same water that humans use. Water and
energy links are very strong. They're typically ignored in
policy. We don't think about the water required to produce
energy. We don't think about the energy required to produce
water. The whole issue of fracking these days is an example of
a desire to solve an energy problem without, perhaps,
adequately thinking about some of the water-related challenges.
They're food and water links. We grow a tremendous amount of
food for the United States and for the rest of the world, and
yet, we don't manage that agriculture water use particularly
well.
Finally, on the challenges side, Federal coordination over
water is lacking. There are very important serious Federal
responsibilities for water. They're not well coordinated.
They're not well managed. It's a difficult challenge, but it
needs to be improved. So, it's time for what I would describe
as a 21st century U.S. water policy, and there are a series of
recommendations in my written testimony. I'd just like to touch
on a couple of them.
First of all, we need to better coordinate among the
Federal agencies that have different responsibilities for
water, and energy, and agriculture, and water quality, and all
of the different water-related issues. We might consider a
national water commission. We haven't had one that's reported
to the President and the Congress since the early 1970's. We
might reinstate basin water commissions that have been very
effective at managing water resources.
Second, the Nation lacks and must develop an adequate
understanding of water supply use and flows. It's sort of
remarkable, but we do not have adequate data on the way we use
water, on the water that's available, on the variability of
that water resources. Ms. Castle talked about the USGS's
responsibility in this area, but it needs to be widely
expanded. The Secure Water Act, Public Law 111-11, recommended
a national census for water. It's not been adequately funded.
We need better strategies for pricing water and for
marketing water. There's a serious Federal responsibility for
the way much of the western water is priced and allocated.
We've subsidized water extensively. There were good reasons for
doing that, but not all subsidies that we put in place a
century ago, or 50 years ago, or 30 years ago still make sense.
Water policies and infrastructure need to be designed for
climate change. Climate change is a real problem. It's already
happening. We see clear evidence of it, and some of the most
significant impacts of climate change will be on our water
resources, because the hydrologic cycle is the climate cycle.
There are some other recommendations in my written
testimony. I just want to point out one figure from that
testimony. It's figure 3, if you have it available. We, at the
Pacific Institute, put out a report on energy and water in the
intermountain West a few weeks ago. One of the conclusions of
that report was a tremendous amount of water currently used to
produce energy in the United States could be saved if we moved
to a combination of renewable energy systems and smart advanced
cooling systems on existing technology. We could reduce the
amount of water required for cooling very substantially with
modern technology in the energy area.
Then finally, I'd like to note there is some good news. The
United States uses less water today for everything than we used
30 years ago. Figure 4 in that--in my written testimony shows
this. Our water use has leveled off. On a per capita basis, our
water use has dropped dramatically. That's a result of changes
in the structure of our economy, and in particular, it's a
result of tremendous improvements in the efficiency with which
we use water. We're growing more food with the same amount of
water. We're producing more industrial, and commercial, and
domestic products with the same amount of water.
It is possible to have a healthy growing economy and
population with a significantly potentially decreased use of
water. So, there are lots of opportunities to do better the
things we're already doing.
Thank you very much. I'd be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gleick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter H. Gleick\1\ President, Pacific Institute,
Oakland, CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dr. Gleick is President and co-founder of the Pacific
Institute, Oakland, California and a member of the U.S. National
Academy of Science. His comments reflect his own opinion and the
recommendations of the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California. (Phone:
510-251-1600)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madame Chairman, Senators: I would like to thank the Committee for
the opportunity to address threats and opportunities facing the
Nation's freshwater resources and to offer specific recommendations for
a 21st century U.S. water policy.
The water crisis around the nation and around the world is growing,
presenting new threats to our economy and environment, but also
offering new opportunities for better and coordinated responses. We
have long known that we need coordinated federal planning for water;
but such coordination remains an elusive goal. And the nation faces new
water challenges such as climate change, new pollutants, and decaying
infrastructure.
My written and oral testimony will address two broad issues:
1. The kinds of water challenges we face at the national and
international levels, and
2. The kinds of responses we need at the federal level.
Global and National Water Challenges
There is a wide range of water challenges, but they fall into two
basic categories: challenges over water availability and use, and
problems associated with water quality and contamination.
Basic Human Needs for Water Services are Unmet
Globally, the most significant and unresolved water problem is the
failure to meet basic human needs for safe water and adequate
sanitation for billions of people. This is the greatest development
disaster of the 20th century and has been explicitly acknowledged by
this body with the bipartisan passage of the Paul Simon Water for the
Poor Act of 2005 and the Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009,
which has expanded U.S. development assistance for water and
sanitation. The failure to meet these basic needs means that millions
of people, mostly young children, still die annually--and
unnecessarily--from preventable water-related diseases. This problem is
getting worse, not better. Figure 1* shows that deaths from water-
related diseases worldwide are rising, not falling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All Figures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not immune to this problem. Despite the fact that the U.S.
has built one of the most sophisticated and complete municipal tap
water system in the world, millions of people here, mostly in rural
communities, are inadequately protected from water contamination or are
drinking water with unacceptable levels of pollutants. For example, a
recent assessment released by the Pacific Institute reported that
between 2005 and 2008, 92 drinking water systems in California's San
Joaquin Valley alone had groundwater wells with nitrate levels over the
legal limit, potentially affecting the water quality of over 1.3
million residents. Far too many people in small, poor, rural
agricultural communities in California's Central Valley have no option
but to drink contaminated water despite more than a decade of efforts
to address this problem. Indeed, many of the nation's most pressing
environmental justice concerns revolve around access to safe water, or
disproportionate exposure to water pollution.
A second global water challenge is climate change, and the
increasingly apparent and severe impacts that climate changes will have
on our water resources.\2\ The natural hydrological cycle of
evaporation, condensation, precipitation, runoff, and re-evaporation is
a fundamental component of the Earth's climate. The scientific
community, as represented by the National Academies of Science of every
major nation on Earth, every major professional scientific
organization, and nearly 100% of the world's climatologists, agree that
humans are changing the climate in fundamental ways (see Table 1).
These climate changes are increasingly threatening water systems and
water resources everywhere. While the scientific facts about climate
change have so far failed to lead to an adequate political response at
either the national or international level, the political and policy
disputes do not change the fundamental scientific reality of the
threats of climate change, particularly to our water resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, for example, the following Senate and House testimonies
and briefings: H. S. Cooley. 2009. Testimony of Heather S. Cooley to
the United States Congress Select Committee on Energy Independence and
Global Warming. For the Hearing on Global Warming Effects on Extreme
Weather. July 10, 2008. http://www.pacinst.org/publications/testimony/
cooley__extremeevents__7__10__08.pdf
P.H. Gleick, 2010. Testimony of Dr. Peter H. Gleick for The
Congressional Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming
Hearing, ``Not Going Away: America's Energy Security, Jobs and Climate
Challenges.'' December 1, 2010. http://www.pacinst.org/publications/
testimony/gleick__testimony__climate__strategies.pdf
P.H. Gleick, 2011. ``The Vulnerability of U.S. Water Resources to
Climate Change.'' American Meteorological Society/American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AMS/AAAS) Briefing, Capitol Hill,
Washington DC. May 9, 2011. http://www.pacinst.org/publications/
testimony/vulnerability__to__climate__change.pdf.
Table 1. Position Statements on Human-Induced Climate Change
The following international Scientific Academies and Professional
Societies have published official organizational statements on the
issue of climate change and human influence. This list is not complete,
but indicates the comprehensive and strong nature of the scientific
understanding about human-caused climate change.
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Ecological Society of America
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Institute of Biology (UK)
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Engineers Australia
InterAcademy Council
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Academies of--Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon Royal
Society of Canada, the Caribbean, China, Institut de France, Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany, of Indonesia, Ireland, Accademia nazionale delle
scienze of Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico,
Nigeria, Poland, Royal Society of New Zealand, Russian Academy of
Sciences, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Royal Swedish Academy of
Sciences, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, The Royal Society of the United
Kingdom, the United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Network of African Science Academies (The science academies of
Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa,
Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African
Academy of Sciences)
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Meteorological Organization
A third major global water challenge is the growing risk to
national and international security associated with increasing
competition and disputes about the allocation, use, and quality of
freshwater. The U.S. intelligence community and military are
increasingly concerned about the ways that water shortage, the control
of internationally shared rivers, and water contamination will affect
U.S. military and diplomatic policy and strategy. We know that water
has played a role in political and violent conflicts in the Middle
East, the Sudan, India, China, the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere.\3\
The Secretaries of State for at least the past four presidential
administrations have publicly addressed international water issues in
one form or another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the Water Conflict Chronology, at www.worldwater.org, for a
comprehensive list of water-related conflicts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here in the United States, we also face a broad and growing set of
freshwater challenges including growing scarcity, disputes over water
allocation and use among neighboring states, unmitigated water
contamination from both known and new pollutants, threats to our energy
production, a clear and present danger associated with climate change,
inadequate investment in critical water infrastructure and data
collection systems, and, as mentioned above, threats to national
security associated with water problems outside of our own borders. I
describe each in more detail, below.
Water Quality is Threatened
New water contaminants are finding their way into our waterways;
and many known contaminants are not adequately removed, especially from
``non-point sources'' such as the runoff of agricultural chemicals such
as fertilizers and pesticides. Insufficient investment in technologies
and infrastructure to monitor water quality and quantity, inadequate
federal regulations and weak enforcement of existing water quality
regulations permit unnecessary, costly, and dangerous water
contamination to go unchecked.
The reality is that many communities and tribes lack access to safe
water. Lack of access to clean, safe drinking water can be caused by
contamination in the water, by a lack of adequate drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure, such as old or nonexistent plumbing, and by
outdated Federal water-quality laws that no longer reflect best
available technology or information.
Investment in Maintaining and Upgrading Water Infrastructure is
Inadequate
Municipalities and communities trying to provide safe tap water and
reliable wastewater services are faced with billions of dollars of
infrastructure needs precisely at the same time that government funding
for public systems is being crippled. Farmers cannot afford to upgrade
irrigation infrastructure to reduce losses and cut waste. Insufficient
investment in monitoring equipment, or new piping, or water
purification technologies is leading to a deterioration of national
water quality and availability. Other witnesses will provide detail on
national water infrastructure needs, but these needs lie at the core of
national strength.
Water Disputes over Allocations and Use are Growing
Disputes over allocations of shared rivers once limited to the arid
western states are now increasingly appearing in the southern and
eastern U.S. Tensions between cities and farmers over water rights are
rising. An example is the ongoing and unresolved dispute over the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river systems shared by Florida,
Alabama, and Georgia. Severe drought in Texas, worsened by rising
global temperatures, is leading to new (or worsening existing)
groundwater disputes and concerns about uncontrolled water withdrawals.
The vast majority of States are now expected to have water shortages in
coming years according to the General Accountability Office.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ General Accountability Office. 2003. http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d03514.pdf. ``Freshwater Supplies: States' views.'' GAO-03-
514, Washington DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degraded Natural Ecosystems are Worsening
Natural ecosystems such as the Everglades, the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, the coastal and inland wetlands of the Gulf States,
delicate desert water systems, and even the fisheries of the Great
Lakes are under growing threats. One of the original impetuses for the
national water quality laws passed over three decades ago was the sight
of Lake Erie dying and the Cuyahoga River burning on national
television. Tremendous progress was made in cleaning up Lake Erie, but
that progress is now being lost. The fisheries of Lake Erie and other
water bodies are again threatened by the lack of federal action to
protect national waterways from contamination.
Water and Energy Links Are Strong but Ignored
Water use and energy use are closely linked: Energy production uses
and pollutes water; water use requires significant amounts of energy.
And the reality of climate change affects national policies in both
areas. Limits to the availability of both energy and water are
beginning to affect the other, and these limits have direct
implications for US economic and security interests. Yet energy and
water issues are rarely integrated in policy. Considering them together
offers substantial economic and environmental benefits.
As we enter the 21st century, pressures on both our national water
and energy resources are growing. Alternative energy sources are
raising new questions about the associated water risks. Producing
biofuels, for examples, is water-intensive, and chemicals used to grow
these crops threaten our nation's water quality. Hydraulic fracturing
(fracking) of shale gas formations has the potential to greatly
increase domestic production of natural gas, a cleaner-burning fossil
fuel than dirty coal, and less politically costly than imported Middle
Eastern oil. Yet fracking also has the potential to damage or destroy
vast groundwater resources or pollute surface water, and federal
oversight of these risks has fallen far behind industry efforts to
expand fracking operations.
Similarly, there are growing risks that energy and electricity
production will be adversely affected by limited water resources. In
just the past few years, several power plants have been temporarily
closed or derated (i.e., had their energy production reduced) due to
drought, lack of reliable water supply, or temperature limits on
rivers. New power plants have been opposed because of water scarcity
concerns. Table 2 presents some recent headlines from around the U.S.
of these problems. The failure to link these issues will inevitably
lead to disruptions in the supply of both water and power.
Table 2--Some recent headlines from around the nation show the links
between water and energy.
Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns--The Associated Press, January
2008
Sinking Water and Rising Tensions--EnergyBiz Insider, December 2007
Stricter Standards Apply to Coal Plant, Judge Rules; Activists Want
Cooling Towers for Oak Creek-- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November
2007
Journal-Constitution Opposes Coal-Based Plant, Citing Water Shortage--
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 2007
Maryland County denies cooling water to proposed power plant--E-Water
News Weekly, October 2007
Water woes loom as thirsty generators face climate change--Greenwire,
September 2007
Water and Food Links
The vast majority of water consumed in the United States (and
worldwide) goes to grow food. As demands for water from cities, energy
systems, and environmental restoration increase, pressure is growing on
the nation's farmers to relinquish water that they have been using,
often for decades. Given the limited ability to expand supplies of
water, especially in the Great Plains and California where much of the
nation's food is grown, this leaves only three options:
1. Take land out of production, decreasing the amount of food
and fiber we produce;
2. Change the types of crops we grow away from water-
intensive irrigated crops to more water-efficient crops that
can flourish, at least partly, on rainfed lands; or
3. Increase the productivity of agriculture by improving
water-use efficiency and reducing waste.
While farmers always weigh these three options when making
decisions, the last approach is the most attractive: it permits farmers
in increase yields and income while maintaining or even decreasing
total water use. But improvements in water-use productivity in
agriculture will require new federal policies to eliminate subsidies
for some kinds of crops, raise the price of water delivered from
federal irrigation systems to encourage efficiency, or provide
financial assistance to farmers to invest in shifting irrigation
technologies to modern systems for monitoring and delivering water.
The good news is that progress is being made in increasing water-
use productivity in agriculture, and implementation of new federal
policies can expand on this progress. Figure 2 shows that farmers in
California have steadily increased their production of field and seed
crops per unit water used. Measured another way, farmers are exploring
strategies for producing more food and money with less water. Policies
that encourage these strategies and innovations should be supported.
Federal Coordination over Water is Lacking
Responsibility for water is spread out over many federal agencies
and departments, operating with little overall coordination. Over 30
federal agencies, boards, and commissions in the United States have
water-related programs and responsibilities. The nation's complex legal
and institutional framework for water management has evolved over two
centuries, and has never undergone comprehensive review and
integration. The result is an incomplete and often inefficient approach
to water management at the federal level that has been noted by
numerous past commissions, advisory boards, and councils.
It is Time for a 21st Century U.S. Water Policy
The role of the federal government in solving our water problems is
rightly limited: Many of our water problems are local, and must be
resolved at the local and regional level. But the responsibility to
develop and implement appropriate national policies is not being
adequately fulfilled by the diverse federal agencies responsible for
them. Part of the problem is confusion over authority. Part of the
problem is the failure of executive branch in recent years to request
sufficient funds to protect and manage our water resources, or of the
legislative branch to appropriate and allocate those funds. Part of the
problem is old water legislation that has not been updated to account
for the realities of the 21st century and for recent advances in our
scientific and technical understanding of both water problems and
solutions. I offer here several specific recommendations for developing
a 21st century United States water policy, recently produced from
research conducted over the past several years with colleagues at the
Pacific Institute.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, J. Christian-Smith and P.H. Gleick (editors), 2012, A 21st
Century U.S. Water Policy (in press, Oxford University Press, New
York), and J. Christian Smith, P.H. Gleick, and H. Cooley, 2011, ``U.S.
Water Policy Reform,'' in P.H. Gleick (editor) The World's Water,
Volume 7 (Island Press, Washington D.C.), pp. 143-155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation 1--Federal water-related agencies and programs are
fragmented and require better coordination
The persistent and emerging challenges of the twenty-first century
demand an integrated and comprehensive approach to national water
policy. One possibility is to reconstitute a National Water Commission
to provide up-to-date advice to the executive and legislative branches.
The United States has not had a comprehensive water commission in place
for 30 years, since the 1968 National Water Commission reported to the
President and Congress in 1973. Moreover, we have never had a water
commission with the authority and responsibility to review and
recommend policies for the role of the U.S. in addressing international
water issues. Nor has such a commission ever addressed the new
challenges of climate change. Such a commission could be very valuable.
We recommend the following actions to move toward better
integration of federal water programs:
Congress should re-evaluate the jurisdiction over water
management, funding, and protection in Congressional
committees. Current jurisdiction is split among different
committees, often with competing or contradictory objectives.
The Office of Science, Technology, and Policy's Committee on
Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability should
develop a national strategy for water protection. Such a
strategy would:
--Develop a National Water Council or Roundtable on Water, similar
to the existing National Ocean Council and Roundtable on
Climate Information and Services,
--Define how to assess existing pressures and potential threats to
interstate surface and groundwater, and
--Recommend amendments, or new legislation, to bring interstate
groundwater basins under the EPA's regulatory authority.
U.S. river basin commissions should be re-instituted as a
more rational locus for organizing water-management
responsibilities and should be tasked with developing river-
basin management plans that become a gateway for federal
funding. For example, grants for improved water management that
are now dispersed through separate agencies and programs, e.g.,
the Farm Service Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency
(such as the State Revolving Loans), the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's grant program, and others, could instead include
scoring criteria that prioritizes projects developed through
the comprehensive river basin management plans.
A national water commission or council comprised of diverse
non-federal experts and including leaders of the environmental
justice movement should be formed to recommend policies and
principles for sustainable water management in the 21st
century. The commission's first task should be to develop
guidance documents for the river basin commissions in terms of
creating scientifically rigorous, participatory river basin
management plans. In addition, a national water commission
could make recommendations for reducing the risks of
international tensions over shared water resources, including
how to resolve concerns with Mexico and Canada over shared
water systems. These recommendations would be valuable in other
international river basins where U.S. experience, international
stature, and expertise can be effective.
Recommendation 2--The nation lacks, and must develop, an adequate
understanding of water supply, use, and flows
In 1889, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began measuring the flow
in the nation's rivers and continues to play a leading role in data
collection, analysis, and management. Other federal agencies, such as
NOAA and NASA, collect data critical for protecting the nation from
extreme weather events, including flooding and droughts. Unfortunately,
a vast amount of water data are still not collected, and large numbers
of existing data collection systems are being lost. In 2009 alone,
nearly 100 long-term stream gages were discontinued due to budgetary
constraints and Congress has failed to adequately support funding for
some vital satellite systems, such as the Joint Polar Satellite System
(JPSS), raising the specter of a loss of advance warning for extreme
weather events. This represents a direct threat to health and safety of
U.S. citizens and the economy. It is critical for Congress to provide
consistent funding for comprehensive water data collection programs.
We recommend full appropriation for the Secure Water Act (P.L. 111-
11) to conduct an urgently needed national water census. A national
water census will deliver information nationwide on water availability
and water use throughout the country, including water used for vital
food production and thermoelectric power generation. The Act authorized
$20 million for the national water census effort but the money has
never been fully appropriated. This is a key priority not only for
improving the nation's data collection but also to provide valuable
information to states about water availability and water use.
Recommendation 3--More appropriate economic strategies can create more
sustainable water-use patterns
Water pricing is often thought of as a local or state concern, and
indeed, most financing of water systems is and should remain local.
However, as the largest wholesaler of water in the west, federal
agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation also play an important
role in setting water rates. Forty years ago, the last National Water
Commission recommended discontinuing the subsidization of new
irrigation projects, writing:
Direct beneficiaries of Federal irrigation developments
should pay in full the costs of new projects allocated to
irrigation.
Nearly four decades later, this recommendation has largely been
ignored. The U.S. should reform pricing policies that subsidize the
inefficient use of water and continue to cost the taxpayers money. The
Central Valley Project Improvement Act passed by Congress in 1992,
required the Bureau of Reclamation to institute tiered water rates to
encourage conservation, but their current rate structure is
ineffective. It should be reformed, and this requirement for
conservation pricing should be extended to other federal projects in a
way that provides incentives for improving water-use practices.
We recommend new federal financing strategies to improve the
administration of water-related laws. Rather than simply expanding
federal investment, we recommend a three-pronged approach: (1)
encourage more local investment through continued funding at or above
current levels for state revolving funds; (2) encourage the adoption of
marginal cost pricing by water utilities, and (3) raise fees on
polluters to be re-invested in agencies that regulate water pollution.
Similar economic tools are increasingly being used worldwide to
discourage unsustainable water practices. In order to ensure that all
people have access to water to meet their basic needs at an affordable
price we suggest the creation of a Low Income Home Water Assistance
Program within State Revolving Loan programs.
Recommendation 4--Water policies and infrastructure should be designed
to evolve with changing climatic conditions
There is a well acknowledged need to evaluate both the implications
of climate change for the nation's water resources and appropriate
technologies and water management strategies for coping with
unavoidable impacts of climate change. In 2009, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) reports that although many federal resource
managers understand that climate change impacts are important to the
resources that they manage, they have not yet incorporated climate
change projections, mitigation, or adaptation efforts into planning.\6\
While there has been increased collaboration on improving data
collection and information dissemination in regard to the impacts of
climate change on water supply, there is still a lack of a coordinated
national strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2009. Climate Change
Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials
Make More Informed Decisions. GAO-10-113. http://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-10-113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The passage of the Secure Water Act (2009) calls for the
establishment of a Climate Change and Water Intra-governmental Panel,
which primarily focuses on downscaling climate data and conducting
individual basin studies (beginning with the Colorado, Yakima, and the
Milk/St. Mary River basins). This is critical in terms of enhancing our
scientific understanding of climate change impacts, but such mitigation
and adaptation efforts should be accelerated and expanded. The Council
on Environmental Quality's Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task
Force finds that ``there still are significant gaps in the U.S.
government's approach to climate change adaptation and building
resilience.'' The federal government should develop national strategy
for climate change adaptation to now-unavoidable impacts. Such a
strategy would:
Define a protocol to analyze the climate resiliency of
federal agency actions.
Conduct a national inventory to identify the most promising
opportunities to modify federal dam operations in the United
States in light of climate change.
Require agencies to integrate energy and water efficiency
efforts (also addressed below).
Identify priority areas for coordinated government response.
Recommendation 5--Existing Federal water laws should be updated and
adequately enforced
Congress must modernize the antiquated Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act--two foundational pieces of federal legislation
passed originally with bipartisan support, and immensely popular with
the American people.
Once modernized, federal regulations must be enforced. There is an
overwhelming assumption that safe, affordable water for drinking and
household use is available to all residents in the US. This is false.
Violations of our nation's water laws have become routine--a recent
survey of national water quality data found that more than 50% of
regulated facilities violated the Clean Water Act, but enforcement
actions against polluters were infrequent.\7\ Clear and immediate
action is needed to expand enforcement efforts against violations of
established water law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ K. Russell and C. Duhigg. 2009. ``Clean Water Act Violations:
The Enforcement Record.'' The New York Times, September 13, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommend the following changes to the Clean Water Act and the
Safe Drinking Water Act to improve the protection of public health:
Tighten controls on point sources to better reflect the
Clean Water Act's goal of zero discharge of pollutants.
Update technology standards to reflect current best
available technologies and encourage innovation.
Create stricter penalties for violating NPDES permits,
levying fines that are sufficiently large to make polluting no
longer a viable cost of doing business and by rescinding or
denying renewal of permits of repeat violators. Update the
Safe Drinking Water Act's standard-setting regulations to make
them more protective of human health. Despite continued
emergence of new contaminants in drinking water, regulations
have barely changed and have not incorporated the risks of
synergistic impacts. Standards should be updated to include the
additive effects of common mixtures of chemicals.
Bring bottled water quality standards and enforcement under
the authority of the EPA rather than the FDA and make the
standards consistent with tap water standards.
Integrate implementation and enforcement of the Clean Water
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act to make most efficient use of
resources.
Expanding the authority and administration of the Clean
Water Act to regulate non-point source pollution and
groundwater quality.
Restoring the traditionally broad scope of the Clean Water
Act to bring water bodies such as ephemeral streams and
wetlands with no ``nexus'' to a navigable water body back under
its jurisdiction.
Integrating equality of access to safe drinking water into
the Safe Drinking Water Act's mandate.
In addition, many of the nation's waterworks and regulations were
created before we fully understood the extent and value of the
ecological services provided by intact river systems. New legislation
is needed to ensure that these benefits (and the water required to
sustain them) be given equal consideration with other project purposes,
similar to the 1986 amendments to the Federal Power Act that gave
habitat conservation goals ``equal consideration'' with power and
development interests.
