Witness Panel 2

• Mr. Joe Grindstaff

  Director

  California Bay-Delta Authority

  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Mr. Joe Grindstaff

  Testimony of

  P. Joseph Grindstaff, Director

  CALFED Bay-Delta Program

   

  Before the

  Subcommittee on Water and Power

  of the

  United States Senate

  Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

  Regarding

  Groundwater Management,

  Wastewater Reclamation and Brine Disposal

   

  July 27, 2006

  
  

  Testimony of
  P. Joseph Grindstaff, Director

  CALFED Bay-Delta Program

  before the

  Subcommittee on Water and Power

  of the

  United States Senate
  Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

  regarding

  Conjunctive Water Management,

  Wastewater Reclamation and Brine Disposal

   

   

  Chairman Murkowski and members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss ways the federal government could or should partner with state and local governments to increase the supply and improve the quality of water resources.  I have been intimately familiar with these issues  both as a manager for local and regional water agencies in Southern California, then as Chief Deputy Director for the California Department of Water Resources, and now as the Director of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

   

  Today I will provide an overview of the California Water Plan as it relates to recycled wastewater and conjunctive groundwater management. I will also provide you with some examples of how this works across California and discuss some of the major challenges facing us. Finally, I will conclude with recommendations from the State of California’s perspective about how these vital forms of water management can be improved.

   

  In particular, the kinds of projects envisioned by S. 3638 and H.R. 177 – treating impaired surface and groundwater, wastewater reclamation and brine disposal – fit well with goals of the California Water Plan and the policy of multi-level governmental partnerships.

   

  The recently updated California Water Plan recognizes the need for a comprehensive approach and the need to work cooperatively – with local and regional agencies and with the state and federal governments – in order to succeed in managing the state’s water resources. The Plan looks at water as a resource whose management involves many responsibilities and raises many issues.

   

  I am a firm believer that the water supply reliability and water quality issues facing California and many other parts of the nation and the world cannot be solved by any one management strategy implemented by any one level of government or private sector enterprise. Only by using all of the management options available, and through collaboration and cooperation at all levels of government and the private sector, will we be able to meet the demands of a growing population, maintain economic growth and prosperity, and do all this in a way that preserves and protects the natural environment.

   

   

  Wastewater Recycling

  Californians have used recycled water since the late 1800s and public health protections have been in effect since the early part of the 1900s. Recycled water use has dramatically increased in the past several decades as water agencies needed to supplement their water supplies. Today, California’s water agencies recycle about 500,000 acre-feet of wastewater annually. In fact, this increase in water recycling and the addition of 1 million acre-feet of new groundwater storage are success stories for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program’s efforts to increase water supply reliability.

   

  In 2001, the state Legislature established a 40-member Recycled Water Task Force to identify opportunities for, and constraints and impediments to, increasing the use of recycled water in California. Over the course of nearly 14 months, the Task Force conducted intensive study in collaboration with many other experts and the public to develop recommendations for actions at many levels.

   

  Many of the Task Force recommendations are in the process of being implemented and will significantly improve both the way projects are planned and the regulatory frameworks within which they must operate. A key issue remains: increasing state and federal financial support for research and project construction.

   

   

  Recycled Water Use Affordability

  The cost of recycled water, relative to other water sources, will influence how much recycled water is produced for each region. Costs are dependent on the availability of treatable water, demand for treated water, the quality of the source as well as the product water, the type of the intended beneficial use, and the proximity of recycled water facilities to the end users. In addition, the need for disposal brine lines is considered a major issue for some inland agencies.

   

  The lack of adequate local funding to plan feasible recycled water projects can slow the construction of new projects. Public funding as well as incentive measures can help advance water recycling for irrigation, making more potable water supply available. In California, we estimate there is a potential of about 0.9 million to 1.4 million acre-feet annually of additional water supply from recycled water by the year 2030.

   

  When looking at California’s overall water supply, recycling provides new water for the state only in areas where wastewater is discharged to the ocean or to salt sink. Recycling in other areas may provide new water for the water agency, but does not necessarily add to the state’s water supplies. In these locations, discharged wastewater in interior California mixes with other water and becomes source water for downstream water users.

   

  For many communities, an investment in recycled water could also provide other benefits, including:

  1. More reliable and drought-proof local sources of water, including nutrients, and organic matter for agricultural soil conditioning and a reduction in fertilizer use
  2. Reduction of pollutants discharged into water bodies beyond levels prescribed by regulations with the ability to increase natural treatment by land application
  3. Improved groundwater and surface water quality that contribute to wetland and marsh enhancement
  4. Energy savings because  the use of recycled water as a local source offsets the need for even-more energy-intensive imported water

   

  Potential Costs of Recycled Water

  The estimated capital cost for the range of potential recycling in California by 2030 is approximately $6 billion to $9 billion. The actual cost will depend on the quality of the wastewater, the treatment level to meet recycled water intended use, and the availability of a distribution network. Uses, such as irrigation near the treatment plant, will benefit from lower treatment and distribution costs.

   

  Irrigation of a wide array of agriculture and landscape crops can even benefit from the nutrients present in the recycled water by lowering the need for applied fertilizer. However, the use of recycled water for irrigation without adequate soil and water management may cause accumulation of salts or specific ions in soil and groundwater. Some uses, such as an industrial recycled water user farther away from the treatment plant, may need to pay higher costs for treatment and distribution. Given the wide range of local conditions that can affect costs, the majority of applications would cost between $300 and $1,300 per acre-foot of recycled water. Costs outside this range are plausible depending on local conditions. Uses that require higher water quality and have higher public health concerns will have higher costs.

