I welcome the regional cooperation that has gone into the determination of the agreement. Many of my constitutent are not fully conversant with the terms of it and have a number of questions relative to supply, quality of the water that we will be receiving in the District of Columbia, and as Mr. Fisher has indicated, the whole question of the management of demand and consumption that will be a continuing concern for us. We're interested not only in the environmental impact in terms of the quality of water, but also in terms of the regional development.

As we all know, Fairfax County has absorbed about 60 percent of the gross in the metropolitan area in recent years, and I think the implications of increased supply in that area will certainly have to be assessed for the regional growth and development, without which we're not going to obtain the kind of balance that I think we all want. So, I'm very pleased that you've afforded the Members of the Congress and the residents of the District of Columbia an opportunity to examine in much more detail the agreement that has been reached.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, I appreciate very much the cooperation I've received from the Congressman from the District of Columbia, and I think that the day of regional cooperation has started to get here a little bit, and I know it was amazing to me that as we started to investigate the reasons for the disputes and holdups on the low flow agreement, at least one of the points of contention was whether or not the District of Columbia should be signatory to the low flow agreement.

Mr. FAUNTROY. And of course you were very supportive of selfdetermination for the District.

Mr. HARRIS. And that dispute was decided very quickly and one of the major changes as we moved to the execution of the low flow agreement was whether the District of Columbia would be signatory to it, and, of course, it has become signatory to it, which seems natural enough to us, but apparently did not seem natural a few years

ago.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Very good.

Mr. HARRIS. The Chair would like to express a special appreciation for the Secretary of the Army coming here this morning. We appreciate very much the work that he has done, leadership he has shown, and the contribution that he has made to the region. As I go over the job description for the Secretary of the Army, I find that he has some other responsibilities other than water supply in the Washington metropolitan area. The fact of the matter is that one of his duties is water supply and is water supply of the Washington metropolitan area in a very large degree. The fact that he could and would take the time, exert the energy, and give the attention to this problem that he has, I think is a great mark of distinction to the type of Secretary of the Army that we have, and so, it's a pleasure for me to recognize him and ask him to come forward and present his testimony to the subcommittee. Secretary of the Army, Mr. Alexander.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD L. ALEXANDER, JR., SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ACCOMPANIED BY MAJ. GEN. JAMES A JOHNSON, DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION; COL. GEORGE K. WITHERS, JR., DISTRICT ENGINEER, BALTIMORE; HARRY C. WAYS, WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Chairman Harris and members of the Subcommittee on Economic Development and Regional Affairs, it's an honor to be with you today.

Mr. HARRIS. If I may welcome you again and ask you to introduce your colleagues for the purposes of the record, and then proceed however you wish on your testimony.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Fine, thank you, sir.

To my right is Gen. James A. Johnson, who is the Division Engineer for the U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Atlantic. To my left, Col. George Withers, the District Engineer for the Baltimore District, and to my far right, Mr. Harry C. Ways, Chief of the Washington Aqueduct Division.

We will proceed, if I may, sir, with a short statement, and then move to General Johnson after that.

LOW FLOW ALLOCATION AGREEMENT

Mr. Chairman, I believe we can look with some sense of accomplishment at the recent agreement on allocation of low flows for the Potomac River. This agreement, which I signed on January 11 on behalf of the United States, is also joined in by the Governors of the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. It is the result of long and difficult negotiations by the representatives of all the parties involved.

You've earlier noted in your dialog with Congressman Fauntroy the important point of the inclusion of the Mayor of the District of Columbia as a representative of the District, and we certainly appreciate your interest in that. I speak as a private citizen of the District and also as Secretary of the Army, because we feel it was most important that they be signatories to any low flow allocation agreement.

The agreement provides a fair and equitable distribution formula for allocating water supplies in the metropolitan area during severe low flow conditions. It also provides for a moderator to settle disputes that might arise. It specifically develops enforcement machinery, and outlines a method for future revisions if they are necessary. Signing was the first step toward making the agreement fully effective. We must still complete the environmental impact process, which is the most important one, issue whatever permits may be appropriate, and complete the process of securing assurances that the agreement will be legally binding on each of the jurisdictions.

I see the Low Flow Allocation Agreement as a major breakthrough in the work to resolve the longstanding and difficult problems the metropolitan area faces in insuring an adequate regional supply of water. We have made progress in the past few months, and with your continuing interest and support, Mr. Chairman, we intend to continue to work toward an effective and equitable regional water supply system. Your interest, and that of the subcommittee, have, I believe, been of immense value to our entire region.