Recommendation 6--Twenty-first century water management must encompass
decentralized solutions such as water demand management,
stormwater capture, recycled water, greywater, and other
nontraditional approaches
There are several other key actions Congress can take to ensure
that national water policy is far more comprehensive, modern,
effective, and efficient.
Increase efforts to promote the use of water-efficient
technologies and practices through updated federal standards
for appliances and fixtures, along with expanded education and
technical assistance. Federal water-efficiency standards were
created by the EPA over two decades ago; these standards should
be more frequently updated to reflect advances in technology.
Technical assistance programs to landowners, such as the
Farm Service Agency should be specifically targeted at
accelerating the adoption of water conservation and efficiency
practices in priority agricultural areas.
Federal agencies should support community-based
organizations that play a central role in ensuring the
involvement of affected residents by increasing programs to
technical assistance providers working on critical water
issues, such as EPA's program to support small water systems
and the NRCS' Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Program.
Target federal spending through State Revolving Loans and
other programs on demand management and infrastructure that
increases the productive use of water.
Recommendation 7--Federal water policies must be integrated with other
policies, including energy, agriculture, and climate change
As noted earlier, there are strong links between the water sector
and other sectors, including energy and food production. The water
sector is a major energy consumer and future trends suggest that this
demand could grow due to more energy-intensive water supplies and
treatment technologies, e.g. desalination.
Conversely, smart national policies can help address both water and
energy challenges. For example, as shown in Figure 3, strategies that
promote renewable energy and alternative cooling systems in the western
United States can, over the next two decades, reduce water withdrawals
for energy production by far more than 50%--a tremendous improvement in
water efficiency. In particular, the Pacific Institute research
recommends that federal water policy:
Phase out irrigation, energy, and crop subsidies that
promote wasteful use of water and energy.
Pursue new appliance standards and smart labeling of water
efficient appliances that save money, water, and energy.
Promote research and development that will help traditional
energy sources reduce water withdrawals and consumption.
Promote research and development for renewable energy
sources that use little to no water.
Use alternative water sources such as reclaimed or saline
water for power plant cooling.
The National Academy of Sciences should be asked to conduct an in-
depth analysis of the impact of energy development and production on
the water resources of the United States. The Secretary of the Interior
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency should
work together to identify the best available technologies to maximize
water and energy efficiency in the production of electricity and other
energy resources, including evaluating the energy used in water storage
and delivery operations in major Reclamation projects.
Recommendation 8--Fully incorporate environmental justice principles
into federal water policy
Many federal agencies, including EPA and Department of the
Interior, already have the statutory ability to address the concerns
raised by environmental justice communities in permitting, project
review and construction, and financing activities. Through the work of
the National Environmental Justice Advisory and other efforts of the
Office of Environmental Justice, there are many documents providing
guidance on how to achieve this in a variety of agencies. However, a
renewed effort must be made to fully integrate environmental justice
into federal water policy, which would use benchmarks of measurable
progress towards eliminating water-related disproportionate impacts in
low-income communities and communities of color and have a clear system
of evaluation and accountability. Some of the key elements of such an
effort include, but are not limited to:
Hiring staff explicitly charged with environmental justice
assessments of policies and projects and providing training for
other policy staff, such as permit writers;
Assessing disproportionate impacts in any proposed project,
policy, or permit, ranging from NPDES permits to Bureau of
Reclamation dam operations, and modify or cancel proposed
projects, policies, or permits if disproportionate burdens
cannot be reduced;
Ensuring water quality permits and programs, such as the
Underground Injection and the Total Maximum Daily Load
programs, are based on numeric standard that are protective of
the most sensitive populations.
Prioritizing grants for environmental justice communities
within existing water-related funding programs. Programs such
as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the Safe Drinking
Water Revolving Fund, and the USDA Rural Loan and Grant program
should prioritize funding and expand current program
specifically for low-income communities and communities of
color to fund critical water supply, water quality, and
wastewater projects.
Conducting an environmental justice review of federal water-
related funding programs. Entities receiving federal funding
should be required to demonstrate collaboration with affected
communities and ongoing efforts to address disproportionate
impacts in order to continue receiving funding. This would
apply to programs to both grant and loan programs such as US
Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, State Revolving Funds, but also Bureau of Reclamation
agricultural water delivery programs such as California's
Central Valley Project.
Addressing long-standing tribal water claims.
Recommendation 9--Other important federal government actions: The
federal government must lead by example. The federal government
should lead by example, establishing new rules and targets for
its own operations. We recommend that:
All federally managed buildings must meet or exceed
WaterSense standards for fixtures and appliances.
The federal government should set a target encouraging half
of federally managed buildings to utilize recycled water, storm
water, or greywater sources by 2025.
All federal water projects should evaluate the risks of
climate change and develop plans for modifying physical
infrastructure or operating procedures to reduce these risks.
Some Good News
The assumption that a growing economy and growing population must,
inevitably, demand more and more water without limit now turns out to
be wrong. In the past several decades in the United States, quietly and
without fanfare, the nation has been improving the productivity of
water use, growing more food and producing more goods and services
without increasing the demand for water.
Figure 4 shows this remarkable change, plotting gross domestic
product with total water withdrawals over the past century. In the late
1970s and early 1980s, demand for water began to level off and even
decline; on a per-person basis, the nation uses far less water today
per person than in 1980. This is a tremendous increase in water
``productivity'' as shown in Figure 5, which plots total economic value
per unit water. This measure of productivity has grown tremendously in
the past two decades, showing that limits to water availability do not
mean economic hardship or suffering. Indeed, additional investment in
physical infrastructure of water treatment and delivery systems has the
potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs nationwide.
Conclusions
The 21st century brings with it both persistent and new water
challenges, including growing human populations and demands for water,
unacceptable water quality in many areas, weak or inadequate water data
collection and regulation, and growing threats to the timing and
reliability of water supply from climate change. Several countries have
reformed their water policies to better address these challenges. While
the political and cultural contexts of these reforms have varied, water
reforms offer the potential to meet economic demands for water with
less water through solutions that focus on ``soft path'' water
solutions including water conservation and efficiency, smarter water
pricing, new technology, and more participatory water management.
The United States has not followed suit and continues to rely on
fragmented and outdated water policies based on a patchwork of old
laws, competing institutions, and aging infrastructure. This testimony
offers specific recommendations for Congress drawing on the unique
characteristics of the United States water system together with
insights drawn from experience around the world, in an effort to help
identify a more effective and sustainable approach to federal water
management.
I congratulate you for considering this vital issue and for helping
to raise national attention on the need to re-evaluate and re-focus
efforts on sustainably managing the nation's precious freshwater
resources.
Thank you for your attention.
Biography for Dr. Peter H. Gleick
Dr. Peter H. Gleick is co-founder and President of the Pacific
Institute in Oakland, California. The Institute is one of the world's
leading non-partisan policy research groups addressing global
environment and development problems, especially in the area of
freshwater resources. Dr. Gleick was described by the San Francisco
Chronicle in 2009 as ``arguably the world's leading expert on water.''
His research and writing address the hydrologic impacts of climate
change, sustainable water use, water privatization, and international
conflicts over water resources. His work on sustainable management and
use of water led to him being named by the BBC as a ``visionary on the
environment'' in its Essential Guide to the 21st Century. In 2008,
Wired Magazine called him ``one of 15 People the Next President Should
Listen To.''
Dr. Peter H. Gleick produced some of the first research on the
implications of climate change for water resources. He has also played
a leading role in highlighting the risks to national and international
security from conflicts over shared water resources. He produced some
of the earliest assessments of the connections between water and
political disputes and has briefed major international policymakers
ranging from the Vice President and Secretary of State of the United
States to the Prime Minister of Jordan on these issues. He also has
testified regularly for the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and
state legislatures, and briefed international governments and
policymakers.
Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and
Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. In 2003 he received
a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship for his work on global freshwater
issues. In 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C. and his public service includes work with a
wide range of science advisory boards, editorial boards, and other
organizations. Gleick is the author of more than 80 peer-reviewed
papers and book chapters, and nine books, including the biennial water
report The World's Water published by Island Press (Washington, D.C.).
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Stanley.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS STANLEY, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, GENERAL
ELECTRIC POWER AND WATER, WATER AND PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES,
TREVOSE, PA
Mr. Stanley. Senator Shaheen, it's a privilege to share
with you today GE's thoughts on addressing domestic and global
water supply issues.
As the Chief Technology Officer for GE's global water
business, it's my responsibility to effectively manage the
about $100 million a year that GE invests in clean water
research and development. So, I welcome this opportunity to
outline for you GE's research and development efforts in this
very critical area.
So, I work for GE Power and Water, which is part of GE
Energy. GE Energy has more than 100,000 global employees, and
generates about $40 million in revenues annually. GE Energy
provides integrated product and service solutions in all areas
of energy and water--water industries, including conventional
and renewable technologies.
Our water business, that I have responsibility for, has
more than 8,000 employees in 130 countries around the world.
That includes 400 scientists and engineers located in 10 major
technical centers, who are dedicated to developing solutions in
collaboration with our customers to address issues associated
with water purity and water scarcity.
We also have access to GE's network of global research
centers. GE research, as that is called, is one of the world's
largest and most diversified industrial research labs. Today,
GE research has a dedicated team and a world-class team of
scientists and engineers partnering with my team in--in our
business to develop the next generation of solutions, making
water more accessible and more affordable for our customers in
this time, as all have commented about, at a time of increasing
water challenge. So, our business has identified several themes
that are very important to our customers. My team has aligned
our research activities with these important themes.
The first is to develop the capability to treat
increasingly impure water sources. The second is to develop the
ability to reuse or recycle a higher percentage of treated
water. The third is to reduce the cost and the energy
consumption required to treat water. Last, is to develop
solutions for our customers to meet increasingly stringent
requirements and regulations on the discharge of--of water.
In my written testimony, I took the time to elaborate on 3
examples that illustrate these themes. The first of these was
our ability to now take--or get very high recovery of usable
water from salty or brackish rivers and streams. We are now
evaluating this new technology with a number of beverage
manufacturers, who are required to use these brackish water
sources, and have to have a--and have a high premium on a high
yield of useable water.
The second is the treatment and recycle, at low cost, of
the water that's produced in the conjunction with the
production of oil.
The third is to capture exceedingly low concentrations of
mercury in waste water effluent from coal-fired power plants,
allowing these plants to meet these increasingly stringent
requirements.
So, just a few examples, but representative examples for
the kinds of things that my team works on on a daily basis to
address these issues.
There's an important role that the Federal--Federal funding
can play in R&D to leverage the investments of key
stakeholders, including foundations, and universities, and
communities, as well as industry, in addressing water scarcity
and quality issues.
Chairman Shaheen, it's been my pleasure. I thank you for
your time. It's been a pleasure to talk about these topics.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Stanley, Chief Technology Officer, GE
Power and Water, Water and Process Technologies, Trevose, PA
Introduction
Chairman Shaheen and members of the Subcommittee, it is privilege
to share with you GE's thoughts on the opportunities and challenges to
address domestic and global water supply issues. As the Chief
Technology Officer for GE Power & Water, Water & Process Technologies,
it is my responsibility to effectively manage the approximately $100
million that GE invests in clean water research and development every
year, and it is these complex issues that my team and I strive to
address each and every day. I welcome this opportunity to outline for
you GE's research and development efforts in critical areas including
treating impure sources of water; increasing reuse/recycling of treated
water; reducing cost and energy consumption required to treat water;
and meeting increasingly stringent regulatory requirements for
discharged water.
Background
GE is a diversified global company that provides a wide array of
products to meet the world's essential needs. From energy, water, and
transportation to healthcare and security, we deliver advanced
technology solutions through a broad business portfolio to promote
cleaner, more efficient energy alternatives; provide more efficient
aircraft engines and locomotives; increase the availability of clean,
safe water; and improve access to quality healthcare.
The businesses that comprise GE Energy--GE Power & Water, GE Energy
Management and GE Oil & Gas--have more than 100,000 global employees
and generate annual revenues of about $40 billion. GE Energy provides
integrated product and service solutions in all areas of the energy
industry including coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy; renewable
resources such as water, wind, solar and biogas; as well as other
alternative fuels and new grid modernization technologies to meet 21st
century energy needs.
GE has long recognized the connection between energy and water. In
2008 GE integrated its water and power generation businesses to better
meet customer needs and address significant global challenges, creating
GE Power & Water. With a broad array of power generation and energy
delivery technologies, GE works in all areas of the energy industry-
including gas and steam turbines; renewables such as wind and solar;
alternative fuels, including biofuels, coal gasification and
liquefaction; and nuclear energy. Our Power & Water team also develops
advanced technologies to help solve the world's most complex challenges
related to water availability and quality. Numerous products are
qualified under ecomagination, GE's initiative to aggressively bring to
market new technologies that will help customers meet pressing
environmental challenges. The following chart* outlines the wide array
of technologies encompassed by GE Power & Water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* GE Power & Water chart has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The roots of the GE's Water & Process Technologies business date
back to 1925 and became a GE business in 1999, evolving from a series
of acquisitions over the last 12 years. This business currently employs
nearly 8,000, including 400 scientists and engineers located in 10
major technical centers around the globe who are dedicated to
developing solutions in collaboration with our customers, addressing
problems associated with water purity and recovery.
This team also has access to GE's network of Global Research
Centers (GRC), which are located around the globe. The GE GRC is one of
the world's largest and most diversified industrial research labs,
creating true breakthrough technologies for GE's businesses over the
last 100 years. Today, GE Research has a world-class team of scientists
and engineers partnering with the technical team in our Water & Process
Technologies business to develop the next generation of solutions,
making water more accessible and more affordable for our customers, in
a time of increasing water challenges.
R&D Focus
Our business has identified several themes of importance to our
customers, and my team has aligned its research and development
activities with these important themes. These themes are to: 1) develop
capability to treat increasingly impure sources of water; 2) develop
ability to reuse or recycle a higher percentage of treated water; 3)
reduce cost and energy consumption required to treat water; and 4)
develop solutions for customers to meet increasingly stringent
regulations on impurities in discharged water.
Following are a few specific examples of new technologies we are
developing to help customers meet these challenges.
Improved Recovery from `Brackish' Water Sources
We are working to reduce the cost and improve the recovery of water
extracted from relatively salty and impure rivers and lakes. These
sources are typically referred to as `brackish' water. Today, using
state-of-the-art technology, when pure water is produced from brackish
sources, about 80% of the water is recovered as clean water. The
remaining 20%, which contains all the salts and many of the impurities
that were present in the feed water, must be discharged. GE Water and
Process Technologies is developing a new technology that will allow
recovery to exceed 99% in a process that will require only modest
capital investment and will be very efficient to operate. This
technology, called the Non-Thermal Brine Concentrator, will provide a
much more efficient way to extract very pure water from brackish feed
water sources. The impact of this new technology is illustrated in
Figure 1*, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All figures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are validating and demonstrating this technology with several
beverage manufacturers, all of whom use brackish water sources and
require high water recoveries because of water scarcity and water cost
in their regions.
Maximizing Oil Recovery and Water Recycling
Much has been made in recent years of the energy-water nexus. One
example of this is the use of increasing amounts of water in the
production of oil. In many of today's producing oil fields, water or
steam must be used to force the oil through the field so that it can be
extracted. When oil is recovered this way, much more water than oil is
produced--as much as 10 times more water than oil. Once out of the
ground, the oil is separated from the water and the oil is sent to a
refinery. The so-called `produced water' remains. It is very dirty,
containing small amounts of oil that could not be separated, as well as
dissolved salts and a host of other impurities. Figure 2* shows a
sample of produced water recovered from a Canadian oil sands site which
uses steam to extract the oil. Cleaning this water is a tremendous
challenge.
We are working with our customers to improve methodologies for
treating this water so that it can be safely recycled back into the
field to further facilitate oil recovery. We are establishing
demonstration facilities for new de-oiling technology followed by more
robust membrane devices that, if successful, will allow water recycling
in equipment that will require about 20% less capital investment than
current state-of-the-art technologies, and run with 30% less operating
cost due to improved energy efficiency. In addition it may be possible
to recycle more of the produced water back into the field. These are
very significant improvements in capability and efficiency.
Managing Mercury Emissions in Water
Here is a last example of new technologies we are developing, and
this is another example where water is tied closely to energy
production. Water is used to scrub the emissions from coal fired power
plants to capture impurities. The effluent from the scrubbers goes to a
wastewater treatment plant where it is treated before discharge. Often
times, this wastewater contains trace quantities of mercury originally
coming from the coal. Regulations on mercury emissions in water are
increasingly tight, in many cases limited to less than 10 parts per
trillion, an exceedingly low concentration. Conventional wastewater
treatment technology cannot meet these requirements.
We have designed specialty polymers which dissolve in the
wastewater and selectively adsorb mercury. These polymers can be used
in conjunction with conventional wastewater treatment methodologies to
improve mercury removal. In addition we can use very fine filters,
called ultra-filters, to recover tiny particulates containing mercury.
We are working now with a number of U.S.-based power companies to
optimize these technologies, used alone or in tandem as required for
their operating conditions, to meet these challenging mercury emissions
targets.
In Conclusion
Today, I've discussed just three examples of new technologies that
GE Water and Process Technologies is developing that illustrate how we
help customers solve water challenges related to higher water recovery;
increased water recycling; lower cost and more energy efficient
processes; and adherence to regulatory requirements.
At GE, we're working closely with our customers and global thought
leaders to ensure that advanced technology development continues so
that together we can overcome water quality and scarcity challenges.
There is also an important role for Federal funding for water R&D
to leverage the investments of key stakeholders, including foundations,
universities, communities, and industry, in addressing water scarcity
and quality issues.
Chairman Shaheen and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
your time and the opportunity to provide our comments on these
important issues.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanley.
Mr. Willardson.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY WILLARDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN
STATES WATER COUNCIL, MURRAY, UT
Mr. Willardson. Madam Chairman, the Western States Water
Council was created in 1965 by a resolution of the Western
Governors, and we represent 18 States, of the reclamation
States and the State of Alaska. Our members are appointed by
the Governors. We're closely affiliated with the Western
Governors Association.
The water resources in the West are in distress, given our
population growth, as well as changing water needs and values.
There are an increasing number of conflicts between users and
uses.
States are primarily responsible for ensuring that their
own water resources are sustainable, but Federal support is
essential, given its Federal trust responsibilities and
regulatory mandates. Water must be given a higher priority at
all levels of government as an essential element of a
sustainable economy and sound environment. Adequate supplies of
clean water are essential to creating and maintaining jobs.
An integrated and collaborative approach, beginning at the
local watershed, is important to effectively conserve, protect,
develop, and manage our water resources. We must recognize and
respect national, regional, State, local, and tribal
differences, their values, and support decision-making and
problem solving at the lowest practical level.
In 2006, the Council and Western Governors Association
worked together, working with our Federal partners to address
uncertainties related to growth, better define our water
supplies, uses, and needs, improve our infrastructure, resolve
any water rights claims, and deal with environmental demands,
particularly related to endangered aquatic species, as well as
climate uncertainties.
We very much appreciate the leadership of the subcommittee
and the committee in enactment of the Secure Water Act, in
support of USGS stream gauging and Landsat programs, with the
Indian water rights settlements that have been adopted, now 27.
Also, we are working on related funding issues, and the
committee's work on energy and water integration.
I'd like to highlight the work of our Western Federal
agency support team, created at a request of the Western
Governors, and helps us in implementing the water needs and
strategies for sustainable future reports, and which provide a
number of recommendations.
Eleven Federal agencies have named representatives to work
with us on those recommendations. That includes the Army Corps
of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S.
Geological Survey. Together they have dedicated a Federal
liaison, who is detailed in our offices. That person is an EPA
employee. DOE has also expressed interest in participating.
In addition to the support of the council on WGA
initiatives, WestFAST helps to coordinate other water-related
Federal efforts, and has identified the numerous Federal water
resource studies that are going on in the Colorado river basin,
and also has compiled a summary of Federal climate-related
programs. We view WestFAST as a model for other Federal-State
partnerships, and further opportunities for leveraging limited
resources to address priority water problems.
I'd like to highlight just a few examples of our
collaborative efforts. One of the challenges that we face is a
lack of adequate information related to our existing water uses
as a region. We have outlined steps to create a water data
exchange to compile and share water use information between
States and Federal agencies. We're working with the Department
of Energy to first identify uses related to energy demands.
We're also participating with USGS and the national water
census.
We continue to work with the Department of Interior and the
Native American Rights Fund to better define and settle Indian
water rights claims, and as I said, to fund those
implementation of the settlements that Congress has approved.
Water in the West is moving from agricultural to other
uses, and we're exploring innovative ways of conserving water,
allowing water transfers, and encouraging sharing in a manner
that avoids and mitigates negative impacts on agricultural
communities and the environment.
Federal water transfer policies will be an important part
of this effort, as well as an examination of Federal regulatory
requirements. Defined water rights and regulatory processes are
important to encouraging appropriate opportunities to
voluntarily move water between existing and future needs. In
this regard, the Landsat thermal infrared imager is important
in helping us to archive and measure consumptive water use, and
improve water management and water rights administration.
Requested USGS funding is essential to maintain this
capability.
Last, I'd mentioned with respect to the aging
infrastructure, that it is a major concern. We're addressing
opportunities to prioritize and refine our necessary
improvements, and finance those, and also opportunities to
stretch and augment existing supplies through innovative
conservation, water reuse, desalination, and even weather
modification strategies, as well as water banking and
opportunities for interstate, interregional, and international
cooperation.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony Willardson, Executive Director, Western
States Water Council, Murray, UT
I. Introduction
Madame Chair, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Tony
Willardson, and I am the Executive Director of the Western States Water
Council (WSWC). We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the water
resources challenges facing the West and the Nation. Thank you all for
your leadership in addressing the serious water-related needs of the
West and the Nation.
Our members are appointed by the Governors of eighteen states. We
are a non-partisan advisory body on water policy issues closely
affiliated with the Western Governors' Association (WGA). My testimony
is based on official reports, statements and positions taken by both
organizations, as well as our recent and continuing efforts to define
and refine a vision and principles for effective water management
strategies to help ensure a prosperous and sustainable future. I will
emphasize just a few of our interests and concerns, while attaching the
most recent WGA policy resolution on Water Resources Management in the
West (No. 11-7) and highlighting selected sections in my testimony.
Water in the West (and elsewhere) is an increasingly scarce and
precious resource, given population growth and an expanding range of
often competing economic and ecological demands, as well as changing
social values. Surface and ground water supplies in many areas are
stressed, resulting in a growing number of conflicts among users and
uses. A secure and sustainable future is increasingly uncertain given
our climate, aging and often inadequate water infrastructure, limited
knowledge regarding available supplies and existing and future needs
and uses, and competing and sometimes un-defined or ill-defined water
rights. Effectively addressing these challenges requires a
collaborative, cooperative effort among federal, state, tribal and
local governments and stakeholders that transcends political and
geographic boundaries. The following principles are keys to effectively
managing our challenges.
State primacy is fundamental to a sustainable water future.
Water planning, policy, development, protection, and management
must recognize, defer to, and support state laws, plans, and
processes. The federal government should streamline regulatory
burdens and support implementation of state water plans and
state water management strategies.
Given the importance of the resource to our public health,
economy, food security, and environment, water must be given a
high public policy priority at all levels.
An integrated and collaborative approach to water resources
management is critical to the environmentally sound and
efficient use of our water resources. States, tribes, and local
communities should work together to resolve water issues. A
grassroots approach should be utilized in identifying problems
and developing optimal solutions.
Any approach to water resource management and development
should accommodate sustainable economic growth, which is
enhanced by the protection and restoration of significant
aquatic ecosystems, and will promote economic and environmental
security and quality of life.
There must be cooperation among stakeholders at all levels
and agencies of government that recognizes and respects
national, regional, state, local and tribal differences in
values related to water resources and that supports decision-
making at the lowest practicable level.
In June 2006, the WGA unanimously adopted as WGA policy a report
prepared by the WSWC entitled, ``Water Needs and Strategies for a
Sustainable Future,'' and similarly endorsed a follow up ``Next Steps''
report in 2008. A 2010 ``Progress Report'' was accepted by the
governors, and we are now preparing a 2012 WGA Water Policy Report,
refining our vision, values and recommendations regarding opportunities
or strategies for further addressing present and future challenges.
The 2006 WGA report included 28 recommendations and the 2008 ``Next
Steps'' report contained 42 recommendations for action in six different
areas, focused on challenges related to growth and meeting future
water-related demands, watershed planning and basic water data
gathering, present and future water infrastructure needs, the
resolution of Indian water rights claims, protecting aquatic endangered
species, and climate adaptation. WGA policy resolution 11-7 on Water
Resources Management in the West reaffirms many of the recommendations
in the 2006 and 2008 reports.
I want to stress that one common aspect of our water-related
challenges and opportunities for developing successful management is
the uncertainty surrounding our present uses and future needs. The
importance of basic information regarding our water resources for sound
decision-making cannot be over emphasized.