   

  Affordability

  The cost of recycled water, relative to other water sources, will influence how much recycled water is produced for each region. The costs are dependent on the availability of treatable water, demand for treated water, the quality of the source as well as the product water, the type of the intended beneficial use, and the proximity of recycled water facilities to the end users. In addition, the need for disposal brine lines is considered a major issue for some inland agencies. The lack of adequate local funding to plan feasible recycled water projects can slow the construction of new projects. Public funding as well as incentive measures can help advance water recycling projects that provide local, regional and statewide benefits.

   

  Water Quality

  The quality of the recycled water will affect its usage. Public acceptance of recycled water use depends on confidence in the safety of its use. Four water quality factors are of particular concern: 1) microbiological quality; 2) salinity; 3) presence of heavy metals, and 4) the concentration of stable organic and inorganic substances or emerging contaminants originating from various pharmaceuticals and personal care products, household chemicals and detergents, agricultural fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, animal growth hormones, and many other sources.

   

  Public Acceptance

  Public perception and acceptance of some recycled water uses currently limits its application. In some areas, public concerns about potential health issues have limited the use of recycled water for indirect potable purposes, such as groundwater recharge and replenishment of surface storage, and even for irrigation of parks and school yards.

   

  Potential Impacts

  Areas in interior California that discharge their wastewater to streams, rivers, or the groundwater contribute to downstream flows. Recycling water would remove this source of water and potentially affect downstream water users, including the environment. In some instances, recycling is discouraged when dischargers are required to maintain a certain flow in the stream for downstream users.

   

   

  Conjunctive Water Management

   

  During the last three years, the Conjunctive Water Management Branch  of the California Department of Water Resources has implemented several integrated programs to improve the management of groundwater resources in California. These improvements cover many facets of groundwater management. They include developing a basic understanding of individual groundwater basins, identifying basin management strategies or objectives, planning and conducting groundwater studies, and designing and constructing conjunctive use projects. The goal is to increase water supply reliability statewide through the planned, coordinated management and use of groundwater and surface water resources.

   

  When the Conjunctive Water Management Program was formed five years ago, local agencies had little trust in the overall objectives of the program and minimal interest in participating. Since that time, the Program has been able to establish strong relationships with many local agencies and has made commitments to assist efforts to plan and implement conjunctive water use projects pursuant to the program goal while, at the same time, providing both local management opportunities and water supply system reliability measures.

   

  There is no comprehensive statewide data on the planning and implementation of conjunctive water management at the local agency level, but Department of Water Resources’ Conjunctive Water Management Program data provides an indication of the types and magnitude of projects that water agencies are pursuing. In fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Program awarded more than $130 million in grants and loans to leverage local and regional investment in projects throughout California with total costs of about $550 million.

   

  Examples of Conjunctive Management

  Some examples illustrate the types of conjunctive management under way on a regional and local scale. In Southern California, including Kern County, conjunctive management has increased average-year water deliveries by more than 2 million acre-feet. Over a period of years, artificial recharge in these areas has increased the water now in groundwater storage by about 7 million acre-feet.

   

  In Northern California, Santa Clara Valley Water District releases local supplies and imported water into more than 20 local creeks for artificial in-stream recharge and into more than 70 recharge ponds with an average annual recharge capacity of 138,000 acre-feet. Conjunctive management has virtually stopped land subsidence caused by heavy groundwater use and has allowed groundwater levels to recover to those of the early 1900s.

   

  In Southern California, the Groundwater Replenishment System is a groundwater management and water supply project jointly sponsored by the Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District. The project will take highly treated urban wastewater and treat it to better-than drinking water standards using advanced membrane purification technology. The water will be used to expand an existing underground seawater intrusion barrier as well as augment water supplies for municipal and industrial uses. Phase 1 of the project is expected to produce up to 72,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water for groundwater recharge beginning in 2007.

   

   

  Major Issues

  Lack of Data – There is rarely a complete regional network to monitor groundwater levels, water quality, land subsidence, or the interaction of groundwater with surface water and the environment. Data is needed to evaluate conditions and trends on three planes: laterally over an area, vertically at different depths, and over time. Also, there is often a reluctance of individuals who own groundwater monitoring or supply wells to provide information or allow access to collect additional information. The result is that decisions are often made with only approximate knowledge of the system.

  This uncertainty can make any change in groundwater use controversial. Additional investment in a monitoring network and data collection can help reduce this uncertainty, but must be done in accordance with a groundwater management plan that is acceptable to stakeholders in the basin.

   

  Infrastructure and Operational Constraints -- Physical capacities of existing storage and conveyance facilities are often not large enough to capture surface water when it is available in wet years. Operational constraints may also limit the ability to use the full physical capacity of facilities. For example, permitted export capacity and efforts to protect fisheries and water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta often limit the ability to move water to groundwater banks south of the Delta. Facilities that are operated for both temporary storage of flood water and groundwater recharge require more frequent maintenance to clean out excessive sediment that often is present in flood water.

   

  Surface Water and Groundwater Management – In California, water management practices and the water rights system treat surface water and groundwater as two unconnected resources. In reality, there is often a high degree of hydrologic connection between the two and a separation of management authority.

  Authority is separated among local, state and federal agencies for managing different aspects of California’s groundwater and surface water resources. Several examples highlight this issue:

   

  • First, the State Water Resources Control Board regulates surface water rights dating from 1914, but not rights dating before 1914;
  • If that’s not confusing enough, SWRCB also regulates groundwater quality, but not the rights to use groundwater;
  • On a local level, county groundwater ordinances and local agency groundwater management plans often only apply to a portion of the groundwater basin, and those with overlapping boundaries of responsibility do not necessarily have consistent management objectives; and finally,
  • Except in adjudicated basins, individuals have few restrictions on how much groundwater they can use, provided the water is put to beneficial use on the overlying property.

