Roland Steiner Testimony

WSSC, FCWA, and Washington Aqueduct

Joint Exhibit No. 1

BEFORE THE

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

OF MARYLAND 

 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ROLAND STEINER

Q:  Please state your name, occupation, and current position?

A:  My name is Roland Steiner.  I am a civil engineer working in the field of water resources management, and my current position is Regional Water and Wastewater Manager at the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), 14501 Sweitzer Lane, Laurel, Maryland 20707.

Q:  How long have you worked for the WSSC?

A:  I have been an employee of the WSSC since March of 2001; however, in my former employment, my work involved close coordination with the WSSC for nearly twenty years.

Q:  Where did you work before coming to the WSSC?

A:  Before coming to the WSSC, I worked for the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB), which is based in Rockville, Maryland.

Q:  How long did you work for the ICPRB and what was your position there?

A:  I worked for ICPRB for 18 years in several water supply related positions leading to Associate Director for Water Resources and Director of the Section for Co-operative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac (CO-OP).  In these positions, I provided coordination of the major water supply resources of the Potomac River basin.

Q:  What other professional experience do you have analyzing water supply issues generally and the Potomac River basin specifically?

A:  I was responsible for the issues related to the Potomac River basin in the National Drought Study conducted by the Corps of Engineers in the mid-1990s, and a study of climate change impacts on water resources conducted by the International Panel on Climate Change in the late-1990s.  Prior to my work at ICPRB, I worked for nearly 9 years in England and Wales for national, then regional, water resources management agencies.  This work involved municipal and industrial water demand forecasting, transmission and treatment capacity planning and design, and construction site supervision.

Q:  What is your educational experience?

A:  I earned a B.S. and an M.S. in civil engineering from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University, respectively.  These were followed by a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from The Johns Hopkins University, where my dissertation topic was short-term water demand forecasting for the Washington DC metropolitan area (including Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland as supplied by the WSSC).

Q:  Have you written any professional publications concerning water supply issues?

A:  I have been invited and selected to deliver presentations of my work in water resources management at numerous national conferences.  Most of those resulted in papers which were published as a result of the conferences; a few were expanded and published in peer-reviewed journals.  I am the principal or co-author of many reports published by the ICPRB.

Q:  Do you belong to any professional organizations or hold any professional licenses?

A:  I am a long-time member of the American Water Works Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Water Environment Federation.  I recently withdrew from long-time memberships in the Institution of Water and Environmental Management (UK) and the Institution of Civil Engineers (UK).  I am a registered Professional Engineer in Maryland, and recently relinquished my status as a Chartered Engineer (UK).

Q:  Which party is sponsoring your testimony?

A:  My testimony is sponsored by WSSC,  Fairfax County Water Authority ("FCWA") and Washington Aqueduct Division, a component of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Defense, (the "Washington Aqueduct"). WSSC, FCWA, and Washington Aqueduct each offer my direct testimony in support of their respective positions in this proceeding.  Hereafter, in my testimony I will sometimes collectively refer to WSSC, FCWA and Washington Aqueduct as the “three large municipal water suppliers."

Q:  Would you briefly explain the primary activity of WSSC, FCWA, and Washington Aqueduct, respectively, as it pertains to the Potomac River basin?

A:  The three large municipal water suppliers draw water from the Potomac River basin to provide the water requirements of the respective metropolitan areas each serves.  Specifically, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission serves Montgomery and Prince George’s counties in Maryland, the Washington Aqueduct withdraws water to supply the District of Columbia, the City of Falls Church and Arlington County in  Virginia, and the Fairfax County Water Authority supplies most of the rest of the northern Virginia suburbs – all with a combined summer demand on the Potomac River of 500 to 600 mgd.

Q:  What is the purpose of your testimony in this case?

A:  The purpose is to describe the problems associated with increased demands on water resources of the Potomac River basin, especially during periods of low flow and drought; to explain how the provisions (the “protective provisions”) of the Settlement Agreement (it is intended that the Settlement Agreement be made a part of the record in this proceeding) address these problems; and to recommend the incorporation of these provisions into the CPCN, if it is granted by the Commission.

Q:  Do the three large municipal water suppliers have a position on whether the Commission should grant the CPCN to Catoctin Power, LLC (Catoctin)?

A:  The three large municipal water suppliers’ only goal in this proceeding is to ensure that if a CPCN is granted, it includes protective provisions binding upon Catoctin so as to protect the water supply during times of low flow and drought.  So long as these protective provisions are made binding upon Catoctin, the three large municipal water suppliers neither support nor oppose the granting of the CPCN.  They respectfully request, however, that the provisions of the Settlement Agreement be made part of the CPCN, if granted.

Q:  Have you reviewed the application of Catoctin for a CPCN?

A:  I have reviewed those portions of the Catoctin application for a CPCN that are relevant to its proposed use of water resources in the Potomac River basin.

Q:  What is the geographic extent of the Potomac River for water supply?