II. Water Information and Data
``Western Governors encourage continued investment in the Nation's
water measurement and monitoring data networks and the development of
information services that promote collaboration between the research
and management communities to ensure relevant information is developed
and shared with decision-makers. Basic information on the status,
trends and projections of our water resources is essential to sound
water management.'' (WGA Policy Resolution 11-7, p. 1)
The 2006 WGA Report called for `` . . . a state-by-state and
westwide summary of existing water uses . . . , current ground and
surface water supplies, and anticipated water demands, .[that] should
address both consumptive and non-consumptive uses and demands.'' The
2008 WGA Report recommended, ``State and federal water resource
agencies should work together to provide universal access to the water-
related data collected by all state, local and federal agencies, as
well as tools and models that better enable the synthesis,
visualization and evaluation of water-related data . . . '' It also
called for `` . . . an accurate assessment of the Nation's water
availability and water demands, with the goal of integrating the
information into state water resources planning, recognizing that a
truly national assessment must begin at the state and local level with
appropriate technical and financial support from the federal
government.''
In September 2007, the National Science and Technology Council's
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality (SWAQ), released a report entitled: ``A
Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water
Availability and Quality in the United States.'' In part the report
reads: ``In 2006, the Nation supported 300 million citizens and the
population was growing at a rate of almost 1 percent per year. Several
regions and major metropolitan areas are growing at double-digit rates.
Attempts to address the science and technology needs of the water
community will require special consideration of areas with extreme
growth in population or water consumption. In addition, trends in water
use in the agricultural and energy sectors are major drivers of water
resource needs. Other primary factors that influence the future
availability of water include climate change and variability,
pollution, and increased conflicts over water allocation among
different users. Abundant supplies of clean, fresh water can no longer
be taken for granted.'' (p. 7)
The SWAQ report continues, ``Many effective programs are underway
to measure aspects of our water resources. However, simply stated,
quantitative knowledge of U.S. water supply is currently inadequate
(U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005; National Research
Council, 2004). The United States should measure water resources more
strategically and efficiently. A robust process for measuring the
quantity and quality of the Nation's water resources requires a systems
approach. Surface water, ground water, rainfall, and snowpack all
represent quantities of water to be assessed and managed--from the
perspectives of quantity, quality, timing, and location. A
comprehensive assessment of U.S. water resources should build upon
significant monitoring programs by water management authorities,
States, and Federal government agencies to ensure that regional and
national water resources are measured accurately. Data and information
about the Nation's water supply should be widely available, should
integrate physical and social sciences, and should be relevant to
decisionmakers, from the individual homeowner to regional water
managers. Without an adequate assessment of water supplies on a
watershed or aquifer basis, optimal water management cannot be
achieved. Improved knowl-edge of the size and distribution of the water
supply and how it changes over time will allow more efficient and
equitable allocation of this precious resource and will minimize over-
allocation of limited supplies . . . To manage water effectively, we
should know our present and future demands for water in individual
homes, businesses, farms, industries, and power plants, as well as
water needed for sustainable ecosystems.'' (pp. 7-8)
``Western Governors support several federal programs that are
particularly critical.. Western Governors are concerned about declines
in federal spending for.programs that provide important water supply
information and believe that such programs should be fully funded by
Congress.'' (WGA Policy Resolution 11-7, p. 2)
We urge Congress to continue to support the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and its National Water Availability and Use Assessment,
authorized by the SECURE Water Act, as well the National Streamflow
Information Program and Cooperative Water Program, all of which are
critical to providing a sound basis for improving water management and
decision-making. We continue to join with scores of other government
entities and stakeholders in calling on Congress to fully fund NSIP and
re-balance the federal CWP cost-share to a 50-50 match, in order to
reverse the loss of long-term streamgages and restore data that is
critical to assessing our needs related to water supplies, drought and
floods, emergency warning and management systems, infrastructure
design, climate, interstate water compacts, international treaties and
tribal trust responsibilities, as well myriad other federal, state and
local government water planning, management and decision-making
purposes.
We also strongly support NASA's Landsat Data Continuity Mission
(LDCM), with its thermal infrared sensor (TIRS) and imaging capability
(that many western states are using to monitor and manage consumptive
water uses, particularly agricultural uses). Further, we recognize the
need for and importance of providing sufficient appropriations for USGS
to complete and operate the necessary ground operations systems without
having to take funds from other USGS programs. This is a priority for
WGA and the WSWC, and hopefully for this Congress, given the impending
failure of Landsat 5 and the need to launch Landsat 8 as planned and
keep LDCM on schedule, so we do not lose this important thermal data
which more and more states rely on to measure and monitor consumptive
uses.
We are also very concerned about potential cuts to USDA's Snow
Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Program, which is presently
operating on a ``shoe string.'' Western water managers depend on this
vital information for water supply planning and decision-making. Any
funding cuts will likely lead to the suspension of snow course
readings, stop conversions of snow courses to automated SNOTEL (Snow
Telemetry) sites, and ultimately result in the loss of data due to the
failure of equipment that has to be actively maintained. Many snow
courses and SNOTEL sites have been operating for decades, and the
potential loss of such long continuous records is particularly
troubling and problematic due to the impact on modeling and
forecasting.
``Western Governors support federal efforts to coordinate water
data gathering and information programs across multiple agencies . . .
Western Governors encourage federal agencies to partner with States in
the gathering, coordination and effective dissemination of water-
related data . . . Western Governors call on the federal government to
work with Western States to develop tools and models that better enable
the synthesis, visualization and evaluation of water-related data.''
(WGA Policy Resolution 11-7, p.2)
The WGA, WSWC and our member states are working closely with a
number of federal agencies on various efforts to further our water
related knowledge, including but not limited to the WaterSMART
Assessment/Census and Basin Studies, Interior's Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives, the National Integrated Drought Information System
(NIDIS) Upper Colorado River Basin Pilot, climate and extreme event
workshops, and energy and water demand studies.
Of particular note, the WGA and WSWC are working with the
Department of Energy and National Laboratories to develop water demand
projection and water availability models as a basis for estimating and
evaluating water needs for electric power generation and other energy
uses. We are also evaluating the impact of those demands on other water
use sectors. The WSWC is providing expert advice and state generated
data, and will be preparing information on state institutions,
statutes, policies and processes that govern water rights and control
the allocation and use of water in the West.
We have also developed a project plan for a Water Use Data
Exchange, collaborating with state and federal agencies, to make data
available in a format that can be synthesized to support federal, state
and local decision-making and improve water resources planning and
management. Our initial efforts are focused on water for energy
demands, but our intent is also to be able to better understand our
capabilities and limitations related to estimating water use and
prepare a foundation upon which to build better water budgets and
demand projections through close collaboration between state and
federal agencies.
III. Water Infrastructure
``Western Governors support investment in water supply and water
quality infrastructure. Infrastructure investments are essential to our
nation's continued economic prosperity and environmental improvements,
and they assist state and local entities in meeting federally mandated
standards. Infrastructure investment is particularly critical now, as
much of the water infrastructure that has served the West for decades
is aging and in dire need of repair.'' (WGA Policy Resolution 11-7,
p.4)
In November 2010, the WGA, WSWC and Texas Water Development Board
(TWDB) sponsored a Symposium entitled, ``Western Water Resources
Infrastructure Needs and Strategies'' in San Antonio, Texas. Patrick
Natale, Executive Director of the American Society for Civil Engineers
(ASCE), spoke and said: ``The estimated five-year investment need for
all infrastructure repairs and rehabilitation is $2.2 trillion.'' The
most recent ASCE Report Card gave the Nation's drinking and wastewater
infrastructure a D-grade, its dams a D, and its levees and inland
waterways a D-. Steve Stockton, Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, reported, ``The present value of the capital stock
portfolio of the USACE has declined from a peak value of $250 billion
in 1983 to $165 billion today, with $60 billion in authorized projects
and an annual investment of $2 billion. Roughly $100 billion is needed
to repair levee systems, while $125 billion is required to replace the
current navigation lock system.'' Steve Allbee, EPA Gap Analysis
Program Director, added, ``State and local governments have spend $1.1
trillion since the 1960s on water and wastewater infrastructure, with
an additional $140 billion federal investment, but EPA's 2002 analysis
identifies a current need of $540 billion.''
Separately, estimates of the Bureau of Reclamation's 2010 backlog
total some $6.6 billion for major rehabilitation and replacement of
aging infrastructure ($930 million), authorized Title XVI water
recycling and reuse projects ($600 million), authorized construction
and operation of rural water projects ($1.2 billion), authorized
environmental restoration programs ($2 billion), and then authorized
and pending Indian water rights settlements ($1.9 billion). By
comparison, Congress appropriated $951.2 million in FY 2010 for
Reclamation's Water & Related Resources Account.
Construction related federal Stimulus spending totaled some $135
billion, with $22 billion for water and wastewater projects according
to Ken Simonson, Associated General Contractors of America. Total
construction spending is down 10% in the last five years, and private
non-residential building is down 25%, said Perry Fowler, Texas
Associated General Contractors.
Of note, a report by the Texas 2000 Commission entitled, ``Texas
Past and Future,'' concluded: ``Capital financing requirements to meet
demands from municipal and industrial water and wastewater treatment
during the next quarter century represent an outlay more than double
the existing debt of the state and all of its political subdivisions.''
TWDB has spent $12.4 billion on water and waste-water projects,
including $1.5 billion in 2010 alone.
According to Stephen Fuller, George Mason University, every $1
billion spent on water-related infrastructure produces 28,500 jobs,
growth in personal earning of $1.1 billion, and the gross domestic
product (GNP) grows by $3.4 billion. Infrastructure investments are an
investment in our future.
In the West, our population is growing and water demands have
changed since much of our infrastructure was built. Symposium
participants identified a need to redefine and re-evaluate our water
infrastructure needs based on standard criteria that include risks to:
(a) health and human safety; (b) economic growth; and (c) the
environment. We also need to evaluate risks to our existing
infrastructure, and improve asset management and system operations.
There is a great need for stable or increasing funding of
infrastructure, especially in small and rural communities, that must be
addressed. While states recognize that they cannot depend on the
federal government in Washington, D.C. to solve all their
infrastructure problems, there is a legitimate continuing federal role
related to federal landownership, tribal trust responsibilities and
federal regulatory mandates. Federal financial incentives and technical
assistance may also be appropriate to assist state and local
governments, where they can't reasonably meet their own needs. There is
a need, and there are opportunities, to improve collaboration and
leadership at all levels of government in addressing our water-related
infrastructure needs. Moreover, it is important to make investment
decisions based on long-term capital budgeting efficiencies, and move
away from ``annual incremental choices.'' Inconsistent, inadequate and
untimely funding leads to project delays and ultimate higher costs.
Financing is the principal challenge to meeting our present and
future infrastructure needs, particularly given important concerns over
the national debt and federal spending. Infrastructure can be viewed
either as a critical investment or ``pork barrel'' spending. We must
differentiate between ``good'' and ``bad'' debt, and between projects
we need and projects we would like to have. We must adequately weigh
project costs and benefits, using planning and prioritization tools to
set clear priorities. That being said, the project with the highest
benefit-cost ration or return on the federal investment is not
necessarily the best project. State and local collaboration and
appropriate cost sharing are important tools. Federal capitalization of
State Revolving Funds for water and wastewater projects have been an
effective and successful partnership, and have been especially critical
to meeting the needs of small systems and small communities. Similar
partnership mechanisms that rely on state operations and decision-
making should be considered, such as federal loan guarantees, water-
related private activity bond tax exemptions, and an infrastructure
bank or water trust fund.
A 1964 compilation of papers on the economics of public policy in
water resources development observed, ``A reduction in the federal
share of the costs of water resources projects should not be regarded
necessarily as a desirable end in itself. Rather, requirements should
be established to serve more specific objectives as achieving optimum
resource development and use--and promoting desired incidence,
distribution and stabilization policies.'' (Economics and Public Policy
in Water Resource Development, Stephen Smith & Emery Castle editors,
Iowa State University Press, 1964).
A 1984 WSWC report on federal water project financing and cost
sharing concluded: ``The present Administration seems to be proposing
further withdrawal of federal financing participation in national water
resource development in order to reduce federal spending. While the
urgent need to balance the federal budget may appear to necessitate a
decreasing federal role, reduced federal appropriations for water
projects will do very little, if anything, to solve our economic
problems. The size of the national debt has mainly been caused by
direct income transfers and national defense spending.. While western
states have previously endorsed the concept of cost sharing, they have
not, and cannot support federal abdication of responsibility. where an
appropriate federal interest is involved.'' The same might be said
today. (State/Federal Financing and Western Water Resource Development,
1984, pp. 13-14)
Public Private Partnerships may help reduce overall public risk and
capital investment requirements, as well as improve efficiencies and
cost effectiveness. Governments can remove unnecessary obstacles to
alternative infrastructure delivery methods, and provide a supportive
statutory and political environment. We must also recognize that
private risk capital is profit driven, and investors are intolerant of
bureaucratic processes and litigation. Opportunities exist to minimize
regulatory compliance costs and avoid unnecessary project delays by
better defining reasonable and necessary protections, streamlining and
coordinating regulations at all levels of government, and removing
unnecessary regulatory obstacles. We need to promote both public and
private accountability.
In the West, Congress provided the means to finance federal water
resources investments through the Reclamation Act of 1902. Western
Governors continue to urge the Congress to increase appropriation from
the Reclamation Fund for authorized purposes to match average annual
fund receipts.
In the end, there is no ``silver bullet.'' Resolving our
infrastructure challenges will require real cash to service real debt.
There has to be a revenue stream. However, despite budget pressures,
now is a good time to invest in order to take advantage of
opportunities related to both low material and capital costs.
IV. Indian Water Rights Settlements
``Western Governors support negotiated settlements of Indian land
and water rights disputes in order to meet the nation's obligations to
tribes while providing increased certainty for all Western water
users.'' (WGA Policy Resolution 11-7, p. 5)
The WGA and WSWC are long-standing advocates of Indian water rights
settlements, and we applaud Congress for passing the Aamodt, Crow,
Taos, and White Mountain Apache settlement agreements last December as
part of the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. ``Western Governors urge the
Administration to support a strong federal commitment to meaningful
federal contributions that recognize the trust obligations of the
United States government. Congress should also ensure that any land or
water settlement, once authorized and approved by the President, will
be funded and implemented in a timely manner without a corresponding
offset to some other tribe or essential Interior program.'' Settlements
and related infrastructure investments are bringing economic
development, environmental protection and peace to many valleys in the
West--yet more needs to be done. ``Negotiated settlements are flexible,
promote sound management practices, provide a basis for partnerships
between Indian and non-Indian communities, and save millions of dollars
by avoiding prolonged and costly litigation.'' (WGA Policy Resolution
11-7, p. 5)
V. Water Transfers
``Western Governors recognize the potential benefits of market-
based water transfers, and that the predominant water use in the West
is agriculture, but they are concerned about maintaining the important
cultural, economic, and environmental benefits of agricultural lands
and food production.'' (WGA Policy Resolution 11-7, p. 5)
With support from the Walton Family Foundation, the WGA and WSWC
are carrying out a year-long project to identify and promote innovative
water sharing strategies to allow temporary or permanent water
transfers between different uses (including agriculture, urban, energy
and environmental uses), while avoiding or mitigating damages to
environmental values, agricultural economies and rural communities.
Specifically, the WGA and WSWC are focusing on state-level programs,
institutional arrangements, and administrative practices that can
facilitate smart water sharing. The project is engaging state water
managers and a broad stakeholder community of agricultural water users,
municipal providers, energy/industrial developers, and the
environmental community. Products will include a toolbox of innovative
strategies, options for new programs or administrative practices, and
potential policy recommendations for the Western Governors--with a
focus on activities that can be implemented at the state level to
address our growing and changing water needs.
Further, Western Governors encourage adoption of strategies to make
existing water supplies go further, including water conservation and
reductions in per capita water use. They also support investment in
research into promising water-saving strategies. Moreover, Western
Governors encourage the use of alternative water supplies (of
appropriate quality for designated uses) through water reuse and
recycling, desalination and reclamation of brackish waters.
VI. State-Federal Collaboration: WestFAST
``Western Governors recognize the important role of federal
agencies in supporting sound water resource management in the Western
states. Governors appreciate the efforts of federal agencies to
coordinate water-related activities with the Western states through the
`Western States Federal Agency Support Team' (WestFAST) and recommend
the continuation of this key state-federal partnership.'' (WGA Policy
Resolution 11-7, p. 4)
Lastly, on behalf of the WGA and WSWC, we would like to recognize
and applaud the collaborative efforts of eleven federal agencies,
including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
and U.S. Geological Survey, in joining us in signing a Letter of
Cooperation to work together for the sustainable and efficient use of
western water resources. The WestFAST partnership is a continuing
commitment on the part of federal and state agencies--working with
local, tribal and other public and private stakeholders--to improve the
effectiveness of collaboration in seeking grassroots, watershed
solutions to water issues in the West. It emphasizes proactive,
voluntary, participatory and incentive-based approaches to water
resource management and conservation assistance programs. Each agency
has designated a WestFAST member to represent them, and together
support a federal liaison officer detailed to our office. We believe
WestFAST represents a model for other collaborative federal-state
partnerships.
VII. Conclusion
We appreciate the invitation to testify on these important matters
and look forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee, Committee
and Congress on opportunities to address our present and future water
supply challenges.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ms. Meeker.
STATEMENT OF MELISSA L. MEEKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WEST PALM BEACH, FL
Ms. Meeker. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you. My name is Melissa Meeker, and I am the
Executive Director of the South Florida Water Management
District. This agency is 1 of 5 regional agencies created to
ensure a sustainable supply of water for Florida citizens,
environment, and economy.
In South Florida, this responsibility includes operating 1
of the world's largest flood-controlled systems, which protects
7.7 million people and delivers 1.4 billion gallons of water
each day to support urban and agricultural users.
Florida's water challenge is not necessarily a lack of
water. Nearly two-thirds of our fresh water is supplied by vast
underground aquifers, and Florida receives 53 inches of
rainfall each year, making it one of the wettest States in the
Nation.
But we do have water challenges, which are 3-fold. First
and foremost is storage. Florida is a flat landscape, and that
means that we have an inability to really capture and store
rainwater for future use. It's extremely limited. As a result,
an average of 1.7 billion gallons are discharged daily through
our canal systems to tide.
Our second challenge is weather extremes. Florida is
affected by tropical storms and hurricanes, as well as
extensive droughts and water shortages. Just this year, the
region emerged from a 4-year rainfall deficit. Because Florida
is largely surrounded by saltwater, our drought conditions
bring the risk of saltwater intrusion in our underground fresh
water supplies.
Our third challenge is demand and competing uses.
Statewide, Floridians use an average of 6.7 billion gallons a
day. The projection for the year 2030 is 8.1 billion gallons
per day. That means in the next 20 years, another 1.4 billion
gallons a day must be identified and developed. Planning for a
growing population must also be imbalanced--must also be
balanced with ensuring water is available for our natural
systems.
Water in the State of Florida is a public resource. So,
strategies that expand our water supply must be in the public
interest. We use a variety of tools to achieve this, including
sound planning and predictable permitting programs based and
embedded firmly in our State law, demand reductions,
development of alternative water sources, and in South Florida,
restoring the Everglades, which will result in more water from
environmental, urban, and agricultural users.
In 2004--in 2005, excuse me, the Florida legislature
recognized the importance of developing alternative water
supplies, and adopted the Water Protection and Sustainability
Program. More than $550 million in State funding have helped to
construct 327 projects, which will create an estimated 760
million gallons a day of new water. This is more than 50
percent of the additional water demands I previously described.
To date, more than 60 percent of those funded programs are
for reclaimed water. This underscores the value of wastewater
as a critical water resource, rather than a disposal challenge,
as historically viewed. Reclaimed water can safely be used for
irrigation, groundwater recharge, saltwater intrusion barriers,
environmental enhancement, and other beneficial uses.
Florida is a leader in water reuse. The State's total reuse
capacity has increased more than 300 percent since 1986.
Statewide, there are more than 480 facilities collectively
reusing 660 million gallons a day of reclaimed water. This is
supplementing our water supplies by the billions.
Florida's efforts go even further. Three years ago State
lawmakers directed the elimination of ocean outfalls by 2025.
Preventing this discharge of wastewater to the oceans will
generate an estimated 178 million gallons of reclaimed water
that can be used in some of our most highly populated areas in
Southeast Florida.
We cannot talk about water in South Florida without talking
about environmental restoration. They're intrinsically linked.
The largest of our efforts is a State-Federal partnership to
restore America's Everglades. The Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan is constructing large public works, like
storage reservoirs and treatment wetlands, to improve water
delivery to the Everglades' inter-coastal ecosystems.
New water resulting from construction of these projects
will be set aside for the environment first, and then made
available for other purposes. While restoration is underway,
Federal agency coordination, Congressional authorizations for
shovel-ready projects, and continued Federal and State funding
are critical to maintaining our momentum.
In summary, Florida's water managers are successfully using
a variety of tools to address current and future water needs.
But to maintain progress we must commit to financial and
political investments that support community infrastructure
improvements, innovative technologies, enhanced agency
coordination, especially in the face of budgetary challenges,
and partnerships like the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan. The long-term benefits, particularly that of a healthy
and sustainable economy, truly outweigh the costs.
Chairman, thank you again for convening this hearing. I
appreciate the invitation to share Florida's perspective, and
we look forward to a national dialog on these issues. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Meeker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melissa L. Meeker, Executive Director, South
Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. We appreciate Chairman Jeanne Shaheen's heightened
focus on the critical issue of water supply challenges and
opportunities. My name is Melissa L. Meeker, and I appear before the
subcommittee in my capacity as Executive Director of the South Florida
Water Management District.
Headquartered in West Palm Beach, the South Florida Water
Management District is one of Florida's five regional water management
districts created to oversee and manage the state's water resources.
Operating for the past forty years, these public agencies are charged
with four broad mission responsibilities: flood control, water supply,
natural systems and water quality. With general oversight and guidance
provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the
water management districts utilize a variety of tools and technologies
to help ensure a reliable and sustainable supply of water for Florida's
citizens, environment and economy, both for today and for our future.
The South Florida Water Management District has two additional
responsibilities unique to South Florida. The first is managing and
operating the Central and Southern Florida Project, one of the world's
largest public works projects. This extensive infrastructure of canals,
levees and structures was built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
fifty years ago to provide flood control and water supply benefits to
an estimated population of 2 million. Today that system is supporting a
population of 7.7 million-nearly four times the number of people it was
designed for. At the same time, operation of this complex system of
water management structures is capable of delivering nearly 1.4 billion
gallons per day-or 500 billion gallons annually-to support the water
supply needs of urban areas and the agricultural industry.
The agency's second unique responsibility is implementing the
federal-state partnership to restore America's Everglades, the largest
ecosystem restoration initiative in North America. The Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan is focused specifically on ``getting the
water right''.in quantity, quality, timing and distribution. Successful
restoration will capture, store, treat and deliver water to revitalize
the natural system, improve wildlife habitat and recharge the
underground aquifer to ensure a reliable and sustainable supply of
water for the Everglades and South Florida. This effort is a critical
component of our overall water management strategy.
Overview: Where Does Florida's Water Come From?
Florida is a rainfall-dependent state. Average annual rainfall is
53 inches, making it one of the wettest states in the nation. Unlike
other parts of the country, nearly two-thirds of Florida's freshwater
use is pumped from underground aquifers. These include the deep
Floridan Aquifer and the shallower Biscayne Aquifer, which is highly
dependent on rainfall for replenishment. The state's remaining fresh
water is supplied from surface waters, including lakes and rivers,
which are also dependent on rainfall. In South Florida, approximately
90 percent of the water used in homes and businesses comes from
groundwater sources, with only 10 percent from surface waters.
At the center of South Florida sits the 730-square-mile Lake
Okeechobee-the liquid heart of the greater Everglades ecosystem. It
serves as both a direct source of public water supply and provides a
supplemental source of irrigation water to more than 700,000 acres in
agricultural production. In addition, the `big lake' serves as the
backup water supply for more than five million residents.
America's Everglades are a vital part of South Florida's water
story. Dubbed the River of Grass for the sawgrass that flourished
throughout the marsh, the Everglades is a mosaic of freshwater ponds,
prairies and forested uplands that is home to dozens of federally
threatened and endangered species, including the Florida panther,
American crocodile, snail kite and wood stork. These vast, shallow
wetlands, which once covered almost 11,000 square miles, help to
recharge the region's underground water supplies. But because of
efforts to drain the marshland for urban development, agriculture and
flood control, the Everglades is today half the size it was a century
ago.
Florida's Water Supply Challenges
Florida's water supply challenges are three-fold: the need for
storage, unpredictable weather extremes and a growing demand coupled
with competing uses.