   

  Failure to integrate water management across jurisdictions makes it difficult to manage water for multiple benefits and provide for sustainable use, including the ability to identify and protect or mitigate potential impacts to third parties, ensure protection of legal rights of water users, establish rights to use vacant aquifer space and banked water, protect the environment, recognize and protect groundwater recharge and discharge areas, and protect public trust resources.

   

  Water Quality – Groundwater quality can be degraded by naturally occurring or human-introduced chemical constituents, low quality recharge water, or chemical reactions caused by mixing water of differing qualities. Protection of human health, the environment, and groundwater quality are all concerns for programs that recharge urban runoff or reclaimed/recycled water. The intended end use of the water can also influence the implementation of conjunctive management projects. For example, agriculture can generally use water of lower quality than needed for urban use, but certain crops can be sensitive to some constituents like boron.

   

  New and changing water quality standards and emerging contaminants add uncertainty to implementing conjunctive management projects. A water source may, at the time it is used for recharge, meet all drinking water quality standards. Over time, however, detection capabilities improve and new or changed water quality standards become applicable. As a result, contaminants that were not previously identified or detected may become future water quality problems creating potential liability uncertainties. In some cases, conjunctive water management activities may need to be coordinated with groundwater clean up activities to achieve multiple benefits to both water supply and groundwater quality.

   

  Environmental Concerns – Environmental concerns related to conjunctive management projects include potential impacts on habitat, water quality, and wildlife caused by shifting or increasing patterns of groundwater and surface water use. For example, floodwaters are typically considered “available” for recharge. However, flood flows serve an important function in the ecosystem. Removing or reducing these peak flows can negatively impact the ecosystem. A key challenge is to balance the in-stream flow and other environmental needs with the water supply aspects of conjunctive management projects. There may also be impacts from construction and operation of groundwater recharge basins and new conveyance facilities.

   

  Funding – There is generally limited funding to develop the infrastructure and monitoring capability for conjunctive management projects. This includes funding to develop and implement groundwater management plans, study and construct conjunctive management projects, and to track –  statewide and regionally – changes in groundwater levels, groundwater flows and groundwater quality.

   

  Grant applications from DWR’s fiscal year 2001-2002 Conjunctive Water Management Program show project costs of increasing average annual delivery ranging from $10 to $600 per acre-foot. This wide range of costs is due to many factors, including project complexity, regional differences in construction and land costs, availability and quality of recharge supply, availability of infrastructure to capture, convey, recharge, and extract water, intended use of water, and treatment requirements. In general, urban uses can support higher project costs than agricultural uses. The average project cost of all applications received by DWR is $110 per acre-foot of increase in average annual delivery. This average unit cost translates to approximately $1.5 billion in statewide implementation costs of for the conservative level of implementation, and $5 billion for the aggressive implementation.

  
  

  Recommendations

   

  California Water Plan Update 2005 is the product of a collaborative process that brought together the Department of Water Resources; a 65-member advisory committee representing urban, agricultural, and environmental interests; a 350-member extended review forum; and 2,000 interested members of the public. The result is a plan that includes the very best ideas for meeting our water challenges, and the following recommendations about conjunctive water management and wastewater recycling:

   

  Wastewater Recycling

  1.                  Federal, state and local funding should be increased beyond Proposition 50 and other existing sources toward sustainable technical assistance and outreach, advanced research on recycled water issues, and adequate water reuse/recycling infrastructure and facilities.

   

  2.                  The state, with assistance from the federal government, should encourage an academic program on one or more campuses for water reuse research and education; develop education curricula for public schools; and encourage institutions of higher education to incorporate recycled water education into their curricula.

   

  3.                  Federal, state and local agencies should engage the public in an active dialogue and participation using a community value-based decision-making model (determining what a community values, then making decisions based on that information) in planning water recycling projects.

   

  Conjunctive Management:

  4.                  Local water management agencies should coordinate with other agencies that are involved in activities that might affect long term sustainability of water supply and water quality within or adjacent to a basin situation. Regional groundwater management plans should be developed with assistance from an advisory committee of stakeholders to help guide the development, educational outreach, and implementation of the plans.

   

  5.                  Continue funding for local groundwater monitoring and management activities and feasibility studies that enhance the coordinated use of groundwater and surface water. Additional monitoring and analysis is needed to track, both statewide and regionally, changes in groundwater levels, groundwater flows, groundwater quality (including the location and spreading of contaminant plumes) land subsidence, changes in surface water flow, surface water quality, and the interaction and interrelated nature of surface water and groundwater. There is a need to develop comprehensive data and data management systems to track existing, proposed, and potential conjunctive management projects throughout the state and identify and evaluate regional and statewide implementation constraints, including availability of water to recharge, ability to convey water from source to destination, water quality issues, environmental issues, and costs and benefits.

   

  6.                  Give priority for funding and technical assistance to conjunctive management projects that are conducted in accordance with a groundwater management plan, increase water supplies, and have other benefits including the sustainable use of groundwater, maintaining or improving water quality, and enhancing the environment be given priority. Additional preference should be given for projects conducted in accordance with a regional groundwater management plan. In addition, allow funding for projects that make use of wet season/dry season supply variability, not just wet-year/dry-year variability.

   

  7.                  Assess groundwater management to provide an understanding of how local agencies are implementing actions to use and protect groundwater, an understanding of which actions are working at the local level and which are not working, and how state and federal programs can be improved to help agencies prepare effective groundwater management plans.