A:  The major water supply features include the drainage area (11,560 sq. mi.) from the headwaters to the head of tide at the foot of Little Falls, near Washington DC.  The long-term average flow at Little Falls is approximately 7,000 million gallons per day (mgd) varying through the year from 13,600 mgd in March to 2,800 mgd in September.  During times of drought, these flows are considerably lower; the lowest daily flow in the 70-year record at DC was less than 400 mgd in September 1966.  Several upstream reservoirs accumulate water during non-drought times in order to provide releases that supplement natural flow during drought.

Q:  Can you provide a schematic diagram of the Potomac River Basin that includes the locations of existing or proposed physical features you regard as particularly relevant to your direct testimony?

A:  Yes.  Attached to my testimony is a schematic diagram of the Potomac River basin, marked as Exhibit "RS Exhibit No. 1."

Q:  Who are the major users of water supply from the Potomac River?

A:  Although there are many towns and small communities along the river (including Frederick City and County), by far the largest users of the river are the existing Mirant power plant at Dickerson, MD, and the three large municipal water suppliers in the Washington DC metropolitan area.  As for Mirant’s existing power plant at Dickerson, MD, most of the water is returned near the point of withdrawal for further use downstream.  In addition, on November 5, 2004, a Proposed Order was filed by the Maryland Public Service Commission to grant Mirant a CPCN approving modifications to its facility which would increase its consumptive use of water.

Q:  Are there other large demands on the flow of the Potomac River?

A:  The most significant other demand on the flow of the river is an “Environmental Flow-by” requirement of 100 mgd to be left in the river downstream of the last municipal withdrawal location.  This flow protects fish and other aquatic species in the approximately one mile of river between the last municipal withdrawal location and where the river reaches sea level at the foot of Little Falls, near the Maryland / D.C. boundary.

Q:  Can you describe the upstream reservoirs that are funded by the three large municipal water suppliers, including the name, location, and size of each reservoir?

A:  In addition to the three large municipal water suppliers relying on the natural flow of the Potomac River for municipal water supplies, water is collected by them in upstream reservoirs for release to the river to support downstream withdrawals and the aquatic environment during drought.  Three such reservoirs are used for low flow augmentation.  The Jennings Randolph Reservoir is located on the North Branch Potomac River which forms the boundary between western Maryland and West Virginia approximately 200 river miles upstream of the water supply intakes.  This reservoir is owned and operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and it contains approximately 13 billion gallons (BG) of water stored on behalf of the three large municipal water suppliers.  An additional 17 BG of capacity is managed by the Corps for other purposes.  Savage River Reservoir, located in Garrett County, MD on a tributary to the North Branch near Jennings Randolph Reservoir, has a total capacity of 6.3 BG.  Some of that storage is used to dilute the potentially acidic releases from Jennings Randolph Reservoir.  Little Seneca Reservoir is located in Montgomery County, MD on the Little Seneca Creek which is a tributary to the Potomac River.  It has a capacity of approximately 4 BG, of which all is potentially available to be released in order to increase flows for water supply in the Potomac.

Q:  Who pays for the capital and operating expenses for each of these reservoirs?

A:  In accordance with cooperative funding agreements entered into in 1982, WSSC, together with the Washington Aqueduct and Fairfax County Water Authority, pay the capital and operating costs associated with the water supply storage in Jennings Randolph and Little Seneca reservoirs.  The three suppliers collectively provide 80 percent of the operating and maintenance costs of Savage River Reservoir.

Q:  Who is responsible for operating and maintaining these reservoirs?

A:  Jennings Randolph Reservoir is operated and maintained by the Baltimore District of the US Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps of Engineers”).  Savage River Reservoir is owned and maintained by the Upper Potomac River Commission, located in Westernport, MD, and operated with guidance from the Corps of Engineers.  Little Seneca Reservoir is operated and maintained by WSSC for the benefit of all three large municipal water suppliers.

Q:  Does the schematic diagram (RS Exhibit No. 1) show the relative locations of the Jennings Randolph, Savage and Little Seneca reservoirs to each other and to Catoctin's proposed power plant?

A:  Yes.

Q:  Please explain the significance of their relative locations.

A:  The diagram shows that the Jennings Randolph and Savage reservoirs are upstream of Catoctin's proposed power plant.  The Little Seneca Reservoir and the water intakes of the three municipal water suppliers are downstream of Catoctin's proposed power plant

Q:  Can you explain how the decision to release water from these reservoirs for water supply is made?

A:  In accordance with a cooperative agreement among the three large metropolitan water suppliers and ICPRB CO-OP, it is ICPRB CO-OP’s function to provide water resource management guidance during drought.  ICPRB CO-OP’s reservoir release decisions are based on the distance (i.e. time of travel) to the three large metropolitan water suppliers’ Potomac River intakes.  Jennings Randolph Reservoir releases take about 9 days to reach the water supply intakes, and releases from Little Seneca Reservoir take less than a day to reach the intakes.  If the gaged or anticipated Potomac River flow on a day or the next day is not sufficient to meet the sum of predicted demands, a reservoir release rate from Little Seneca Reservoir is calculated by staff at ICPRB CO-OP and implemented by WSSC.  For Jennings Randolph Reservoir, water supply withdrawal needs and river flows are forecast 9 days hence.  If the anticipated Potomac River flow on the ninth day hence is not sufficient to meet predicted demand on that day, a reservoir release rate is calculated by staff at ICPRB CO-OP and implemented by the Corps of Engineers.  The Upper Potomac River Commission makes releases from Savage River Reservoir if needed, as directed by the Corps of Engineers.