Storage--Florida's flat landscape creates one of our most
significant water supply challenges: lack of storage. Although rainfall
recharges underground supplies, the ability to capture and store the
rainwater for future use is extremely limited. When floods threaten-
which occurs even during water shortage situations-the South Florida
Water Management District's top priority is channeling excess water
away from homes and businesses as quickly as possible. To lower the
levels in coastal canals and accommodate direct rainfall and stormwater
runoff for flood protection, fresh water must oftentimes be released to
the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico.
Effective management of the Central and Southern Florida Project
provides for the delivery of nearly 1.4 billion gallons per day to meet
South Florida's water supply needs. But because of limited surface
water storage and an infrastructure designed for flood control, it is
estimated that a staggering 1.7 billion gallons of water per day, on
average, is diverted through the extensive canal system and discharged
to tide.
Weather Extremes--Despite the abundance of rainfall, the state's
climate types yield significant rainfall variability from region to
region and from year to year. In South Florida, most of the rain falls
during just four summer months. In addition, a significant amount of
rainfall is lost through evapotranspiration or-because of the flat
landscape and lack of regional storage-channeled out to tide for flood
protection.
Florida is also prone to prolonged droughts and water shortages.
Just this year, the region emerged from a multi-year period of rainfall
deficit. Lake Okeechobee reached an all-time low of 8.82 feet above sea
level in the summer of 2007, and from October 2010 to June 2011, the
region experienced its driest dry season since recordkeeping began 80
years ago. In some areas, the rainfall deficit grew to more than 20
inches, with Lake Okeechobee, a water body with an average depth of
only 9 feet, dropping more than 3.5 feet below normal. In essence, the
Sunshine State is a state of meteorological extremes, where extended
dry spells and big rain days are considered the norm.
And because Florida is largely surrounded by salt water, drought
conditions require a constant vigil to monitor and combat the intrusion
of heavier seawater into the state's underground freshwater supplies.
Demands and Competing Uses--During the past half-century, Florida's
water demands have risen exponentially-and they are projected to
continue increasing. Statewide, Floridians used an average of 6.7
billion gallons a day in 2010; the projection for 2030 is 8.1 billion
gallons a day. That means that in the next 20 years, another 1.4
billion gallons a day must be identified and planned for. Planning and
developing water for a growing population must also be balanced with
ensuring water is available for our natural systems.
What makes Florida unique is its diversity of environmental
features: beaches, rivers, lakes, bays, estuaries and wetlands,
including the vast Everglades ecosystem. The vast interconnected
Everglades system, which historically stretched from Orlando in the
central part of the state down to Florida Bay, today encompasses 2.4
million acres and is the focus of a thirty-year, multi-billion dollar
state-federal restoration effort.
The health of this ecosystem depends on delivering the right
quality of water to the right places in the right amounts and at the
right time. Successful restoration requires capturing, storing,
treating and delivering water to revitalize the natural system. When
complete, Everglades restoration has the very real potential to achieve
both our environmental and economic water supply needs.
Florida's Water Supply Solutions
To meet Florida's future demands, the state's water management
districts are diversifying the water supply portfolio to maximize
traditional sources, while at the same time tapping into alternative
sources. Strategies include sound planning and permitting; demand
reduction through water conservation; development of alternative water
sources such as surface waters, reuse and desalinization; and in South
Florida, restoring the Everglades, which will result in more water
overall for environmental, urban and agricultural users.
Planning and Permitting--Water in the State of Florida is a public
resource. Its use, as determined by state statutes, is guided by the
diverse programs implemented by the water management districts (Chapter
373, Florida Statutes). The cornerstone of effective water supply
management is sound planning and regulatory certainty.
To address future water needs, Florida's water management districts
work with utilities, agriculture and other stakeholders to develop
region-specific water supply plans. These plans use a 20-year planning
horizon to evaluate water needs and identify strategies for meeting
future demands. Developed through a collaborative effort with local
governments and other stakeholders, each plan includes water demand
estimates and projections; an evaluation of existing regional water
resources; identification of water supply-related issues and options;
water resource and water supply development components, including
funding strategies; and recommendations for meeting projected demands.
In South Florida, the regional plans completed to-date have
concluded that the use of traditional fresh water sources have been
maximized. In 2010, urban and agricultural users in South Florida used
an estimated 3.5 billion gallons per day of water. Over the next 20
years, water needs in the region are projected to increase by almost 1
billion gallons a day.
Regulatory programs also play an important a role in water supply
management. When applied fairly and consistently, they aid in advancing
water use efficiency, promoting water conservation, sustaining limited
supplies and protecting the natural environment. Permit applications
for water use are evaluated by Florida's water management districts
under a ``three-pronged test'': the proposed use must be reasonable-
beneficial, it must not interfere with any presently existing legal use
of water, and it must be consistent with the public interest.
Additional rules are in place for protecting Florida's water
bodies, especially wetlands, from harm that could result from water
supply over-pumping. In addition, the state's Water Reservations
authority allow for water to be set aside in an ecosystem for the
protection of fish and wildlife. This has become an important tool in
Everglades restoration.
Furthermore, in South Florida it is no longer an option for
utilities or businesses to address future demands by requesting
increased withdrawals from certain regions. Restricted Allocation Area
rules prevent water users from tapping the famed River of Grass for new
or additional supplies. ``New'' water from the Everglades is now
restricted for environmental restoration purposes only. A similar rule
is in effect that limits withdrawals from Lake Okeechobee to current
levels.
Alternative Water Supplies--Diversifying water supply sources is
important to Florida's future and ensures communities are less
susceptible to the effects of drought. In 2005, the Florida Legislature
recognized this and enacted the Water Protection and Sustainability
Program. Through funding, this precedent-setting program encourages
cooperation between municipalities, counties, the state and the five
water management districts to protect and develop water supplies in a
sustainable manner. Examples of alternative water supplies that meet
this objective include: treatment of saltwater and brackish water;
water reuse; stormwater/surface water captured during heavy rainfalls;
and sources made available through the addition of new storage
capacity.
Since 2005, more than $551 million in state funding assistance has
been provided toward 327 projects, about 15 percent of the $3.8 billion
estimated total construction costs. When constructed, these alternative
water supply projects will create a combined 761 million gallons a day
of ``new water''.more than 50 percent of the additional 1.4 billion
gallons a day needed to meet the projected growth in demand.
In South Florida alone, funding has been provided in support of
local alternative water supply projects since 1997. To-date, a total of
$204 million in grants has been directed toward 474 alternative water
supply projects that produced 429 million gallons of water per day.
Funded projects have included reuse, use of brackish and seawater
sources and aquifer storage and recovery.
The reuse of reclaimed water is a key component of the new ``water
pie.'' To date, more than 60 percent of the alternative water supply
projects funded are for reclaimed water. This underscores the value of
wastewater as a critical water resource rather than a disposal
challenge. It is no longer acceptable to use water just once and then
dispose of it. Water reuse is an excellent opportunity to integrate
wastewater management and water supply. Reclaimed water can safely be
used for irrigation, groundwater recharge, saltwater intrusion
barriers, environmental enhancement and other beneficial uses.
Florida is today a leader in water reuse. The state's total reuse
capacity has increased 331 percent between 1986 and 2010. Statewide
today, there are more than 480 facilities in operation--collectively
reusing 659 million gallons a day of reclaimed water that is estimated
to have avoided the use of more than 121 billion gallons of potable
quality water. This also adds more than 80 billion gallons back to
available groundwater supplies.
To further increase the use of treated wastewater, the Florida
Legislature in 2008 authorized the elimination of six ocean outfalls
remaining in the state. This legislation requires utilities currently
using ocean outfalls as a wastewater disposal method to go to advanced
wastewater treatment by 2018; to eliminate discharges (except for wet
weather) by 2025; and to achieve, at a minimum, 60 percent reuse of the
facility's actual annual flow by December 31, 2025.
The elimination of the state's ocean outfalls--all of which are
located within the South Florida Water Management District's
boundaries--will generate an estimated 178 million gallons per day of
reclaimed water for use within some of the most heavily-populated areas
of South Florida. Water supply development projects that support the
reuse of treated wastewater are included in regional water supply plans
and its beneficial use is encouraged in consumptive use permits. The
challenge we face is in retrofitting our communities to accommodate
reclaimed water infrastructure and the public perceptions associated
with this valuable resource.
I recently had the opportunity to talk to a national audience about
Florida's leadership and commitment to increasing water reuse in the
state at the ``2011 Potable Reuse Conference'' sponsored by the
WateReuse Association. A copy of that presentation is included here as
part of my written testimony. See attachment*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A copy of the presentation has been retained in subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realizing Everglades Restoration--Together with traditional water
supply augmentation and demand management strategies, efforts are also
under way to capture, conserve and more effectively utilize water for
the natural system through environmental restoration.
Today, the South Florida Water Management District and the State of
Florida, along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other partner
agencies, are working to undo the environmental damage inadvertently
caused by the construction of the Central and Southern Florida Project
and a century of drainage. The overarching goal is to capture the 1.7
billion gallons per day of fresh water that now flows unused to the
ocean and the gulf and redirect it to storage for natural areas that
need it most for restoration purposes. Returning a more historic flow
of water to the remnant River of Grass will not only revive the native
habitat for 68 threatened and endangered species, it will also
naturally replenish the underground aquifers that supply drinking water
to the population.
Authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, the
joint state-federal Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)
partnership provides a framework to restore, protect and preserve the
water resources of central and southern Florida, including the
Everglades. CERP includes more than 60 elements. Any new water
resulting from the construction of restoration projects will, first and
foremost, be directed to environmental restoration and then will be
made available for other purposes. Major components include surface
water storage reservoirs; water preserve areas; management of Lake
Okeechobee as an ecological resource; improved water deliveries to
coastal estuaries; underground water storage; treatment wetlands;
improved water deliveries to the Everglades; removal of barriers to the
natural sheetflow of water; storage of water in existing quarries;
reuse of wastewater and improved water conservation.
Approximately 60 percent of the nearly 400,000 acres of lands
needed to move forward with Everglades restoration are in public
ownership. Design and/or construction of projects to increase storage,
improve water quality and reestablish more historic flow patterns and
hydrologic characteristics are under way. Federal agency coordination
and authorizations of projects ready-to-go, along with continued
federal and state funding, is crucial to maintaining restoration
progress.
Conclusion
Just as rainfall is linked to water supplies, the availability of
an affordable water supply is also tied to the economy. The economic
downturn has been painful across the country, and the combination of a
weak economy with recent record drought conditions has made it a
challenge for many communities and businesses. That connection
underscores the importance of planning for and developing adequate
water supply for economic sustainability. Adequate, affordable water is
needed to achieve economic growth; attract new industries and provide
cooling water for new and existing utilities; sustain agriculture; and
to maintain a healthy environment. These--and numerous other water-
dependent businesses--all have the potential to create jobs. No one
wants water scarcity or availability to be a limiting factor in any
aspect of our state or nation's economic future.
Finding and implementing workable, cost-effective solutions to
environmental, water resource protection and water supply availability
issues requires a concerted and collaborative approach--a combination
of public works projects and private participation that can yield
mutually beneficial dividends. We must employ a variety of resource
management tools to address our challenges, and we must commit to
financial and political investments in water conservation, water
resource development and alternative water supplies to ensure that
future water needs will be met-not at the expense of our natural
systems but as a result of innovative and cooperative solutions.
Federal support and investment in the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, community infrastructure improvements and new
technologies are vital to helping local communities-and our nation-meet
its water supply needs. The long-term benefits, particularly that of a
healthy and sustainable economy, truly outweigh the costs. Chairman
Shaheen, the South Florida Water Management District would like to
thank you for convening this hearing and for stimulating thoughtful
dialogue that can lead to collaborative and productive solutions to the
nation's water supply challenges. We appreciate the invitation extended
to the State of Florida to provide input and our perspective on this
important issue.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Harry. I'm not going to call you Mr. Stewart. I know you
well enough to call you Harry.
STATEMENT OF HARRY T. STEWART, DIRECTOR, WATER DIVISION, NEW
HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CONCORD, NH
Mr. Stewart. The last time we met it was in a smaller room
than this, I believe----
Senator Shaheen. That's right.
Mr. Stewart [continuing]. Senator. Thank you for the
opportunity, Madam Chair, to be here and talk about water
resource issues with you.
To me, sustainability, in terms of public water supplies,
is a matter for water resource itself, the infrastructure that
conveys, stores, and treats that water. The financial resources
have to be in place, and also the management capability. Those
are all very important issues.
New Hampshire, as you indicated, is the rapid--the most
rapidly growing State in New England. In fact, the State has
doubled in population in 50 years, and is projected to increase
another 20 percent, or 260,000 people in the next 20 years. So,
that certainly presents a challenge for us, in terms of our--
our water resources.
About 36 percent of the population is supplied water at--at
its--at residences by private individual wells. Those aren't
really a topic, in terms of the sustainability issue probably,
but they are an issue in New Hampshire and other States.
For example, in New Hampshire, 20 percent of those wells,
we know, have arsenic exceedances. They're unregulated. We have
education outreach to those folks, but it certainly is a public
health issue in New Hampshire and other States.
The community public water supplies in New Hampshire, the
721 of them, 100 or so are municipal systems. Those have been
pretty much fixed. Then there are older systems. Some go back
150, 160 years. It's been 10 or 15 years since I've heard of a
piece of wooden pipe coming out of the ground, but we do have
wooden pipe, actually, still in the ground. Those systems are--
are old. They're in pretty good shape, in terms of compliance
with the Safe Drinking Water Act, but there are quantity
issues, supply issues, going forward, and infrastructure, more
broadly, infrastructure issues that need to be addressed.
The other 600 or so our community supplies that have grown
up like mushrooms across the State during the growth spurts
that have occurred over the last 50 years. The older of those
are undermanaged, underfinanced. They have trouble with
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. When they are
upgraded, the affordability is a major issue for the community,
particularly if it's a low-income community. So, those are a
major concern in the broadest sustainability context.
We know in New Hampshire that there's 1.7 billion in
infrastructure needs for drinking water supply. We did a need
survey this past year to--to feed information into a
sustainability commission. That's a very substantial figure.
Other water infrastructure needs for wastewater, municipal,
and State-owned dams, and storm water infrastructure are
comparable, in the $1.5 billion range, cumulatively. So, we
have a lot of issues with regards to the infrastructure.
Our climate change is affecting our drinking water
supplies, and--and it is a real issue. For example, over the
last 5 years, the Lamprey River, near where you live, Senator,
7 of the 15 highest flows on record have occurred. The record
is a 100 old. So, we're very clearly seeing more volatility
with regard to our precipitation events and how they affect
river flows.
Going forward, New Hampshire has a number of initiatives
that are trying to address the sustainability question. The
Governor, this year, Governor Lynch, commissioned a commission
to develop a water sustainability plan for the State of New
Hampshire. This is in its early throes. But the focus is on the
long-term and how to make sure that we're prepared for the
future, in terms of water resource sustainability.
We also have a commission that's working on the
infrastructure sustainability, in the context of funding. This
is a--a legislative commission. We hope that coming out of 2012
they'll have--there'll be a direction, in terms of some funding
source to--to help with the question of affordability for the--
for the community water supplies, and the wastewater plants, in
particular.
We also have 2 other initiatives--initiatives. Excuse me.
Since 1998, when you were Governor, we've had a large
groundwater withdrawal permitting program. This has evolved
over time. It's a very transparent program. So, when
withdrawals occur, there's 2 public hearings.
Considerations, in terms of approvals, include the long-
term right of replenishment of the aquifer, if that's going to
be affected. If there's effects on wetlands or surface water
flows that could cause a violation of the Clean Water Act, the
spread of groundwater contamination. All these factors, as well
as impacts on other users, are considered.
This is a very sophisticated program. It's certainly state-
of-the-art nationally. Our aquifers are different than in
Texas. They're more localized. But it's a very effective
program.
We also have a--an in-stream flow protection pilot program
going on. This is supposed to last 5 years. It's taken 10. It's
going to end this--in 2012. To look at how to build a consensus
on--on water use in a river basin, and balance the interests of
diverse users, along with the environmental considerations, to
make sure that the environment is reasonably protected, also.
So, I think New Hampshire is moving forward. We've made
good progress toward a sustainable water supply over the long
term. We have a long way to go. I think it's important to note
that Federal funding is integral to this. We need the Federal
dollars for the--in terms of drinking water State revolving
fund, the clean water State revolving fund, and other moneys
for our research and planning that have been available
historically. Some are at risk at the moment. Those are very
important and critical to us and the other States, going
forward.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harry T. Stewart, Director, Water Division, New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH
I am here today to present the State of New Hampshire's views on
the challenges that we face as a northeastern state to address water
supply issues, as well as some of our successes and opportunities to
ensure sustainable water resources into the future. Thank you for this
opportunity.
WATER SUPPLY CHALLENGES
The focus of this hearing is ``water sustainability''. For public
water supplies, sustainability means the availability of adequate water
resources; adequate infrastructure to convey, treat and store the
available water; adequate management capacity to manage the water
system and the financial resources to support the operation,
maintenance and capital investment in the water infrastructure for the
long term. I have summarized below a number of water supply challenges
for New Hampshire in the context of these criteria.
Population growth--New Hampshire's population is currently just
over 1.3 million people, over double the population that existed in
1960. This growth has generally occurred in multi-year surges of 5 to
10 years over the last 50 years, predominately in the southern tier of
the state. New Hampshire is also predicted to continue to be the
fastest growing state in New England going forward to 2030, with an
expected population increase of between 130,000 to 260,000 people. As a
result, since 1960, the water use has also doubled with the population
to an estimated 100 million gallons per day and is expected to continue
to increase and, therefore, will continue to be a challenge for the
state. In the national context, while there are some separate
industrial and agriculture consumptive water users, the use by public
water supplies are predominate as compared with other states. Water
supply for new residential development is supplied by a combination of
municipal water supply extensions, small community water supplies and
private residential wells. About 36% of the state's population is
served by private residential wells and about 64% by community public
water supplies. New Hampshire is also generally perceived to be
relatively ``water rich'', which is partially true, but there are also
some watersheds, especially in the southern tier near the seacoast
where water resources are increasingly stressed due to increasing
demands caused by population growth.
Private residential wells--While private residential wells are not
the primary topic of my testimony, it is worth noting that these wells,
which serve over 400,000 individuals in New Hampshire, are a challenge
in New Hampshire and nationally. New Hampshire has basic regulations
that control well locations for sanitary protection and well capacity.
However, many of these wells have been drilled into deep bedrock to tap
into bedrock fractures through which water can flow. This deep bedrock
contains natural contaminants. Around 20% of these wells have
exceedances of the arsenic drinking water standard 0f 0.010 mg/l, while
numerous others have problems with radon, other radionuclides,
fluoride, iron, manganese and other natural contaminants. These wells
also may contain volatile organic compounds, such as methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MtBE) or other contaminants from gasoline or other spills
or releases from leaks. New Hampshire has an active education and
outreach program to address water quality in these wells.
Community public water supplies--Groundwater and surface water are
equally important water supply sources in New Hampshire. New Hampshire
has a total of 721 community public water supplies regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. The water supply sources for the population
served are
38% groundwater only
39% surface water only
23% surface water plus groundwater
There are also over 600 very small public water systems serving
less than 500 people, most supplied by groundwater wells. The abundance
of small systems poses a very significant management challenge. Most
are under-managed and under-financed. And, the older systems typically
have inadequate piping and storage infrastructure. In addition, since
most of these systems are supplied by deep bedrock wells, many of these
systems also have the water quality issues mentioned before for private
residential wells. Compliance with the water quality and operating
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act are a challenge for these
systems in New Hampshire and nationally. In addition, the cost per user
of compliance is higher than for larger systems making affordability
for users, especially in low income areas, a significant issue when
these systems are upgraded to current standards.
New Hampshire has around 100 municipal or major private utility
public water systems. The systems tend to be relatively small on a
national scale, with only two serving over 50,000 people. Significant
progress has been made over the years to achieve compliance with the
Safe Drinking Water Act. However, delayed investment in water
infrastructure is a significant issue and challenge going forward.
Water supply infrastructure needs for sustainability--In 2011, to
provide more accurate and current information to a legislative study
commission, the Commission to Study Water Infrastructure Sustainability
Funding (discussed further below), DES contracted for a detailed needs
survey to identify 20-year funding needs by polling the public water
supply systems. This resulted in identification of a the 20-year need
of $1.7 billion ($85 million/year) in the following broad categories;
51% ($878.5 million) for water delivery,
39% (668.3 million) for water treatment,
6% ($94.7 million) for water storage and
4% ($71.5 million) for water supply source development.
The upgrade of this infrastructure is critical to provide safe,
potable water to New Hampshire's citizens and to the long term health
of New Hampshire's economy. A combination of local, state and national
funding ultimately is needed to keep these investments affordable for
ratepayers.
Other water infrastructure needs--The provision of water supply is
an obvious dominant factor when considering how to achieve water
resource sustainability in New Hampshire. Other factors include the
identification and protection of significant lands for water supply
source protection, management of development patterns, and the state of
other existing water infrastructure, specifically wastewater collection
and treatment systems, stormwater systems, and dams. These components
of water infrastructure also have very substantial investment needs to
provide for long term sustainability due to regulatory requirements and
aging infrastructure. DES has estimated the following needs in these
areas for the next 20-years:
Wastewater infrastructure upgrades ($1,300 million)
Municipal and state-owned dams ($60 million)
Stormwater infrastructure to meet federal permitting
requirements ($100 million)
Overall watershed management and investment in all types of water
infrastructure are keys to water supply sustainability and the economic
health of New Hampshire. It is also important to note that, from a
municipal perspective this is all ``one check book.'' Many
municipalities could pay a large, and potentially unaffordable, price
for delayed investment to address upgrade requirements across this wide
array of municipal water infrastructure. This is also reflective of the
undervaluation of water infrastructure and investment needs in water
rates to support this infrastructure. ``Full cost pricing'' in the long
term is also key to the sustainability of this suite of infrastructure.
Climate change--The impacts of climate change on New Hampshire's
water resources provide a significant future challenge for water
supplies. There is strong evidence that these impacts exist right now.
For example, over the last 5 years, consistent with predictions of
volatility, New Hampshire has experienced 7 of the 15 highest flows of
record in the Lamprey River on New Hampshire's Seacoast. The effects of
climate change, including the potential reduction in snow pack from
warming coupled with increased storm intensity and, conversely, drought
conditions, are likely to cause diminished surface water and
groundwater storage thus availability for drinking water supply over
the long term.
OPPORTUNITIES AND SUCCESSES
New Hampshire is fortunate to have a relative abundance of high
quality water resources from a global and national perspective. This
provides opportunity and potential advantage if our water resources are
used and managed wisely which can be fully realized only if measures
are implemented that include:
Ensuring that consumptive withdrawals are sustainable
through the right management techniques and regulatory
structures.
Water infrastructure investments to address identified
deficiencies, and then ensure sustainable investment in the
long term as well as compliance with federal requirements. This
is our greatest challenge.
Maximizing energy efficiency for the water supply
withdrawal, treatment and pumping and the pumping and treatment
of wastewater. We know that this area presents ``low hanging
fruit'' that is gradually being realized ``one system at a
time'' as funding allows.
Management of watershed lands with a focus on protection and
preservation of important water resources such as drinking
water supply aquifers and reservoirs.
Water conservation to preserve vital water resources and
also as a means to make water use more efficient. Operation and
investment costs less when less water is used to achieve the
same objectives. This is an area where New Hampshire can apply
lessons learned in other states where water resources are
already stressed.
New Hampshire has several ongoing commissions that are evaluating
these and other water resource issues:
Governor's Commission to Develop a Water Sustainability Plan
for the State of New Hampshire--This is an active commission
established by Governor Lynch to broadly evaluate the issue of
water sustainability.
Commission to Study Water Infrastructure Sustainability
Funding--This commission was established by the Legislature in
2009 and renewed in 2011 to evaluate infrastructure funding
needs and funding options. This is a critical concern
especially in light of the needs expressed above coupled with
the risk of federal funding reductions and recent reductions of
state funding for water supply and wastewater state aid grants
and the elimination of a state matching grant program that
provided incentive to purchase sensitive drinking water source
water protection lands.
These commissions, in combination, are focused on developing a
statewide consensus on how to improve our water resources management
and funding for the long term and should help us ultimately to move
towards the sustainability goal.
New Hampshire also has two state-based programs that are in
implementation to help us to better manage our water resources: a large
groundwater withdrawal permitting program (which Senator Shaheen
requested that I discuss) and an instream flow pilot program.
Collectively, when fully implemented, these programs will go a long way
towards clearly establishing a state regulatory framework for the
management of both groundwater and surface water that balances the
needs of all users in a sustainable manner (in conjunction with the
federal Clean Water Act).