   

  8.                  Improve coordination and cooperation among local, state, and federal agencies with differing responsibilities for groundwater and surface water management and monitoring to facilitate conjunctive management, to ensure efficient use of resources, to provide timely regulatory approvals, to prevent conflicting rules or guidelines, and to promote easy access to information by the public.

   

  9.                  Encourage local groundwater management authorities to manage the use of vacant aquifer space for artificial recharge and to develop multi-benefit projects that generate source water for groundwater storage by capturing water that would otherwise not be used by other water users or the environment. For example, through reservoir re-operation, water recycling and reuse, and water conservation.

   

  10.              Include wildlife agencies in the loop to streamline the environmental permitting process for the development of conjunctive management facilities, like recharge basins, when they are designed with pre-defined benefits or mitigation to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

   

   

   

   

   

• Mr. Chris Lippe

  Director

  City of Austin Water Utility

  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Mr. Chris Lippe

  Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify in favor of HR 2341.  I would also like to thank Representative Doggett, for introducing this bill and our entire Congressional delegation for all of their hard work on Austin’s behalf.

   

  My name is Chris Lippe, P.E., and I am the Director of the City of Austin’s Water Utility.  We provide water, reclaimed water, and wastewater service in Austin, the capital of Texas.  With a population of approximately 770,000 Austin offers the best of big city and small town life. Austin is recognized as a leader in sustainable growth that enhances communities, enables economic development and supports the environment.  Our Reclaimed Water Program is a component of that effort.

   

  In my testimony, I will provide information on HR 2341, Austin and its water needs, our efforts to meet those needs, and the role that we envision for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title 16 Program in helping to meet those needs.

   

  HR 2341

  HR 2341 amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to reclaim and reuse wastewater within the service area of the Austin Water Utility.

   

  About the City of Austin

  Austin, Texas is a vibrant community of approximately 770,000 citizens located in Central Texas and serves as the State Capital.  The City owns and operates the Austin Water Utility, which has more than 180,000 residential, multifamily, commercial, industrial, and wholesale connections and draws its water supply from the Colorado River.

   

  The City faces two major challenges in meeting the needs of its customers.  First, there is a projected water need.  The City’s current water rights and water contracts are expected to meet demand until approximately 2042.  By 2050, however there will be an anticipated water shortage of 42,096 af/yr.  That is enough water to serve 63,000 residences, or an equivalent population of 221,000 in contrast to our served population of 770,000.  Water conservation measures are expected to provide half of the shortfall, leaving the other half to be provided by some alternative measure, such as reclaimed water.

   

  The second need is financial in nature and relates to funding constraints under our capital improvement plan.  The City, through its current capital improvement plan has identified almost $1 billion in infrastructure needs in the next five years.  Much of that is devoted to water treatment plant expansion, wastewater treatment plant expansion, and rehabilitation of the wastewater collection system to meet the needs of a growing community.  This of course does include some funding for a growing reclaimed water program.

   

  The expansion of our water reclamation system will provide a number of benefits. It alleviates the potential for water shortages.  It defers millions of dollars in annual payments under our raw water contract.  Finally, it can help defer the need for the construction of additional water treatment plants.

   

  The Reclaimed Water Program

  Based on the quality of the reclaimed water, the major uses for it in Austin are for irrigation, cooling towers, and manufacturing.  During peak summer demands, reclaimed water use is more than three million gallons per day, predominantly for irrigation.  The Sand Hill Energy Center recently connected to the system.  The Combined Transportation and Emergency Communication Center is in the process of connecting and will use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes.  In the next few years, we anticipate numerous additional customers as a result of redevelopment of the City’s former airport.  Other potential customers, such as the University of Texas and the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, are interested in using reclaimed water if distribution lines can be extended to their property.  Major Austin employers such Samsung are interested in using reclaimed water.  The University of Texas, is making plans to connect to our reclaimed water system.

   

  Reclamation and Reuse Project -- Central System

  The central reclaimed system provides water from the Walnut Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).  In 2005, the most recent full year of data, customers used almost 60 million gallons of reclaimed water.  Piping in the central reclaimed system consists of 4 miles of transmission main.  Pumping equipment consists of two low-service pumps, a one million gallon ground storage tank, and three high-service pumps at the Walnut Creek WWTP.  The central reclaimed system has one project in the preliminary engineering design stage – a two million gallon elevated storage tank and an additional mile of transmission main.

   

  Reclamation and Reuse Project -- South System

  The south reclaimed system consists of a pump station, a booster pump station, a 0.5 million gallon elevated storage tank, and 15 miles of piping carrying treated wastewater effluent from the South Austin Regional WWTP.  Customers include the award winning Hornsby Bend Biosolids Management Facility, the Sand Hill Energy Center, and two golf courses.  In 2005 these customers used 587 million gallons of reclaimed water.

   

  Reclamation and Reuse Project -- Satellite System Details

  The Austin Water Utility operates three satellite systems that are located on the fringes of its service area.  With a satellite system, wastewater flows are geographically matched with potential customers and a water reclamation plant is built in the immediate vicinity.  In 2005, the Davenport WWTP provided 81 million gallons of reclaimed water for golf course irrigation.  The Onion Creek WWTP produced 58 million gallons of reclaimed water for golf course irrigation.  Finally, the Balcones and Pickfair WWTPs provided 79 million gallons of reclaimed water, again for golf course irrigation.

   

  Reclamation and Reuse Project – System Growth

  As mentioned above, the City has approximately 19 miles of existing transmission main in the southern and central part of its service area as well as pump stations and storage tanks at the Walnut Creek and South Austin Regional  WWTPs.  This existing infrastructure serves as the backbone for the growth of the reclaimed water system.  Eventually, the central and south systems will connect.  A schematic showing the existing and proposed reclaimed water system is attached.