Mr. Chairman, General Johnson will now continue with the testimony and will address more specifically the questions you posed to us in your January 9th letter. He and his staff are also prepared to respond to any further questions by you or any other member of the subcommittee.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. General Johnson, we welcome you, too.

General JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, as you know, we have submitted a prepared statement, which at this time, with your permission, I'd like to highlight.

Mr. HARRIS. I appreciate it. Without objection, we will include the whole statement at this point in the record, and if you wish to go through and just highlight it at this point, we'd appreciate it. [The prepared statement of General Johnson follows:]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

BALTIMORE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS,

Baltimore, Md., January 23, 1978. Subject: Congressional testimony on Washington Metropolitan Corps projects. HQDA (DAEN-CWR-W)

Washington, D.C. 20314

1. Reference is made to:

a. Letter, DAEN-CWR-W, subject as above, dated 12 January 1978. b. Letter, NABDD-C, subject as above, dated 19 January 1978.

2. Attached are the required copies of the written statement for the hearing record as requested by referenced letter. For the District Engineer:

THOMAS A. RHEN,

Enclosure.

LTC, Corps of Engineers,

Deputy District Engineer for Civil Works.

STATEMENT BY MAJ. GEN. JAMES A. JOHNSON, DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

With me are Col. G. K. Withers, Jr., District Engineer, Baltimore, and Mr. Harry C. Ways, Chief, Washington Aqueduct.

I will answer the questions addressed in the Chairman's letter of January 9, 1978.

REVIEW STATUS OF CORPS PROJECTS AFFECTING THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AREA

First, a review of the status of Bloomington Dam and Reservoir, Emergency Pumping Station, Experimental Water Treatment Facility, Water Supply Study, Low Flow Agreement and Permit Applications for the Fairfax County Water Authority Potomac River Intake, the WSSC Intake and Weir.

The Bloomington project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public Law 874, 87th Congress, 2nd Session).

The overall project is 50 percent complete as of January 1, 1978. It will be operational in the fall of 1980 and completed in 1981. One of the project purposes, which provides approximately 31 percent of the project benefits, is water supply. When operational, Bloomington Lake will provide an additional 135 MGD of

dependable water supply to the Potomac River. Current project cost is $156,000,000.

Next, the Emergency Pumping Station: Funds for this project were first authorized under Public Law 91-665, Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1971, by reprogramming in May 1973, and by the Appropriation Act designated as Public Law 94–333, approved June 30, 1976.

The Emergency Pumping Station, with installed capacity of 100 million gallons per day, is located on the left bank of the Potomac River approximately one mile downstream of the Little Falls Intake. The project is being constructed to provide a supplemental water supply during emergency drought conditions in the Washington Metropolitan Area.

Construction started in January 1977. The project is currently 78 percent complete. It is scheduled for completion in May 1978. The construction contract cost is $2.5 million. This pumping station is designed to meet short term deficits in the Washington Aqueduct system due to low flows in the Potomac River. It will only be used when mandatory water restrictions are in effect, and then only if the water is of acceptable quality. By acceptable quality, we mean that finished water must meet all standards for drinking water as promulgated by the EPA.

Turning now to the Experimental Pilot Estuary Water Treatment Plant project: This project was authorized by Section 85(b) (2) of Title I of the Water Resources Development Act dated March 7, 1974 (Public Law 93-251).

The pilot project will be an advanced water treatment plant capable of treating 1 million gallons per day. The project will occupy approximately three acres of the Blue Plains Water Pollution Control Plant and will cost approximately $15,000,000 for construction, operation, and evaluation. It will be designed to remove pathogenic organisms, such as bacteria and viruses, dissolved and suspended solids, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and dissolved organic material, particularly the long-chain refractory organics which do not break down in nature or degrade biologically.

The plant will be a demonstration of the technical and economic feasibility of using Potomac Estuary waters as a supplemental water supply source, and will reflect what can be done at a much larger scale.

The project is under construction and is 3 percent complete. The contractor, Remsco Associates, has completed site grading and is currently accomplishing foundation work, site demolition work and exterior utility relocations. Construction is scheduled to be completed September 1979. After a 6 month break-in period, the Corps will conduct 2 years of operation and testing. The final report is scheduled to be completed September 1982. At that time, National Academy of Science/ National Academy of Engineering will review the results of the program and report their findings in September 1983.

I will now address the Metropolitan Washington Area (MWA) Water Supply Study, as authorized by Section 85 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-251.