Large Groundwater Withdrawal Permitting Program
This program is fully implemented. We know from discussions and
inquiries from other states that this program is the ``state of the
art'' for permitting large groundwater withdrawals to ensure no impacts
to surrounding users and resources. Since 1998, all new groundwater
withdrawals with a proposed use of at least 57,600 gallons per day
require a permit from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services. This permitting process has been since improved by several
statutory changes developed by a longstanding Commission to Study
Groundwater Withdrawals, which was established by the state legislature
principally to address concerns raised by the public about proposed
large commercial groundwater withdrawals. The permitting process
generally consists of an application, two public hearings (before and
after withdrawal testing) to ensure municipal and public participation,
development of technical information including a long term groundwater
withdrawal test. Permitting decisions are based on consideration of a
comprehensive list of potential ``adverse impacts'', any of which could
be a basis for denial:
Reduction of the withdrawal capacity of other water users or
surface water levels or flows that cause a violation of surface
water quality standards;
A net loss of values for wetlands;
Causing a permitted surface water or groundwater discharges
to fail to meet permit conditions;
Causing the spread of existing groundwater contamination, or
Causing the long-term rate of replenishment of the aquifer
to be exceeded. Conservation plans are required for all new
permitted withdrawals to better ensure the efficient use of
water resources. Conservation requirements were also instituted
at the same time for surface water withdrawals.
Instream Flow Protection Pilot Program (for Surface Water Flow
Management)
This pilot program will be completed in 2012. The goal is to
develop a strong scientific and regulatory basis to balance the diverse
interests for uses of rivers through a consensus building process.
These diverse uses include public water supply, wastewater
assimilation, hydropower production, navigation, recreation, fishing,
conservation, maintenance and enhancement of aquatic life, fish and
wildlife habitat. There are two ongoing pilot studies to address these
issues for the Souhegan River (state funded) and the Lamprey River
(federal-funded). These pilot programs will serve as a model for how to
reasonably balance potentially competing interests to ensure water
resource sustainability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, New Hampshire has made good progress towards
ensuring a sustainable water supply over the long term and has a clear
sense of the primary actions that need to be accomplished to further
this objective. However, we have a long way to go.
It is also important to recognize how important federal funding is
to the states and local communities to promote these efforts,
especially in this period of shrinking resources at all levels of
government. At the national level, the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund Program, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program, other
water-related programs and research efforts must be adequately funded
for the states and local communities to meet the water supply
challenges of the 21st century.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify before your
committee.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
We have at least 3 major regions of the country
represented, I think, on the panel today. Four, if we count
you, Dr. Gleick, as being part of the Pacific Coast. I think
most of you--I'll put you in a separate category, Mr. Stanley,
because you're really representing industry.
But I think you've all said in different ways what Mr.
Willardson put so well when you said that we need a higher
public priority on water use in this country. So, I'd like to
ask you all to go back to that question: How do we get more
public attention to water use in this country, and attention to
address the kinds of challenges that each of you are really
working on to address water use, and both the scarce resources
and the technologies that are available to make sure we have
the water that we need in this country?
So, Mr. Willardson, would you like to go first on that,
since you put it so well?
Mr. Willardson. We can credit drought with getting a lot of
public attention in Texas right now. They are looking at their
water management. In fact, I think intermittent shortages have
always been a catalyst to try and change policies. I think at
this point, we have--we've talked about the need for a national
water policy. We think that should not be equated with a
Federal command and control structure that's pushed down from
the top, but really, would have to be built on local watersheds
and also State policies, and using those as building blocks
toward a national policy. We think that can be used to--in
support. The Federal programs should be used in support of
those efforts.
I think there is a need for public education, and a
realization of the value of water, and the fact that we pay a
lot more for our cell phone bills, generally, than we do for
our water bills. What's more important to us?
Senator Shaheen. Dr. Gleick, you also talked about the need
for a national policy on water, which I think can be defined in
different ways. Mr. Willardson pointed out that we're not
talking about a command and control, a regulatory regime, per
se, but more a national strategy. Would you agree with that, or
do you think we're looking at something else?
Mr. Gleick. I would. Let me make 2 comments. First, as--as
Mr. Willardson said, and as Ben Franklin said many, many years
ago, we learn the worth of water when the well runs dry. We
tend to forget it when the well fills up again. That's--that's
part of our problem. But there is a growing awareness about
water issues. Despite difference of--differences of opinion
about environmental issues, the American public considers water
to be the most important environmental challenge, and has
consistently for many, many years. People care about water.
You asked the first panel, do we have a national water
policy. We do have a national water policy. Maybe we don't
think we do, but there's a de facto national water policy in
the combination of Federal laws that we've passed around water
quality and water management, around the strategies of the
different agencies. There are Federal responsibilities. The
challenge going forward is going to be to better integrate and
manage those Federal responsibilities, to leave the local
issues to local agencies, State issues to State agencies, to
help at the Federal level, when help is appropriate, but there
are important Federal responsibilities. That's what an
integrated national water policy could look like. My written
testimony goes into more detail.
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Mr. Gleick. Let me just say one specific thing. It's time
to rewrite the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Those are foundational Federal laws about water. They were
great. They're important. They're out of date. They need to be
rewritten. It's this body that needs to do it.
Senator Shaheen. We could spend the next--the next 3--3
weeks talking about that. But do you want to talk a little more
specifically? As you say, we need to rewrite them, because
they're out of date. Are there any particular areas in mind
that you want to refer to when you say that?
Mr. Gleick. Sure. Two in particular. For the Clean Water
Act, we've done a pretty good job of dealing with what we call
point sources of pollution. We could do a better job at
enforcement, but--but a pretty good job. We've done a very bad
job at dealing with non-point source pollution. Many of the
remaining serious water quality problems in our rivers and
lakes are non-point sources. Nitrates. Phosphates. A whole
series of things that you're aware of. We need to deal with
that.
On the safe drinking water side, we have a remarkable tap
water system in this country. A tap water system much of the
rest of the--of the world wishes they had. But it's not as good
as it could be. It's not as good as it should be.
There's new technology. General Electric has developed a
lot of it, and many other companies have developed it. To
produce any quality tap water we want, from any quality
wastewater we might produce, we can restore the tap water
system of this country. It's an investment worth making. It's
an investment that we're going to be sorry we didn't make, if
we don't move forward on it.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Ms. Meeker or Harry, would
either of you like to add to those comments?
Mr. Stewart. I agree with Dr. Gleick on the--on the non-
point source question. The Clean Water Act does not address
that well. We see that in Great Bay, in New Hampshire, where
permits for municipalities are going to get ratcheted up for
nitrogen removal. Without the non-point source improvements,
that's not going to matter to Great Bay. So, I think that's a
very important point.
The Clean Water Act, we've talked about it for years. It
needs to be overhauled eventually.
Senator Shaheen. Ms. Meeker.
Ms. Meeker. Thank you. Just a comment on a national dialog.
I'm not sure if I would go so far to say we need a policy, but
in terms of the national dialog, 2 key areas where I think we
could use additional coordination, and public education was one
of those that's mentioned.
As we further technologies, it's very difficult to explain
some of those technologies to the public. They need to
understand them in order to support their governmental entities
and utilities moving forward with those technologies. So,
that's the first.
The second----
Senator Shaheen. Give me an example of what you're talking
about.
Ms. Meeker. You know, he just talked about wastewater
creating--I mean you can do that whole wastewater, treat it to
the point where it's actually drinkable. There are--that's the
2 extremes. We have many areas in between, and without that
public education and--and public involvement and understanding
treatment technologies, getting them to understand those issues
is very difficult. So, that's some--an area, I think, where our
Federal agencies could really help us.
The second is in the technology development. You know,
research is one. An individual utility can't necessarily go out
and research something on their own. But having the Federal
agencies work with either their own agencies or other not-for-
profits who specialize in those types of things is exactly the
type of area where I think you could--you could certainly help
us.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Mr. Stanley, do you see, as
you're looking at the work that GE is doing, are there any
breakthrough technologies that are going to make a dramatic
difference as we're looking at some of the challenges we face
to address clean water?
Mr. Stanley. Breakthrough technologies in the eye of the
beholder. You asked the question earlier about have we made any
significant advances, and I thought Ms. Castle gave a nice
answer, in that reverse osmosis is a technology that's been
around for a lot of years, but when you look at the details, in
fact, we have made quite a number of improvements. Many of
those have--have made by GE, some other advances by
competitors. But the net result is that--that there's been
significant advances there.
We continue--I have a team that's dedicated to reverse
osmosis. Looking for improvements in the membrane technology,
and the module design, et cetera, to try and improve that. So,
whether you would characterize that as a--as a breakthrough
technology, or a more incremental or transformational
improvement of the technology, we are looking at all of the
devices that we sell, the chemical treatments that we provide,
how we integrate those into solutions, and we see tremendous
progress as we look at our development efforts as we go
forward.
So, yes, I'm very bullish on the opportunity for technology
to continue to make improvements and provide solutions for
customers.
Senator Shaheen. Good. Are there areas, either in the
United States or around the world, where you're working with
governments to address specific water challenges, where you've
seen success?
Mr. Stewart. We--in the U.S., we have an arrangement with
the University of New Mexico, that's a government-funded
program, looking at brackish water reclamation there. That's a
very ongoing program that so far has been very successful, and
we look forward to continue that program.
We work with the government of Singapore. Very progressive.
I think others mentioned how progressive Singapore is----
Senator Shaheen. Right.
Mr. Stewart [continuing]. With their water programs. We
have a new research center. We have a collaboration with the
National University of Singapore, and activities with the
public utility board in Singapore. So, very aggressive there.
We also have a number of activities in Israel. We're on the
boards of incubators there, and we work with small companies in
Israel. So, we have a number of activities around the world.
Senator Shaheen. Good. Ms. Meeker, I want to go back to
your testimony, where one of the things you talked about was
the restoration of the Florida Everglades. Are there lessons
there that have been learned that you think can apply to other
restoration projects, either in the U.S. or around the world?
One of the things that there's been a lot of attention to has
been what's happened in Louisiana at the mouth of the
Mississippi, where so much destruction of the Delta there has
increased the impact from hurricanes and storms. Have you
learned anything in the Everglades that has application there
or other places?
Ms. Meeker. Do you have a couple days?
Senator Shaheen. I know. We're getting short on time here.
Ms. Meeker. Yes. Excellent question. Certainly could take
up a lot of time. I'll say simply yes, I think we've learned a
lot. At the top of the list of our lessons learned is
interagency coordination. The Federal, regional, State, local
partnerships that have been formed, so that it's not a single
entity that has to keep the ball rolling, I think is critical.
I think that--that fits with any issue, any technological
issue, or any major challenge which we are trying to face. It's
about establishing those relationships, working together,
trusting each other, and seeing what the end goal is, and
focusing on that. It's not always easy to do, but certainly our
top priority.
Senator Shaheen. Good. Thank you. Harry, you mentioned, and
as did Dr. Gleick, the non-point source pollution and ways to
address that. Can you talk about some--some of the ways that
pollution has effectively been addressed? Perhaps, Dr. Gleick,
you could also respond, or anyone else who has been looking at
those kinds of challenges, and has found successful ways to
address them.
I have a personal stake at this, because I live in the area
that Mr. Stewart was talking about. I'm in one of those
communities where we have septic systems and no community water
supply. So the pollution is affecting not only the groundwater,
but the Great Bay that comes in from the ocean.
Mr. Stewart. There are some opportunities. The University
of New Hampshire Storm Water Center is one area that has been
doing a lot of research in this area. Basically, there are ways
to--to treat storm water to improve its quality, and also to
reduce the flow of storm water into surface waters by
technologies, such as pervious pavement, and the like, to
reduce the impact of storm water onto surface water.
So, we don't have all the answers at this point. I think
nationally, it's a problem and a challenge, but there are these
relatively low technology solutions that are developing and
evolving to address these issues.
Senator Shaheen. Dr. Gleick.
Mr. Gleick. Yes. I would add, there are lots of successes
out there. The Pacific Institute, actually, today released a
series of agricultural farm success stories from the Western
U.S., some of which look at the issue of water quality
improvements. We can improve water quality and reduce ag
runoff, for example, by improving the efficiency of water use
in agriculture. You apply less water, and less water runs off.
You can put in place policies to reduce the application of
chemicals, and that reduces the chemical runoff that results.
Dealing with CAFOs, the combined animal feeding operations,
which this country has moved toward in the agricultural area.
That's a very serious water quality challenge. It's a--it's, to
some degree, becoming a point source, if you will, but they're
not adequately regulated.
I just point out, we talk about the--the hundreds and
hundreds of millions of people worldwide without access to safe
drinking water. There are people without access to safe
drinking water in the United States. It's largely, as you know,
Senator, people in rural communities, with a dependence on
local wells, where those wells are not monitored, they're not
protected, they're vulnerable to the kinds of non-point source
problems that we've been talking about. It's another example of
where modifications of Federal laws could improve public
health, improve public safety, improve the quality of water,
and reduce some of these challenges.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. One of the things that many of
you have mentioned is the effect of climate change and these
increasing weather emergencies on our water systems and our
water supply. Are any of you working in--on planning to address
those additional emergencies? I think, Ms. Meeker, you talked a
little bit about that. But what kind of planning are you doing
to address those challenges, and how do you get the public
brought in to the efforts that you're looking at? Dr. Gleick,
you want to answer that first? Then maybe I could ask the other
panel members if they could respond.
Mr. Gleick. We do a lot of work on the impacts of climate
change on water resources and on how to adapt to--to
unavoidable impacts of climate change in the water area. There
are more and more examples of water agencies taking
responsibility for designing new infrastructure, not for
yesterday's climate, but for future climate.
There was an interesting story about rebuilding the rail
line north of New York City washed out by an extreme event, a
hurricane, and doing it to a different standard, to take into
account both future sea level rise and a higher risk of severe
storms.
There is a realization that our water systems are both
vulnerable, but also can be protected, if we think about
rebuilding them and redesigning them now, rather than waiting
for the future. We're thinking about re-operating reservoirs in
California, because we're losing snowpack, which is a very
important storage, natural storage. That's happening in the
Rocky Mountains area as well.
There are lots of examples, but it's a very slow process.
It's--we're way behind the curve. Water agenciesare just trying
to now figure out what the most effective things to do might
be.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Stanley, are you working on that
anywhere in the world, as you----
Mr. Stanley. Not--not directly. You know, obviously, as
climate change happens, as water becomes scarce and--and more
problematic in regions, we try and develop products that will
be, you know, useful and helpful for--for customers. But that--
that's our response really.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Mr. Willardson.
Mr. Willardson. I would just mention that climate is just
one of the uncertainties that we face.
Senator Shaheen. Sure.
Mr. Willardson. In mentioning both droughts and--and the
flooding that we've seen in the West are a product of natural
variability, and we've had to deal with that. You do have, by
diversifying your supplies, by conserving water, trying to
manage demands, and taking what really are no-regret
strategies, water management tools that make sense anyway.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Ms. Meeker.
Ms. Meeker. The 2 areas where we have focused on have been
in our infrastructure improvements for our coastal structures,
where at one time they were gravity structures. You could just
open them and let the water flow off the land. As sea level has
inched up, literally, we have--when we refurbished those
structures, they now become mechanical structures to force the
water out. So, that's the first one.
The second is, as we see that sea level rise, you know, we
see a higher tendency or a possibility for saltwater intrusion
in our groundwater wells. So, that's a key area that we watch
very closely, working with, you know, USGS and the sampling,
and everything else, and the utilities to watch the saltwater
levels in those wells.
We have moved wells away from the coastal area. We use our
coastal structures to keep water levels in the canals higher,
to recharge the aquifers, to--to, you know, create a head, to
keep that saltwater out. So, we continue to work with that
literally every day.
Senator Shaheen. A number of people have mentioned the
importance of data, as you're trying to make these decisions.
Do you feel like you have adequate data? Do you also have
adequate ways to either regulate or incentivize compliance with
those----
Ms. Meeker. Absolutely.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. Needs?
Ms. Meeker. Yes. We have an extensive sampling program
throughout South Florida, both in groundwater and surface
water, and look at, you know, every--every bit of information
you can imagine, we're collecting it. We also have a very
active regulatory program, which includes compliance. So, 2
very key areas that we focus on to ensure that we have the
right information to make the right decisions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Harry.
Mr. Stewart. From a--from a data perspective, our screen
gauge network is shrinking, when it should be expanding, due to
funding. That's a combination in New Hampshire of the gradual
Federal attrition, but also State match for stream gauges. So--
and that--as we get these tropical storms and hurricanes, such
as Irene, that came up the coast, you know, we have people that
are looking real-time at what's going on in the State, and we
need those stream gauges for that purpose.
As far as other changes in our programs, we have changed
our criteria for culvert design. So, new culverts are being
designed to a higher standard, to a 100-year storm event, which
is probably no longer a 100-year storm event.
The other thing that's happening in New Hampshire is that
it's something that the engineers and scientists have known,
but I think that there's a shift in the--in the population,
where there's finally a recognition that we can't keep building
in floodplains, because they do flood.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Again, I know several of you
have planes to catch. While we could go on much longer, and
because it's a fascinating topic, and obviously, one that we
need to pay more attention to. I want to thank you all very
much for your testimony, for being here, and as I said, I think
it's a topic that we will come back to, because obviously,
there is a lot more work to do.
So, again, thank you very much. This hearing is closed.
[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record.]
Hon. Jean Shaheen,
Chairwoman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Water and
Power Subcommittee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Mike Lee,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Water
and Power Subcommittee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member Lee and Members of the
Subcommittee: My name is Dan Keppen, and I serve as the Executive
Director of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance). The Alliance is a
grassroots organization of family farmers, ranchers, irrigation
districts and allied industries in 16 Western states. The Alliance is
focused on one mission: To ensure the availability of reliable,
affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers.
We are also committed to the fundamental proposition that Western
irrigated agriculture must be preserved and protected for a host of
economic, sociological, environmental and national security reasons--
many of which are often overlooked in the context of other national
policy decisions.
We appreciate the attention your subcommittee is placing on the
critical need to address domestic and global water supply issues.
However, we were disappointed that no representatives of agriculture--
the largest user of water in America and the world, according to
Assistant Interior Secretary Anne Castle's own testimony at your
hearing--were invited to participate in the December 8 event. Within
the Interior Department, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the
single largest wholesaler of water in the country, providing water for
10 million acres of irrigated agriculture, and drinking water for 31
million Westerners. The Family Farm Alliance has a long history of
collaboration with our partners at Reclamation, and we generally agree
with Assistant Secretary Castle's assessment that the a proper role for
the federal government on water matters is to focus on research and
development; more fully integrate, coordinate and maximize use of
resources; and encourage planning from the ``ground up''. We also have
a wellestablished relationship with Congress, with 33 invitations to
testify before Congressional committees on Western agriculture, water
and environmental matters since 2005.
This testimony will provide some key observation that underscore
the importance of providing reliable and affordable water to Western
agricultural irrigators, address some concerns we heard with testimony
provided at the December 8 hearing, and provide specific policy
recommendations that we believe lay the foundation for effectively
addressing current and future water challenges in the Western United
States.
Key Observations
We are in danger of losing a generation of farmers
Nationally, the median age of active farmers in America has never
been higher, with the percentage of farmers under 50-years-old
continuing to plummet. More than half of today's farmers are aged
between 45 and 64, and only 6% of our farmers are younger than 35.
The number of farms is declining throughout the West
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the total
number of farms nationally is 2.08 million, a 0.6% drop from a year
ago. Nationally 930.9 million acres are in farmland, a 1.5 million-acre
drop from a year ago (USDA National Agricultural Statistic Service).
For example, at the start of 2008 in Oregon, California, Idaho and
Washington, there were 170,800 farms, a decline of 2% compared to the
previous year. California, Oregon and Washington each lost 1,000 farms
since the previous USDA annual report on farm numbers. There are 500
fewer farms in Idaho, according to the USDA report. In the West,
Oregon, California and Idaho each lost 100,000 acres compared to the
previous year. USDA attributes the decline in the number of farms and
land in farms to a continuing consolidation in farming operations and
diversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses.
Americans pay a substantially lower amount of disposable income on food
According to the World Bank, families in 28 other high-income
countries pay 10.2% of their disposable income on food compared to 6.2%
for families living in the United States. For the average American
that's a difference of $3,820 per year and represents real dollars that
are available to purchase consumer goods other than food. A 2011 report
by Cardno-ENTRIX examined the relative affordability of food in the
U.S. as compared to 28 other high-income countries. Data was derived
from a report published by the World Bank titled ``Global Purchasing
Power, Parities and Real Expenditures.'' The results were weighted for
each country by its total GDP so to ensure comparability with the U.S.
On a percentage basis, other highincome countries spend about 64% more
in disposable income on food and non-alcoholic beverages compared to
the U.S. The full food cost report is available at: www.farmwater.org/
food__cost__results.pdf
At a time when average Americans are feeling the pinch in their
pocket books, the foundation of our country's ability to provide safe
and affordable food and fiber is at risk. Ironically, it is because
Western irrigated agriculture has been so adaptive and successful at
providing plentiful, safe and affordable food that it is now
jeopardized--nobody believes there can be a problem. The last Americans
to experience food shortages are members of the Greatest Generation and
their parents. For the most part, they have left us, taking with them
the memories of empty supermarket shelves. When the issue has never
been personalized, it's easy to be complacent.
Agriculture holds the most senior water rights in the West and is
considered a likely source of water to meet growing municipal
and environmental demands
The Family Farm Alliance is part of a work group of diverse
interests--agricultural, environmental, and urban--that has been funded
by the Walton Foundation to seek the most effective and innovative ways
water can be shared for mutual benefit, without damaging agriculture or
rural communities; to pinpoint obstacles to sharing; and to develop
strategies to alleviate obstacles. To that end, the Colorado River Ag/
Urban/Enviro Working Group has investigated transfers throughout the
West in an attempt to uncover best ideas for the Colorado River Basin,
and beyond. The Group has developed recommendations for the Western
States Water Council (WSWC) in the context of toolbox strategies to
increase the chance that WSWC might get the Western governors behind at
least some of our recommendations. We want to get the governors to
enable local solutions to sharing water more effectively, to give
governors more latitude to do what's right in their states instead of
being tied by federal restrictions. Our message to the governors is
that changes shouldn't be pushed from the top down. We hope they can
get behind the idea of empowering interjurisdictional solutions.
Several observations were gleaned from the Colorado River Basin
Forum:
Better management of the resource can always be part of the
solution. Management requires flexibility (and trial and
error.) More regulation usually reduces flexibility. Competing
demand interests on water have not done a very good job of
creating the opportunity for flexible management.
More storage is still a critical piece of the answer.
Finding the dollars within the states for creation of new
storage for water for the environment could be a very helpful
way to level the field.
We need to be concerned that our demand does not get so
hardened that a drought can devastate our society. The
environment and agriculture can both recover from a temporary
insufficient supply easier than homes and businesses.
As we look to the future, we can tie that fact to Mother Nature's
expected long term drought cycles. We need to find ways to implement
interruptible supply and lease agreements between cities and
agriculture, and cities and the environment. For multiple reasons,
water transfers that result in the permanent fallowing of agricultural
land may be detrimental to all sectors. Regulatory costs and
insufficient infrastructure are significant barriers to temporary water
transactions that might be used in lieu of permanent fallowing. We
should encourage temporary transactions with incentives, potential
mandates and pilot programs.
The only large potential for moving water from agriculture to other
uses will come from fallowing large swaths of farmland
We often see bold general statements of water transfer proponents
about the potential for agricultural water use efficiency to free up
water that can be used for in-stream flows. However, those statements
are usually followed up by a list of the factors that make it a
difficult proposition. Those include re-use deficiencies when water is
removed upstream in the system, water rights that protect water users
from water being taken away if they conserve water, and transactions
that move water between presumably willing buyers and willing sellers,
but have the effect of taking land out of production. All of those
issues are dealt with directly in a major California report released
last month by the Center for Irrigation Technology (CIT) at Fresno
State. The report, ``Agricultural Water Use in California: A 2011
Update'', which refutes some long-standing beliefs about agricultural
water usage and confirms others. The full report is available at http:/
/www.californiawater.org. The CIT report and others have reached a
similar conclusion: the only large potential for moving water from
agriculture to other uses will come from fallowing large swaths of
farmland.
Growing domestic and global food security and scarcity concerns must be
considered as federal water policies are developed and
implemented
The U.S. needs a stable domestic food supply, just as it needs a
stable energy supply. The post 9/11 world of terrorist threats makes
the stability of domestic food supply even more pressing. Outgoing
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson put it bluntly
when he said, ``I cannot understand why the terrorists have not
attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do.'' Further,
Thompson said he worries ``every single night'' about threats to the
American food supply.
This isn't just a matter of domestic security; it's also a global
concern. Earlier this year, the Global Harvest Initiative (GHI)
released its Global Agricultural Productivity (GAP) Report, which
measures ongoing progress in achieving the goal of sustainably doubling
agricultural output by 2050. For the first time, the GAP Report
quantifies the difference between the current rate of agricultural
productivity growth and the pace required to meet future world food
needs. The report predicts that doubling agricultural output by 2050
requires increasing the rate of productivity growth to at least 1.75%
annually from the current 1.4% growth rate, a 25% annual increase.
Other signs point to the hard truth of a very real food crisis in
the world today. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) in June 2009 reported that over 1 billion people world-
wide go hungry every day. And the problem will only get worse. The
world's population is growing by 79 million people each year. The FAO
estimates that the world needs to produce 70% more food by 2050 to keep
pace with population growth and increased demand for calories.