   

  With Federal assistance, the reclaimed water system can grow dramatically.  The miles of transmission mains will expand to from 19 to 137, an increase of more than 700%.  Storage tanks in the distribution system will grow from zero to seven with a combined storage capacity of 14.3 million gallons.  Pump stations in the distribution system will increase from one to a total of five.  The number of pressure zones will increase from two to five.  Plant storage tanks will increase from two to three and their capacity will increase from 2.5 million gallons to 3.5 million gallons.  The magnitude of system growth requires that improvements be built over a period of years.  Construction is projected to ramp up in 2008 and concludes in 2035, with the system reaching full capacity in 2039.

   

   

  Table 1 -- Existing and Anticipated Reclaimed Water Demand

  Source	Major 2050 Uses	Reclaimed Water Supplied in 2005 (af/yr)	2050 Reclaimed* Water Supplied (af/yr)
  Walnut Creek WWTP (Central System)	Irrigation (47%), cooling towers (29%), process water (24%)	104	19,231
  SAR WWTP (South System)	Irrigation (63%), cooling towers (11%), process water (26%)	1,307	6,433
  Balcones/Pickfair WWTPs	Irrigation (100%)	239	239
  Davenport WWTP	Not in service	249	0
  Onion Creek WWTP	Irrigation (100%)	209	209
  Total		2,108	26,112 (exceeds 21,096 goal)

   

  Financial Constraints Facing Austin's Water Reclamation Program

  A significant constraint to implementing our Reclaimed Water Program is funding.  The Environmental Protection Agency, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies have all documented the enormous infrastructure needs of water and wastewater utilities.  Austin’s infrastructure needs reflect this national phenomena.  Our recently approved 5-year Capital Improvement Plan contains nearly $1 billion worth of projects.  This includes funding to alleviate sanitary sewer overflows, the construction of water treatment plants, the upgrading of wastewater treatment plants, and the rehabilitation of water and sewer mains.  Construction of reclaimed water projects is part of this and promotes prudent financial management by offering the potential to defer some of the water treatment plant projects.

   

  We acknowledge that under the Title 16 Program, federal funding is capped and that the City will have to cover the bulk of the costs under Title 16.  We estimate the City’s portion as being 87% of the total cost and the City is prepared and committed to fully fund its portion.  However given the importance of addressing water needs and water quality, federal assistance with this project is appropriate and welcome.

   

  Table 2 -- Major Reclaimed Water Component Costs (in millions)

  Service Area	Project Completed or Funded	Future Projects	Total Project Cost	Funding Shortfall
  Early System Improvements	$4.0		$4.0
  Central/South	$19.0	$158.4	$177.4	$158.4
  Satellite	$4.3		$4.3
  Total	$27.3	$158.4	$185.7	$158.4

  
  Bureau of Reclamation's Title 16 Program

  The Bureau of Reclamation operates a well-respected water reclamation program, referred to as the Title 16 Program.  It is designed to improve efficiency in the use of water resources in the western states.  Section 1602 of Public Law 102-575 establishes broad goals for Reclamation in administering the Title 16 Program.  These goals include:

   

  •           Identifying opportunities for reclamation and reuse of municipal wastewater,

  •           Investigating those opportunities and,

  •           Providing a cost-share opportunity for an appraisal and feasibility study and for the design and construction of permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse municipal wastewater.

   

  The City of Austin's Reclaimed Water Program fits well within these broad goals.  An Appraisal Report prepared jointly by the City and the Bureau of Reclamation that was completed in April 2004 confirmed this.  The Appraisal Report concluded that there was a Federal interest in pursuing water reclamation and reuse investigations in Austin and recommended that a Feasibility Report be done.

   

  The City continues to collaborate with the Bureau of Reclamation on investigating the potential for reclaimed water in Austin.  Specifically, we signed a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation in September 2003 to jointly prepare a Feasibility Report.  Austin submitted its Feasibility Report to Reclamation on December 5, 2005.  Comments were received from the Bureau on March 22, 2006.  We are currently addressing those comments and will resubmit the Feasibility Report soon.  While the Feasibility Report is not final, we are confident that it will support Austin’s entry into the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title 16 Program.

   

  In addition to conforming to the general goals of the Title 16 Program, the City of Austin's Reclamation project meets the following specifics for the Title 16 Program:

   

  Applicability -- Austin is located in Texas, which is one of the seventeen western states under the Bureau of Reclamation's jurisdiction.

   

  Eligibility -- Austin is a municipality and therefore capable of entering into a cost-sharing agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation.

   

  Financial capability -- Austin has dedicated revenue sources through water and wastewater user fees and has demonstrated financial capabilities as evidenced by the investment grade rating of its outstanding bonds.

   

  Ownership -- Austin will hold title to the facilities and be responsible for their operation and maintenance.

   

  Regional perspective -- Austin's Reclamation Project is consistent with state authorized regional water supply plans for the Colorado River.

   

  Postpones new or expanded water supplies -- Austin's Reclamation Project has the potential to postpone the expansion of water treatment plants through more efficient use of existing water resources.

   

  Reduces diversions from existing watercourses -- Austin's Reclamation Project will reduce existing diversions from the Colorado River through more efficient use of existing water resources.

   

  Conclusion

  In summary, the expansion of our water reclamation system provides a number of benefits. It alleviates the potential for water shortages in the near- and long-term.  It delays and reduces annual payments under our raw water contract by millions of dollars.  Finally, it reduces infrastructure costs by reducing and water plant sizing.