This is the latest in a long line of studies which have recommended alternative solutions for the area's water supply needs. Almost all these solutions have not resulted in projects for various reasons, most having to do with public acceptance. Both the Verona and Sixes Bridge projects were authorized for Phase I Advanced Engineering and Design. The Verona Lake project has been terminated, due to deletion of funds by the Congress in the FY 1978 budget. Also, the Commonwealth of Virginia has withdrawn its support of the project. Further authorization of Sixes Bridge, however, is contingent upon a full and complete examination of the water resources needs of the MWA to include studies of water pricing, water use restrictions, use of Potomac Estuary, water impoundment sites, ground water, and wastewater reclamation. Public Law 93-251 also authorized the Secretary of the Army to construct, operate and evaluate Pilot Estuary Water Treatment Plant which I described earlier.

Both the MWA water resource needs study and the pilot estuary study will be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering and a written report, prepared by that organization, will furnish comments on the scientific basis for the conclusions.

Specifically, the MWA study is to make a complete investigation of all alternatives for water supply in the MWA. Although most of these alternatives have been examined in past reports, the costs and impacts of some of the alternatives were not fully known at the time. The Potomac Estuary and ground water, for instance, have been identified as feasible alternatives but decision-makers have been unwilling to commit themselves to such alternatives until detailed evaluations are made of the full range of impacts. The MWA study will fill gaps in knowledge regarding the costs and impacts of technically feasible but unproved

technologies so that better comparisons can be made to the conventional water supply alternatives.

This study will be done over the next five years (completion date is September 1982), with an interim report in FY 1980. This early-action report will be on determining ways of making the most efficient use of the existing water resources by a combination of raw and/or finished water interconnections coupled with some form of drought management techniques; i.e., conservation.

The successful competion of the long-term alternatives evaluation (or ways to bring additional water supply sources on line) depends upon having a portion of the results of the two-year testing program of the Pilot Estuary Treatment Plant (PEWTP) incorporated into the results of the study. Therefore, to a degree, the time frame of the study is dictated by the PEWTP schedule.

During the summer of 1977, the Corps of Engineers was involved in an extensive public participation program. In cooperation with the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the Corps co-sponsored 17 citizen workshops to identify issues and problems with the Metropolitan Washington Area water supply. Through this effort the Corps and the other agencies were able to ascertain the concerns and issues of the public with regard to water supply planning for the Metropolitan Washington Area. A continuing public information and education program is planned during the study for both short-range and long-range alternatives.

Work is progressing on the interim report, which will provide an early-action program: (1) a contract has been initiated to define the socioeconomic and other impacts of water supply shortages in the MWA and to define alternative ways of reducing water deficits by conservation techniques; (2) a raw water optimization study is underway aimed at identifying the most efficient raw water interconnected system for transferring water between existing jurisdictions or from the Potomac River to an individual jurisdiction; and (3) a finished water interconnections study will be started in the very near future to evaluate finished water transfers to alleviate short-term water shortages as well. These contracts will form the basis of the early-action report in FY 1980. A draft report for public review and comment will be available in March 1979.

Regarding the Low Flow Allocation Agreement:

The Potomac River Low Flow Allocation Agreement was signed on 11 January 1978 by the United States, Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and the Fairfax County Water Authority. This agreement was the culmination of many years of negotiations to meet the problem of allocation of low flow in the Potomac River during a period of drought.

In Section 181 of the Water Development Act of 1976, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to enter into this agreement.

The agreement includes the District of Columbia and the Fairfax County Water Authority as parties, as well as the United States, Maryland, Virginia and the WSSC. During low flows it allocates a percentage of the total available river flow based on each user's ratio of average individual use in the winter for the preceding five years to total average daily use of all users.

With regard to permits:

The Washington Surburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) originally submitted a request for a Department of the Army permit to construct a diversion weir on 18 July 1967. This application was withdrawn and revised application submitted on 26 February 1976.

On 30 June 1976, WSSC requested a permit to replace their existing intake with a new intake. These two structures would be located adjacent to their existing Potomac Treatment Plant near Potomac, Montgomery County, Maryland. This construction would allow WSSC to withdraw 400 MGD from the Potomac River for water supply purposes.

The Fairfax County Water Authority (FCWA) submitted a request for a Department of the Army permit to construct a raw water intake on 20 September 1976. This intake, which would be located in the Potomac River at Lowes Island, Loudoun County, Maryland, would be capable of withdrawing 200 MGD and pumping this water to a new water treatment plant to be constructed near Dranesville, Fairfax County, Virginia.

A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) covering both intakes, the weir and the Low Flow Allocation Agreement was released for agency and public comment on 15 December 1977. Congressional consent to the construction of the weir, contained in Section 181 of the water resources Development Act of 1976, specified that such an agreement must be signed prior to the construction of the