G-8 agricultural ministers at a summit last year committed to
increase international assistance for agricultural development to $20
billion over the next three years. Actions of this type will surely
give the world's hungry a reason for hope by tackling food security
with a renewed commitment to agricultural development in other
countries. However, similar focus must be placed closer to home, where
less than two percent of the nation's population produces food for our
country and the world.
We need policies that encourage agricultural producers to work
together in a strategic, coordinated fashion. Rebuilding is required of
parts of the institutional structure now in place, so that water
resources can be managed specifically, not generically. We must get a
handle on changing weather patterns and assess how the agricultural
landscape and water security will be impacted due to a changing
climate. And we must develop a clear understanding of the resulting
limitations on our ability to feed the world is impacted when we take
domestic agricultural lands out of production as water tied to those
lands is transferred elsewhere.
Concerns
As you know, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute for Studies in
Development, Environment and Security testified at the December 8
hearing. The Family Farm Alliance and our members have worked with Dr.
Gleick in a variety of forums, and his December 8 testimony featured
points where we agreed and disagreed. For example, we agree with Dr.
Gleick's statement that ``Farmers cannot afford to upgrade irrigation
infrastructure to reduce losses and cut waste,'' which is consistent
with our findings, further outlined in Policy #5, below. However, his
push for new federal policies to ``eliminate subsidies for some kinds
of crops, raise the price of water delivered from federal irrigation
systems to encourage efficiency, or provide financial assistance to
farmers to invest in shifting irrigation technologies to modern systems
for monitoring and delivering water'' need to be addressed.
Western farmers and ranchers have long taken a progressive approach
to water management. Farmers are already investing in upgraded
irrigation systems. For example, between 2003 and 2010 San Joaquin
Valley farmers invested almost $2.2 billion in upgraded irrigation
systems on over 1.8 million acres of farmland. Those investments helped
improve water use efficiency and food production and helped fuel
portions of the rural economy at a time when water supply cuts were
increasing unemployment. And, these sorts of efficient farm practices
have led to increased economic value and production. A report by the
California Department of Water Resources\1\ shows that the value of
California farm products doubled during the 40-year period from 1967
and 2007 while at the same time, applied water decreased by 14%. Other
research by the California Farm Water Coalition showed that the volume
of farm production between 1967 and 2000 rose approximately 89% with
only a two percent increase in applied water per acre. These indicators
support assertions that farmers in general are improving water use
efficiency in significant ways over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The DWR report is available at 222.farmwater.org/
DWR_Econ_Efficiency.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Gleick and others often bring up arguments regarding the need
to address ``antiquated'' Western water policy. ``Part of the
problem,'' says Dr. Gleick, ``is old water legislation that has not
been updated to account for the realities of the 21st century and for
recent advances in our scientific and technical understanding of both
water problems and solutions.'' We need to resist any attempts at
rewriting our basic system of water rights, something affirmed recently
by the Delta Stewardship Council in California. We offer additional
recommendations to address this concern in Policy #6, below.
Dr. Gleick and the Pacific Institute recommend that we ``phase out
irrigation, energy, and crop subsidies that promote wasteful use of
water and energy.'' This recommendation begs the question, who decides
what is an efficient water use in agriculture?
Finally, Dr. Gleick's testimony closes with optimistic graphs that
demonstrate progress in terms of water use efficiency since 1975. Based
on those figures, it is difficult to see where we need to make changes,
unless Pacific Institute's goals are something other than increasing
efficiency.
Policy Recommendations
Western water supplies are already inadequate to the demands of
agriculture, urban growth, environmental enhancement and power
generation. Global climate change, we're told, will further reduce
those supplies. So how will we meet the ever-increasing demand for
water in the West in an era when there will be an ever-decreasing
supply? Improved conservation, water reuse and efficiency by urban and
agricultural water users are certainly parts of the solution, but only
a part. Resolving these issues without destroying what we worked so
hard to achieve is the challenge that we all face. To be successful, we
must face them together. No resolution will be found unless we find a
way to balance all competing needs. We believe that within the policies
outlined in this testimony lay the foundation upon which to build for
the future. It will be a foundation that allows for resolution of
significant conflicts in a way that supports continued growth of
irrigated agriculture.
Policy 1.--The U.S. must adopt an overriding national goal
of remaining self-sufficient in food production.
Food security is homeland security. Policy
decisions on a wide range of issues should then be
evaluated to be sure they are consistent with that
goal
Remarkably absent from the newly-ignited dialogue about fuel and
food costs and food safety is recognition of the importance of a secure
and sustainable domestic food supply. Politicians from both parties now
routinely urge us to end our reliance on foreign energy sources, but
nobody is talking about food independence. A national response should
include as one of its goals selfsufficiency in food production. It is
time for our national leaders to stand up and focus on improving the
security, stability, and economic aspects of domestic food production
so that our food remains readily available, ample, affordable, and
safe. An obvious solution to address this alarming development would be
to increase agricultural productivity and output. In our own country,
that means finding ways to keep farmers and ranchers doing what they do
best, and to further encourage young farmers to follow in their
footsteps.
Europeans aggressively protect their farms and food production
capability because they still remember the hungry years during and
after World War II when they relied on other nations, America in
particular, to feed them. The time has come--indeed, it's long
overdue--for the United States to similarly adopt an overriding
national goal of remaining self-sufficient in food production. Policy
decisions on a wide range of issues ranging from taxation to the
management of natural resources should then be evaluated to be sure
they are consistent with that goal. It's hard to imagine a simpler or
more important step to safeguard the American public.
Policy 2.--State and local governments must consider the
impacts of continued growth that rely on water
transfers from agriculture and rural areas and to
identify feasible alternatives to those transfers,
including reuse
Severing water from agricultural land makes the land less
productive. Period. Policy makers should be wary of putting too much
emphasis on agricultural water transfers, particularly in the context
of growing domestic and global food security and scarcity concerns.
There is growing recognition that states and local governments must
consider the impacts of continued growth that relies on water transfers
from agriculture and rural areas and to identify feasible alternatives
to those transfers. For example, a 2006 report released by the Western
States Governors Association (WGA) states ``there is understandable
support for the notion of allowing markets to operate to facilitate
transfers from agricultural to municipal and urban use as a means to
accommodate the needs of a growing population. While such transfers
have much to commend them, third party impacts should be taken into
account, including adverse effects on rural communities and
environmental values. Alternatives that could reasonably avoid such
adverse impacts should be identified.''
The Family Farm Alliance is working with WGA and Western States
Water Council to develop a report on successful and unsuccessful
agricultural-to-urban water transfers to determine how transfers can be
accomplished in a manner that avoids or at least mitigates damage to
agricultural economies and environmental values, while at the same time
avoiding infringement on private property rights. The Alliance position
will be built upon a policy founded in fundamental truths:
Although water is lost to evaporation in surface reservoirs
that serve agricultural, environmental and urban uses, there is
very little ``wasted water'' associated with moving and
applying irrigation water. Water not directly consumed through
evapo-transpiration often serves other purposes, such as
replenishing groundwater, buffering soil salinity and
supporting riparian vegetation.
Further tightening of urban water conservation measures, in
essence, ``hardens'' those urban demands. Some degree of
flexibility must be embedded in urban water conservation
programs to allow these areas to employ more restrictive water
conservation measures during drought periods. Without having
the ability to save water during drought periods via drought
conservation measures, the resulting hardened demand will force
urban water managers to more quickly look to secure water from
other areas; namely, agriculture and the environment.
A multitude of unique solutions exist for Western
communities wrestling with growing urban water use. The
Northern Colorado Water Conservation District is currently
seeking to 9 develop new offstream storage to protect
agriculture as urbanization sweeps into Northern's traditional
service area. Farmers in the Klamath Irrigation Project
(CALIFORNIA / OREGON) are paid through an environmental water
bank to temporarily fallow land or pump groundwater in place of
using Klamath River water. On the other hand, unsuccessful
implementation of Central Valley Project Improvement Act water
transfer provisions in California suggests that water markets
cannot be legislated.
There will be nothing done with water in the West without there
being winners and losers. Cities may expect to buy water from farms,
but that is not a long term solution as global food shortages make
farming a crucial national need.
Policy 3.--When water demands and environmental laws
conflict, balanced solutions that respect the
socioeconomic realities of the West must be found
Environmental enhancement and mitigation programs are competing for
existing sources of water. Across the West, environmental activists
have attempted to redirect water to environmental uses through
litigation and negative media campaigns, without adequate public
process or regard for prior commitments. These actions have caused
major conflicts, costly lawsuits and delayed benefits for endangered
species and the environment.
In recent years, many in the environmental community have focused
on irrigation projects and dams as the source of all woes facing
Western fisheries. This distracts policy makers from employing a
balanced, comprehensive approach to all factors that limit the
abundance of at risk, native fish species. In California's Bay-Delta,
for example, environmental activists have focused almost exclusively on
state and federal water pumps in the Delta that supply water for
millions of acres of the most productive farmland in the world, not to
mention drinking water for millions of Southern Californians. They
ignore or downplay many other factors that stress fish, including the
loss of plants located in the Delta; the introduction of non-native
species, including predator species like the striped bass, the decline
of food availability; and the discharge of toxics into Delta waterways
and streams tributary to the Delta. Over the course of the last two
decades, the effort to recover native species in the Delta has been
heavily focused on limiting operations of the state and federal
projects. Tens of millions of acre-feet have been managed in order to
protect and enhance populations of Delta smelt, salmon and steelhead.
Yet, these efforts have failed, and abundance indices for these species
are at record lows\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ July 17, 2008 Letter from U.S. Reps. Costa, Cardoza,
Radanovich, Nunes and McCarthy to Dr. Balsinger and Director Hall re:
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan Process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a better way. Solutions to these complex issues can be
found by reasoned, well intentioned people. Water users care about the
environment. Creative, successful solutions can be found by motivated,
unthreatened parties. Incentives that create reasons to succeed will do
more good for the environment in a shorter period of time than actions
that rely on threats of government intervention. Successful incentives
will ultimately reduce occasions for judges to be forced to substitute
their own judgment for that of professionals and stewards of the land.
Policy 4.--State laws and institutions must be given
deference in issues relating to water resource
allocation, use, control and transfer. The best
decisions on water issues happen at the state and
local level
The federal government has repeatedly recognized this fact. In
1952, Congress passed the McCarran Amendment. This law specifically
waives the sovereign immunity of the United States in matters that
pertain to state water right adjudications. This system may be
frustrating for federal agencies but it works.
Solutions to conflicts over the allocation and use of water
resources must begin with a recognition of the traditional deference to
state water allocation systems. Federal agencies must acknowledge that
they are required to adjudicate water rights for federal purposes
according to state law and abide by state decrees defining both federal
and non-federal rights.
Recently, in many areas of the West, federal agencies have
attempted to redirect water to solve environmental issues, without
regard for state law or prior commitments, via implementation of
federal laws that have the effect of overrunning state statutes. These
actions cause far more problems than they resolve. Environmental issues
must be resolved through a cooperative process that respects state
water law.
A simple commitment by federal agencies to work within the
framework of existing appropriative systems instead of attempting to
fashion solutions which circumvent current water rights allocation and
administration schemes would form the foundation for eliminating the
gridlock that now paralyzes federal water management decisions.
Such a commitment would encourage states and water right holders to
proactively address water allocation issues by eliminating the now
omnipresent fear that a subsequent federal mandate will either
undermine local efforts to address an allocation issue or suddenly
require unexpected additional reallocations of water which render local
cooperation impossible.
Policy 5.--Aging water infrastructure must be addressed
promptly and with priority commitments, as failure
do to so will create a failed legacy for the next
generation
Specific action can be taken in Washington, D.C. to tackle the
looming water infrastructure problems plaguing the West:
1. Direct more funding to the Department of Interior
WaterSMART grant program to--implement (i.e. ``build'')
projects that have been submitted but not approved for funding.
2. Reaffirm the loan guarantee authority provided in the
Rural Water Supply Act.--Congress should specifically direct
funding and implementation of the loan guarantee program
authorized by The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006.
Unfortunately, Reclamation loan guarantees, a long-awaited
critical financing tool for water users across the West, are 11
now being held up because of incorrect interpretations of clear
Congressional direction by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
3. Establish a direct loan program for local agricultural
water districts.--This would require full appropriation by
Congress, over and above what Reclamation already funds. The
program would provide low interest loans to irrigators and
repaid by them.
It is imperative that we find creative ways to provide for the
operation, maintenance, and modernization of existing water supply
infrastructure. Implementation of these recommendations would provide
important first steps towards solving our aging water infrastructure
problems.
Policy 6.--New water supplies must be developed to provide
for recreational and environmental needs, allow for
population growth and protect the economic vitality
of the West
We believe that it is possible to meet the needs of cities and the
environment in a changing climate without sacrificing Western irrigated
agriculture. To achieve that goal, we must expand the water supply in
the West. There must be more water stored and available to farms and
cities. Maintaining the status quo simply isn't sustainable in the face
of unstoppable population growth, diminishing snow pack, increased
water consumption to support domestic energy, and increased
environmental demands.
It strains credibility to believe that conservation alone will
supply enough water for the tens of millions of new residents expected
to arrive in Western cities during the coming decades. Farmers and
ranchers understand that conserved water cannot realistically be
applied to instream uses, as it will more likely be put to beneficial
use by the next downstream appropriator or held in carryover storage
for the following irrigation season.
Many water projects are ready and waiting to be developed in the
West\3\. While conservation and recycling programs have done a
tremendous job of meeting new growth, still, only a small amount of new
water has been developed in the past 30 years. We cannot continue to
``conserve just a little more'' forever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Western Water Supply Enhancement Study. Family Farm Alliance,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal government must adopt a policy of supporting new
projects to enhance water supplies while encouraging state and local
interests to take the lead in the implementation of those projects.
It's time to start developing and implementing the water infrastructure
needed to cope with a changing climate, meet the needs of a burgeoning
population, and support a healthy agricultural base in the West. While
on- stream storage should not be seen as unacceptable, off stream
storage, groundwater banking, and countless other forms of water
development should be encouraged as a matter of federal policy and law.
Local and state interests have shown enormous creativity in
designing creative water development projects. For example, the State
of Wyoming has initiated its Dam and Reservoir Program, where proposed
new dams with storage capacity of 2,000 acre feet or more and proposed
expansions of existing dams of 1,000 acre feet or more qualify for
state funding. Wyoming water managers and policy makers recognize that
dams and reservoirs typically provide opportunities for many potential
uses. While water supply is emphasized in the Wyoming program,
recreation, environmental enhancement, flood control, erosion control
and hydropower uses are also explored as secondary purposes.
Modern, integrated water storage and distribution systems can
provide tremendous physical and economic flexibility to address climate
transformation and population growth. However, this flexibility is
limited by legal, regulatory, or other institutional constraints, which
can take longer to address than actually constructing the physical
infrastructure\4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CLIMATE WARMING AND WATER MANAGEMENT ADAPTATION FOR CALIFORNIA,
Stacy K. Tanaka et al, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
University of California, Davis 95616
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The often slow and cumbersome federal regulatory process is a major
obstacle to realization of projects and actions that could enhance
Western water supplies.
The Family Farm Alliance wants to work with the new Administration,
Congress, and other interested parties to build a consensus for
improving the regulatory process. The real reason the Alliance
continues to push for improved water storage and conveyance
infrastructure is not to support continued expansion of agricultural
water demand (which is NOT happening in most places). Instead, we seek
to mitigate for the water that has been reallocated away from
agriculture towards growing urban, power, environmental and
recreational demands in recent decades. If we don't find a way to
restore water supply reliability for irrigated agriculture through a
combination of new infrastructure, other supply enhancement efforts,
and demand management--our country's ability to feed and clothe itself
and the world will be jeopardized. We need to pin down how much new
water is needed for new uses, and then find ways to support those uses
in a sustainable way that doesn't hurt irrigated agriculture. New
infrastructure is one such way; improved conveyance and storage
projects provide the best flexibility to manage and move water in the
West.
Policy 7.--We Must Coordinate and Prioritize Western Water
Research Needs
Our country has tremendous, but limited, resources available to fix
our problems, so we must prioritize. One priority research item should
be a comprehensive validation of West-wide changes in climate change-
driven streamflow. This should be followed by quantification of the
amount of additional reservoir storage, conservation targets, etc
required to re-regulate this change in hydrology. This would quickly
illustrate to policy makers the need to start modernizing our water
infrastructure. This assessment should be accompanied by a
comprehensive study of the collective impacts of agricultural land and
water changes in Western states over the last 10 years, as well as
predicted trends. A study of this sort may provide the type of hard
findings that may alert policy makers to the ``big picture''
ramifications of this issue.
The potential water impacts associated with use of alternative
fuels must also be studied. Throughout the West, we are seeing
proposals to build plants to make ethanol, another ``answer'' that may
(or may not) lower greenhouse gas emissions. An April 2007 Sacramento
Bee editorial provides a reality check on how much water it would take
to grow all the corn required to meet California's goal of producing a
billion gallons of ethanol a year. According to the Bee's calculations,
that's about 2.5 trillion gallons of water for 1 billion gallons of
ethanol, which is more than all the water from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta that now goes to Southern California and valley farms.
Because there is only so much water for agriculture in California and
other Western states, this means that some other existing crops will
not be grown, thus furthering our dependence on imported food sources.
Another growing demand that will be placed on Western water
resources is driven by power requirements. The total water consumed by
electric utilities accounts for 20% of all the nonfarm water consumed
in the United States. By 2030, utilities could account for up to 60% of
the nonfarm water, to meet the water needs required for cooling and
pollutant scrubbing. This new demand will likely have the most serious
impacts in fast-growing regions of the U.S., such as the Southwest.
There are also risks and opportunities to manage water associated
with petroleum development. Across the western United States alone,
more than 5 billion gallons per day of ``produced water'' is brought to
the surface during petroleum production\5\. This wastewater has
historically been re-injected back into the ground and ``lost'' to
further uses. Recovering usable water from sources contaminated by oil
and gas drilling operations could significantly help our farmers,
ranchers and recreational users, not to mention the habitats of many
plants and animals. Meanwhile, with the growing emphasis on opening up
oil shale production in the Rocky Mountain West, new oil and gas
techniques are expected to use large amounts of water under pressure to
extract the oil and gas from underground. Recovered ``produced water''
could help satisfy this new demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Revolutionary New Water-Saving Technique Gives Oil And Gas A
New `Green Look' In Rockies Nickle's Energy Group, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even without warming climate conditions, continued growth in the
West will put the squeeze on both water and power use. When you throw
in climate change and energy considerations, the projections are
alarming.
Priority 8.--Real management is needed in the real
``reservoir'' of the West--our federallyowned
forest lands in upper watershed areas
Federal agencies must improve management of the West's biggest
``reservoir''--our watersheds.
In most Western states, much of the water used derives from
snowmelt in mountainous areas. We are hearing more frequent reports
from state and local governments and water users who question how the
federal government is managing the watersheds.
The Yellowstone fires that occurred 20 years ago provided a wakeup
call to many that nearly a century of federal forest firefighting may
have actually made the forests more flammable and more dangerous. The
U.S. Forest Service policy of putting out all fires may have actually
filled the forests with fuel, making them harder to protect\6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Yellowstone Fires of '88: Twenty years of recollection''. Rocky
Barker, 2008. PERC Reports Summer 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the early 1990's, forest management practices underwent a
drastic change\7\. In 1994, at the behest of environmental
organizations claiming to protect the forest habitat of the northern
spotted owl, a ``threatened'' species under the Endangered Species Act,
25 million acres of federal forests were put off limits to commercial
timber harvesting. The federal government also greatly expanded
``wilderness areas,'' closed hundreds of miles of national forest roads
long used by firefighters to reach isolated wildfires, and terminated
salvage timber sales. As a result of minimizing the mechanical-thinning
approach to forest management--coupled with 100 years of a flawed
federal fire suppression policy--the national forests became overgrown
with underbrush and overfueled with dead or dying trees. They also
became less accessible to firefighting crews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Why the nation's forests are burning so hot. M. David Stirling,
Pacific Legal Foundation. August 3, 2008 Eureka (CALIFORNIA) Reporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A July 2008 report released by the National Research Council\8\--
one of the first major studies on forest and water since a U.S. Forest
Service project in 1976--underscores the importance of forests to the
nation's water supplies. The report finds that modern forest practices
have helped to protect streams and riparian zones, but more needs to be
learned about the implications of such practices as thinning or partial
cuts. This understanding can lead to the development of ``best
management'' practices could help balance timber harvest with
sustainable water flow and quality\9\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Hydrologic Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape. National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. July 2008.
\9\ Oregon State University News and Communication Service, July
14, 2008 Media Release ``New Report: Greatest Value of Forests is
Sustainable Water Supply''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
Western water policy over the past 100 years stands out as one of
the modern era's great successes. Over 180 federal water projects serve
17 Western states. These provide water to more than 31 million people,
and deliver irrigation water to 140,000 farmers and 10 million acres of
farmland. These lands produce 60% of the nation's vegetables and 25% of
its fruits and nuts.
Millions of acres of arid Western desert have been transformed into
the world's most efficient and productive agricultural system.
Irrigated agriculture is an incredible investment\10\. It continues
to be a leading Western economic driver. Now is not the time to
retreat. Sound policies are needed that encourage continued investment
in irrigated farming rather than risking diminished domestic food
production because cities are taking farm water. Relying on agriculture
to be a ``shock absorber'' to soften or eliminate the impending water
shortage is not planning. Rather, it is a choice to effectively put our
heads in the sand and hope for the best. It will worsen the overall
impact of climate change on our nation's economy and security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A 1998 study by Dr. Darryl Olsen and Dr. Houshmand Ziari,
estimates the impact of irrigated agriculture in the Western states to
be $60 billion annually (direct and indirect income). The annual return
to the economy from the $11 billion investment in the federal system
has been estimated at $12 billion annually. In other words, the economy
of the United States receives a greater than 100% return each year on
this investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western irrigated agriculture is a strategic and irreplaceable
national resource. It must be protected by the federal government in
the 21st Century.
Now is the time for leadership at all levels--local, state, and
federal--to face the challenges and create opportunities that will
define the future of the West. Recognizing the value of irrigated
agriculture is vital. Understanding the current and future role of
irrigated agriculture in the West through aggressive action to repair
aging infrastructure and create new water supply enhancement projects
is imperative. Properly managing federal watersheds and encouraging
federal agencies to work with the agricultural community to solve local
water challenges are equally crucial. Through thoughtful planning, the
Congress and the Administration can play a truly important role in
helping find the solutions that have proved so elusive to date.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of L. Jerry Hansen to Questions From Senator Shaheen
Climate Change
Question 1. How should we be planning for the impacts of climate
change on our water supply-both domestically and globally? What is
being done now to address the uncertainty that climate change
invariably brings with it?
Answer. We are following the Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ) climate change adaptation implementing instructions (issued in
March 2011) to assess the likely impacts of climate change on our
mission and operations. Once that assessment is complete, we will
incorporate those climate change considerations into all applicable
Army planning processes (for example, our installation land use master
plans, our Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, our training
range management plans, and our future stationing decisions).
National Policy
Question 2. Do you believe we are in need of a national policy to
address water supply issues in this country? If so, what would be the
key components to such a policy to ensure its effectiveness?
Answer. Water, across all its characteristics, is a national
security issue. It is critical to our country's long term prosperity
and our overall resilience as a nation. The Army recently completed a
research project to develop a water security strategy. It is the first
attempt at a framework with strategic goals and objectives. The key
components bring together the multiple aspects of water, including
supply, quality, distribution, cost, and supply chain for a single
global organization. There is no single agency within the federal
government that has the responsibility for water issues.
Sustainability
Question 3. I am impressed with the Army's net zero installations
and commend you for the great work on that front. What are your plans
for continuing this work and expanding it to other Army facilities?
Will you be sharing lessons learned or best management practices with
other Federal agencies who are working toward the same goals?
Answer. The Army has identified six Net Zero Pilot Installations in
each of the Energy, Water, and Waste categories and two integrated
installations, for a total of 17 different installations counting
multiple category sites. The Pilot Installations are striving for Net
Zero by 2020, but all Army installations are encouraged to pursue Net
Zero. A total of 25 installations will be chosen by end of FY 2014 to
reach Net Zero Energy by FY 2030. The overall goal is to achieve net
zero at all Army installations by 2050.
Yes. Our Net Zero pilot installations are the seedbeds for the
Army, and will serve as model sustainable communities, both for the
Army and the nation. The Net Zero Installation Initiative has been
disseminated throughout the Army. Our ASA(IE&E), the Honorable
Katherine Hammack uses her Garrison visits to emphasize the importance
of Net Zero to the Army. We have set up several mechanisms for the Net
Zero pilot installations to collaborate with the other installations,
to share their successes and lessons learned. We meet regularly with
our counterparts working Energy and Environmental programs within the
Department of Defense and other federal entities, such as the
Department of Energy, Council on Environmental Quality and the EPA. We
have also set up a public web site where we will share our successes
and lessons learned.