   

  HR 2341 will authorize federal participation in the City of Austin’s Reclaimed Water project under the Bureau of Reclamation's Title 16 Program.   I believe that the project fits within the goals and objectives of the Title 16 program and respectfully request that the Subcommittee approve HR 2341 and seek its final passage. We appreciate your time and support.  Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. 

   

• Mr. Richard Atwater

  Chair, National Legislative Committee

  WateReuse Association

  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Mr. Richard Atwater

  Testimony

   

  The Bureau of Reclamation’s Reuse and Recycling Program

  (Title XVI of P.L. 102-575)

  S. 3639

    

  Submitted to:

   

  Honorable Lisa Murkowski

  Chairwoman

  Subcommittee on Water & Power

  Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

  United States Senate

                                                     

   

  Presented by:

  Mr. Richard Atwater

  Chief Executive Officer

  Inland Empire Utilities Agency

  On behalf of the

  WateReuse Association

                                                     

   

  July 27, 2006

   

   

   

  Introduction

   

  Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the WateReuse Association is pleased to have the opportunity to present this testimony on S. 3639 to reauthorize the Bureau of Reclamation’s Reuse and Recycling Program (Title XVI) in ensuring an adequate water supply for the nation in the 21^st century.  I am Richard Atwater, Chairman of the WateReuse Association’s National Legislative Committee, and I am representing the Association today.

   

  I want to thank the Chairman and Senator Feinstein for introducing S. 3639 to streamline the review criteria and enhance the cost-effectiveness of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI Water Reuse and Recycling Program. 

   

  As a way of introduction, the WateReuse Association (WateReuse) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to advance the beneficial and efficient use of water resources through education, sound science, and technology using reclamation, recycling, reuse, and desalination for the benefit of our members, the public, and the environment.  Across the United States and the world, communities are facing water supply challenges due to increasing demand, drought, and dependence on a single source of supply. WateReuse address these challenges by working with local agencies to implement water reuse and desalination projects that resolve water resource issues and create value for communities.  The vision of WateReuse is to be the leading voice for reclamation, recycling, reuse, and desalination in the development and utilization of new sources of high quality water.

   

  I am also Chief Executive Officer of Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), located in Chino, California.  By implementing aggressive conservation programs and using innovative recycling and desalting technologies to reuse our water supplies, we have reduced our potable water demand by 20% over the past five years.  IEUA is a municipal water district that distributes imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and provides municipal/industrial wastewater collection and treatment services to more than 800,000 people within a 242 square mile area in the western portion of San Bernardino County. The Inland Empire region is the "economic engine" of California and among the top 10 job creating regions in the US.

   

  The IEUA service area population is expected to double during the next 20 years. About 7,000 new homes each year are being built in the IEUA service area.  Inland Empire is not depending on new imported supplies from the Colorado River or Northern California through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to meet our future water supply needs.  Instead, we have developed an integrated water resources plan that will develop 95,000 acre-feet of new recycled water, desalinate over 50,000 acre-feet of brackish groundwater supplies, and, with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, develop 150,000 acre-feet of conjunctive use in the Chino groundwater basin.  These will be the primary new water supplies to meet the rapidly growing needs of the Inland Empire region of Southern California.   

   

  A critical partner in making these new local water supplies available in our region is the Federal government.  Pending in Congress are Title XVI bills that would authorize a $20 million grant to provide a 10% Federal cost-share for the IEUA regional water recycling project of 95,000 acre-feet (total cost is $200 million).  Without a doubt this cost-sharing arrangement to develop a critical new supply for a rapidly growing region without asking for more supplies from the Colorado River or Northern California (CALFED) is incredibly cost-effective when compared to the other supply options available in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.

   

  On behalf of the Association’s Board of Directors, I want to commend you, Madam Chairman, for convening this hearing regarding S. 3639.  The hearing is especially timely, given the increasing number of challenges facing local agencies in their continuing quest to ensure adequate water supplies in the future. 

   

  The Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI Reuse and Recycling Program

   

  Today, the West faces two daunting challenges simultaneously.  The first is drought and the impacts of continued climate gyration – wild swings in previously established weather patterns.  The second is the unprecedented growth throughout the Western States.  Population continues to not just grow, but accelerate throughout the West!  The Title XVI Water Recycling Program enables water users in the West to stretch existing supplies through the application of reclamation, reuse, recycling and desalination technologies.  Title XVI was initially authorized in 1992, following a severe multi-year drought in California and other Western States.  A drought of equal severity reduced the mighty Colorado River to record lows only a few years ago.  We must find ways to expand the nation’s water supplies, and do so without generating regional or environmental conflicts.  Reusing our existing supplies and stretching those supplies is a significant part of the solution.  The Title XVI program provides the authority and framework to accomplish these water resource development objectives to meet the needs of our cities and urban areas, our farms and ranches, and our diverse environment.

   

  This legislation clarifies and makes permanent the U.S. Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI water reuse/reclamation/recycling grant authority for the development of new sources of water.  In so doing, this proposed legislation will help state and local governments and water departments and agencies develop new water and reliable water supplies.

   

  The bill amends the Reclamation and Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (1992) to provide new standards and procedures for the review of water reclamation and reuse projects by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation.  Additionally, the legislation sets forth specific criteria to assist Congress in the evaluation and selection of projects for Federal grant funding and sets the Federal cost share at 20%.  This is lower than the cost sharing requirement specified in the 1996 amendments to Title XVI, and represents the most cost-effective leveraging of Federal funds for any current Federal water resources investment! 

   

  We believe that S. 3639 addresses the important question of how to establish funding priorities.  For the first time, a program is being established that provides a roadmap for the Secretary to determine if a project should be recommended for construction authorization.  This would allow Subcommittees such as yours, Madam Chairman, to consider the value of a project to ameliorate a water supply shortage.  Clearly, the ability to define priorities is critical to an enhanced Title XVI program and S. 3639 provides this framework.