Q:  Can you explain how the power plant proposed by Catoctin will affect water supply in the Potomac River basin?

A:  Catoctin proposes to use treated waste water effluent from a Frederick County, MD waste water treatment plant or to withdraw water directly from the Potomac River in order to meet the evaporative cooling needs of its proposed power plant. The Potomac River water supply system includes the Jennings Randolph, and Savage reservoirs which are upstream from Catoctin's proposed power plant.  Those two reservoirs are used in conjunction with the Little Seneca Reservoir which is downstream from Catoctin's proposed power plant.  During drought periods, the natural flow (lowest recorded level of less than 400 mgd) is  not sufficient to satisfy the current municipal demand (500 to 600 mgd) plus the required Environmental Flow-by (100 mgd).  This condition was anticipated by the three large municipal water suppliers, who adopted coordinated operating policies and joint funding of exclusive rights to low flow augmentation storage in upstream reservoirs.  Water is released from those reservoirs in order to support the Potomac River withdrawal requirements of the three large municipal suppliers in times of drought.  The use of treated wastewater effluent that would have reached the Potomac River, or withdrawals directly from the Potomac River for evaporative cooling water by Catoctin's proposed power plant would reduce the flow of the river.  In times of drought, that flow would likely include water released from the supply storage reservoirs built, operated and maintained with monies provided by WSSC, Fairfax County Water Authority, and Washington Aqueduct.  Such water consumption would cause insufficient water for the downstream three large municipal water suppliers, or the need for increased releases from the reservoirs to accommodate the demands of evaporative cooling at Catoctin's proposed power plant – placing an outside burden on those resources funded by the three large municipal water suppliers.  As population and associated water demands are forecast to increase in the service areas of the suppliers, the need for municipal water supply reservoir releases is also forecast to increase.  Thus, the frequency of overlap between reservoir releases and power plant withdrawals is expected to increase in the future.  In order to reduce the impact of the proposed plant's consumptive use of water on the flow of the Potomac River, Catoctin proposes to obtain the rights to water in former or active rock quarries in the Potomac River basin.  Catoctin proposes to cause water (flow augmentation water) to be released from one or more of these quarries when certain low flow conditions exist, as determined by ICPRB CO-OP and described in the Settlement Agreement.

Q:  Are you familiar with the Settlement Agreement filed in this case by Catoctin and the three large municipal water suppliers?

A:  I am familiar with the Settlement Agreement, and reviewed and commented upon it as it was being developed.

Q:  Can you briefly describe how this Settlement Agreement would work?

A:  The Settlement Agreement is intended to be implemented by ICPRB CO-OP, and provides for the release of water from one or more quarries, or the reduction or consumptive water use by Catoctin.  The specific conditions under which Catoctin is required to release flow augmentation water are described in the Settlement Agreement.  They include: the gaged flow in the Potomac River at Little Falls being at or below a defined threshold, the cumulative amount of prior releases by Catoctin during the current year, the generating status of the proposed power plant, and whether conditions exist which are beyond the control of Catoctin.  Under certain conditions, also specified in the Settlement Agreement, if Catoctin is unable to cause flow augmentation storage to be released to the river when ICPRB CO-OP so directs, ICPRB CO-OP may require Catoctin to reduce its consumptive use of water in order to protect the flow in the river for the downstream users.  The Settlement Agreement is intended to be complementary to the consumptive water use requirements in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) Section 26.17.07.

Q:  How does the implementation of this Settlement Agreement protect the water supply needed by the customers of the municipal water suppliers?

A:  The implementation of this Settlement Agreement protects the water supply by removing substantially all of the effect of Catoctin's demand during those critical periods when reservoir water is needed to support flows in the Potomac River for municipal needs.

Q:    Which provisions of the Settlement Agreement are the parties requesting to be included in the CPCN?

A:  Pursuant to section 6 of the Settlement Agreement, the parties are requesting that Sections 1, 2 and 4, as well as Appendix 1 (Definitions) of the Settlement Agreement be incorporated, without modification, into Catoctin Power’s CPCN as enforceable terms and conditions.  Section 1 provides the augmentation mechanism for Catoctin to release augmentation water as directed by ICPRB CO-OP when necessary to supplement the flow of the Potomac River.  If Catoctin is unable to release augmentation water as required, Section 2 requires that Catoctin reduce its consumptive water use in accordance with the terms set out in that section.  Section 4 gives the parties the information rights they need to monitor and administer the consumptive use and augmentation process.  Appendix 1 to the Settlement Agreement provides the definitions of the key terms.  Accordingly, these four portions of the Settlement Agreement should all be incorporated into the CPCN.

Q:  Does this conclude your direct testimony?

A:  Yes.