Responses of L. Jerry Hansen to Questions From Congresswoman Lee
Question 4. Please describe the process you would have to undertake
to determine the value of water at your facilities. Is water valued
differently under different circumstances and locations? For instance
in facilities located in New England as compared to Utah or the
Dakotas.
Answer. The Army has no specific definition of ``value of water''
nor have we determined the parameters of water values. The Army values
the importance of water to conduct our mission and our Soldiers are
active members of the local communities using the availability of fresh
water. Water is essential to the success of our mission across the U.S
and its territories, where reliance is mostly placed on municipalities
or privatization for both supply and wastewater treatment, as well as
worldwide--wherever we may expect to operate.
Without accurate knowledge of water's availability, it is
impossible to predict accurately the effect of water withdrawals from
ground water resources. A key concern for the U.S. Army is the
vulnerability of military installations to critical resource issues.
Water issues of concern-including adequate supply, increased cost of
production per unit volume, quality, habitat degradation and salinity
issues-already impact military installations and military operations in
many locations. There is a need to assess vulnerability of regions and
installations to water supply and to develop strategies to improve any
adverse effects. This work by the Army and others should employ
methodologies to conduct national screenings of watershed vulnerability
and prepare regional water budgets-to include documenting supply and
demand in regions containing Army installations, which have developed
installation water demand projections.
To achieve water sustainability and Federal water conservation
targets contained in Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal
Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, the Army
initiated the Net Zero vision as a holistic enterprise approach to
appropriately manage our natural resources with the goal of achieving
Net Zero installations. The Net Zero vision is to reduce energy, water,
and waste on our installations. This approach is a force multiplier
enabling the Army to appropriately conserve available resources, manage
costs and provide our Soldiers, Families and Civilians with a
sustainable future.
The Net Zero Water Installation limits the consumption of
freshwater resources and returns water back to the same watershed so
not to deplete the groundwater and surface water resources of that
region in quantity and quality over the course of a year. The net zero
water strategy balances water availability and use to ensure
sustainable water supply for years to come. This concept is of
increasing importance since scarcity of clean potable water is quickly
becoming a serious issue in many areas of the world. The continued
draw-down of major aquifers results in significant problems in the
future. Strategies such as harvesting rainwater and recycling discharge
water for reuse can reduce the need for municipal water. Desalination
can be utilized to convert briny, brackish or salt water to fresh water
so it is suitable for human consumption or irrigation.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board
(SAB) conducted a public teleconference on 5 December 2011 for
consultation and assisting EPA to scope, plan and develop a report on
water's contribution to the U.S. economy. The report will consider
economic sectors, research on the value of water in the U.S. from
market consumption, and present cost and pricing information that is
critical to support water resource decision-making. The Army
anticipates the results of this study.
Question 5. In your view, which agency is the most capable to put a
value on water?
Answer. For drinking water and wastewater, the federal
Environmental Protection Agency is most capable. It has the most in-
house staff experience to determine the market value of water because
of its regulatory responsibilities and long history of working with
others with an interest in the market value of water.
Question 6. Are you aware that the Environmental Protection Agency
is embarking on the preparation of a report to address the Value of
Water to the U.S. Economy? If so, have you contributed to this report/
study? If not, what are your plans concerning the report/study?
Answer. The ASA(IE&E) was not familiar with the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) study, The Value of Water in the U.S.
Economy. We have contacted the study's primary manager, Dr. John
Powers, and talked to him about the goals of the study. The study's
internal kick-off meeting within EPA occurred the first week of
December 2011. The EPA then subsequently met with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) to discuss factors and approaches for addressing
the value of water. EPA and USACE plan to meet quarterly to discuss
multiple topics, one of which will be ways the Army may contribute to
the Value of Water project.
Responses of L. Jerry Hansen to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Endangered Species Act
Question 7. What are examples of common mitigation efforts that the
Army is forced to take to accommodate ESA?
Question 7a. Generally, how have ESA mitigation efforts affected
military readiness? Can you provide specific examples of how ESA
compliance has negatively impacted the Army's training or readiness?
Question 7b. How often does the ESA delay Army procedures or
business? Examples?
Answer. Examples are: (1) manage training areas for species
conservation rather than training requirements; (2) restrict
availability (time, or duration of a training event); (3) restrict or
place off-limits the use of training lands and ranges (decrease size,
number, or type of training events to minimize impacts on listed
species; (4) restrict or eliminate the use of certain weapons,
ammunition, pyrotechnics, or smoke; (5) fund species specific studies
or monitoring of species to determine mission impacts to listed species
(6) purchase conservation easements on private lands to support
conservation efforts for species; and (7) make significant changes to
existing infrastructure to accommodate species requirements.
a. ESA mitigation impacts on training remains a major challenge to
Army readiness, particularly where the mitigation activities restrict
training and decrease the full capability of the land or ranges to meet
training requirements. The use of the ESA and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) however, by third parties to bring
lawsuits against the Army as a tool to stop or restrict training has
compounded this challenge.
b. A few examples of how ESA compliance has negatively impacted the
Army's training (restrictions)--are: (1) Fort Irwin, CA--delayed the
opening of the southern expansion and western expansion areas due to
extensive mitigation and related NEPA actions; (2) Fort Benning, GA--
requires movement of specific heavy maneuver training events associated
with the Maneuver Center of Excellence off the FY 09 footprint of Fort
Benning, GA (land acquisition) to mitigate impacts to the Red Cockaded
Woodpecker; (3) Fort Hood, TX--currently Fort Hood has restrictions
that impact heavy and light maneuver on a total of 54,195 acres due to
mitigation for the Golden Cheeked Warbler; (4) Fort Lewis, WA is
managing four candidate species: two butterflies, the Streaked Horned
Lark and a pocket gopher; and (5) Yakima Training Center, WA is
managing the Greater Sage Grouse which is a candidate species. Both WA
installations have instituted restrictions on maneuver training in the
hope of precluding their listing under the ESA. Fort Lewis has also
initiated the purchase of conservation easements on private lands to
off-set impacts from listed and candidate species on Ft Lewis.
b. Because of the complexity and magnitude of numerous current and
new Army missions, the consultation process is normally longer than the
specified consultation timeframes. The above examples also serve as
examples of ESA delaying mission activities.
Question 8. The Department of Defense has a greater density of
endangered and threatened species than any other Federal Agency with
more than 420 species inhabiting DoD land.
Question 8a. How many of those species currently inhabit Army land?
Question 8b. The red-cockaded woodpecker is the highest priority
species on Army Lands. What is the resource output specifically
relating to the red-cockaded woodpecker by the Army? i. How many Army
bases are affected by this particular species?
Answer. As of FY2010 Army installations reported 213 threatened and
endangered species onsite at 101 installations.
a. The Army's expenditures on the management of the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker for the previous 5 years are approximately: FY11--$8.7 M;
FY10--$11.0 M; FY09--$10.4 M; FY08--$ 10.3 M; FY07--$ 7.0 M.
b. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker affects 8 Army installations: Fort
Jackson (including Leesburg Training Site), SC; Fort Bragg, NC; Fort
Gordon, GA; Fort Benning, GA; Fort Stewart, GA; Camp Blanding, FL; Fort
Polk (including Peason Ridge), LA; and Military Ocean Terminal Sunny
Point, NC.
Question 9. What are the resource expenditures on a yearly basis
that the Army expends addressing ESA issues and mitigation efforts on
Army land?
Question 9a. How many lawsuits have been filed against the Army by
environmental groups regarding ESA? Are there any pending lawsuits
against the Army regarding ESA listings or mitigation efforts?
Question 9b. Has the Army ever been involved with a settlement
agreement with a special interest group relating to an ESA lawsuit?
Answer. The Army expenditures on the management of threatened and
endangered species over the past 10 years are approximately: FY11--$
38M; FY10--$ 44M; FY09--$36M; FY08--$41M; FY07--$ 44M; FY06 -$ 40M;
FY05--$ 42M; FY04--$26M; FY03-$30M; FY02--$ 24M
a. There have been at least 10 cases brought by environmental
groups pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, challenging proposed
Army actions or biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS) that involved proposed Army actions. These cases have
involved challenges to Army actions at: Pohakuloa Training Area and
Makua Military Reservation, HI; Fort Benning, GA; Sierra Army Depot,
CA; Fort Sam Houston, TX; Fort Huachuca and Barry Goldwater Range, AZ;
and, Fort Irwin and the National Training Center, CA. There are
currently no pending lawsuits against the Army brought pursuant to the
ESA.
b. Yes. Although somewhat rare, the Army has entered into
settlement agreements with special interest groups relating to
litigation brought pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. For example,
in response to one of the lawsuits brought by the Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD) concerning Fort Huachuca, the Army and USFWS entered
into a settlement agreement with CBD, which required the Army and USFWS
to reinitiate Sec. 7 consultation regarding Fort Huachuca's impact on
the Huachuca Water Umbel and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The Army
has also entered into settlement agreements with regard to ESA
litigation or potential litigation concerning actions at Fort Benning,
GA (Red-cockaded Woodpecker), and in Hawaii (various endangered
plants).
Question 10. In the near future, how do you believe that the Army
will operate in conjunction with the ESA? Do you believe that the
negative impacts and resource expenditures will increase?
Question 10a. Does the Army have any recommendations on how the ESA
could be reformed so that it does not burden the military financially
or operationally?
Answer. Army will continue to meet the compliance requirements of
the ESA and be a leader in the conservation of certain species but at a
cost of lost flexibility in both resource allocation and availability
of training lands. Yes, new court ordered species listing decisions due
to the US Fish and Wildlife Service settlement agreement with non-
governmental organizations will continue to increase management
requirements for threatened and endangered species on Army training
lands. In addition, the drawdown will cause an increased training load
on Army installations and subsequent training impacts from listed
species. However, a reduction in end strength may reduce the initial
impacts of species management on training at some installations in the
future.
a. There are several recommendations for reducing the burden on the
Army: (1) encourage Federal Agency coordination and legislation that
will permit the Army to fund offsets for on-installation mission
impacts to other Federal lands that have a suitable mission
compatibility with species conservation; (2) provide adequate funding
to other federal land management agencies to conserve species on their
lands so the burden to recover certain species is shifted from DoD
lands to other Federal Lands that have a more ``organic'' conservation
mandate or mission compatibility; (3) incorporate Army mission
requirements into the development and revision of ESA mandated
threatened and endangered species recovery plans and (4) provide
additional incentives to landowners (federal, state, local, private) to
support and promote the conservation of species on their lands that
directly support Army requirements. These recommendations only pertain
to the Army and are not intended to represent recommendations of the
other military services.
Mineral Resources
Question 11. The Army obviously has many facilities throughout the
U.S., often in areas where there are significant shale gas resources.
Does the Army own the mineral rights to the resources beneath military
bases and do you plan to develop these? Does the Army have a plan to
structure partnerships with private industry to explore and produce
those resources?
Answer. In most but not all cases, the United States does own the
mineral rights beneath Army installations and ranges.
Under current mineral leasing laws, the Bureau of Land Management,
not the Army, has the authority to lease Army property for development
of shale gas resources. In almost all cases, the development of shale
gas resources would trigger the expenditure of additional Army
resources to accommodate the military mission with the private energy
development. Current law is a significant disincentive because it does
not compensate an installation for devoting its own time and funds into
facilitating shale gas resource development; rather, any funds raised
by the development flow directly into the U.S. treasury. Consequently,
the Army does not currently have a plan to develop these resources,
although we would like develop these resources in the future. The Army
would need authority to eliminate current financial disincentives and
create financial incentives to allow military bases to improve energy
security and recover costs associated with shale gas production.
Without these changes to financial incentives, any authority to develop
such resources on Army lands would likely go unused.
Water
Question 12. Does water have very specific value in connection with
DoD and Army Operations
Answer. The Army recognizes the value of water as an enabler to
operations and as a constraint on the endurance and resilience of
Soldiers. We also recognize the tactical and operational risks assured
access to water poses during major operations. The Army ``Sustain the
Mission Project'' report, September 2009, quantifies the casualty
potential from distributing water on the non-linear battlefields in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army is using these data to inform the
development of near and long-term solutions that will provide greater
resiliency through improved methods of production, purification and
distribution, and by giving Soldiers a broader range of sources.
The Defense Department and the Army have produced policy,
directives and doctrine to ensure water considerations are
appropriately addressed. DoD Directive 4705.1, dated 9 July 1992 and
recertified 8 December 2003, provides specific direction to all DoD
components as related to Water in Contingency Operations and further
designates the Army as the executive agent for land-based water
resources. Further guidance in Joint Publication 4-03, Joint Bulk
Petroleum and Water Doctrine, explains the value and conceptual
operational information. Army Regulation 700-136, Tactical Land-Based
Water Resources Management, further establishes the responsibilities of
Army organizations. TB MED 577/NAVMED P-5010-10/AFMAN 48-138-IP,
Sanitary Control and Surveillance of Field Water Supplies, is the Army
and tri-Services approved Technical Bulletin establishing Water Quality
Standards to include all policy, standards, guidelines and procedures
to ensure a safe water supply.
Question 13. Has the Army inventoried its water resources and needs
from the point of view of operational readiness?
Answer. Determining requirements is a continual process. The Army
has formed a team incorporating the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology; Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics; Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff,
Resource Management; the Product Manager for Petroleum and Water
Systems; Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center;
the Combined Arms Support Command; and the Joint Water Resources
Management Action Group (JWRMAG) to define the requirements for water
equipment, current and future, and identify methods of fulfilling
capability gaps. This effort surveys all areas of the commercial market
to identify and assess the latest technology in all areas related to
water.
The Army has made long-term efforts to address operational water
requirements at both the small unit level and for larger units
conducting sustained operations. We have partnered with the USMC on
their Expeditionary Energy, Water and Waste Initial Capabilities
Document (ICD) to define the requirements for development of water
equipment to support small tactical units. We have also completed our
``Capabilities Based Assessment for Base Camps'' to define the
requirements for larger, sustained operations. Both of these documents
will be used for future capability development.
For current and recently completed operations, the Army deployed
and is deploying a number of technologies to reduce the risk to
Soldiers from distributing water, and to provide Commanders with an
expanded selection of sources to support their operations. For
instance, the Army has leased water-well drilling equipment and drilled
many wells in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide a local source of water
and eliminate movement of water on unsecure routes. We have also
fielded or are fielding new purification equipment suitable for small
units and individual Soldiers for use at the point of need. In
addition, as of December 2011, we have deployed 62 new Shower Water
Reuse Systems that can recover 75% of shower water for reuse, thereby
reducing overall demand. The Army has produced 116 of these systems
with an objective of 236 total.
Question 14. Does the Army value water appropriately in its
operations?
Answer. Yes. We are incorporating the United States Army Combined
Arms Support Command (CASCOM) approved Water Planning guide as a
planning factor for contingency operations in all Combatant Commands
and Army Supporting Commands. In addition, the Army is developing a
Fully-Burdened Cost of Water capability for inclusion in the ``Sustain
the Mission Project'' decision support tool. This will give Commanders
and planners a means to determine the true cost of supporting a
deployed force with water. This information can be used to make
informed decisions on the costs associated with different sources and
methods to acquire, purify, and distribute water in a particular
warfighting scenario. Once informed, Commanders can make decisions that
limit their operational and tactical risks in ways that increase their
freedom of action and increase force endurance and resiliency.
Question 15. Please describe the expertise of your Department in
assessing the Army's water resources and needs?
Answer. The Army has a wide array of expertise in water spread
across its installations, operations, and Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works programs. Installation and headquarters personnel must keep an
installation functioning under all situations, including ensuring
sufficient water supply is available to meet its needs now and into the
future. This requires programming and budgeting for infrastructure
maintenance, renovation, and eventual replacement. Frequently,
installation water related infrastructure continues to be used after
its design life has been exceeded which raises the risk of failure,
both small and catastrophic. This includes both the drinking water
distribution system and the waste water disposal system. Operations
related water includes personnel concerned with water quality for
Soldiers; drilling for, processing, and storing sufficient quantities
of water for multiple uses during contingency operations; and
transporting water when local supplies are unavailable or insufficient.
The challenge for water in operations is to decrease the need to
transport water so that there are fewer convoys needed, thus directly
reducing the injury risk to Soldiers that transport and provide
security for these numerous convoys. The Army Corps of Engineers Civil
Works' expertise in water resource development includes flood control,
navigation, recreation, and, infrastructure and environmental
stewardship.
Question 16. Are you aware that the Environmental Protection Agency
is embarking on the preparation of a report to address the Value of
Water to the U.S. Economy?
Answer. The ASA(IE&E) was not familiar with the Environmental
Protection Agency's study, The Value of Water in the U.S. Economy. We
have contacted the study's primary manager, Dr. John Powers and talked
to him about the goals of the study. The study's internal kick-off
meeting within EPA occurred the first week of December 2011. The EPA
then subsequently met with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to
discuss factors and approaches for addressing the value of water.
Question 17. Is the Department of the Army or the DoD to your
knowledge contributing to or planning to contribute to or monitoring
the development of or planning to monitor the development of that
study?
Answer. In early December 2011, the EPA met with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to discuss factors and approaches for
addressing the value of water. This is the first of regularly planned
quarterly meetings between the EPA and USACE to discuss multiple topics
of interest. Future meetings will include discussion of the study as an
agenda item.
______
Responses of Anthony Willardson to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 1. Is water both a private and public resource? Within
Western water law, how do you address water as a public resource,
specifically within Western water law?
Answer. Water is a complex mixed economic good with both public and
private attributes, the use of which is governed by State law,
generally under the so-called Prior Appropriation Doctrine, though
there are exceptions especially related to groundwater. In the West,
State constitutions declare it to be a common public resource, but also
provide for its private beneficial use, or ``appropriation,'' which may
or may not be exclusive and uses may or may not be consumptive. While
interests in water are often thought of as a private property right, it
is usually a usufructuary right, or private right to the use of a
public resource that can be bought, sold, leased, bequeathed and
otherwise transferred.
There are conditions, limitations and restrictions placed by the
State on these private rights of use, including its beneficial, non-
wasteful use for specified purposes. Uses may or may not be tied to or
appurtenant to the land on which the water is used. Also, State law
prohibits ``injury'' to other private water users, and while often
derided as a disincentive to water conservation, requires that water be
used as prescribed or the right to its use may be lost, by abandonment
or forfeiture, and returned to the public domain and again
``appropriated'' to another's use. This is the so-called ``use it or
lose it doctrine,'' which was designed to limit ``speculation,'' avoid
granting rights to ``unused'' waters, and encourage the maximum
beneficial use of the resource, generally viewed in economic terms.
The State grants water use permits, recognizes ``perfected''
rights, reviews and approves applications to transfer water rights
(both temporarily and permanently), and with few exceptions has the
authority to consider the broad public interest as part of the State's
decision. Once ``perfected,'' or put to use as required by State law,
that specific quantity of water is thereafter generally considered to
be private property, the exclusive use of which is controlled by a
simple queuing concept or the principle of ``first in time, first in
right.'' This is a basic principle of the West's Prior Appropriation
Doctrine.
There are exceptions to these general rules. For example, in Texas,
groundwater is considered private property, which limits the amount of
control the State has over the development and management of the
resource. Even so, groundwater management areas have been established
to provide some local limitations on the means of extracting
groundwater to provide some accountability and avoid conflicts between
pumpers.
Taken as a whole, the Prior Appropriation Doctrine that has evolved
in the West is intended to avoid the impacts of unfettered use of the
water ``commons'' leading to the over exploitation or degradation of
the resource to the detriment of the public. It is also important to
recognize that water once used for its intended purpose is often
returned to a river, stream or aquifer, and State law essentially
requires that it be returned in good condition. Reasonable and
beneficial use requirements and the prohibition against waste apply to
both quantity and quality. Waters are ``reused'' by the next
``appropriator.'' Thus water is used and reused multiple times, and may
often be ``fully'' appropriated.
In considering a water use permit application, States do consider
whether or not water is available for appropriation. However, these
determinations are general and relative given changing circumstances,
such as drought, which raise considerable uncertainty as to the
availability of water to meet the demands of various uses. Senior users
have a right to use their full appropriation, before junior users, and
at times given water supply hydrologic variability, the resource may be
``fully'' or ``over'' appropriated. State law allocates rights to the
use of water, and when water is physically scarce, administers water
rights according to the ``first in time, first in right'' and ``use it
or lose it'' principles.
While the concepts are simple, their physical and legal application
can be very complicated. Water use has been further complicated by the
subsequent enactment and application or imposition of federal
restrictions related to Tribal trust and other responsibilities,
including environmental protections. The extent to which such
restrictions on the use of private property are constitutional have
been the focus of a number of lawsuits, and some ``takings'' claims
have been upheld.
Question 2. Please describe the role of water rights in valuing
water and alternative uses and the available infrastructure.
Answer. To a large extent the value of water for any use depends on
the degree of certainty related to its availability. In the Eastern
U.S., this is largely a matter of meteorology, but in the West, given
general water scarcity it is equally a matter of law. The most valuable
water rights are those with the most senior priority dates. Often in
the West, the most senior use rights were granted in the 1800s, long
before the growth of urban metropolises and environmental protections.
These senior property rights cannot be taken without just
compensation, by government action, though their exercise can and has
been restricted by statute, some might say reasonably and others
unreasonably. They can and do move through economic transactions
between willing buyers and sellers, but price and value are complicated
by both the public and private aspects of water as an economic good.
Many western farmers and ranchers (water right holders), tied to the
land and water through generations, may not view any price as
sufficient compensation for changing their way of life. For many their
water rights are a valuable commodity that also provides for their
economic security later in life, especially where there are no heirs
willing or able to assume responsibility for the family operation.
As with real estate, it is also true that the value of water
depends to a large extent on location, location, location! It should
also be noted that in much of the West, land without water is of little
value. Water supplies located closest to centers of demand will be more
valuable. As with any commodity, transportation and distribution costs
are a significant and sometimes overriding consideration.
Given its relative value as a matter of weight, compared to other
commodities, water can be very expensive to move. In the West, there
are literally thousands of transfers of water between different
watersheds and river basins, some across long distances that depend on
extensive infrastructure investments. The ability to capture, store and
release water as needed from thousands of reservoirs and other
facilities, large and small, also greatly contributes to the
reliability, resiliency and value of a particular supply of water. The
economic value of water as a commodity is significantly reduced if it
cannot be stored and moved. Therefore, the availability of water-
related infrastructure is essential in calculating the costs and value
of any water supply.
However, it should also be noted that water left instream for
various purposes, including aesthetic, environmental, fish and
wildlife, and recreational uses are also valuable and should not be
underappreciated. More and more, states recognize these values and
protect (within their water rights systems) instream uses. Water need
not be diverted from a river or stream to have value.
Question 3. When the Western States Water Council addresses the
value of water, what is the first thing you should understand or
address? What other issues need to be addressed as you look at the
value of water?
Answer. Aside from the role of water rights, as previously
described, when seeking water for any use, physical and economic supply
and demand are paramount as with any other commodity. Benjamin Franklin
has been credited with saying, ``We know the value of water when the
well runs dry.'' To a large extent, the value of water is related to
the cost of an alternative supply or costs related to doing with less
or doing without. More and more industries are beginning to consider
the impact of water scarcity on their operations and the cost of doing
business. Water is an essential, but sometimes under-appreciated input
to production, and may at times be a critical limiting factor.
Water can also be a growth limiting factor, and some western urban
areas are facing this very real possibility. Moreover, as the value of
potable water supplies has increased, so too has the value of
wastewater produced by urban areas, which can be treated and used for a
variety of non-potable purposes. Water in the West is moving from
agricultural to ``higher'' uses, mostly urban. The Western Governors'
Association and WSWC are exploring opportunities to mitigate adverse
impacts of such transfers on rural communities and the environment.
It should be noted that recognizing, defining and addressing water
supply and demand problems in general depend on geographic, hydrologic,
meteorological and climate data and sound science and modeling for
effective decision making. Western states depend on many federal
agencies for such information and related research, and some of the
most critical programs in need of consistent and increased federal
support are mentioned in my written testimony. The value of water
cannot be determined effectively without sufficient, accurate
information on present and future supplies and demands.
Question 4. Do you have any concerns with Federal regulatory
initiatives as they may pertain to water? What are some of the
estimates of costs that may be associated with these initiatives? Do
the benefits get near the costs?
Answer. The Western States Water Council has in the past called for
a rational, reasonable federal regulatory framework, as it relates to
water, but has not sought to comprehensively define what that means.
The Council has adopted various positions and resolutions, as well as
commented on occasion, with respect to specific regulatory proposals
(which are attached). As indicated, not all of these Council actions
have had unanimous support, though at a minimum, two-thirds of our
voting member states approved them.
The Council has raised specific issues and related to expansion of
federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA) through redefining
``waters of the United States,'' duplicative regulation of pesticide
applications under both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and CWA, and the possibility that waters
transferred from one water body to another (including from one
watershed or basin to another) without the addition of any pollutant
might become subject to federal permit requirements under the CWA's
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
There are various estimates of costs related to each initiative, as
indicated in the attachments, but it is safe to say that they are
substantial, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and that whether
or not the increased environmental benefit would outweigh the costs is
debatable.