    

  Experiences with the Title XVI Program and Program Benefits

   

  The Association and its members have a long-standing and productive working relationship with the USBR and its Title XVI program.  The Title XVI program has benefited many communities in the West by providing grant funds that made these projects more affordable.  The Federal cost share – although a relatively small portion of the overall project cost – often makes the difference in determining whether a project qualifies for financing.   In addition, the Federal funding and the imprimatur of the United States government typically results in a reduced cost of capital.

   

  The Association believes, first and foremost, that the Title XVI program serves a Federal interest as discussed below.  Although the level of funding that the program has received over the past decade has been limited, it is still an unqualified success.  Simply stated, this is one program that represents a sound investment in the future of the West by the Federal government.  It delivers multiple benefits to stakeholders throughout the West, ranging from municipal and industrial to agricultural needs.  Through FY 2004, the Federal investment of $272.5 million has been leveraged by a factor of approximately 5:1.  According to a recently completed study by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the non-Federal investment to date during this same period amounted to $1.085 billion. 

   

  In enumerating specific project benefits, we must not forget the intangible benefits that exist when this critical new water supply is brought on line in addition to the financial value of such projects.  These benefits include the following:

   

  Ø      Environmental benefits realized through the conversion of treated wastewater into a valuable new water supply;

   

  Ø      Reduction of the quantity of treated wastewater discharged to sensitive or impaired

  surface waters;

   

  Ø      Alleviating the need to develop new costly water supply development projects unless they are a last resort (e.g., new dams and other expensive importation aqueducts);

   

  Ø      Reduced dependence on the Colorado River and on the CALFED Bay-Delta System, especially during drought years when conflicts on both of these water systems are particularly intense;

   

  Ø      Creation of a dependable and controllable local source of supply for cities in arid and semi-arid climates such as El Paso, Phoenix, and Las Vegas;

   

  Ø      Reduced demand on existing potable supplies; and

   

  Ø      Energy benefits, including reduced energy demand and transmission line constraints during peak use periods, realized by the replacement of more energy-intensive water supplies such as pumped imported water with less energy-intensive water sources such as recycled water.

   

  A fundamental question is “why would we want to use valuable, high quality water from the Bureau of Reclamation’s Shasta Reservoir in Northern California or Lake Powell in Utah and pump and transport it over 500 miles to irrigate a park or golf course in the Los Angeles or San Diego metropolitan areas?”  Also remember that the replacement of that imported water with local recycled water will save enough energy and related greenhouse gas impacts from reduced pumping equivalent to a 500 megawatt power plant!  Obviously the energy and water policy issues facing the arid West clearly justify a “strategically” small grant program to use recycled water as a means to continue to support the economic vitality of the major metropolitan areas throughout the Colorado and Rio Grande River basins.

   

   

   

  General Comments and Recommendations for S. 3639

   

  Overall S. 3639 provides a solid redirection of the Title XVI program.  It ensures that locally developed and supported projects have a clear process to secure Federal construction authorization.  As we have discussed, most recently during the Subcommittee on Water and Power’s oversight hearing on February 28, one of the most vexing challenges of the existing Title XVI program is the uncertainty that USBR will provide timely reviews of a proposed project.  The ability to invest responsibility with a local community should remedy this deficiency.  We are also encouraged that the Secretary has clear deadlines to act on any proposal that is submitted.  This is vital to a successful program.  We also believe that the decision to limit federal support to 20% of a project’s costs is reasonable and will allow local communities to commit expeditiously their share of a project’s cost.

   

  There are a limited number of issues contained in the draft legislation that we would like to highlight as critical to a successful Title XVI program.  These are outlined below.

   

  Specific Issues of Concern

   

  1.      The bill provisions dealing with ”financially capable” and “technically viable” project sponsors should be clarified through report language to ensure an understanding that the Secretary is to provide a project sponsor with a determination that the project is viable within 30 days or the project is deemed to be viable.  We believe that the success of Title XVI reforms hinge on compliance with this key deadline.

   

  2.      The checklist to determine viability is a clear and workable roadmap for project sponsors to submit required project data.

   

  3.      The bill appears to limit demonstrations activities to the Western States by virtue of the language in Section 1602 (Purposes; Definitions).  We recommend that the Secretary be provided authority to conduct research and demonstration activities in any geographic area where technology demonstrations may prove most effective, provided they have direct application and benefit to the Western States.

   

  4.      We endorse the bill’s provisions to require a project’s value to be considered within the context of how it may contribute to improving a number of circumstances, including the environment.  This clearly illustrates that any project priority will deliver multiple benefits.

   

  5.      The 10-year sunset provision for projects is an important element to ensure timely review and recommendations of a project.

   

  6.      The bill’s transition process may inadvertently create unnecessary burdens.  The requirement to make existing projects submit new information pursuant to the new mandates would effectively change the rules, creating new costs and delays to the project sponsor.  We strongly recommend that feasibility proposals that have already been submitted not be required to comply with new rules.  If a concern exists over limiting the universe of proposals that would be grandfathered into the program under the old rules, we recommend establishing a date from which the new rules would apply.   

   

  Conclusion

   

  Once again, the WateReuse Association wants to thank you, Madam Chairman, for convening this hearing.  We would be pleased to work with you in addressing critical issues related to water reuse and recycling, desalination, and water use efficiency.  We are strongly supportive of the Subcommittee’s efforts to ensure adequate and safe supplies of water in the future for the entire country.

• Mr. Tom Ray

  Engineering Consultant

  City of Waco

  Read statement

  Witness Panel 2

  Mr. Tom Ray

  TESTIMONY OF J. Tom Ray, P.E.