Question 5. In your experience have State Water Quality Officials
been concerned about the cost benefit balance of the initiatives you
have mentioned?
Answer. State and federal budgets are similarly stressed during
these difficult economic times. Water quality officials are struggling
to maintain existing services and protections in the face of dwindling
financial and human resources. As described in the attached statements,
WSWC members are concerned with the increasing cost and potential
burden of new regulatory initiatives, and question the water quality
benefits that would result. Again, not all of our states are of the
same opinion regarding the specifics, but it is fair to say that in
general the overwhelming majority agree that there needs to be
sufficient flexibility to address priority concerns and focus resources
on those problems that the States themselves have identified as most
likely to produce the greatest return in improved water quality at the
least cost. States have both their own sovereign authorities and
delegated federal responsibilities for environmental protection,
including water quality protection, and are generally best positioned
to determine how to allocate their resources and address water quality
issues within their borders. Moreover, new unfunded federal initiatives
and mandates are not likely to be effective, and may divert resources
from more productive actions.
Question 6. What are the opportunities and challenges of water
conservation?
Answer. Water conservation is a fundamental concept behind State
water law, policy and planning and will continue to be a critical
strategy for meeting present and future needs. It is a tool for
addressing both short and long-term demands by stretching existing
supplies. However, water conservation is best viewed as a means to
specific ends. It is not a panacea for all of our water problems. It is
an effective tool for addressing temporary emergencies such as drought
or other supply interruptions, but is generally not a permanent
solution to shortages due to long-term population growth.
While using water more efficiently is generally a good option, it
is not without its limitations and opportunities for wise use are best
considered on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration all of the
costs and benefits. Increasing water use efficiency can require costly
capital investments on one hand, while on the other delaying or
mitigating the need for other infrastructure improvements.
Conservation can reduce demands to divert more water from lakes,
rivers and streams, improving instream conditions. But it can also
reduce returnflows, groundwater recharge and eliminate less efficient
uses (given our present artificial hydrologic system comprised of
numerous man-made reservoirs and other impoundments, canals, laterals,
and ditches) that have created wetlands, seeps, bogs and perennial
streams where there were once dry plains, gulches and ephemeral
streams.
Question 7. Would you mind providing a list of key federal
statutory and regulatory authorities that impact a holder of a State
issued water right or permit?
Answer. The most significant federal statutes that impact the
exercise of State granted property rights to the use of water in the
West include the Clean Water Act's NPDES program and Section 404 dredge
and fill permitting requirements; and the Endangered Species Act
Section 7 mandates and consulting requirements for federal agencies, as
well as Section 9 individual species ``take'' prohibitions.
The fulfillment of tribal trust responsibilities and settlement of
Indian water right claims are another substantial cloud over the
exercise of State granted water rights, though significant progress has
been made within existing resources to address this concern.
Outstanding and unknown federal requirements increase the
uncertainty surrounding the value of property rights related to water.
Question 8. Assuming that a national study to determine the value
of water could be done; what challenges would you see with its
preparation or use?
Answer. The Council and Western Governors agree that as a Nation we
need to place a higher value on water and invest more towards meeting
our present and future needs.
Any study of the value of water must recognize that to a large
extent it is a personal and subjective determination. Moreover, it is
often as much a political as an economic decision, and any underlying
objectives, biases and assumptions should be transparent in any study.
The value of water is a function of our willingness to pay as well
as a price at which we are willing to sell. Former EPA Assistant
Administrator for Water Ben Grumbles has opined that water is always
worth more than we are willing to pay. Indeed, we should rightly
recognize the many economic externalities inherent in valuing both
public and private goods and services provided by water.
Often public regulators of water purveyors relate its price to the
cost of service and/or acquiring alternative or additional supplies.
Others would suggest including opportunity costs in the value, and
still would price water at whatever the market will bear.
Given the uncertainty and difficulty inherent in determining water
supplies and demands, valuing water will be equally challenging. There
is a general lack of sufficient data for sound decision making, as
referenced in my written testimony, which makes any valuation
difficult.
In September 2007, the National Science and Technology Council's
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water
Availability and Quality (SWAQ), released a report entitled: ``A
Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water
Availability and Quality in the United States.'' In part the report
reads: ``Many effective programs are underway to measure aspects of our
water resources. However, simply stated, quantitative knowledge of U.S.
water supply is currently inadequate (U.S. Government Accountability
Office, 2005; National Research Council, 2004). The United States
should measure water resources more strategically and efficiently.''
Any valuation on a national basis may likely to be so general as to
not be useful, but a summary of principles to guide valuation on a
site-specific and individual user and uses basis could be helpful--
including water related services, including environmental services that
should be considered in valuation.
Question 9. In your view, which agency is the most capable to put a
value on water?
Answer. While the value of water is largely determined by markets,
and myriad collective individual decisions, there is a role for
government to ensure market externalities are taken into account.
Governments through various incentives, subsidies, regulation and other
actions play a large role in determining the value and price of water.
The value of water to the West and the Nation is and will continue to
be dynamic, but undoubtedly it should be given a high public priority.
It is unlikely that any one federal or state agency or agencies
could effectively accomplish the task of putting a value on water, but
each can contribute to a collaborative effort to better define the
value of water and its role in maintaining a healthy economy and
environment.
The WSWC and others are currently collaborating with the U.S.
Geological Survey in an assessment of the Nation's water resources,
both availability and existing and future uses. This and similar
efforts will be worthwhile, but not likely to produce a definitive
answer to what's the value of water.
Water is literally the lifeblood of the West, and as suggested by
Benjamin Franklin, many of our citizens know its value when the ``well
runs dry.'' Much of the West is again facing the prospect of drought
following an extremely dry December that in some places has been record
breaking. Given our climate and growing population, water will only
become even more scarce and precious.
Question 10. Are you aware that the Environmental Protection Agency
is embarking on the preparation of a report to address the Value of
Water to the U.S. Economy? If so, have you contributed to this study?
If not, what are your plans concerning the study?
Answer. We are aware of the study, but have not been asked to
participate or contribute. However, EPA's Office of Water has offered
to discuss this study with us and we are working on scheduling a time
to meet. We would hope to collaborate with EPA on this effort.
______
Responses of Aaron Salzberg to Questions From Senator Shaheen
Global Security
Question 1. I'd like to talk about water as a global security
issue. The areas likely to face some of the most severe water
challenges - the Middle East, South Asia, Africa-are also characterized
by high international tensions, disputed borders, and competing claims
to shared water resources. Can you discuss the security ramifications
of increased water demand and decreased water supply and the regions
that Congress needs to focus on?
Answer. By 2025, many of the countries in the regions listed above
will be significantly water stressed-either because demand will exceed
supply or because the country will not have the infrastructure in place
to ensure sustainable access to the water necessary to maintain social
and economic development. Within a country, increasing demands,
competition between communities over water rights and use, and the lack
of access to safe drinking water may be increasing factors in local
conflict and state fragility and failure. Between countries, increasing
demands, unilateral development (e.g., withdrawing water upstream
without notifying downstream countries), weak or non-existent bilateral
or regional institutions (for promoting joint management of shared
water resources), and/or existing animosities could exacerbate
tensions. In some regions, floods and droughts will threaten increasing
numbers of people and cause greater economic dislocations. In all
cases, as water supplies become increasingly limited it will become
more difficult for countries to meet their health (e.g., safe drinking
water and food security), economic growth (e.g., energy production and
agricultural output), and environmental needs.
Question 2. Are there key areas internationally where water issues
exacerbate tensions and could create new conflict?
Answer. Between countries or regionally, conflict over water
resources is extremely rare. That said, there are a number of regions
where demand is increasingly stressing supply, unilateral development
is taking place, rapid political and environmental changes are
occurring, there already exists a high-level of tension, and there are
weak or no institutions for managing differences over water resources
management (e.g., North-east and Sub-Saharan Africa; South, Central and
East Asia; and the Middle East). In these regions water will likely
become an increasing source of tension and a greater factor in regional
disputes.
International Institutions
Question 3. What legal regimes are in place internationally with
respect to the management of water? What efforts are being made to
build institutions to address water management in developing nations?
Answer. There is no binding, comprehensive, multilateral,
international agreement on the management of shared waters, though
there are several bilateral and regional arrangements that deal with
specific water resources. In 1997, the UN General Assembly adopted the
``UN Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of
International Watercourses'' which has not been ratified by enough
countries to enter into force. The Convention codifies many of the
commonly endorsed principles of shared water resources management
(e.g., equitable and reasonable utilization, obligation to cooperate
and not cause significant harm, prior notification) but must be
interpreted on a case-by-case basis subject to the unique conditions of
each basin. As such, it is a useful tool but not a clearly defined set
of international obligations. (The United States has signed but has not
ratified the Convention.) A similar convention has recently been
drafted by the UN for the management of groundwater. Between countries,
many types of legal arrangements exist with differing degrees of
specificity, institutional arrangements, and political support.
The United States is working at both the national and regional
level to strengthen institutions for water resources management. This
includes, for example, support at the local level to establish water
user groups and water cooperatives, at the national level to develop
sound water resource plans/strategies and laws that govern land tenure
and water rights, and regionally to establish or strengthen
institutions between or among countries to advance the cooperative
management of shared waters. To advance these efforts, the United
States has established the Shared Waters Program within the United
Nations Development Program to serve as a multi-donor platform for
supporting regional dialogues on shared waters.
Responses of Aaron Salzberg to Questions From Senator Coons
Question 1. As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Africa
Subcommittee, I remain deeply concerned about the crisis in the Horn of
Africa. Failure of consecutive rainy seasons has led to the worst
regional drought in 60 years, and famine has ensued in Somalia due the
lethal combination of a lack of water, lack of governance, and
restricted humanitarian access. When compared with the rest of the
region, what factors have made climatic conditions worse in Somalia? To
what degree has deforestation associated with the charcoal industry-
which serves as the main source of income for al-Shabaab-contributed to
the lack of water in Southern Somalia?
Answer. Increased frequency of natural disasters attributed to
climate change and increased vulnerability due to non-climatic factors
has made the Horn of Africa very susceptible to food crises. Vulnerable
populations do not have the opportunity to fully recover before they
are faced with another disaster, keeping them in a cycle of poverty.
The current drought in the Horn of Africa is exacerbating ongoing
humanitarian, governance, and security concerns in the region. Each
country in the Horn (e.g., Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia) is
experiencing the crisis amid unique domestic considerations, but all
are shouldering significant burdens that are further challenged by the
past year's significant increase of Somali refugee arrivals.
However, the worst drought in 60 years has not led to the worst
humanitarian crisis in 60 years. Indeed, the development of national
agriculture and food security plans by Kenya and Ethiopia in addition
to increased capacity in the region to predict climate events and
prepare for potential impacts help to stymie the spread of famine
outside of the regions of Somalia inaccessible to humanitarian aid. The
U.S. Government's global hunger and food security initiative, Feed the
Future, aims to strengthen the positive agricultural development trend
in the Horn with its programs in Kenya and Ethiopia, as explained
below.
Africa has the fastest rate of deforestation anywhere in the world,
which has significant implications for water and other major issues,
including agriculture, human health, and conflict over natural
resources. The region's vulnerability is compounded by developmental
challenges such as endemic poverty, weak governance, limited investment
and access to capital, environmental degradation, and conflict.
Question 2. Recently released analysis from USAID's Famine Early
Warning System, FEWS NET, has indicated that though the famine will
persist in Somalia through the end of 2011, certain areas of Somalia
have experienced modest improvements and were recently downgraded from
Phase 5 famine to Phase 4 ``emergency crisis.'' What steps are being
taken to ensure this progress is sustained, and what is the prediction
for future rainy seasons in the Somalia and the region?
Answer. On November 18, 2011, data released by the USAID-funded
Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWSNET) and the U.N. Food
Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit (FSNAU) indicated improvements in
food security in all areas of Somalia, largely driven by large-scale
international humanitarian assistance efforts. Though famine conditions
abated in three of the six areas previously declared as experiencing
ongoing famine in southern Somalia, FEWSNET and FSNAU acknowledged the
fragility of the situation, noting that famine could reappear if there
were a decline in the level of international assistance and/or new
disruptions to humanitarian access or trade.
On November 28, al-Shabaab issued a public statement banning 16
U.N. agencies and international non-governmental organizations from
operating in al-Shabaab-controlled areas of southern and central
Somalia. This action further diminished options for providing
assistance and greatly increased the possibility that famine conditions
could return.
On December 22, the President announced an additional $113 million
in assistance to the Horn of Africa to support food, health, shelter,
water, and other needs across Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia. U.S.
Government funding for relief efforts in the Horn of Africa now stands
at $870 million, maintaining the United States' position as the largest
single donor, including $205 million in humanitarian assistance in FY11
and FY12 to Somalia. Our assistance includes food aid, treatment for
the severely malnourished, health care, clean water, proper sanitation,
and hygiene education and supplies. To help improve food security in
areas where humanitarian access remains constrained, we are also
providing market-based interventions such as the distribution of
improved seed varieties to support fodder production, cash vouchers
that enable households to purchase basic food and other requirements in
local markets, and increasing access to cereals among vulnerable
populations.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate
Prediction Center Seasonal Precipitation Outlook for the May-June-July
period indicates below normal rainfall over southwestern Ethiopia and
equal chances of below, normal, or above rainfall for Somalia [accuracy
of prediction models degrades significantly as we predict conditions
further into the future]. The Intergovernmental Authority for
Development Climate Application and Prediction Center for eastern
Africa will be holding its seasonal climate outlook forum (COF) at the
end of February. The Greater Horn of Africa (GHA) National
Meteorological Services will issue the consensus climate outlook for
the season at the end of the COF process. Seasonal outlooks are used by
GHA governments as well as donors to plan and prepare for potential
climate extremes in the coming season. These efforts were part of
USAID/OFDA's capacity building programs to strengthen capacity on
meteorological services in the region.
USAID/OFDA, in partnership with NOAA, USGS, the UN World
Meteorological Organization, and National Meteorological and
Hydrological Services in the region, provided support to the IGAD
Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC) to increase capacity
for climate prediction and applications in the regions. ICPAC Climate
Outlooks have been critical in preparedness and planning for droughts
and other climatic shocks in the region. In coordination with the U.S.
Government, ICPAC provides access to U.S. climate models and experts to
develop outlooks in the region.
Question 3. Describe drought mitigation efforts in East Africa
funded by the U.S. government and the process of groundwater
development in the Horn of Africa. To what extent have U.S.-funded
projects to build wells along pastoral routes proven effective? Is this
a long-term solution to mitigating the impact of droughts, which will
almost surely continue to afflict the region?
Answer. USAID's efforts in recent years to reduce vulnerability
among the Ethiopian population have yielded substantial results.
Despite the regular cycle of droughts in parts of the country, the
number of emergency beneficiaries has dropped from 15 million in 2003
to a maximum of 4.6 million currently, since many vulnerable people
have been assisted by the government's long-term Productive Safety Net
Program (PSNP), supported by USAID and other donors.
In Kenya, U.S. assistance to farmers and microenterprises, that
together generate 30 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), has
helped improve incomes and create jobs for hundreds of thousands of
Kenyans. The United States is working to improve food security for the
two million Kenyans chronically dependent on food aid through the Feed
the Future initiative. Regionally, USAID support for increased trade in
staple foods, including livestock, and improved farmer access to
integrated regional markets, improves food security by linking surplus
to deficit areas, which can mitigate climatic shocks. USAID is also
investing in technologies including soil liming that can significantly
boost maize yields, potentially transforming the production of western
Kenya's largest staple crop.
USAID and USDA together worked with UC Davis, UC Riverside and the
International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines to develop
submergence tolerant rice-rice that not only withstands floods, but
thrives in them. Over 1 million farmers are already seeing improved
harvests. And by partnering with national rice research centers across
South Asia, we hope to reach 70 million more people.
By investing in drought-resistant seeds and better management of
water resources, we can protect millions of people from the perennial
threat of famine and build resilience against an increasingly
unpredictable climate.
USAID/ OFDA's due diligence has been focused on balancing
groundwater extractions against pressing humanitarian needs. In that
vein, USAID stresses the sustainable use of existing water sources
first -- and the development of new ones (e.g., new wells) only where
yields of existing sources are insufficient. For example, in Somalia,
OFDA has funded the extension of water systems from existing wells by
re-developing the wells and installing piped water networks.
Implementing partners conducted drawdown tests to size the pumps.
Globally, reliable hydrogeological studies, data, and information
are limited, and ground water sources have been developed without
understanding characteristics of the aquifers. Lack of knowledge of
water resources in east Africa has significant impacts on the ability
to plan, organize, and implement an effective potable water strategy
for the region in response to the current humanitarian crisis and
future development activities. In 2005-2006, USAID/OFDA funded a Darfur
groundwater exploration activity to address this issue. OFDA, USGS,
Radar Technologies France, and UNESCO collaborated to develop a product
to understand aquifer potential in Darfur for sustainable development
of groundwater resources to address needs of IDPs and host communities.
The process-based on new radar remote sensing technologies combined
with optical remote sensing, geology, geomorphologic features, and
climatic data-revealed significant groundwater aquifers not visible
from the surface to sustain use of water for humanitarian assistance.
Ground Penetrating Radars over various aquifers in Sudan have verified
the results of the study in identifying drilling locations. Water
drilling site maps and drilling manuals have been produced, and NGOs,
UNESCO, and UNICEF were trained on the use of these products. UNICEF
has been using these maps to provide water to IDPs in Darfur, Sudan
while ensuring sustainable use of groundwater resources to avoid
overtaxing the aquifers.
Since 2010, one of OFDA's partners in Somalia has constructed
several piped water systems that incorporate sustainable operation and
maintenance function. The water points that were developed are all in
operation today and provide water to Somalis along the traditional
pastoral routes.
Question 4. Wise Power is a Delaware-based company that is
producing decentralized solar power units that don't need to connect to
the grid. They are finding that there is a strong need for their
product in Africa. How important do you think decentralized power-
generating technologies, like independent solar power units, or small
hydro projects, will be in countries like Africa that currently have
poorly developed grid networks? Can these technologies address power
needs for small water projects including groundwater pumping,
irrigation, in addition to home and business power generation? What
steps are being taken to assist with power diversification in Africa
and elsewhere to create alternative sources of electricity given the
depletion of hydro-power in areas susceptible to water shortages? Have
we considered encouraging solar and geothermal sources of electricity
in areas that cannot sustain hydro-resources?
Answer. Decentralized power generating technologie -along with grid
technologies-will play an important role in diversifying energy
supplies and increasing access to modern energy services for the 1.3
billion people in the world who currently have no access to energy,
including in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. To provide electricity
to this population, the International Energy Agency estimates that
approximately 120 GW of off-grid and mini-grid power will need to be
added globally by 2030, and that 90% of that power will come from
renewable sources, including solar, wind and biomass. In the right
conditions, these technologies perform exceedingly well in small water
projects, including groundwater pumping, irrigation, heating, cooking,
and also in meeting basic human needs and providing for productive uses
for homes and small businesses.
The United States Government is actively involved in a number of
bilateral, regional, and multilateral efforts to promote energy
diversification through the use of renewable resources in the
developing world, including in sub-Saharan Africa. USAID's Africa
Infrastructure Program is providing ongoing support to over 15 African
governments improving the investment environment for, and advancing the
actual negotiation of renewable energy projects. For example, it is
supporting: 1) the development of over 400 MW of wind generation
capacity in Kenya, Namibia, Lesotho, and Mozambique; 2) capacity
building related to the East Africa and Geothermal Risk Mitigation
Facility and Kenya develop geothermal resources capacity in East
Africa; 3) the development of feed-in tariffs for micro-hydro resources
in Rwanda and Uganda; and 4) solar and wind mapping efforts in
Mozambique, and the West African ECOWAS region. The United States
Government is also working through the International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA) to develop country-relevant solar and wind mapping
systems and technologies that will give policy makers access to
necessary information on renewable resources available to promote
distributed generation through solar and wind.
Question 5. DuPont and other biotechnology companies have
developed, and continue to develop crop varieties that have improved
nutritional value, are able to more readily utilize soil nutrients, and
are drought resistant. How much of a role will these crops play in
achieving greater agricultural production with minimal use of water and
other resources? What is the State Department doing to encourage
public-private partnerships to develop and make these technologies
available?
Answer. World population is projected to grow to approximately 9
billion people by 2050. At the same time, climate change is putting
greater strains on agricultural production. The UN Food and Agriculture
Organization estimates that to meet the expected global demand, farmers
will need to increase food production by 70 percent using less land,
less water, less fertilizer and less pesticide. In order to achieve
these goals, scientists and farmers will need to use all available
tools, including improved agricultural practices and improved seeds.
Improved crops, developed through the use of genetic engineering
and other new breeding technologies, will play a critical role in
helping the world meet its food security goals in a more sustainable
manner. The potential role for drought-tolerant crops in this effort is
enormous, especially in drought-prone areas of the world that may be
increasing as a result of climate change. U.S. farmers typically lose
10-15% of their annual yield because of drought and water stress, and
losses in Africa are even larger. Biotechnology companies are currently
marketing conventionally bred varieties that can flourish with less
water and are developing genetically engineered varieties that will
further improve the drought tolerance of crops. Such varieties will
sustain crop yields under conditions of water shortage by enhancing the
resilience of crops to climate variation. Another important goal for
research in biotech crops is to enhance the nutritional content of
crops to improve human health, and also to allow crops to be grown on
lower quality soils with fewer fertilizer inputs to both increase crop
productivity and protect the environment.
Private-Public Partnerships
The challenges posed by increasing population and climate change to
global food security cannot be met without private/public partnerships,
which make up a significant share of the global agricultural research
effort. The U.S. Government partners with companies, NGOs, private
foundations, and international research organizations, such as the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), in a variety
of ways to ensure the availability of crops relevant to developing
countries, and that countries interested in adopting biotech crops have
the capacity to do so. For example, the production and evaluation of
drought tolerant maize varieties for subsistence farmers in sub-Saharan
Africa is being carried out by private-public partnerships, with
funding provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID.
USAID is also partnering with DuPont/Pioneer, CIMMYT and the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation on the development of maize varieties that can
grow with less fertilizer and with Arcadia Biosciences on drought and
salt tolerant rice. Crops developed through these partnerships will be
made available royalty-free to subsistence farmers.
Actions Taken by the Department of State and USAID
The Department of State and USAID are facilitating the adoption of
improved crops in several ways:
In 2011, Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez
organized a series of meetings with the African diplomatic
corps that brought together industry, NGOs and government
officials to discuss ways of promoting agricultural investments
by establishing transparent, predictable and science-based
regulatory systems. The roundtable discussions were attended by
nearly two dozen African Ambassadors and included senior
representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
USAID.
The U.S. Government maintains a dialogue with U.S. biotech
companies and with U.S. and international research centers.
Through our embassies, we publicize the advantages of
biotech crops by providing information on request and through
the sponsorship of informational visits by U.S. experts.
Our embassies, in seven targeted countries in East and West
Africa are developing their 2012 agricultural biotechnology
outreach action plans. These action plans will focus on
measures that will be taken to promote further advancement and
implementation of the technology.
We bring representatives of foreign governments to the
United States for tours of agricultural facilities, including a
group of African agricultural ministers in October 2011.
The Department of State advocates for timely approvals of
new biotech crops abroad, since the most significant delay in
the adoption of this technology is the time that it takes to
evaluate and obtain approvals in many parts of the world.
The Department of State is also facilitating the adoption of
nutritionally enhanced staple crops overseas, such as Golden
Rice, and working with U.S. regulatory authorities to ensure
that such products also meet food safety standards in the
United States. USAID is additionally providing long-term
support to the development of these crops.
Promotion of improved crop varieties is also supported
through Feed the Future (FTF), the U.S. global hunger and food
security initiative. FTF recognizes that, to meet the global
food security imperative, activities should be implemented with
a broad base of public and private partners, leveraging diverse
resources, and the latest scientific advances and innovations.
FTF currently invests heavily in accelerating the dissemination
of heat- and drought-tolerant, climate-adapted cereals to
increase productivity on the tens of millions of hectares
affected annually by drought, and in helping farmers adapt to
higher temperatures that are already impacting the yields of
staples such as wheat, rice, and maize. Leveraging partnerships
with the private sector, and proprietary technologies, is
critical to success in this area and USAID has recently issued
a call for proposals to support new public-private alliances
aimed at developing climate resilient cereals using advanced
breeding and biotech methods. FTF also supports research on new
private sector business models that can allow U.S. companies to
recoup their investment in varieties produced through
biotechnology, while ensuring access to these technologies by
small-holder farmers.
Integrating improved natural resource management (especially
water and soil management) and climate change adaptation is a
key cross cutting theme in FTF implementation, and we seek to
achieve increased agricultural productivity and better
nutrition through sustainable agricultural intensification.
Improved crop or animal varieties and better access to inputs
like fertilizer is important, and promoting the best water and
soil management practices will be critical to long lasting
gains. Thus, we are supporting both biotech and improved
management innovations to enhance ecosystem functions.