  Project Manager, Central Texas Water Recycling Project

  Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc.

  July 27, 2006

  COMMITTEE ON

  ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

  SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

  UNITED STATES SENATE

   

  Good afternoon, Senator Murkowski and Senators. My name is Tom Ray.  I am project manager for the Central Texas Water Recycling project and an engineer and program manager with the engineering firm of Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc.

   

  Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of including H.R. 3418, the Central Texas Water Recycling Act of 2005 and for the leadership of this subcommittee in scheduling this hearing.  The incredibly hot summer that we are having in Texas and that our friends are having in California is a reminder of how our water resources can be stretched to the limit by forces of nature and the demands of rapidly increasing populations.  It is also a reminder of the importance of the projects that are being considered today before this subcommittee.  I also want to express my sincere gratitude to Congressman Chet Edwards for introducing this legislation and to Congressman John Carter for cosponsoring this measure. Both Congressman Edwards and Congressman Carter have been very supportive of initiatives to support water resources throughout Central Texas, and Central Texans certainly appreciate their work on this legislation.

   

  Much of Texas is in the grips of an extreme drought.  It is recognized that every existing water resource that has the potential to augment our water supplies must be conserved and used efficiently.  This is recognized on a statewide basis by the Texas Water Conservation Association that has emphasized the value of water reuse throughout the State.  Recently adopted Statewide water plans, under the direction of the Texas Water Development Board, have identified water reuse as a critical component of future strategies to meet water shortages in each of the16 planning areas of the State.  In Central Texas, and particularly among the cities located in McLennan County, reuse is a major component of our current plans.  Reuse of treated wastewater effluent is included in the current expansion of the area’s regional wastewater treatment system.

   

  In addition to prolonged drought conditions that stress our existing surface and groundwater supplies in Central Texas, demands on our water supplies continue to increase due rapid population growth that is occurring, particularly along the IH35 corridor.  As a result of these two factors, increasing demands due to population growth and continuing drought conditions, cities in Central Texas have invested significant local funds in a number of supply enhancement and water treatment projects in recent years.  These costly efforts include water quality protection programs for our major surface water and groundwater resources, enlargement of the conservation pool of Lake Waco, and investments in advanced water treatment processes to meet and exceed federal and state standards as well as to remove taste and odor.  All of these investments are substantial for the citizens of McLennan County and Central Texas.  As a result, the cities are actively pursuing means to maximize those investments and to conserve our valuable water resources.  Water recycling and reuse of reclaimed wastewater effluent is therefore a key component of this effort.  H.R. 3418 will help us to succeed in this effort to replace the use of costly, treated water supplies for uses such as irrigation, cooling water and other industrial uses.

   

  Reuse supplies will help us cope with seasonable demands and peak water use.  With temperature repeatedly reaching well over 100 degrees this month, it emphasizes the seasonal effects on water use and water demands.  To help address the spikes in demand due to seasonal water use, the community of cities in McLennan County is incorporating reuse into the current plans to expand the regional wastewater treatment system.  As opposed to expanding the central wastewater treatment located in a remote, downstream area, the expansion will be accomplished with “satellite” wastewater treatment plants that will be located in areas near the high growth corridors.  This growing areas that include industrial, commercial, and residential as well as park lands and gold courses owned by the cities, will have the opportunity to reduce dependence on the use of costly treated water by having high quality, wastewater effluent available for irrigation and industrial uses.  The “McLennan County Regional Satellite and Reuse Project” will provide a unique combination of reuse benefits at an outlying treatment facilities located in the major growth corridor.

   

  The Central Texas Water Recycling Act will help support these efforts to provide sustainable water supplies in this area of Texas.

   

  With this background, let me summarize the specific need for and benefits of the reclamation and water recycling project.  Today, the growth areas of the regional wastewater collection facilities are hydraulically overloaded.  In addition, the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently treats all wastewater generated by the serves all of the six cities that comprise the regional wastewater system is nearing its permitted discharge capacity.  The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is requiring plans for the expansion of the existing wastewater treatment capacity.

   

  A comprehensive engineering solution to this wastewater challenge is the construction of a satellite wastewater reclamation plants and facilities to in part provide benefits from the reuse of the reclaimed effluent. The benefits of satellite plants are significant, in addition to avoiding expensive relocation of infrastructure and downstream conveyance improvements (estimated at $2.1 million), the plants will provide capacity for future growth in the “high growth” corridor, and significantly, the reclaimed water produced at the proposed reclamation plant can be readily delivered to dozens of end users within the nearby vicinity.  Not only would this reclaimed water be a revenue generator, it would also help reduce the summertime peak water demands at the regional water treatment plant.

   

  In summary, this legislation will not only provide for conservation of our community’s water supply but will also reduce cost to the taxpayers and provide benefits to the environment as treated effluent is not dumped into river but is used to sustain habitat in our parks and recreational areas.  Recycling of highly treated wastewater provides an additional valuable resource for a large number of identified reuse applications, including golf courses, landscape irrigation, industrial cooling water, and other industrial applications.  The initial projects eligible for funding under this legislation can provide up to 10 million gallons per day of reuse water; thereby, reducing the water demand on Lake Waco.  This is enough water supply to meet the needs of over 20,000 households.

   

  Senator Murkowski and members of this subcommittee, we strongly support H.R. 3418, and the assistance it will provide for the McLennan County Regional Satellite and Reuse Project. The community of cities in McLennan County has committed significant funding to support the development of this project.

   

  We welcome the opportunity to partner with the Bureau of Reclamation to design, plan and construct a consolidated system to improve the efficient use of water resources in McLennan County.   

   

  Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today.